81 FR 44388 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Suspend the Interbank Service of the GCF Repo® Service
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 130 (July 7, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 130 (July 7, 2016)
| Page Range | 44388-44390 | |
| FR Document | 2016-16033 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 44388-44390] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-16033] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78206; File No. SR-FICC-2016-002] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Suspend the Interbank Service of the GCF Repo[supreg] Service June 30, 2016. On May 5, 2016, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'' or the ``Corporation'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-FICC-2016-002 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 20, 2016.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77840 (May 16, 2016), 81 FR 31996 (May 20, 2016) (SR-FICC-2016-002). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change FICC seeks the Commission's approval to suspend the interbank service of the GCF Repo[supreg] service, as described more fully below. The suspension does not require changes to the text of the Government Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (the ``GSD Rules''), however, the suspension requires changes to FICC's Real-Time Trade Matching (``RTTM[supreg]'') system. A. The GCF Repo Service The GCF Repo service allows dealer members of FICC's Government Services Division to trade general collateral finance repos (``GCF Repos'') \4\ throughout the day without requiring intraday, trade-for- trade settlement on a delivery-versus-payment basis.\5\ The service allows dealers to trade GCF Repos, based on rate and term, with inter- dealer broker netting members on a blind basis. Standardized, generic CUSIP numbers have been established exclusively for GCF Repo processing, and are used to specify the type of underlying security that is eligible to serve as collateral for GCF Repos. Only Fedwire eligible, book-entry securities may serve as collateral for GCF Repos. Acceptable collateral for GCF Repos include most U.S. Treasury securities, non-mortgage-backed federal agency securities, fixed and adjustable rate mortgage-backed securities, Treasury Inflation- Protected Securities and separate trading of registered interest and principal securities.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ A GCF Repo is one in which the lender of funds is willing to accept any of a class of U.S. Treasuries, U.S. government agency securities, and certain mortgage-backed securities as collateral for the repurchase obligation. This is in contrast to a specific collateral repo. \5\ Delivery-versus-payment is a settlement procedure in which the buyer's cash payment for the securities it has purchased is due at the time the securities are delivered. \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-58696 (September 30, 2008), 73 FR 58698, 58699 (October 7, 2008) (SR-FICC-2008-04). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The GCF Repo service has operated on both an ``interbank'' and ``intrabank'' basis. ``Interbank'' means that the two GCF Repo Participants which have been matched in a GCF Repo transaction each clear at a different clearing bank. ``Intrabank'' means that the two GCF Repo Participants which have been matched in a GCF Repo transaction clear at the same clearing bank. B. Suspension of the Interbank Service of the GCF Repo Service Since 2011, FICC has made several changes to its GCF Repo service in order to comply with recommendations made by the Tri-Party Repo Infrastructure Reform Task Force (``TPR''), an industry group formed and sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The main purpose of the TPR was to develop recommendations to address the risk presented by triparty repo transactions due to the morning reversal (commonly referred to as the ``unwind'') process, by replacing it with a process by which transactions are collateralized all day. The GCF Repo service was originally designed to have transactions ``unwind'' every morning in order to mirror the transactions in the triparty repo market. Prior to Triparty Reform, transactions submitted on ``Day 1'' unwound on the morning of ``Day 2.'' To ``unwind'' means that the securities are returned to the lender of securities in the transaction and the cash is returned to the borrower of securities. Because of certain changes to the way in which the Triparty Reform effort was to proceed [[Page 44389]] and the impact of such changes on the interbank service of the GCF Repo service as further described below, FICC seeks to suspend the interbank service of the GCF Repo service. FICC's proposal seeks no changes to the intrabank service. All collateral that is settled via the interbank service is unwound the next morning to FICC's account at the pledging Clearing Bank in order to make the collateral available for collateral substitutions. In order to facilitate this intraday collateral substitution process, the Clearing Banks currently extend credit each business day to FICC at no charge. This uncapped and uncommitted credit extension to FICC facilitates the GCF Repo settlement process for both the intra-day and end of day settlement. The final changes related to the Triparty Reform effort would have eliminated the need for uncapped and uncommitted credit (a TPR goal) by including the development of interactive messages for the collateral substitution process (this was referred to as the ``Sub Hub''), which would have eliminated the need for the current morning unwind of interbank GCF Repos, and would have allowed for substitution of collateral across the Clearing Banks with minimal intra-day credit required. The last change was also going to include a streamlined end of day GCF Repo settlement process to reduce the amount of cash and collateral needed in order to complete settlement. This change would have incorporated the concept of a ``cap'' on FICC credit from the Clearing Banks, and an automated solution would have been developed to process the interbank GCF Repo settlement without breaching the defined and agreed to caps. As a result, the amount of credit that FICC would have needed from the Clearing Banks would have been managed to a minimal amount. Plans to implement the Sub Hub have not come to fruition. Therefore, to continue providing the interbank service, FICC would need a capped line of credit (without the benefits of any re-design to manage the amounts of needed credit). In other words, the capped line of credit would be applied to the interbank service as the service currently operates, and not in the re-designed fashion that was contemplated by the Triparty Reform effort, which would have allowed for smaller settlement amounts. FICC states that there would be prohibitive operational constraints in attempting to trade and settle GCF Repos while attempting to implement a cap on interbank GCF Repo trading and settlement. Specifically, FICC states that inter-dealer brokers would need to be integrated as a group from a technological perspective in order to be able to track the GCF Repo Participants' real-time netted positions, from an intrabank and interbank perspective, to ensure that the cap is not breached. FICC states that this would require an integrated pre-trade check across each inter- dealer broker's platform and FICC to ensure conformity to the cap, which is not feasible. FICC seeks to suspend the interbank service of the GCF Repo service because: (1) FICC cannot operate the current interbank service within a capped credit amount; and (2) it is not feasible to institute a pre- trade validation system. FICC seeks to suspend the interbank service of the GCF Repo service after July 15, 2016 (the ``Suspension Date''), which is approximately six (6) weeks prior to the date that one of the Clearing Banks has stated it will begin to impose the capped line of credit (September 1, 2016 or the ``Capped Charges Date''). According to FICC's proposal, subsequent to the Suspension Date, inter-dealer brokers would only be permitted to execute transactions among GCF Repo Participants within the same Clearing Bank. Inter-dealer brokers would establish two markets for GCF Repo trading--one for each Clearing Bank. This is the same approach that FICC utilized when it previously suspended the interbank service between 2003 and 2008. In addition, GSD would only accept and process transactions among GCF Repo Participants that settle within the same Clearing Bank. As a result, the RTTM[supreg] system would not accept and process transactions among GCF Repo Participants who settle at different Clearing Banks. FICC states that it will continue to explore whether there are other ways to re- introduce the interbank service in the future. II. Discussion Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \7\ 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 the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \8\ 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. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 17A of the Act \9\ and the rules thereunder applicable to FICC. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C). \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F). \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As described above, Triparty Reform efforts have sought to eliminate the need for Clearing Banks to provide FICC with uncapped and uncommitted credit within the settlement process. Specifically, the Sub Hub project described above, if approved and implemented, would have eliminated the need for the current morning unwind of interbank GCF Repos, and would have allowed for substitution of collateral across the Clearing Banks with minimal intra-day credit required. A streamlined end of day GCF Repo settlement process would have reduced the amount of cash and collateral needed in order to complete settlement, in which circumstances, there would have been a cap on the line of credit from the Clearing Banks to FICC, with an automated solution to process the interbank GCF Repo settlement within the cap. As a result, the amount of credit that FICC would have needed from the Clearing Banks would have been managed to a minimal amount. However, in the Sub Hub's absence, according to FICC, a capped line of credit without the benefits of any re-design to manage the amounts of needed credit would present prohibitive operational constraints in attempting to trade and settle GCF Repos on an interbank basis. Specifically, inter-dealer brokers would need to be integrated as a group from a technological perspective in order to be able to track the GCF Repo Participants' real-time netted positions to ensure that the cap is not breached. This would require an integrated pre-trade check across each inter-dealer broker's platform and FICC to ensure conformity to the cap, which, FICC states, is not feasible. Accordingly, suspension of the interbank service will enable FICC to avoid accepting GCF Repo trades for clearing in an amount exceeding a Clearing Bank's capped line of credit, while allowing FICC to continue to clear GCF Repo transactions on an intrabank basis, thereby promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act. III. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly those set forth in section 17A,\10\ and the rules and regulations thereunder. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 44390]] It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FICC-2016-002) be, and hereby is, approved.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). \12\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\13\ Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2016-16033 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![44388 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
objectives of Exchange Act Rule 13n– should submit only information that throughout the day without requiring
4(b)(5). you wish to make available publicly. All intraday, trade-for-trade settlement on a
27. Rule 901(i) of Regulation SBSR submissions should refer to File delivery-versus-payment basis.5 The
provides that a person must report Number SBSDR–2016–02 and should be service allows dealers to trade GCF
information about a pre-enactment SBS submitted on or before August 8, 2016. Repos, based on rate and term, with
or transitional SBS ‘‘to the extent that inter-dealer broker netting members on
Brent J. Fields,
information about such transaction is a blind basis. Standardized, generic
available.’’ Is it clear that DDR’s policies Secretary. CUSIP numbers have been established
and procedures, including regarding [FR Doc. 2016–16112 Filed 7–6–16; 8:45 am] exclusively for GCF Repo processing,
validations, will allow parties to submit BILLING CODE 8011–01–P and are used to specify the type of
transaction records for pre-enactment underlying security that is eligible to
SBS and transitional SBS with data serve as collateral for GCF Repos. Only
elements missing, pursuant to Rule SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Fedwire eligible, book-entry securities
901(i)? COMMISSION may serve as collateral for GCF Repos.
28. Please provide your views as to [Release No. 34–78206; File No. SR–FICC– Acceptable collateral for GCF Repos
whether DDR’s policies and procedures 2016–002] include most U.S. Treasury securities,
relating to how it would conduct non-mortgage-backed federal agency
validations of transaction records for Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed securities, fixed and adjustable rate
historic and newly executed SBS are Income Clearing Corporation; Order mortgage-backed securities, Treasury
sufficiently detailed to meet the Approving Proposed Rule Change To Inflation-Protected Securities and
objectives of Exchange Act Rule 13n– Suspend the Interbank Service of the separate trading of registered interest
5(b)(1)(iii), and what further GCF Repo® Service and principal securities.6
clarifications, if any, you believe would The GCF Repo service has operated
June 30, 2016. on both an ‘‘interbank’’ and ‘‘intrabank’’
be appropriate.
On May 5, 2016, the Fixed Income basis. ‘‘Interbank’’ means that the two
Comments may be submitted by any
Clearing Corporation (‘‘FICC’’ or the GCF Repo Participants which have been
of the following methods:
‘‘Corporation’’) filed with the Securities matched in a GCF Repo transaction each
Electronic Comments and Exchange Commission clear at a different clearing bank.
• Use the Commission’s Internet (‘‘Commission’’) proposed rule change ‘‘Intrabank’’ means that the two GCF
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ SR–FICC–2016–002 pursuant to section Repo Participants which have been
rules/proposed.shtml); or 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act matched in a GCF Repo transaction
• Send an email to rule-comments@ of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 clear at the same clearing bank.
sec.gov. Please include File Number thereunder.2 The proposed rule change
SBSDR–2016–02 on the subject line. was published for comment in the B. Suspension of the Interbank Service
Federal Register on May 20, 2016.3 The of the GCF Repo Service
Paper Comments Commission received no comments on Since 2011, FICC has made several
• Send paper comments to Brent J. the proposed rule change. For the changes to its GCF Repo service in order
Fields, Secretary, Securities and reasons discussed below, the to comply with recommendations made
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Commission is approving the proposed by the Tri-Party Repo Infrastructure
Washington, DC 20549–1090. All rule change. Reform Task Force (‘‘TPR’’), an industry
submissions should refer to File group formed and sponsored by the
I. Description of the Proposed Rule
Number SBSDR–2016–02. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The
Change
To help the Commission process and main purpose of the TPR was to develop
review your comments more efficiently, FICC seeks the Commission’s recommendations to address the risk
please use only one method of approval to suspend the interbank presented by triparty repo transactions
submission. The Commission will post service of the GCF Repo® service, as due to the morning reversal (commonly
all comments on the Commission’s described more fully below. The referred to as the ‘‘unwind’’) process, by
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ suspension does not require changes to replacing it with a process by which
rules/other.shtml). the text of the Government Securities transactions are collateralized all day.
Copies of the Form SDR, all Division (‘‘GSD’’) Rulebook (the ‘‘GSD The GCF Repo service was originally
subsequent amendments, all written Rules’’), however, the suspension designed to have transactions ‘‘unwind’’
statements with respect to the Form requires changes to FICC’s Real-Time every morning in order to mirror the
SDR that are filed with the Commission, Trade Matching (‘‘RTTM®’’) system. transactions in the triparty repo market.
and all written communications relating A. The GCF Repo Service Prior to Triparty Reform, transactions
to the Form SDR between the submitted on ‘‘Day 1’’ unwound on the
Commission and any person, other than The GCF Repo service allows dealer morning of ‘‘Day 2.’’ To ‘‘unwind’’
those that may be withheld from the members of FICC’s Government Services means that the securities are returned to
public in accordance with the Division to trade general collateral the lender of securities in the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be finance repos (‘‘GCF Repos’’) 4 transaction and the cash is returned to
available for Web site viewing and the borrower of securities. Because of
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
printing in the Commission’s Public 2 17
certain changes to the way in which the
CFR 240.19b–4.
Reference Section, 100 F Street NE.,
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34–77840 Triparty Reform effort was to proceed
Washington, DC 20549, on official (May 16, 2016), 81 FR 31996 (May 20, 2016) (SR–
business days between the hours of FICC–2016–002). 5 Delivery-versus-payment is a settlement
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. 4 A GCF Repo is one in which the lender of funds procedure in which the buyer’s cash payment for
All comments received will be posted is willing to accept any of a class of U.S. Treasuries, the securities it has purchased is due at the time
U.S. government agency securities, and certain the securities are delivered.
without change; the Commission does mortgage-backed securities as collateral for the 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34–
not edit personal identifying repurchase obligation. This is in contrast to a 58696 (September 30, 2008), 73 FR 58698, 58699
information from submissions. You specific collateral repo. (October 7, 2008) (SR–FICC–2008–04).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jul 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM 07JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44518/page/1.svg)
![44390 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to concerning the purpose of and basis for The Exchange also proposes to amend
section 19(b)(2) of the Act,11 that the the proposed rule change and discussed Section 3)b) of the Fee Schedule to
proposed rule change (SR–FICC–2016– any comments it received on the provide that Monthly Trading Permit
002) be, and hereby is, approved.12 proposed rule change. The text of these Fees will be assessed with respect to
For the Commission, by the Division of statements may be examined at the Electronic Exchange Members
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated places specified in Item IV below. The (‘‘EEMs’’) 4 (other than Clearing Firms)
authority.13 Exchange has prepared summaries, set in any month the EEM is certified in the
Robert W. Errett, forth in sections A, B, and C below, of membership system and the EEM is
Deputy Secretary. the most significant aspects of such authorized by the Exchange (hereinafter,
[FR Doc. 2016–16033 Filed 7–6–16; 8:45 am]
statements. ‘‘credentialed’’) to use one or more
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Financial Information Exchange (‘‘FIX’’)
Statement of the Purpose of, and the Ports 5 in the production environment.
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Further, the Exchange proposes that
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Change Monthly Trading Permit Fees will be
COMMISSION assessed with respect to EEM-Clearing
1. Purpose Firms in any month the Clearing Firm
[Release No. 34–78222; File No. SR–MIAX–
The Exchange proposes to amend its is certified in the membership system to
2016–18]
Fee Schedule to clarify the clear transactions on the Exchange.
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami circumstances that trigger the Finally, the Exchange proposes that
International Securities Exchange LLC; assessment of fees to, and billing of, Monthly Trading Permit Fees will be
Notice of Filing and Immediate Member or Non-Member users of the assessed with respect to Market Makers
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Exchange’s System 3 for certain non- in any month the Market Maker is
Change To Amend the MIAX Options transactional fees, as set forth below. certified in the membership system, is
Fee Schedule The Exchange is not proposing any new credentialed to use one or more MIAX
fees that are not currently charged; the Express Interface (‘‘MEI’’) 6 Ports in the
July 1, 2016. Exchange is simply proposing to clarify production environment and is assigned
Pursuant to the provisions of Section that the Exchange will assess the fees to quote in one or more classes.7
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act only when the Member or Non-Member The Exchange also proposes to amend
of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 user is credentialed (as defined below) Section 4)a) of the Fee Schedule to state
thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that to use the System in the production that Application Programming Interface
on June 28, 2016, Miami International environment, thus ensuring that (‘‘API’’) Testing and Certification Fees
Securities Exchange LLC (‘‘MIAX’’ or Member and Non-Member users of the for EEMs (other than Clearing Firms)
‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities System are not billed unnecessarily will be assessed (i) initially per API for
and Exchange Commission before they are ready to begin using the FIX, FIX Drop Copy (‘‘FXD’’) 8 and
(‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule change System. The Exchange is also proposing Clearing Trade Drop (‘‘CTD’’) 9 in the
as described in Items I and II below, several technical clarifying amendments month the EEM has been credentialed to
which Items have been prepared by the to the Fee Schedule as described below. use one or more ports in the production
Exchange. The Commission is New users of the System (and existing
publishing this notice to solicit users of the System that seek to add 4 The term ‘‘Electronic Exchange Member’’ means
comments on the proposed rule change connectivity) require testing and the holder of a Trading Permit who is not a Market
from interested persons. Maker. Electronic Exchange Members are deemed
certification prior to actual use in the ‘‘members’’ under the Exchange Act. See Exchange
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s production environment. It has been the Rule 100.
Statement of the Terms of Substance of Exchange’s experience that such users 5 A FIX Port is an interface with MIAX systems
the Proposed Rule Change frequently must engage in internal that enables the Port user (typically an Electronic
business and technological decision- Exchange Member or a Market Maker) to submit
The Exchange is filing a proposal to making and production processes that orders electronically to MIAX.
6 MIAX Express Interface is a connection to MIAX
amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule extend beyond the timing of their systems that enables Market Makers to submit
(‘‘Fee Schedule’’). application, testing and certification electronic quotes to MIAX.
The text of the proposed rule change with the Exchange for use of the System 7 The calculation of the Trading Permit Fee for
is available on the Exchange’s Web site in the production environment. In order the first month in which the Trading Permit is
at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/ to ensure that Member and Non-Member issued will be pro-rated based on the number of
wotitle/rule_filing, at MIAX’s principal trading days on which the Trading Permit was in
users of the System are not assessed fees effect divided by the total number of trading days
office, and at the Commission’s Public and billed unnecessarily during this in that month multiplied by the monthly rate.
Reference Room. time, the Exchange is proposing the 8 The FIX Drop Copy Port is a messaging interface
below changes to the Fee Schedule that will provide a copy of real-time trade
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s execution, trade correction and trade cancellation
Statement of the Purpose of, and relating to the timing of such assessment information to FIX Drop Copy Port users who
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule and billing. subscribe to the service.
Change The Exchange proposes to amend 9 CTD provides Exchange members with real-time
Section 3)a) of the Fee Schedule to clearing trade updates. The updates include the
In its filing with the Commission, the provide that MIAX will assess a one- member’s clearing trade messages on a low latency,
Exchange included statements time Membership Application Fee on
real-time basis. The trade messages are routed to a
member’s connection containing certain
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11 15
the earlier of (i) the date the applicant information. The information includes, among other
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
12 In approving the proposed rule change, the
is certified in the membership system, things, the following: (i) Trade date and time; (ii)
or (ii) once an application for MIAX symbol information; (iii) trade price/size
Commission considered the proposal’s impact on information; (iv) member type (for example, and
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See membership is finally denied. without limitation, Market Maker, Electronic
15 U.S.C. 78c(f). Exchange Member, Broker-Dealer); and (v)
13 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 3 The term ‘‘System’’ means the automated Exchange Member Participant Identifier (‘‘MPID’’)
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
trading system used by the Exchange for the trading for each side of the transaction, including clearing
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. of securities. See Exchange Rule 100. member MPID.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jul 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM 07JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44518/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-08 07:54:34
Document Modified: 2018-02-08 07:54:34
| 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 44388 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR