83 FR 44331 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of No Objection to an Advance Notice, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend the Loss Allocation Rules and Make Other Changes
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 169 (August 30, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 169 (August 30, 2018)
| Page Range | 44331-44340 | |
| FR Document | 2018-18865 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 44331-44340] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-18865] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-83951; File No. SR-FICC-2017-806] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of No Objection to an Advance Notice, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend the Loss Allocation Rules and Make Other Changes August 27, 2018. On December 18, 2017, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') advance notice SR-FICC-2017-806 pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \2\ to amend the loss allocation rules and make other conforming and technical changes.\3\ The [[Page 44332]] advance notice was published for comment in the Federal Register on January 30, 2018.\4\ In that publication, the Commission also extended the review period of the advance notice for an additional 60 days, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\5\ On April 10, 2018, the Commission required additional information from FICC pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(D) of the Clearing Supervision Act,\6\ which tolled the Commission's period of review of the advance notice until 60 days from the date the information required by the Commission was received by the Commission.\7\ On June 28, 2018, FICC filed Amendment No. 1 to the advance notice to amend and replace in its entirety the advance notice as originally filed on December 18, 2017.\8\ On July 6, 2018, the Commission received a response to its request for additional information in consideration of the advance notice, which, in turn, added a further 60 days to the review period pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(E) and (G) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\9\ The Commission did not receive any comments. This publication serves as notice that the Commission does not object to the proposed changes set forth in the advance notice, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (hereinafter, ``Advance Notice''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i). \3\ On December 18, 2017, FICC filed the advance notice as proposed rule change SR-FICC-2017-022 with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder (``Proposed Rule Change''). 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4, respectively. The Proposed Rule Change was published in the Federal Register on January 8, 2018. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82427 (January 2, 2018), 83 FR 854 (January 8, 2018) (SR-FICC-2017- 022). On February 8, 2018, the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule Change. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82670 (February 8, 2018), 83 FR 6626 (February 14, 2018) (SR-DTC-2017-022, SR-FICC-2017-022, SR- NSCC-2017-018). On March 20, 2018, the Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule Change. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82909 (March 20, 2018), 83 FR 12990 (March 26, 2018) (SR-FICC-2017-022). On June 25, 2018, the Commission designated a longer period for Commission action on the proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule Change. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83510 (June 25, 2018), 83 FR 30791 (June 29, 2018) (SR- DTC-2017-022, SR-FICC-2017-022, SR-NSCC-2017-018). On June 28, 2018, FICC filed Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule Change, which was published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2018. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83631 (July 13, 2018), 83 FR 34193 (July 19, 2018) (SR-FICC-2017-022). FICC submitted a courtesy copy of Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule Change through the Commission's electronic public comment letter mechanism. Accordingly, Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule Change has been publicly available on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/ficc.htm since June 29, 2018. The Commission did not receive any comments. The proposal, as set forth in both the advance notice and the Proposed Rule Change, each as modified by Amendments No. 1, shall not take effect until all required regulatory actions are completed. \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82583 (January 24, 2018), 83 FR 4358 (January 30, 2018) (SR-FICC-2017-806) (``Notice''). \5\ Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act, the Commission may extend the review period of an advance notice for an additional 60 days, if the changes proposed in the advance notice raise novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(H). The Commission found that the advance notice raised complex issues and, accordingly, extended the review period of the advance notice for an additional 60 days until April 17, 2018. See Notice, supra note 4. \6\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(D). \7\ See 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(E)(ii) and (G)(ii); see Memorandum from the Office of Clearance and Settlement Supervision, Division of Trading and Markets, titled ``Commission's Request for Additional Information,'' available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/ficc-an.shtml. \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83748 (July 31, 2018), 83 FR 38375 (August 6, 2018) (SR-FICC-2017-806) (``Notice of Amendment No. 1''). FICC submitted a courtesy copy of Amendment No. 1 to the advance notice through the Commission's electronic public comment letter mechanism. Accordingly, Amendment No. 1 to the advance notice has been publicly available on the Commission's website at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/ficc-an.shtml since June 29, 2018. \9\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(E) and (G); see Memorandum from the Office of Clearance and Settlement Supervision, Division of Trading and Markets, titled ``Response to the Commission's Request for Additional Information,'' available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/ficc-an.shtml. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Description of the Advance Notice The Advance Notice consists of proposed changes to FICC's Government Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``GSD Rules'') and Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'' and, together with GSD, the ``Divisions'' and, each, a ``Division'') Clearing Rules (``MBSD Rules,'' and collectively with the GSD Rules, the ``Rules'') \10\ in order to (1) modify each Division's loss allocation process; (2) align the Divisions' loss allocation rules with the three clearing agencies of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC'')--The Depository Trust Company (``DTC''), National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC''), and FICC (collectively, the ``DTCC Clearing Agencies''); \11\ (3) amend the MBSD Rules regarding the use of the MBSD's Clearing Fund; and (4) make conforming and technical changes. Each of these proposed changes is described below. A detailed description of the specific rule text changes proposed in this Advance Notice can be found in the Notice of Amendment No. 1.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Each capitalized term not otherwise defined herein has its respective meaning as set forth in the GSD Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/ ficc_gov_rules.pdf, and the MBSD Rules, available at www.dtcc.com/~/ media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/ficc_mbsd_rules.pdf. \11\ DTCC is a user-owned and user-governed holding company and is the parent company of DTC, FICC, and NSCC. DTCC operates on a shared services model with respect to the DTCC Clearing Agencies. Most corporate functions are established and managed on an enterprise-wide basis pursuant to intercompany agreements under which it is generally DTCC that provides a relevant service to a DTCC Clearing Agency. \12\ See Notice of Amendment No. 1, supra note 8. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Changes to the Loss Allocation Process The GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules each currently provide for a loss allocation process through which both FICC (by applying up to 25 percent of its retained earnings in accordance with Section 7(b) of GSD Rule 4 and Section 7(c) of MBSD Rule 4) and its members \13\ would share in the allocation of a loss resulting from the default of a member for whom a Division has ceased to act pursuant to the Rules.\14\ The GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules also recognize that FICC may incur losses outside the context of a defaulting member that are otherwise incident to each Division's clearance and settlement business. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ The term ``Member'' is defined in both the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules, and has a different meaning under each. See supra note 10. In the Notice of Amendment No. 1, FICC used ``member'' to refer to both the Members of GSD and MBSD. See Notice of Amendment No. 1, supra note 8. \14\ GSD is permitted to cease to act for (1) a GSD Member pursuant to GSD Rule 21 (Restrictions on Access to Services) and GSD Rule 22 (Insolvency of a Member), (2) a Sponsoring Member pursuant to Section 14 and Section 16 of GSD Rule 3A (Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members), and (3) a Sponsored Member pursuant to Section 13 and Section 15 of GSD Rule 3A (Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members). MBSD is permitted to cease to act for an MBSD Member pursuant to MBSD Rule 14 (Restrictions on Access to Services) and MBSD Rule 16 (Insolvency of a Member). GSD Rule 22A (Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases to Act) and MBSD Rule 17 (Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases to Act) set out the types of actions FICC may take when it ceases to act for a member. Supra note 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The current GSD and MBSD loss allocation rules provide that, in the event the Division ceases to act for a member, the amount on deposit to the Clearing Fund from the defaulting member, along with any other resources of, or attributable to, the defaulting member that FICC may access under the GSD Rules or the MBSD Rules (e.g., payments from Cross-Guaranty Agreements), are the first source of funds the Division would use to cover any losses that may result from the closeout of the defaulting member's guaranteed positions. If these amounts are not sufficient to cover all losses incurred, then each Division will apply the following available resources, in the following order: (1) As provided in the current Section 7(b) of GSD Rule 4 and Section 7(c) of MBSD Rule 4, FICC's corporate contribution of up to 25 percent of FICC's retained earnings existing at the time of the failure of a defaulting member to fulfill its obligations to FICC, or such greater amount as the Board of Directors may determine; and (2) if a loss still remains, use of the Clearing Fund of the Division and assessing the Division's Members in the manner provided in GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4, as the case may be. Specifically, FICC will divide the loss ratably between Tier One Netting Members and Tier Two Members with respect to GSD, or between Tier One Members and Tier Two Members with respect to MBSD, based on original counterparty activity with the defaulting member. Then the loss allocation process applicable to Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, and Tier Two Members will proceed in the manner provided in GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4, as the case may be. Pursuant to current Rules, the applicable Division will first assess each Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, an amount up to $50,000, in an equal basis per such member. If a loss remains, the Division will allocate the remaining loss ratably among Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, in [[Page 44333]] accordance with the amount of each Tier One Netting Member's or Tier One Member's respective average daily Required Fund Deposit over the prior 12 months. If a Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, did not maintain a Required Fund Deposit for 12 months, its loss allocation amount will be based on its average daily Required Fund Deposit over the time period during which such member did maintain a Required Fund Deposit. Pursuant to current Section 7(g) of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4, if, as a result of the Division's application of the Required Fund Deposit of a member, a member's actual Clearing Fund deposit is less than its Required Fund Deposit, the member will be required to eliminate such deficiency in order to satisfy its Required Fund Deposit amount. In addition to losses that may result from the closeout of the defaulting member's guaranteed positions, Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, can also be assessed for non-default losses incident to each Division's clearance and settlement business, pursuant to current Section 7(f) of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4. The Rules of both Divisions currently provide that Tier Two Members are only subject to loss allocation to the extent they traded with the defaulting member and their trades resulted in a liquidation loss. FICC will assess Tier Two Members ratably based on their loss as a percentage of the entire remaining loss attributable to Tier Two Members.\15\ Tier Two Members are required to pay their loss allocation obligations in full and replenish their Required Fund Deposits as needed and as applicable. The current Rule provisions which provide for loss allocation of non-default losses incident to each Division's clearance and settlement business (i.e., Section 7(f) of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4) do not apply to Tier Two Members. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ GSD Rule 3B, Section 7 (Loss Allocation Obligations of CCIT Members) provides that CCIT Members will be allocated losses as Tier Two Members and will be responsible for the total amount of loss allocated to them. With respect to CCIT Members with a Joint Account Submitter, loss allocation will be calculated at the Joint Account level and then applied pro rata to each CCIT Member within the Joint Account based on the trade settlement allocation instructions. Supra note 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FICC proposes to change the manner in which each of the aspects of the loss allocation process described above would be employed. GSD and MBSD would clarify or adjust certain elements and introduce certain new loss allocation concepts, as further discussed below. In addition, the proposal would address the loss allocation process as it relates to losses arising from or relating to multiple default or non-default events in a short period of time, also as described below. FICC proposes six key changes to enhance each Division's loss allocation process. Specifically, FICC proposes to make changes to each Division regarding (1) its Corporate Contribution, (2) the Event Period, (3) the loss allocation round and notice, (4) the look-back period, (5) the loss allocation withdrawal notice and cap, and (6) the governance around non-default losses, each of which is discussed below. (1) Corporate Contribution As stated above, Section 7(b) of GSD Rule 4 and Section 7(c) of MBSD Rule 4 currently provide that FICC will contribute up to 25 percent of its retained earnings (or such higher amount as the Board of Directors shall determine) to a loss or liability that is not satisfied by the defaulting member's Clearing Fund deposit. Under the proposal, FICC would amend the calculation of its corporate contribution from a percentage of its retained earnings to a mandatory amount equal to 50 percent of the FICC General Business Risk Capital Requirement.\16\ FICC's General Business Risk Capital Requirement, as defined in FICC's Clearing Agency Policy on Capital Requirements,\17\ is, at a minimum, equal to the regulatory capital that FICC is required to maintain in compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Act.\18\ The proposed Corporate Contribution would be held in addition to FICC's General Business Risk Capital Requirement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ FICC calculates its General Business Risk Capital Requirement as the amount equal to the greatest of (1) an amount determined based on its general business profile, (2) an amount determined based on the time estimated to execute a recovery or orderly wind-down of FICC's critical operations, and (3) an amount determined based on an analysis of FICC's estimated operating expenses for a six month period. \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81105 (July 7, 2017), 82 FR 32399 (July 13, 2017) (SR-DTC-2017-003, SR-NSCC-2017- 004, SR-FICC-2017-007). \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Currently, the Rules do not require FICC to contribute its retained earnings to losses and liabilities other than those from member defaults. Under the proposal, FICC would apply its Corporate Contribution to non-default losses as well. The proposed Corporate Contribution would apply to losses arising from Defaulting Member Events and Declared Non-Default Loss Events (as such terms are defined below), and would be a mandatory contribution by FICC prior to any allocation of the loss among the applicable Division's members.\19\ As proposed, if the Corporate Contribution is fully or partially used against a loss or liability relating to an Event Period by one or both Divisions, the Corporate Contribution would be reduced to the remaining unused amount, if any, during the following 250 Business Days in order to permit FICC to replenish the Corporate Contribution.\20\ To ensure transparency, all GSD Members and MBSD Members would receive notice of any such reduction to the Corporate Contribution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ The proposed change would not require a Corporate Contribution with respect to the use of each Division's Clearing Fund as a liquidity resource; however, if FICC uses a Division's Clearing Fund as a liquidity resource for more than 30 calendar days, as set forth in proposed Section 5 of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4, then FICC would have to consider the amount used as a loss to the respective Division's Clearing Fund incurred as a result of a Defaulting Member Event and allocate the loss pursuant to proposed Section 7 of Rule 4, which would then require the application of FICC's Corporate Contribution. \20\ FICC states that 250 Business Days would be a reasonable estimate of the time frame that FICC would be required to replenish the Corporate Contribution by equity in accordance with FICC's Clearing Agency Policy on Capital Requirements, including a conservative additional period to account for any potential delays and/or unknown exigencies in times of distress. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- There would be one FICC Corporate Contribution, the amount of which would be available to both Divisions and would be applied against a loss or liability in either Division in the order in which such loss or liability occurs. In other words, FICC would not have two separate Corporate Contributions for each Division. In the event of a loss or liability relating to an Event Period, whether arising out of or relating to a Defaulting Member Event or a Declared Non-Default Loss Event, attributable to only one Division, the Corporate Contribution would be applied to that Division up to the amount then available. If a loss or liability relating to an Event Period, whether arising out of or relating to a Defaulting Member Event or a Declared Non-Default Loss Event, occurs simultaneously at both Divisions, the Corporate Contribution would be applied to the respective Divisions in the same proportion that the aggregate Average RFDs of all members in that Division bear to the aggregate Average RFDs of all members in both Divisions.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ FICC states that if a loss or liability relating to an Event Period, whether arising out of or relating to a Defaulting Member Event or a Declared Non-Default Loss Event, occurs simultaneously at both Divisions, allocating the Corporate Contribution ratably between the two Divisions based on the aggregate Average RFDs of their respective members is appropriate because the aggregate Average RFDs of all members in a Division represent the amount of risks that those members bring to FICC over the look-back period of 70 Business Days. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 44334]] As compared to the current approach of applying ``up to'' a percentage of retained earnings to defaulting member losses, the proposed Corporate Contribution would be a fixed percentage of FICC's General Business Risk Capital Requirement, which would provide greater transparency and accessibility to members. The proposed Corporate Contribution would apply not only towards losses and liabilities arising out of or relating to Defaulting Member Events but also those arising out of or relating to Declared Non-Default Loss Events. Under current Section 7(b) of GSD Rule 4 and Section 7(c) of MBSD Rule 4, FICC has the discretion to contribute amounts higher than the specified percentage of retained earnings, as determined by the Board of Directors, to any loss or liability incurred by FICC as result of the failure of a Defaulting Member to fulfill its obligations to FICC. This option would be retained and expanded under the proposal so that it would be clear that FICC can voluntarily apply amounts greater than the Corporate Contribution against any loss or liability (including non-default losses) of the Divisions, if the Board of Directors, in its sole discretion, believes such to be appropriate under the factual situation existing at the time. (2) Event Period FICC states that in order to clearly define the obligations of each Division and its respective members regarding loss allocation and to balance the need to manage the risk of sequential loss events against members' need for certainty concerning their maximum loss allocation exposures, FICC proposes to introduce the concept of an Event Period to the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules to address the losses and liabilities that may arise from or relate to multiple Defaulting Member Events and/ or Declared Non-Default Loss Events that arise in quick succession in a Division. Specifically, the proposal would group Defaulting Member Events and Declared Non-Default Loss Events occurring within a period of 10 Business Days (``Event Period'') for purposes of allocating losses to members of the respective Divisions in one or more rounds, subject to the limitations of loss allocation as explained below.\22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ FICC states that having a 10 Business Day Event Period would provide a reasonable period of time to encompass potential sequential Defaulting Member Events or Declared Non-Default Loss Events that are likely to be closely linked to an initial event and/ or a severe market dislocation episode, while still providing appropriate certainty for members concerning their maximum exposure to mutualized losses with respect to such events. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of a loss or liability arising from or relating to a Defaulting Member Event, an Event Period would begin on the day one or both Divisions notify their respective members that FICC has ceased to act for the GSD Defaulting Member and/or the MBSD Defaulting Member (or the next Business Day, if such day is not a Business Day). In the case of a loss or liability arising from or relating to a Declared Non- Default Loss Event, an Event Period would begin on the day that FICC notifies members of the respective Divisions of the Declared Non- Default Loss Event (or the next Business Day, if such day is not a Business Day). If a subsequent Defaulting Member Event or Declared Non- Default Loss Event occurs during an Event Period, any losses or liabilities arising out of or relating to any such subsequent event would be resolved as losses or liabilities that are part of the same Event Period, without extending the duration of such Event Period. An Event Period may include both Defaulting Member Events and Declared Non-Default Loss Events, and there would not be separate Event Periods for Defaulting Member Events or Declared Non-Default Loss Events occurring during overlapping 10 Business Day periods. The amount of losses that may be allocated by each Division, subject to the required Corporate Contribution, and to which a Loss Allocation Cap would apply for any Member that elects to withdraw from membership in respect of a loss allocation round, would include any and all losses from any Defaulting Member Events and any Declared Non- Default Loss Events during the Event Period, regardless of the amount of time, during or after the Event Period, required for such losses to be crystallized and allocated.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ Under the proposal, each Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, that is a Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member on the first day of an Event Period would be obligated to pay its pro rata share of losses and liabilities arising out of or relating to each Defaulting Member Event (other than a Defaulting Member Event with respect to which it is the Defaulting Member) and each Declared Non-Default Loss Event occurring during the Event Period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) Loss Allocation Round and Loss Allocation Notice Under the proposal, a loss allocation ``round'' would mean a series of loss allocations relating to an Event Period, the aggregate amount of which is limited by the sum of the Loss Allocation Caps of affected Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable (a ``round cap''). When the aggregate amount of losses allocated in a round equals the round cap, any additional losses relating to the applicable Event Period would be allocated in one or more subsequent rounds, in each case subject to a round cap for that round. FICC may continue the loss allocation process in successive rounds until all losses from the Event Period are allocated among Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, that have not submitted a Loss Allocation Withdrawal Notice in accordance with proposed Section 7b of GSD Rule 4 or MBSD Rule 4. Each loss allocation would be communicated to each Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, by the issuance of a notice that advises the Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, of the amount being allocated to it (``Loss Allocation Notice''). Each Tier One Netting Member's or Tier One Member's, as applicable, pro rata share of losses and liabilities to be allocated in any round would be equal to (1) the average of its Required Fund Deposit for the 70 Business Days preceding the first day of the applicable Event Period or such shorter period of time that the Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, has been a member (each member's ``Average RFD''), divided by (2) the sum of Average RFD amounts of all Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, subject to loss allocation in such round. Each Loss Allocation Notice would specify the relevant Event Period and the round to which it relates. The first Loss Allocation Notice in any first, second, or subsequent round would expressly state that such Loss Allocation Notice reflects the beginning of the first, second, or subsequent round, as the case may be, and that each Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, in that round has five Business Days from the issuance of such first Loss Allocation Notice for the round to notify FICC of its election to withdraw from membership with GSD or MBSD, as applicable, pursuant to proposed Section 7b of GSD Rule 4 or MBSD Rule 4, as applicable, and thereby benefit from its Loss Allocation Cap.\24\ In other words, the proposed [[Page 44335]] change would link the Loss Allocation Cap to a round in order to provide Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, the option to limit their loss allocation exposure at the beginning of each round. After a first round of loss allocations with respect to an Event Period, only Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, that have not submitted a Loss Allocation Withdrawal Notice in accordance with proposed Section 7b of GSD Rule 4 or MBSD Rule 4, as applicable, would be subject to further loss allocation with respect to that Event Period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ Pursuant to current Section 7(g) of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4, the time period for a member to give notice, pursuant to Section 13 of GSD Rule 3 and MBSD Rule 3, of its election to terminate its membership in GSD or MBSD, as applicable, in respect of an allocation arising from any Remaining Loss allocated by FICC pursuant to Section 7(d) of GSD Rule 4 or Section 7(e) of MBSD Rule 4, as applicable, and any Other Loss, is the Close of Business on the Business Day on which the loss allocation payment is due to FICC. Current Section 13 of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4 requires a 10-day notice period. Supra note 10. FICC states that it is appropriate to shorten such time period from 10 days to five Business Days because FICC needs timely notice of which Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, would remain in its membership for purpose of calculating the loss allocation for any subsequent round. FICC states that five Business Days would provide Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, with sufficient time to decide whether to cap their loss allocation obligations by withdrawing from their membership in GSD or MBSD, as applicable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Currently, pursuant to Section 7(g) of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4, if notification is provided to a member that an allocation has been made against the member pursuant to GSD Rule 4 or MBSD Rule 4, as applicable, and that application of the member's Required Fund Deposit is not sufficient to satisfy such obligation to make payment to FICC, the member is required to deliver to FICC by the Close of Business on the next Business Day, or by the Close of Business on the Business Day of issuance of the notification if so determined by FICC, that amount which is necessary to eliminate any such deficiency, unless the member elects to terminate its membership in FICC. Under the proposal, FICC is proposing that members would receive two Business Days' notice of a loss allocation, and members would be required to pay the requisite amount no later than the second Business Day following issuance of such notice.\25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ FICC states that allowing members two Business Days to satisfy their loss allocation obligations would provide members sufficient notice to arrange funding, if necessary, while allowing FICC to address losses in a timely manner. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) Look-Back Period Currently, the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules calculate a Tier One Netting Member's or a Tier One Member's pro rata share for purposes of loss allocation based on the member's average daily Required Fund Deposit over the prior 12 months or such shorter period as may be available in the case of a member which has not maintained a deposit over such time period. GSD and MBSD propose to calculate each Tier One Netting Member's or Tier One Member's, as applicable, pro rata share of losses and liabilities to be allocated in any round to be equal to (1) the Tier One Netting Member's or Tier One Member's, as applicable, Average RFD divided by (2) the sum of Average RFD amounts for all Tier One Netting Members or a Tier One Members, as applicable, that are subject to loss allocation in such round. Additionally, if a Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, withdraws from membership pursuant to proposed Section 7b of GSD Rule 4 or MBSD Rule 4, as applicable, GSD and MBSD are proposing that such member's Loss Allocation Cap be equal to the greater of (1) its Required Fund Deposit on the first day of the applicable Event Period or (2) its Average RFD. FICC states that employing a revised look-back period of 70 Business Days instead of 12 months to calculate a Tier One Netting Member's or a Tier One Member's, as applicable, loss allocation pro rata share and Loss Allocation Cap is appropriate because FICC states that the current look-back period of 12 months is a very long period during which a member's business strategy and outlook could have shifted significantly, resulting in material changes to the size of its portfolios. FICC states that a look-back period of 70 Business Days would minimize that issue yet still would be long enough to enable FICC to capture a full calendar quarter of such members' activities and smooth out the impact from any abnormalities and/or arbitrariness that may have occurred. (5) Loss Allocation Withdrawal Notice and Loss Allocation Cap Currently, pursuant to Section 7(g) of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4, a member can withdraw from membership in order to avail itself of a member's cap on loss allocation if the member notifies FICC via a written notice, in accordance with Section 13 of GSD Rule 3 or MBSD Rule 3, as applicable, of its election to terminate its membership. Current Section 13 of GSD Rule 3 and MBSD Rule 3 require a member to provide FICC with 10 days written notice of the member's termination; however, FICC, in its discretion, may accept such termination within a shorter notice period. Such notice must be provided by the Close of Business on the Business Day on which the loss allocation payment is due to FICC and, if properly provided to FICC, would limit the member's liability for a loss allocation to its Required Fund Deposit for the Business Day on which the notification of allocation is provided to the member. Under the proposal, a Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, would be able to limit its loss allocation exposure to its Loss Allocation Cap by providing notice of its election to withdraw from membership within five Business Days from the issuance of the first Loss Allocation Notice in any round of an Event Period. Each round would allow a Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, the opportunity to notify FICC of its election to withdraw from membership after satisfaction of the losses allocated in such round. Multiple Loss Allocation Notices may be issued with respect to each round to allocate losses up to the round cap. As proposed, if a member timely provides notice of its withdrawal from membership in respect of a loss allocation round, the maximum amount of losses it would be responsible for would be its Loss Allocation Cap,\26\ provided that the member complies with the requirements of the withdrawal process in proposed Section 7b of GSD Rule 4 and Section 7b of MBSD Rule 4. The proposed Section 7b of GSD Rule 4 or MBSD Rule 4, as applicable, would provide that the Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, must (1) specify in its Loss Allocation Withdrawal Notice an effective date of withdrawal, which date shall not be prior to the scheduled final settlement date of any remaining obligations owed by the member to FICC, unless otherwise approved by FICC; and (2) as of the time of such member's submission of the Loss Allocation Withdrawal Notice, cease submitting transactions to FICC for processing, clearance or settlement, unless otherwise approved by FICC. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ If a member's Loss Allocation Cap exceeds the member's then-current Required Fund Deposit, it must still cover the excess amount. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As stated above, under the current Rules, the cap of a Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, that provided a withdrawal notice would be its Required Fund Deposit for the Business Day on which the notification of allocation is provided to the member. Under the proposal, the Loss Allocation Cap of a Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, would be equal to the greater of (1) its Required Fund Deposit on the first day of the applicable Event Period and (2) its Average RFD. Specifically, the first round and each subsequent round of loss allocation would allocate [[Page 44336]] losses up to a round cap of the aggregate of all Loss Allocation Caps of those Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, included in the round. If a Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, provides notice of its election to withdraw from membership, it would be subject to loss allocation in that round, up to its Loss Allocation Cap. If the first round of loss allocation does not fully cover FICC's losses, a second round will be noticed to those members that did not elect to withdraw from membership in the previous round; however, the amount of any second or subsequent round cap may differ from the first or preceding round cap because there may be fewer Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, in a second or subsequent round if Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, elect to withdraw from membership with GSD or MBSD, as applicable, as provided in proposed Section 7b of GSD Rule 4 or MBSD Rule 4, as applicable, following the first Loss Allocation Notice in any round. As proposed, a Tier One Netting Member or a Tier One Member, as applicable, that withdraws in compliance with proposed Section 7b of GSD Rule 4 or MBSD Rule 4, as applicable, would remain obligated for its pro rata share of losses and liabilities with respect to any Event Period for which it is otherwise obligated under GSD Rule 4 or MBSD Rule 4, as applicable; however, its aggregate obligation would be limited to the amount of its Loss Allocation Cap as fixed in the round for which it withdrew. FICC states that the proposed changes are designed to enable FICC to continue the loss allocation process in successive rounds until all of FICC's losses are allocated. To the extent that the Loss Allocation Cap of a Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable, exceeds such member's Required Fund Deposit on the first day of an Event Period, FICC may in its discretion retain any excess amounts on deposit from the member, up to the Loss Allocation Cap of a Tier One Netting Member or Tier One Member, as applicable. (6) Declared Non-Default Loss Event Aside from losses that FICC might face as a result of a Defaulting Member Event, FICC could incur non-default losses incident to each Division's clearance and settlement business.\27\ The GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules currently permit FICC to apply Clearing Fund to non-default losses.\28\ Section 5 of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4 provides that the use of the Clearing Fund deposits is limited to satisfaction of losses or liabilities of FICC, which includes losses or liabilities that are otherwise incident to the operation of the clearance and settlement business of FICC, although the application of the Clearing Fund to such losses or liabilities is more limited under MBSD Rule 4 when compared to GSD Rule 4.\29\ Section 7(f) of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4 provides that any loss or liability incurred by the Corporation incident to its clearance and settlement business arising other than from a Remaining Loss shall be allocated among Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, ratably, in accordance with their Average Required Clearing Fund Deposits.\30\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ Non-default losses may arise from events such as damage to physical assets, a cyber-attack, or custody and investment losses. \28\ The first paragraph of Section 7 in both GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4 is not clear and may suggest that losses or liabilities may only be allocated in a member default scenario, while Section 5 in both GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4 makes it clear that the applicable Division's Clearing Fund may be used to satisfy non- default losses. \29\ Section 5 of GSD Rule 4 provides that ``The use of the Clearing Fund deposits shall be limited to satisfaction of losses or liabilities of the Corporation . . . otherwise incident to the clearance and settlement business of the Corporation . . .'' Supra note 10. Section 5 of MBSD Rule 4 provides that ``The use of the Clearing Fund deposits and assets and property on which the Corporation has a lien on shall be limited to satisfaction of losses or liabilities of the Corporation. . . otherwise incident to the clearance and settlement business of the Corporation with respect to losses and liabilities to meet unexpected or unusual requirements for funds that represent a small percentage of the Clearing Fund . . .'' Supra note 10. \30\ Section 7(f) of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4 provides that ``Any loss or liability incurred by the Corporation incident to its clearance and settlement business . . . arising other than from a Remaining Loss (hereinafter, an ``Other Loss'') shall be allocated among [Tier One Netting Members/Tier One Members], ratably, in accordance with the respective amounts of their Average Required [FICC Clearing Fund Deposits/Clearing Fund Deposits]''. Supra note 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For both the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules, FICC proposes enhancement of the governance around non-default losses that would trigger loss allocation to Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, by specifying that the Board of Directors would have to determine that there is a non-default loss that may be a significant and substantial loss or liability that may materially impair the ability of FICC to provide clearance and settlement services in an orderly manner and will potentially generate losses to be mutualized among the Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, in order to ensure that FICC may continue to offer clearance and settlement services in an orderly manner. The proposed change would provide that FICC would then be required to promptly notify members of this determination (a ``Declared Non-Default Loss Event''). In addition, FICC proposes to specify that a mandatory Corporate Contribution would apply to a Declared Non-Default Loss Event prior to any allocation of the loss among members. Additionally, FICC proposes language to clarify members' obligations for Declared Non- Default Loss Events. Under the proposal, FICC would clarify the Rules of both Divisions to make clear that Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, are subject to loss allocation for non-default losses (i.e., Declared Non-Default Loss Events under the proposal) and Tier Two Members are not subject to loss allocation for non-default losses. B. Changes To Align the Loss Allocation Rules The proposed changes would align the loss allocation rules, to the extent practicable and appropriate, of the three DTCC Clearing Agencies so as to provide consistent treatment for firms that are participants of multiple DTCC Clearing Agencies. As proposed, the loss allocation process and certain related provisions would be consistent across the DTCC Clearing Agencies to the extent practicable and appropriate. C. Use of MBSD Clearing Fund The proposed change would delete language currently in Section 5 of MBSD Rule 4 that limits certain uses by FICC of the MBSD Clearing Fund to ``unexpected or unusual'' requirements for funds that represent a ``small percentage'' of the MBSD Clearing Fund. FICC states that these limiting phrases (which appear in connection with FICC's use of MBSD Clearing Fund to cover losses and liabilities incident to its clearance and settlement business outside the context of an MBSD Defaulting Member Event as well as to cover certain liquidity needs) are vague, imprecise, and should be replaced in their entirety. Specifically, FICC proposes to delete the limiting language with respect to FICC's use of MBSD Clearing Fund to cover losses and liabilities incident to its clearance and settlement business outside the context of an MBSD Defaulting Member Event so as to not have such language be interpreted as impairing FICC's ability to access the MBSD Clearing Fund in order to manage non-default losses. FICC proposes to delete the limiting [[Page 44337]] language with respect to FICC's use of MBSD Clearing Fund to cover certain liquidity needs because the effect of the limitation in this context is confusing and unclear. D. Conforming and Technical Changes FICC proposes to make various conforming and technical changes necessary to harmonize the remaining current Rules with the proposed changes. Such changes include, but are not limited to: (1) Amending Rule 1 (Definitions; Governing Law) to add cross-references to proposed terms that would be defined in Rule 4; (2) inserting, deleting, or changing various terms for clarity and consistency; (3) modifying the voluntary termination provisions to ensure that termination provisions in the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules are consistent, whether voluntary or in response to a loss allocation, are consistent with one another to the extent appropriate; and (4) deleting obsolete sections due to the proposal. II. Discussion and Commission Findings Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive: To mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.\31\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ See 12 U.S.C. 5461(b). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \32\ authorizes the Commission to prescribe risk management standards for the payment, clearing and settlement activities of designated clearing entities engaged in designated activities for which the Commission is the supervisory agency. Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act \33\ provides the following objectives and principles for the Commission's risk management standards prescribed under Section 805(a): --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2). \33\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------To promote robust risk management; to promote safety and soundness; to reduce systemic risks; and to support the stability of the broader financial system. The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \34\ and Section 17A of the Act \35\ (``Rule 17Ad-22'').\36\ Rule 17Ad-22 requires registered clearing agencies to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to meet certain minimum requirements for their operations and risk management practices on an ongoing basis.\37\ Therefore, it is appropriate for the Commission to review proposed changes in advance notices against the objectives and principles of these risk management standards as described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act \38\ and against Rule 17Ad-22.\39\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2). \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. \36\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. \37\ Id. \38\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b). \39\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Consistency With Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act The Commission believes that the proposed changes in the Advance Notice are designed to help FICC promote robust risk management, promote safety and soundness, reduce systemic risks, and support the stability of the broader financial system as discussed below. FICC proposes to make the following changes to its loss allocation process as described above. First, for both the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules, the proposed changes would modify the calculation of FICC's Corporate Contribution so that FICC would apply a mandatory fixed percentage of its General Business Risk Capital Requirement as compared to the current Rules which provide for a ``up to'' percentage of retained earnings. The proposed changes also would clarify that the proposed Corporate Contribution would apply to Declared Non-Default Loss Events, as well as Defaulting Member Events, on a mandatory basis prior to any allocation of the loss among Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable. The proposal would specify how the Corporate Contribution would be applied between Divisions. Moreover, the proposal specifies that if the Corporate Contribution is applied to a loss or liability relating to an Event Period, then for any subsequent Event Periods that occur during the 250 business days thereafter, the Corporate Contribution would be reduced to the remaining, unused portion of the Corporate Contribution. The Commission believes that these changes set clear expectations about how and when FICC's Corporate Contribution would be applied to help address a loss, and allow FICC to better anticipate and prepare for potential exposures that may arise during an Event Period. Second, as described above, FICC proposes to determine a member's loss allocation obligation based on the average of its Required Fund Deposit over a look-back period of 70 Business Days and to determine its Loss Allocation Cap based on the greater of its Required Fund Deposit or the average thereof over a look-back period of 70 Business Days. Currently, the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules calculate a Tier One Netting Member's or a Tier One Member's pro rata share for purposes of loss allocation based on the member's average daily Required Fund Deposit over the prior 12 months or such shorter period as may be available in the case of a member which has not maintained a deposit over such time period. These proposed changes are designed to allow FICC to calculate a member's pro rata share of losses and liabilities based on the amount of risk that the member brings to FICC, and cover a sufficient amount of time to measure such risk. The look-back period of 70 Business Days is designed to be long enough to enable FICC to capture a full calendar quarter of members' activities and to smooth out the impact from any abnormalities that may have occurred, but not excessively long such that members' business strategy and outlook could have shifted significantly during the time period, resulting in material changes to the size of its portfolios. As a result of these changes, the Commission believes that FICC should be in a better position to manage its risk by using a look-back period that more accurately reflects the amount of risk that the member brings to FICC. Third, as described above, FICC proposes to introduce the concept of an Event Period, which would group Defaulting Member Events and Declared Non-Default Loss Events occurring within a period of 10 Business Days for purposes of allocating losses to members in one or more rounds. Under the current Rules, every time each Division incurs a loss or liability, FICC will initiate its current loss allocation process by applying its retained earnings and allocating losses. The current Rules do not contemplate a situation where loss events occur in quick succession. Accordingly, even if multiple losses occur within a short period, the current Rules dictate that FICC start the loss allocation process separately for each loss event. Having multiple loss allocation calculations and notices from FICC and withdrawal [[Page 44338]] notices from members after multiple sequential loss events could cause operational risk to FICC, since multiple notices may cause confusion at a time of significant stress. The Commission believes that the proposed change to introduce an Event Period would improve upon the current loss allocation process described immediately above. Specifically, the introduction of an Event Period would provide a more defined and transparent structure than the current loss allocation process. Such an improved structure should enable both FICC and each member to more effectively manage the risks and potential financial obligations presented by sequential Defaulting Member Events and/or Declared Non-Default Loss Events that are likely to arise in quick succession and could be closely linked to an initial event and/or market dislocation episode. In other words, the proposed Event Period structure should help clarify and define for both FICC and its members how FICC would initiate a single defined loss allocation process to cover all loss events within 10 Business Days. As a result, all loss allocation calculation and notices from FICC and potential withdrawal notices from members would be tied back to one Event Period instead of each individual loss event. Fourth, as described above, the proposal would improve upon the approach laid out in FICC's current Rules by providing for a loss allocation round, a Loss Allocation Notice process, a Loss Allocation Withdrawal Notice process, and a Loss Allocation Cap, for both the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules. A loss allocation round would be a series of loss allocations relating to an Event Period, the aggregate amount of which would be limited by the round cap. When the losses allocated in a round equals the round cap, any additional losses relating to the Event Period would be allocated in subsequent rounds until all losses from the Event Period are allocated among members. Each loss allocation would be communicated to members by the issuance of a Loss Allocation Notice. Each member in a loss allocation round would have five Business Days from the issuance of such first Loss Allocation Notice for the round to notify FICC of its election to withdraw from membership with FICC, and thereby benefit from its Loss Allocation Cap. The Loss Allocation Cap of a member would be equal to the greater of its Required Fund Deposit on the first day of the applicable Event Period and its Average RFD. Members would have two Business Days after FICC issues a first round Loss Allocation Notice to pay the amount specified in such notice. The Commission believes that those four proposed changes, to (1) establish a specific Event Period, (2) continue the loss allocation process in successive rounds, (3) clearly communicate with its members regarding their loss allocation obligations, and (4) effectively identify continuing members for the purpose of calculating loss allocation obligations in successive rounds, are designed to make FICC's loss allocation process more certain. In addition, the changes are designed to provide members with a clear set of procedures that operate within the proposed loss allocation structure, and provide increased predictability and certainty regarding members' exposures and obligations. Furthermore, by grouping all loss events within 10 business days, the loss allocation process relating to multiple loss events can be streamlined. With enhanced certainty, predictability, and efficiency, FICC would then be able to better manage its risks from loss events occurring in quick succession, and members would be able to better manage their risks by deciding whether and when to withdraw from membership and limit their exposures to FICC. Furthermore, the proposed changes are designed to reduce liquidity risk to members by providing a two-day window to arrange funding to pay for loss allocation, while still allowing FICC to address losses in a timely manner. Fifth, as described above, for both the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules, FICC proposes to clarify the governance around Declared Non- Default Loss Events by providing that the Board of Directors would have to determine that there is a non-default loss that may be a significant and substantial loss or liability that may materially impair the ability of FICC to provide its services in an orderly manner. FICC also proposes to provide that FICC would then be required to promptly notify members of this determination. In addition, FICC proposes to apply a mandatory Corporate Contribution to a Declared Non-Default Loss Event prior to any allocation of the loss among members. The Commission believes that the immediately above described changes should provide an orderly and transparent procedure to allocate a non-default loss by requiring the Board of Directors to make a definitive decision to announce an occurrence of a Declared Non-Default Loss Event, and requiring FICC to provide a notice to members of such decision. The Commission further believes that an orderly and transparent procedure should result in a risk management process at FICC that is more robust as a result of enhanced governance around FICC's response to non-default losses, thereby promoting safety and soundness. Collectively, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to FICC's loss allocation process would provide greater transparency, certainty, and efficiency to both FICC and members regarding the amount of resources and the instances in which FICC would apply such resources to address risks arising from Defaulting Member Events and Declared Non-Default Loss Events, which could occur in quick succession. The Commission believes that such transparency, certainty, and efficiency would allow better predictability to FICC and its members regarding their exposures, and in turn, would allow a risk management process at FICC and its members that is more robust in response to such events and would improve their ability to continue to operate and recover in a safe and sound manner during such events. Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposal promotes robust risk management as well as safety and soundness. In addition to the key changes discussed above, FICC proposes to delete the limiting language with respect to FICC's use of MBSD Clearing Fund to cover losses and liabilities incident to its clearance and settlement business outside the context of an MBSD Defaulting Member Event so as to not have such language be interpreted as impairing FICC's ability to access the MBSD Clearing Fund in order to manage non-default losses. Further, FICC proposes to delete the limiting language with respect to FICC's use of MBSD Clearing Fund to cover certain liquidity needs because the effect of the limitation in this context is confusing and unclear. The Commission believes that the proposed change to delete certain vague and imprecise limiting language that could impair FICC's ability to access the MBSD Clearing Fund to cover losses and liabilities incident to its clearance and settlement business outside the context of an MBSD Defaulting Member Event, as well as to cover certain liquidity needs, is designed to promote robust risk management by allowing FICC to use MBSD Clearing Fund to manage its risk. In addition, the Commission believes that the change is designed to promote safety and soundness by enhancing FICC's ability to ensure that it can continue its operations and clearance and settlement services in an orderly manner in the event that it would be necessary or appropriate for FICC to access MBSD Clearing Fund deposits to [[Page 44339]] address losses, liabilities or liquidity needs to meet its settlement obligations. Finally, FICC proposes to align the loss allocation rules of the DTCC Clearing Agencies to the extent practicable and appropriate. The alignment is designed to help provide consistent treatment for firms that are participants of multiple DTCC Clearing Agencies. The Commission believes that providing consistent treatment through consistent procedures among the DTCC Clearing Agencies would help firms that participate in multiple DTCC Clearing Agencies from encountering unnecessary complexities and confusion stemming from differences in procedures regarding loss allocation processes, particularly at times of significant stress. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the change is designed to reduce systemic risk and support the stability of the broader financial system. Therefore, for all of the reasons stated above, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with the objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\40\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \40\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(viii) Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(viii) under the Act requires, in part, that a covered clearing agency \41\ establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by addressing allocation of credit losses the covered clearing agency may face if its collateral and other resources are insufficient to fully cover its credit exposures.\42\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \41\ 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 the Financial Stability Oversight Counsel (``FSOC'') pursuant to the Clearing Supervision Act (12 U.S.C. 5461 et seq.). See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(5) and (6). On July 18, 2012, FSOC designated FICC as systemically important. U.S. Department of the Treasury, ``FSOC Makes First Designations in Effort to Protect Against Future Financial Crises,'' available at https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1645.aspx. Therefore, FICC is a covered clearing agency. \42\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(viii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As described above, the proposal would revise the loss allocation process to address how FICC would manage loss events, including Defaulting Member Events. Under the proposal, if losses arise out of or relate to a Defaulting Member Event, FICC would first apply its Corporate Contribution. If such funds prove insufficient, the proposal provides for allocating the remaining losses to the remaining members through the proposed process. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to manage FICC's credit exposures to its members, by addressing allocation of credit losses. Therefore, the Commission believes that FICC's proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(viii) under the Act.\43\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) under the Act requires, in part, that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure the covered clearing agency has the authority to take timely action to contain losses and liquidity demands and continue to meet its obligations.\44\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \44\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As described above, the proposal would establish a more detailed and structured loss allocation process by (1) modifying the calculation and application of the Corporate Contribution; (2) introducing an Event Period; (3) introducing a loss allocation round and notice process; (4) implementing a look-back period to calculate a member's loss allocation obligation; (5) modifying the withdrawal process and the cap of withdrawing member's loss allocation exposure; and (6) providing the governance around a non-default loss. The Commission believes that each of these proposed changes helps establish a more transparent and clear loss allocation process and authority of FICC to take certain actions, such as announcing a Declared Non-Default Loss Event, within the loss allocation process. Further, having a more transparent and clear loss allocation process as proposed would provide clear authority to FICC to allocate losses from Defaulting Member Events and Declared Non-Default Loss Events and take timely actions to contain losses, and continue to meet its clearance and settlement obligations. Therefore, the Commission believes that FICC's proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) under the Act.\45\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \45\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) and (ii) Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act requires that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to publicly disclose all relevant rules and material procedures, including key aspects of its default rules and procedures.\46\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act requires that a covered clearing agency 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.\47\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \46\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(i). \47\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As described above, the proposal would publicly disclose how FICC's Corporate Contribution would be calculated and applied. In addition, the proposal would establish and publicly disclose a detailed procedure in the Rules for loss allocation. More specifically, the proposed changes would establish an Event Period, loss allocation rounds, a look-back period to calculate each member's loss allocation obligation, a withdrawal process followed by a loss allocation process, and a Loss Allocation Cap that would apply to members after withdrawal. Additionally, the proposal would align the loss allocation rules across the DTCC Clearing Agencies to help provide consistent treatment, and clarify that non-default losses would trigger loss allocation to members. The proposal would also provide for and make known to members the procedures to trigger a loss allocation procedure, contribute FICC's Corporate Contribution, allocate losses, and withdraw and limit member's loss exposure. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to (1) publicly disclose all relevant rules and material procedures concerning key aspects of FICC's default rules and procedures, and (2) provide sufficient information to enable members to identify and evaluate the risks by participating in FICC. Therefore, the Commission believes that FICC's proposal is consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) and (ii) under the Act.\48\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \48\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) and (ii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Conclusion It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the Clearing Supervision Act,\49\ that the Commission does not object to advance notice SR-FICC-2017-806, as modified by Amendment No. 1, and that FICC is authorized to implement the proposal as [[Page 44340]] of the date of this notice or the date of an order by the Commission approving proposed rule change SR-FICC-2017-022, as modified by Amendment No. 1, whichever is later. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \49\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I). By the Commission. Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018-18865 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 169 / Thursday, August 30, 2018 / Notices 44331
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE to submit collected information to the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION Commission. In order to comply with COMMISSION
the rule, broker-dealers participating in
Proposed Collection; Comment [Release No. 34–83951; File No. SR–FICC–
a securities offering must keep accurate 2017–806]
Request records of persons who have indicated
Upon Written Request, Copies Available interest in an IPO or requested a Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed
From: Securities and Exchange prospectus, so that they know to whom Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, they must send a prospectus. No Objection to an Advance Notice, as
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC The Commission estimates that the Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
20549–2736 Amend the Loss Allocation Rules and
time broker-dealers will spend
Make Other Changes
Extension: complying with the collection of
Rule 15c2–8, SEC File No. 270–421, information required by the rule is 5,950 August 27, 2018.
OMB Control No. 3235–0481 hours for equity IPOs and 23,300 hours On December 18, 2017, Fixed Income
for other offerings. The Commission Clearing Corporation (‘‘FICC’’) filed
Notice is hereby given that pursuant
estimates that the total annualized cost with the Securities and Exchange
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
burden (copying and postage costs) is Commission (‘‘Commission’’) advance
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities
$11,900,000 for IPOs and $932,000 for notice SR–FICC–2017–806 pursuant to
and Exchange Commission
other offerings. Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the
(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
on the existing collection of information Written comments are invited on: (a) Consumer Protection Act entitled the
provided for in Rule 15c2–8 (17 CFR Whether the proposed collection of Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
240.15c2–8). The Commission plans to information is necessary for the proper Supervision Act of 2010 (‘‘Clearing
submit this existing collection of performance of the functions of the Supervision Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–
information to the Office of Commission, including whether the 4(n)(1)(i) under the Securities Exchange
Management and Budget for extension information shall have practical utility; Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 2 to amend the loss
and approval. (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s allocation rules and make other
Rule 15c2–8 under the Securities estimates of the burden of the proposed conforming and technical changes.3 The
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et collection of information; (c) ways to
seq.) requires broker-dealers to deliver enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 1 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
preliminary and/or final prospectuses to 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4(n)(1)(i).
of the information to be collected; and
certain people under certain 3 On December 18, 2017, FICC filed the advance
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the
circumstances. In connection with notice as proposed rule change SR–FICC–2017–022
collection of information on with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
securities offerings generally, including
initial public offerings (‘‘IPOs’’), the rule respondents, including through the use of the Act and Rule 19b–4 thereunder (‘‘Proposed
of automated collection techniques or Rule Change’’). 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and 17 CFR
requires broker-dealers to take 240.19b–4, respectively. The Proposed Rule Change
reasonable steps to distribute copies of other forms of information technology. was published in the Federal Register on January
the preliminary or final prospectus to Consideration will be given to 8, 2018. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82427
comments and suggestions submitted in (January 2, 2018), 83 FR 854 (January 8, 2018) (SR–
anyone who makes a written request, as FICC–2017–022). On February 8, 2018, the
well as any broker-dealer who is writing within 60 days of this Commission designated a longer period within
expected to solicit purchases of the publication. which to approve, disapprove, or institute
security and who makes a request. In proceedings to determine whether to approve or
An agency may not conduct or disapprove the Proposed Rule Change. Securities
connection with IPOs, the rule requires sponsor, and a person is not required to Exchange Act Release No. 82670 (February 8, 2018),
a broker-dealer to send a copy of the respond to, a collection of information 83 FR 6626 (February 14, 2018) (SR–DTC–2017–
preliminary prospectus to any person under the PRA unless it displays a 022, SR–FICC–2017–022, SR–NSCC–2017–018). On
who is expected to receive a March 20, 2018, the Commission instituted
currently valid OMB control number. proceedings to determine whether to approve or
confirmation of sale (generally, this disapprove the Proposed Rule Change. Securities
means any person who is expected to Please direct your written comments
Exchange Act Release No. 82909 (March 20, 2018),
actually purchase the security in the to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief 83 FR 12990 (March 26, 2018) (SR–FICC–2017–
offering) at least 48 hours prior to the Information Officer, Securities and 022). On June 25, 2018, the Commission designated
Exchange Commission, c/o Candace a longer period for Commission action on the
sending of such confirmation. This proceedings to determine whether to approve or
requirement is sometimes referred to as Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, disapprove the Proposed Rule Change. Securities
the ‘‘48 hour rule.’’ DC 20549, or send an email to: PRA_ Exchange Act Release No. 83510 (June 25, 2018), 83
Additionally, managing underwriters Mailbox@sec.gov. FR 30791 (June 29, 2018) (SR–DTC–2017–022, SR–
FICC–2017–022, SR–NSCC–2017–018). On June 28,
are required to take reasonable steps to Dated: August 27, 2018. 2018, FICC filed Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed
ensure that all broker-dealers Eduardo A. Aleman, Rule Change, which was published in the Federal
participating in the distribution of or Register on July 19, 2018. Securities Exchange Act
trading in the security have sufficient Assistant Secretary. Release No. 83631 (July 13, 2018), 83 FR 34193
[FR Doc. 2018–18847 Filed 8–29–18; 8:45 am] (July 19, 2018) (SR–FICC–2017–022). FICC
copies of the preliminary or final submitted a courtesy copy of Amendment No. 1 to
prospectus, as requested by them, to BILLING CODE 8011–01–P the Proposed Rule Change through the
enable such broker-dealer to satisfy their Commission’s electronic public comment letter
respective prospectus delivery mechanism. Accordingly, Amendment No. 1 to the
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Proposed Rule Change has been publicly available
obligations pursuant to Rule 15c2–8, as on the Commission’s website at https://
well as Section 5 of the Securities Act www.sec.gov/rules/sro/ficc.htm since June 29, 2018.
of 1933. The Commission did not receive any comments.
Rule 15c2–8 implicitly requires that The proposal, as set forth in both the advance
notice and the Proposed Rule Change, each as
broker-dealers collect information, as modified by Amendments No. 1, shall not take
such collection facilitates compliance effect until all required regulatory actions are
with the rule. There is no requirement completed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:25 Aug 29, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM 30AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_44500/page/1.svg)
![44336 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 169 / Thursday, August 30, 2018 / Notices
losses up to a round cap of the aggregate The GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules Members, as applicable, in order to
of all Loss Allocation Caps of those Tier currently permit FICC to apply Clearing ensure that FICC may continue to offer
One Netting Members or Tier One Fund to non-default losses.28 Section 5 clearance and settlement services in an
Members, as applicable, included in the of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4 orderly manner. The proposed change
round. If a Tier One Netting Member or provides that the use of the Clearing would provide that FICC would then be
Tier One Member, as applicable, Fund deposits is limited to satisfaction required to promptly notify members of
provides notice of its election to of losses or liabilities of FICC, which this determination (a ‘‘Declared Non-
withdraw from membership, it would be includes losses or liabilities that are Default Loss Event’’). In addition, FICC
subject to loss allocation in that round, otherwise incident to the operation of proposes to specify that a mandatory
up to its Loss Allocation Cap. If the first the clearance and settlement business of Corporate Contribution would apply to
round of loss allocation does not fully FICC, although the application of the a Declared Non-Default Loss Event prior
cover FICC’s losses, a second round will Clearing Fund to such losses or to any allocation of the loss among
be noticed to those members that did liabilities is more limited under MBSD members. Additionally, FICC proposes
not elect to withdraw from membership Rule 4 when compared to GSD Rule 4.29 language to clarify members’ obligations
in the previous round; however, the Section 7(f) of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD for Declared Non-Default Loss Events.
amount of any second or subsequent Rule 4 provides that any loss or liability Under the proposal, FICC would
round cap may differ from the first or incurred by the Corporation incident to clarify the Rules of both Divisions to
preceding round cap because there may its clearance and settlement business make clear that Tier One Netting
be fewer Tier One Netting Members or arising other than from a Remaining Members or Tier One Members, as
Tier One Members, as applicable, in a Loss shall be allocated among Tier One applicable, are subject to loss allocation
second or subsequent round if Tier One Netting Members or Tier One Members, for non-default losses (i.e., Declared
Netting Members or Tier One Members, as applicable, ratably, in accordance Non-Default Loss Events under the
as applicable, elect to withdraw from with their Average Required Clearing proposal) and Tier Two Members are
membership with GSD or MBSD, as Fund Deposits.30 not subject to loss allocation for non-
applicable, as provided in proposed For both the GSD Rules and the default losses.
Section 7b of GSD Rule 4 or MBSD Rule MBSD Rules, FICC proposes
B. Changes To Align the Loss Allocation
4, as applicable, following the first Loss enhancement of the governance around
Rules
Allocation Notice in any round. non-default losses that would trigger
As proposed, a Tier One Netting loss allocation to Tier One Netting The proposed changes would align
Member or a Tier One Member, as Members or Tier One Members, as the loss allocation rules, to the extent
applicable, by specifying that the Board practicable and appropriate, of the three
applicable, that withdraws in
of Directors would have to determine DTCC Clearing Agencies so as to
compliance with proposed Section 7b of
that there is a non-default loss that may provide consistent treatment for firms
GSD Rule 4 or MBSD Rule 4, as
be a significant and substantial loss or that are participants of multiple DTCC
applicable, would remain obligated for
liability that may materially impair the Clearing Agencies. As proposed, the loss
its pro rata share of losses and liabilities
ability of FICC to provide clearance and allocation process and certain related
with respect to any Event Period for
settlement services in an orderly provisions would be consistent across
which it is otherwise obligated under
manner and will potentially generate the DTCC Clearing Agencies to the
GSD Rule 4 or MBSD Rule 4, as
losses to be mutualized among the Tier extent practicable and appropriate.
applicable; however, its aggregate
obligation would be limited to the One Netting Members or Tier One C. Use of MBSD Clearing Fund
amount of its Loss Allocation Cap as 28 The first paragraph of Section 7 in both GSD The proposed change would delete
fixed in the round for which it Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4 is not clear and may language currently in Section 5 of
withdrew. suggest that losses or liabilities may only be MBSD Rule 4 that limits certain uses by
FICC states that the proposed changes allocated in a member default scenario, while FICC of the MBSD Clearing Fund to
are designed to enable FICC to continue Section 5 in both GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4
‘‘unexpected or unusual’’ requirements
the loss allocation process in successive makes it clear that the applicable Division’s
Clearing Fund may be used to satisfy non-default for funds that represent a ‘‘small
rounds until all of FICC’s losses are losses. percentage’’ of the MBSD Clearing
allocated. To the extent that the Loss 29 Section 5 of GSD Rule 4 provides that ‘‘The use
Fund. FICC states that these limiting
Allocation Cap of a Tier One Netting of the Clearing Fund deposits shall be limited to
phrases (which appear in connection
Member or Tier One Member, as satisfaction of losses or liabilities of the Corporation
. . . otherwise incident to the clearance and with FICC’s use of MBSD Clearing Fund
applicable, exceeds such member’s settlement business of the Corporation . . .’’ Supra to cover losses and liabilities incident to
Required Fund Deposit on the first day note 10. its clearance and settlement business
of an Event Period, FICC may in its Section 5 of MBSD Rule 4 provides that ‘‘The use outside the context of an MBSD
discretion retain any excess amounts on of the Clearing Fund deposits and assets and
Defaulting Member Event as well as to
deposit from the member, up to the Loss property on which the Corporation has a lien on
shall be limited to satisfaction of losses or liabilities cover certain liquidity needs) are vague,
Allocation Cap of a Tier One Netting of the Corporation. . . otherwise incident to the imprecise, and should be replaced in
Member or Tier One Member, as clearance and settlement business of the their entirety. Specifically, FICC
applicable. Corporation with respect to losses and liabilities to
proposes to delete the limiting language
meet unexpected or unusual requirements for funds
(6) Declared Non-Default Loss Event that represent a small percentage of the Clearing with respect to FICC’s use of MBSD
Aside from losses that FICC might
Fund . . .’’ Supra note 10. Clearing Fund to cover losses and
30 Section 7(f) of GSD Rule 4 and MBSD Rule 4
liabilities incident to its clearance and
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
face as a result of a Defaulting Member provides that ‘‘Any loss or liability incurred by the
Event, FICC could incur non-default Corporation incident to its clearance and settlement
settlement business outside the context
losses incident to each Division’s business . . . arising other than from a Remaining of an MBSD Defaulting Member Event
clearance and settlement business.27
Loss (hereinafter, an ‘‘Other Loss’’) shall be so as to not have such language be
allocated among [Tier One Netting Members/Tier interpreted as impairing FICC’s ability
One Members], ratably, in accordance with the
27 Non-default losses may arise from events such respective amounts of their Average Required [FICC
to access the MBSD Clearing Fund in
as damage to physical assets, a cyber-attack, or Clearing Fund Deposits/Clearing Fund Deposits]’’. order to manage non-default losses.
custody and investment losses. Supra note 10. FICC proposes to delete the limiting
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:25 Aug 29, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM 30AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_44500/page/6.svg)
![44340 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 169 / Thursday, August 30, 2018 / Notices
of the date of this notice or the date of notice was published for comment in Commission did not receive any
an order by the Commission approving the Federal Register on January 30, comments. This publication serves as
proposed rule change SR–FICC–2017– 2018.4 In that publication, the notice that the Commission does not
022, as modified by Amendment No. 1, Commission also extended the review object to the proposed changes set forth
whichever is later. period of the advance notice for an in the advance notice, as modified by
By the Commission. additional 60 days, pursuant to Section Amendment No. 1 (hereinafter,
806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision ‘‘Advance Notice’’).
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Act.5 On April 10, 2018, the
Assistant Secretary. I. Description of the Advance Notice
Commission required additional
[FR Doc. 2018–18865 Filed 8–29–18; 8:45 am] information from NSCC pursuant to In the Advance Notice, NSCC
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Section 806(e)(1)(D) of the Clearing proposes to (1) adopt an R&W Plan; (2)
Supervision Act,6 which tolled the amend NSCC’s Rules & Procedures
Commission’s period of review of the (‘‘Rules’’) 10 to adopt Rule 41
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE advance notice until 60 days from the (Corporation Default), Rule 42 (Wind-
COMMISSION date the information required by the down of the Corporation), and Rule 60
[Release No. 34–83955; File No. SR–NSCC– Commission was received by the (Market Disruption and Force Majeure)
2017–805] Commission.7 On June 28, 2018, NSCC (each a ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and,
filed Amendment No. 1 to the advance collectively, the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’); and
Self-Regulatory Organizations; notice to amend and replace in its (3) re-number current Rule 42 (Wind-
National Securities Clearing entirety the advance notice as originally down of a Member, Fund Member or
Corporation; Notice of No Objection to filed on December 18, 2017.8 On July 6, Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services
an Advance Notice, as Modified by 2018, the Commission received a Member) to Rule 40, which is currently
Amendment No. 1, To Adopt a response to its request for additional reserved for future use.
Recovery & Wind-Down Plan and information in consideration of the NSCC states that the R&W Plan would
Related Rules advance notice, which, in turn, added a be used by the Board of Directors of
further 60-days to the review period NSCC (‘‘Board’’) and management of
August 27, 2018. NSCC in the event NSCC encounters
pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(E) and (G)
On December 18, 2017, National of the Clearing Supervision Act.9 The scenarios that could potentially prevent
Securities Clearing Corporation it from being able to provide its critical
(‘‘NSCC’’) filed with the Securities and Proposed Rule Change. Securities Exchange Act services as a going concern.
Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) Release No. 83632 (July 13, 2018), 83 FR 34166 NSCC states that the Proposed Rules
advance notice SR–NSCC–2017–805 (July 19, 2018) (SR–NSCC–2017–017). NSCC are designed to (1) facilitate the
pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title submitted a courtesy copy of Amendment No. 1 to
the Proposed Rule Change through the
implementation of the R&W Plan when
VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Commission’s electronic public comment letter necessary and, in particular, allow
Reform and Consumer Protection Act mechanism. Accordingly, Amendment No. 1 to the NSCC to effectuate its strategy for
entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Proposed Rule Change has been publicly available winding down and transferring its
Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 on the Commission’s website at https://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc.htm since June 29,
business; (2) provide Members and
(‘‘Clearing Supervision Act’’) 1 and Rule 2018. The Commission did not receive any Limited Members with transparency
19b–4(n)(1)(i) under the Securities comments. The proposal, as set forth in both the around critical provisions of the R&W
Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 2 to adopt advance notice and the Proposed Rule Change, each Plan that relate to their rights,
as modified by Amendments No. 1, shall not take
a recovery and wind-down plan (‘‘R&W effect until all required regulatory actions are responsibilities and obligations; and (3)
Plan’’) and related rules.3 The advance completed. provide NSCC with the legal basis to
4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82581 implement those provisions of the R&W
1 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). (January 24, 2018), 83 FR 4327 (January 30, 2018) Plan when necessary.
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4(n)(1)(i). (SR–NSCC–2017–805) (‘‘Notice’’).
3 On December 18, 2017, NSCC filed the advance 5 Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing A. NSCC R&W Plan
notice as proposed rule change SR–NSCC–2017– Supervision Act, the Commission may extend the
017 with the Commission pursuant to Section review period of an advance notice for an The R&W Plan would be structured to
19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule 19b–4 thereunder additional 60 days, if the changes proposed in the provide a roadmap, define the strategy,
(‘‘Proposed Rule Change’’). 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and advance notice raise novel or complex issues, and identify the tools available to NSCC
17 CFR 240.19b–4, respectively. The Proposed Rule subject to the Commission providing the clearing
agency with prompt written notice of the extension.
to either (i) recover, in the event it
Change was published in the Federal Register on
January 8, 2018. Securities Exchange Act Release 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(H). The Commission found that experiences losses that exceed its
No. 82430 (January 2, 2018), 83 FR 841 (January 8, the advance notice raised novel and complex issues prefunded resources (such strategies
2018) (SR–NSCC–2017–017). On February 8, 2018, and, accordingly, extended the review period of the and tools referred to herein as the
the Commission designated a longer period within advance notice for an additional 60 days until April
17, 2018. See Notice, supra note 4. ‘‘Recovery Plan’’) or (ii) wind-down its
which to approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or 6 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(D). business in a manner designed to permit
disapprove the Proposed Rule Change. Securities 7 See 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(E)(ii) and (G)(ii); see the continuation of its critical services
Exchange Act Release No. 82669 (February 8, 2018), Memorandum from the Office of Clearance and in the event that such recovery efforts
83 FR 6653 (February 14, 2018) (SR–DTC–2017– Settlement Supervision, Division of Trading and are not successful (such strategies and
021, SR–FICC–2017–021, SR–NSCC–2017–017). On Markets, titled ‘‘Commission’s Request for
March 20, 2018, the Commission instituted Additional Information,’’ available at https:// tools referred to herein as the ‘‘Wind-
proceedings to determine whether to approve or www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc-an.htm. down Plan’’).
disapprove the Proposed Rule Change. Securities 8 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83745 (July The R&W Plan would identify (i) the
Exchange Act Release No. 82908 (March 20, 2018), 31, 2018), 83 FR 38329 (August 6, 2018) (SR– recovery tools available to NSCC to
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
83 FR 12986 (March 26, 2018) (SR–NSCC–2017– NSCC–2017–805). NSCC submitted a courtesy copy
017). On June 25, 2018, the Commission designated of Amendment No. 1 to the advance notice through
address the risks of (a) uncovered losses
a longer period for Commission action on the the Commission’s electronic public comment letter
proceedings to determine whether to approve or mechanism. Accordingly, Amendment No. 1 to the Settlement Supervision, Division of Trading and
disapprove the Proposed Rule Change. Securities advance notice has been publicly available on the Markets, titled ‘‘Response to the Commission’s
Exchange Act Release No. 83509 (June 25, 2018), 83 Commission’s website at https://www.sec.gov/rules/ Request for Additional Information,’’ available at
FR 30785 (June 29, 2018) (SR–DTC–2017–021, SR– sro/nscc-an.htm since June 29, 2018. https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc-an.htm.
FICC–2017–021, SR–NSCC–2017–017). On June 28, 9 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(E) and (G); see 10 Capitalized terms used herein and not
2018, NSCC filed Amendment No. 1 to the Memorandum from the Office of Clearance and otherwise defined herein are defined in the Rules.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:25 Aug 29, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM 30AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_44500/page/10.svg)
Document Created: 2018-08-30 01:20:55
Document Modified: 2018-08-30 01:20:55
| 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 | 83 FR 44331 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR