[Federal Register: October 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 203)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54495-54498]
[DOCID:fr22oc09-18]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0953; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-45-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters, Inc. Model MD-900
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes superseding an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) for MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI) Model MD-900
helicopters. That AD currently requires applying serial numbers to
certain parts, increasing the life limit for various parts, maintaining
a previously established life limit for a certain vertical stabilizer
control system (VSCS) bellcrank assembly and bellcrank arm, and
correcting the part number for the VSCS bellcrank arm. This proposal
would require the same actions, except it would reduce the life limit
of the swashplate spherical slider bearing (slider bearing). It would
further correct what was described as a ``bellcrank arm'' life limit in
the current AD and correctly describe it as another ``bellcrank
assembly'' life limit. This proposal is prompted by two reports of
cracks in the slider bearing that occurred well before the previously
increased retirement life of 2,030 hours time-in-service (TIS) was
reached. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to
establish appropriate life limits for various parts, and to prevent
fatigue failure of those parts and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this AD from MD
Helicopters Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell
Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, Arizona 85215-9734, telephone 1-800-388-
3378, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or on the web at www.mdhelicopters.com.
    You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe
Branch, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712, telephone
(562) 627-5233, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed
under the caption ADDRESSES. Include the docket number ``FAA-2009-0953,
Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-45-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the
search function of our docket web site, you can find and read the
comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual
who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any
comments, and other information in person at the Docket Operations
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    On June 17, 1997, we issued AD 97-13-09, Amendment 39-10056 (62 FR
34163, June 25, 1997), to require applying a specified serial number
(S/N) to the following parts: for helicopters with S/N 0002 through
0012, to the mid-forward truss assembly, P/N 900F2401200-102, and to
the forward and aft deck fitting assemblies, P/N 900F2401500-103 and
900F2401600-103, respectively; for helicopters with S/N 0002 through
0048, to the VSCS bellcrank assemblies, P/N 900F2341712-101 and P/N
900FP341712-103, and to the mid-aft truss strut assembly, P/N
900F2401300-103. That AD also reduced the life limits for the
nonrotating swashplate assembly, P/N 900C2010192-105, -107, -109, and -
111, from 8,300 hours TIS to 554 hours TIS; the collective drive link
assembly, P/N 900C2010207-101, from 3,900 hours TIS to 1,480 hours TIS;
and the slider bearing, P/N 900C3010042-103, from 2,100 hours TIS to
480 hours TIS. Finally, that AD established life limits for the
bellcrank assembly, P/N 900FP341712-103, and the bellcrank arm, P/N
900F2341713-101 (used in the bellcrank assembly, P/N 900F2341712-101),
of 2,700 hours TIS. That AD was prompted by an analysis that indicated
a need to reduce the life limits on several parts and by the addition
of non-serialized parts to the life-limited parts list. The
requirements of that AD were intended to establish new life limits for
various parts and reduce the existing life limits on other parts.
    On July 28, 1999, we issued superseding AD 99-16-13, Amendment 39-
11248 (64 FR 42824, August 6, 1999), to correct the P/N for the
bellcrank arm from P/N 900F2341713-101 to P/N 900F2341712-101, and to
increase the life limits for the nonrotating swashplate, P/N
900C2010192-105, -107, -109, or -111, from 554 hours TIS to 1,800 hours
TIS; the collective drive link assembly, P/N 900C2010207-101, from
1,480 hours TIS to 3,307 hours TIS; and the slider bearing, P/N
900C3010042-103, from 480 hours TIS to 2,030 hours TIS, and maintaining
the 2,700 hours TIS for the bellcrank assembly and bellcrank arm. AD
99-16-13 was prompted by both the need to correct a P/N as well as
additional analyses (modified fatigue spectrums, fatigue tests, and
flight strain data) supporting an increase in the life limits for
certain parts. The requirements of that AD are intended to

increase the life limits of various parts, correct the bellcrank arm P/
N, and specify applying serial numbers to various parts.
    Since issuing AD 99-16-13, we have received two reports from the
manufacturer of cracks in the attachment ear of the slider bearing, P/N
900C3010042-103. A review of the service history and a further review
of the design data for the slider bearing now indicate that a reduced
life limit is required to maintain continued operational safety. The
manufacturer has made available an alternate replacement slider
bearing, P/N 900C3010042-105, that has improved durability
characteristics and an increased life limit of 12,807 hours TIS.
Further, we have determined that even though we corrected P/N
``900F2341713-101'' to read ``900F2341712-101'' in AD 99-16-13, we
incorrectly described the part as a ``bellcrank arm'' in both AD 99-16-
13 and AD 97-13-09. The correct nomenclature for P/N 900F2341712-101 is
``bellcrank assembly.'' We propose to correct that error in this
action.
    We have reviewed MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB900-096, dated
February 28, 2005, which contains a reduction of the life limit of the
slider bearing from 2,030 hours TIS to 700 hours TIS.
    This previously described unsafe condition is likely to exist or
develop on other helicopters of the same type design. Therefore, the
proposed AD would supersede AD 99-16-13 to decrease the life limit of
the slider bearing from 2,030 hours TIS to 700 hours TIS. Additionally,
this AD changes the nomenclature for P/N 900F2341712-101 from bellcrank
arm to bellcrank assembly. The proposed AD would also retain the
requirements of the existing AD to apply serial numbers to various
parts, and retain the life limits of various other parts.
    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 27 helicopters of
U.S. registry and that it would take approximately 2.5 work hours per
helicopter to accomplish the serialization of the affected parts at an
average rate of $80 per work hour. Additionally, it is estimated that 8
of those aircraft will require replacement of the slider bearing, which
will require approximately 7 work hours to accomplish at an average
rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost $11,080 per
helicopter for the slider bearing. Based on these figures, we estimate
the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be
$98,520.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, this proposed
AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a draft economic evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. See the AD docket to examine the draft
economic evaluation.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-11248 (64 FR
42824, August 6, 1999), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:

MD Helicopters, Inc. Model MD-900 Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2009-
0953; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-45-AD. Supersedes AD 99-16-13,
Amendment 39-11248, Docket No. 98-SW-42-AD.

Applicability

    MD-900 helicopters, certificated in any category.

Compliance

    Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.
    To establish appropriate life limits for various parts, and to
prevent fatigue failure of those parts and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
    (a) Remove from service as follows:
    (1) The nonrotating swashplate assembly, part number (P/N)
900C2010192-105, -107, -109, or -111, on or before 1,800 hours time-
in-service (TIS).
    (2) The collective drive link assembly, P/N 900C2010207-101, on
or before 3,307 hours TIS.
    (3) The swashplate spherical slider bearing, P/N 900C3010042-
103, on or before 700 hours TIS.
    (4) The vertical stabilizer control system (VSCS) bellcrank
assembly, P/N 900FP341712-103, and bellcrank assembly, P/N
900F2341712-101, on or before 2,700 hours TIS.
    (b) Within 100 hours TIS:
    (1) For Model MD-900 helicopters with serial numbers (S/N) 900-
00002 through 900-00012, apply the appropriate S/N to the mid-
forward truss assembly, P/N 900F2401200-102, and the forward and aft
deck-fitting assemblies, P/N 900F2401500-103 and P/N 900F2401600-
103.
    (2) For Model MD-900 helicopters with S/N 900-00002 through 900-
00048, apply S/N to the left and right VSCS bellcrank assemblies, P/
N 900F2341712-101 and P/N 900FP341712-103, and the mid-aft truss
strut assembly, P/N 900F2401300-103.
    (3) Apply the S/N, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)
of this AD, adjacent to the existing P/N, as listed in Appendix A of
this AD, using permanent ink or paint. When dry, apply a clear coat
over the S/N.
    (c) This AD revises the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the
MD-900 Maintenance Manual by increasing the life limits for certain
parts and reducing the life limit of the slider bearing.

    Note:  The Airworthiness Limitations Section of the MD-900
Rotorcraft Maintenance Manual, Reissue 1, Revision 25,

dated April 16, 2006, and MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB900-096,
dated February 28, 2005, pertain to the subject of this AD. To
request a different method of compliance or a different compliance
time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the
Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, for
information about previously approved alternative methods of
compliance.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC09.005

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 8, 2009.
Larry M. Kelly,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-25439 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register: August 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 38675-38676]
[DOCID:fr04au09-82]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form 11-K; OMB Control No. 3235-0082; SEC File No. 270-101.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 11-K (17 CFR 249.311) is the annual report designed for use by
employee stock purchase, savings and similar plans to comply with the
reporting requirements under Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)). Section 15(d)
establishes a periodic reporting obligation for every

issuer of a class of securities registered under the Securities Act of
1933 (the ``Securities Act'') (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Form 11-K
provides employees of an issuer with financial information so that they
can assess the performance of the investment vehicle or stock plan.
Form 11-K is filed on occasion. The information collected must be filed
with the Commission and is publicly available. Form 11-K takes
approximately 30 burden hours per response and is filed by 2,000
respondents for a total of 60,000 burden hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to Shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, Securities
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: July 29, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18559 Filed 8-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56011-56013]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22195]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0610]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; International Jet Sports Boating Association World
Finals; Lake Havasu City, AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone within
the navigable waters of the Colorado River in Lake Havasu, AZ in
support of the International Jet Sports Boating Association (IJSBA)
World Finals. This safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other
vessels and users of the waterway. Unauthorized persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or their
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on October 4,
2014 through October 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0610]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule
IJSBA International Jet Sports Boating Association

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.''
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with
respect to this rule because an NPRM would be impracticable. Logistical
details did not present the Coast Guard enough time to draft, publish,
and receive public comment on an NPRM. As such, the event would occur
before the rulemaking process was complete. Immediate action is needed
to help protect the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, and
participating vessels from other vessels during the duration of this
event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for the same reasons mentioned above, the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any delay
in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public
interest, because immediate action is necessary to protect the safety
of the participants from the dangers associated with other vessels
transiting this area while the race occurs.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and
define regulatory safety zones.
    IJSBA is sponsoring the IJSBA World Finals, which will involve
approximately 800 personal water craft, 5 to 13 feet in length. The
safety zone will encompass an area in the vicinity of the Crazy Horse
Campgrounds. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the
safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, other
vessels, and users of the waterway, specifically in minimizing vessel
wakes by transiting vessels in the vicinity of the racing area.
Unnecessary wakes can disrupt the personal water craft and could cause
injury or damage to the participants.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on October 4, 2014 through October 12,
2014. The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of the race site until the conclusion of the
races. The limits of the safety zone will encompass the waters of Lake
Havasu, AZ in the area of Crazy Horse Campgrounds encompassed by the
following positions:

34[deg]28.32' N, 114[deg]21.71' W
34[deg]28.43' N, 114[deg]21.81' W
34[deg]28.55' N, 114[deg]21.56' W
34[deg]28.49' N, 114[deg]21.33' W

    The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew,
spectators, participants, and other vessels and users of the waterway.
Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative, during the
proposed times. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will
publish a local notice to mariners (LNM). Also, the event sponsor
through Lake Havasu City has extensively advertised the marine event
with the public.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented

by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of
Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic impact of this
rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
This determination is based on the size, location, and the limited
duration of the safety zone. Additionally, to the maximum extent
practicable, the event sponsor will assist with the movement of boaters
desiring to transit the racing area during non-racing times.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of Lake Havasu
from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on October 4, 2014 through October 12,
2014.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The
safety zone applies to a small area in the vicinity of the Crazy Horse
Campground and boating traffic would still be allowed to pass through
the safety zone with Captain of the Port approval. The event sponsor
will to their maximum extent assist boaters wishing to transit the
racing area during non-racing times.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishment of a safety zone on the
navigable waters of Lake Havasu. This rule is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the

docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-657 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-657  Safety Zone; International Jet Sports Boating
Association World Finals; Lake Havasu City, AZ.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone will encompass the
waters of Lake Havasu, AZ in the area of Crazy Horse Campgrounds
encompassed by the following positions: 34[deg]28.32' N, 114[deg]21.71'
W; 34[deg]28.43' N, 114[deg]21.81' W; 34[deg]28.55' N, 114[deg]21.56'
W; 34[deg]28.49' N, 114[deg]21.33' W.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced on October 4,
2014 through October 12, 2014 from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
Designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
or local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in subpart C of
this part, entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port of San
Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    (3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or designated patrol
personnel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator
of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
    (4) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies in patrol and notification of the regulation.

    Dated: August 27, 2014.
J. S. Spaner,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2014-22195 Filed 9-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 57693]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20356]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-The-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Docket Nos.              File date   Presenter or  requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. P-12514-000................    9/6/2022  FERC Staff \1\.
Exempt:
    NONE..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Emailed comments dated 8/29/2022 from Jason Johnson.

    Dated: September 14, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20356 Filed 9-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 23074]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09079]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Release Airport Property From Quitclaim Deed;
North Perry Airport, Hollywood, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release
approximately 0.07 acres of airport property at North Perry Airport,
Hollywood, FL, from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as
contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA and Broward
County, FL, dated October 11, 1957. The release of property will allow
Broward County to dispose of the property for other than aeronautical
purposes. The property is located at the intersection of Pembroke Road
(State Road 824) and Airport Drive South, Hollywood, Florida. The
parcel is currently designated as non-aeronautical land use. The
property will be released of its federal obligations in order for the
FDOT to use the property for installation and maintenance of a traffic
signal device and associated highway improvements. The fair market
value of these parcels has been determined to be $53,900.

DATES: Comments are due on or before May 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at Broward County
Aviation Department, 2200 SW 45th Street, Suite 101, Dania Beach,
Florida 33312; and the FAA Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine
National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the
Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Marisol C. Elliott,
Community Planner, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine
National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024. Documents reflecting
the Sponsor's request are available for inspection by appointment only
at the Broward County Aviation Department and by contacting the FAA at
the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisol C. Elliott, Community Planner,
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

     Issued in Orlando, Florida, on April 12, 2016.
Bart Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-09079 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20882-20889]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09693]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83153; File No. SR-FICC-2018-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Structure of
the Government Securities Division Rulebook

May 2, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 27, 2018, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would amend the Fee Structure of the FICC
Government Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``GSD Rules'') \3\
with respect to the fees associated with the delivery-versus-payment
(``DVP'') service as well as make other changes, as described in
greater detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the GSD
Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/rules/ficc_gov_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule
change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the Fee
Structure of the GSD Rules with respect to the fees associated with the
DVP service and make other changes \4\ in order to reduce complexity
and to better align pricing with the costs of services provided by GSD.
The proposed rule change would also make conforming, clarifying, and
technical changes. Taken collectively, the proposed rule changes are
designed to be revenue neutral for GSD and may eliminate perceived
pricing barriers to entry, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FICC is not proposing changes to fees specifically
associated with either the GCF Repo[reg] Service or the CCIT Service
at this time because those fees are more aligned with the costs of
providing such services. However, as further discussed below in Item
II.(A)1.(iii) (entitled ``PROPOSED FEE CHANGES''), FICC is proposing
a change to the minimum monthly fee. The minimum monthly fee is not
specific to any service and would apply to each account of either a
Comparison-Only Member or a Netting Member; such account of a
Netting Member could include GCF Repo and/or CCIT activity. The
minimum monthly fee for an account would not apply if the total
monthly fees incurred by the account pursuant to proposed Sections
I, II, and IV of the GSD Fee Structure exceed $2,500. CCIT Members
are not subject to the minimum monthly fee.
    For additional information on the GCF Repo Service and the CCIT
Service, please refer to GSD Rule 20 and GSD Rule 3B, respectively.
See GSD Rule 20 and GSD Rule 3B. GSD Rules, id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Background
    GSD provides clearance and settlement services for trades executed
by its Members in the U.S. government securities market. GSD supports
and facilitates these services through transaction processing and
position management.
    Transaction processing for the DVP service includes the recording
and comparison of transactions submitted to GSD for clearance and
settlement through GSD's comparison system, the Real-Time Trade
Matching system.
    Position management for the DVP service includes trade netting,
trade settlement, and the management of credit risks, market risks, and
liquidity risks associated with transactions submitted to GSD for
clearance and settlement.
(ii) Current Fees
    Members are assessed fees in accordance with the GSD Fee Structure.
The current GSD Fee Structure covers a multitude of fees that are
assessed on Members based upon their activities and the services
utilized. The number of fees and the methods by which they are
calculated makes the current GSD Fee Structure unnecessarily complex.
In addition, due to changes in technology and regulatory environment,
certain fees in the current GSD Fee Structure have become misaligned
with the costs of services provided by GSD.

A. Pricing Overly Complex
    The current GSD Fee Structure (as it relates to the DVP service)
consists of trade submission fees, trade netting fees, Repo Transaction
\5\ processing fees, and settlement fees.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Repo Transaction'' means: (1) An agreement of a
party to transfer Eligible Securities to another party in exchange
for the receipt of cash, and the simultaneous agreement of the
former party to later take back the same Eligible Securities (or any
subsequently substituted Eligible Securities) from the latter party
in exchange for the payment of cash, or (2) an agreement of a party
to take in Eligible Securities from another party in exchange for
the payment of cash, and the simultaneous agreement of the former
party to later transfer back the same Eligible Securities (or any
subsequently substituted Eligible Securities) to the latter party in
exchange for the receipt of cash, as the context may indicate, the
data on which have been submitted to FICC pursuant to the GSD Rules.
A ``Repo Transaction'' includes a GCF Repo Transaction, unless the
context indicates otherwise. See GSD Rule 1. GSD Rules, supra note
3. For the purposes of describing the proposed rule changes, the
term ``Repo Transaction'' will exclude GCF Repo Transactions.
    \6\ Settlement fees consist of obligation fees and pass-through
fees for clearing bank services. These fees are not being changed
under this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trade submission fees are based on a seven-tiered structure where
the fees are charged based on the number of sides of buy/sell
transactions and Repo Transactions submitted and matched in a given
month. There are two (2) tiered structures for the trade submission
fees, one for the Dealer Accounts and the other one for the Broker
Accounts.
    Trade netting fees consist of ``into the net'' fees and ``out of
the net'' fees. The ``into the net'' fees are different for Broker
Accounts and Dealer Accounts and are based on the number of sides of
buy/sell transactions and Repo Transactions that are being netted (a
seven-tiered structure based on the monthly number of sides of buy/sell
transactions and Repo Transactions), and the par value of those
sides.\7\ The ``out of the net'' fee is a par value-based fee for each
Deliver Obligation and Receive Obligation created as a result of the
netting process.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ With respect to the DVP service, the ``into the net'' par
value-based fee is currently $0.015 per one million of par value for
Broker Accounts and $0.016 per one million of par value for Dealer
Accounts for each Compared Trade, Start Leg of a Repo Transaction,
Close Leg of a Repo Transaction, Fail Deliver Obligation, and Fail
Receive Obligation. See current Section III.A.1(ii) of the GSD Fee
Structure. GSD Rules, supra note 3.
    \8\ With respect to the DVP service, the ``out of the net'' par
value-based fee is currently $0.175 per one million of par value for
each Deliver Obligation and Receive Obligation created as a result
of the netting process. See current Section III.A.2 of the GSD Fee
Structure. GSD Rules, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Repo Transaction processing fees are comprised of (1) two gross
Repo Transaction processing fees, one for Broker Accounts and one for
Dealer Accounts, and (2) a net Repo Transaction processing fee.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The gross Repo Transaction processing fees are currently a
0.0175 basis point charge and a 0.04 basis point charge applied to
the gross dollar amount of each Term Repo Transaction for Broker
Accounts and Dealer Accounts, respectively, that has been compared
and netted but not yet settled. The net Repo Transaction processing
fee is currently a 0.08 basis point charge applied to the net dollar
amount of a Netting Member's Term Repo Transactions within a CUSIP
that has been compared and netted but not yet settled. See current
Section III.E. of the GSD Fee Structure. GSD Rules, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With a combination of the tiered structure for trade submission
fees and trade netting fees, an ``into the net'' par value-based fee,
an ``out of the net'' par value-based fee, and gross and net Repo
Transaction processing fees, the current GSD Fee Structure can be
difficult for Members to understand and reconcile. In fact, Members and
market participants have often indicated to FICC that the current GSD
Fee Structure is too complex and difficult to understand. The
complexity of the GSD Fee Structure is also noted in the U.S.
Department of the Treasury October 2017 report to President Donald
Trump on U.S. capital markets (``Treasury Report'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See U.S. Department of the Treasury, A Financial System
That Creates Economic Opportunities: Capital Markets (October 2017),
at 81, available at https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/A-Financial-System-Capital-Markets-FINAL-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Pricing Alignment With Costs of Services Provided by GSD
    With respect to the fees associated with the DVP service, a portion
of the current GSD Fee Structure is based on transaction processing,
with a number of fees charged to Members being driven by the number of
transactions that the Members submit to GSD for clearance and
settlement (tiered structure for trade submission fees and tiered
structure for trade netting fees, as described in Item II.(A)1.(ii)A.
above). As a result, under the current GSD Fee Structure, fees are
higher for a Member that submitted a larger number of transactions to
GSD than a Member that submitted a smaller number of transactions, even
when the total par value of the trades that each such Member submitted
to GSD is the same.
    With technological advancements, GSD's systems have become more
scalable and efficient with respect to transaction processing, which
has resulted in a reduction in GSD's costs associated with transaction
processing. In contrast, GSD faces continued increasing risk management
costs, such as costs of account monitoring, intraday margining, and end
of day risk management. Therefore, GSD has had to shift its resource
allocation so that a sizable portion of its resources is now dedicated
to the management of Members' positions. Consequently, certain fees in
the current GSD Fee Structure have become misaligned with the costs of
services provided by GSD.
    As an example, the costs for GSD to manage a single $50 million 30-
day Term Repo Transaction \11\ for Member A and twenty (20) \12\ $50
million overnight Repo Transactions \13\ for Member B are similar
because the resulting daily positions are the same over the 30-day
period, and similar resources are utilized to ensure the safety and
soundness of the clearing agency to these transaction types. However,
even though these transactions require similar costs and resources to
manage, under the current GSD Fee Structure, Member B will be assessed
a fee \14\ that is approximately 3.3 times the fee assessed on Member
A. This is because under the current GSD Fee Structure, fees associated
with Member B's overnight Repo Transactions are higher (e.g., on each
Business Day, Member B will be assessed $0.17 per side of trade going
into the net, $0.016 per million par value going into the net, and
$0.175 per million par value out of the net) than fees associated with
Member A's Term Repo Transaction (e.g., Member A will be assessed each
of the following fees once: $0.17 per side of trade going into the net,
$0.016 per million par value going into the net, and $0.175 per million
par value out of the net; in addition, on each calendar day, Member A
will be assessed a 0.04 basis point charge applied to the gross dollar
amount of its Term Repo Transaction and a 0.08 basis point charge
applied to the net dollar amount of its Term Repo Transaction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``Term Repo Transaction'' means, on any particular
Business Day, a Repo Transaction for which settlement of the Close
Leg is scheduled to occur two or more Business Days after the
scheduled settlement of the Start Leg. See GSD Rule 1, Definitions.
GSD Rules, supra note 3.
    \12\ The example assumes there are twenty (20) Business Days in
a month. Twenty (20) overnight Repo Transactions would span the same
number of calendar days, i.e., 30 calendar days, as a single 30-day
Term Repo Transaction. This is because each overnight Repo
Transaction that starts on a Friday will settle on the following
Monday.
    \13\ Overnight Repo Transactions are Repo Transactions for which
settlement of the Close Leg is scheduled to occur one Business Day
after the scheduled settlement of the Start Leg.
    \14\ In addition, Member A and Member B would be assessed other
fees, such as trade submission fees and clearance charges; however,
these fees are excluded for the purposes of this example because
they are not relevant to position management.

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

C. Review of Current Fees and Rationale for Proposed Fee Amounts
    Over the past two years, GSD performed an extensive review of the
current GSD Fee Structure with the goals of reducing pricing complexity
and aligning pricing with costs, while on an overall basis maintaining
GSD's revenue at the current level.
    GSD believes it is reasonable and appropriate to assess Members
fees that are commensurate with the costs of services provided to
Members. Accordingly, based on a review of the costs associated with
position management vis-[agrave]-vis the overall cost structure as well
as the current fees, GSD estimates that the transaction processing fees
and the position management fees associated with the DVP service should
account for approximately thirty percent (30%) and seventy percent
(70%), respectively, of GSD's projected revenue associated with the DVP
service. In particular, the position management fees would be comprised
of an intraday position management fee and an end of day position
management fee, each aimed to reflect the respective costs of services
required in managing intraday positions and end of day positions. The
proposed fee changes would better align GSD's revenue with the 30/70
split between transaction processing and position management costs.
FICC expects GSD's net revenue to remain relatively unchanged as a
result of this proposal.
(iii) Proposed Fee Changes
    Based upon feedback from Members and market participants as well as
a review of current fees conducted by FICC as described above, FICC is
proposing to modify the GSD Fee Structure to (i) reduce pricing
complexity and (ii) better align pricing with costs of services
provided by GSD.
    In that respect, the proposed GSD Fee Structure would establish
four (4) new fees, modify three (3) existing fees, and eliminate twelve
(12) fees, each as further described below.
    FICC is proposing to add the following fees--

 Transaction processing fee for Broker Accounts
 Transaction processing fee for Dealer Accounts
 Intraday position fee
 End of day position fee

    FICC is proposing to modify the following fees--

 Minimum monthly fee
 Auction takedown fee
 Locked-in trade data fee

    FICC is proposing to eliminate the following fees--

 Surcharge for submission method
 Seven-tiered transaction based DVP trade submission fee for
Broker Accounts
 Seven-tiered transaction based DVP trade submission fee for
Dealer Accounts
 Seven-tiered transaction based DVP netting fee for Broker
Accounts
 Seven-tiered transaction based DVP netting fee for Dealer
Accounts
 DVP par value based into the net fee for Broker Accounts
 DVP par value based into the net fee for Dealer Accounts
 DVP par value based obligation fee (the ``out of the net''
fee)
 Gross Repo Transaction processing fee for Broker Accounts for
DVP transactions
 Gross Repo Transaction processing fee for Dealer Accounts for
DVP transactions
 Net Repo Transaction processing fee for DVP transactions
 Fees applicable to additional accounts

    The foregoing proposed fee changes would address pricing
complexity, pricing alignment to costs, or both, as further described
in the section-by-section discussion below. FICC believes the proposed
fee changes that address pricing complexity would enhance pricing
transparency, making it easier for Members (and prospective members) to
understand the GSD Fee Structure. FICC also believes shifting the GSD
Fee Structure regarding the DVP service away from a volume-driven
approach may result in making central clearing more accessible to
additional market participants. Taken collectively, the proposed rule
changes are designed to be revenue neutral for GSD and may eliminate
perceived pricing barriers to entry.
Section I of GSD Fee Structure
    In order to address the complexity of the GSD Fee Structure, FICC
is proposing to replace the seven-tiered trade submission fees for both
Dealer Accounts and Broker Accounts with a single transaction
processing fee that would be charged to Members upon the comparison of
a side of a buy/sell transaction or a Repo Transaction in the DVP
service. As proposed, Dealer Accounts would be charged a fee of $0.04
per million par value for transaction processing, and Broker Accounts
would be charged a fee of $0.02 per million par value for transaction
processing.\15\ This proposed change would also enable GSD to better
align pricing with costs by assessing a fee that is more reflective of
the costs that GSD is currently incurring for transaction processing,
as described above in Item II.(A)1.(ii)C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Broker Accounts submit two sides per transaction. As such,
a Broker Account would be charged a total of $0.04 per million par
value (i.e., $0.02 per million par value times two) for each
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to further reduce the complexity of the current GSD Fee
Structure, FICC is proposing to delete fees in Section I of the GSD Fee
Structure that are no longer applicable. Specifically, FICC is
proposing to delete Section I.B. of the GSD Fee Structure, which
imposes surcharges on a Member based on the submission method used by
the Member. Current Section I.B. of the GSD Fee Structure imposes
certain surcharges on Members submitting trade data to GSD using
submission methods other than the Interactive Submission Method, e.g.,
the Multiple Batch Submission Method or the Single Batch Submission
Method. These surcharges are no longer required because all Members
currently submit trade data to GSD using the Interactive Submission
Method, and FICC does not expect that to change in the future because
of technological advancements in real-time trade submission capability
across the financial industry. This proposed change would necessitate
the re-lettering of the subsequent provisions in Section I of the GSD
Fee Structure.
Section II of GSD Fee Structure
    In order to better align pricing with the costs of services
provided by GSD, FICC is proposing to add two position management fees
applicable to the DVP service in proposed Section II of the GSD Fee
Structure. The first position management fee would be the intraday
position fee of $0.04 per million par value that would be calculated
for a Member each Business Day based on the largest gross position of
the Member (including positions of any Non-Member that the Member is
clearing for) that Business Day. FICC proposes to determine the gross
position of a Member in 15-minute intervals between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.
each Business Day by netting the par value of all compared buy/sell
transactions, Repo Transactions, and unsettled obligations of the
Member (including any such activity submitted by the Member for a Non-
Member that the Member is clearing for) by CUSIP Number and taking the
sum of the absolute par value of each such CUSIP Number.
    The second position management fee would be the end of day position
fee of $0.115 per million par value that would be calculated for a
Member each Business Day based on the end of day gross position of the
Member (including positions of any Non-Member that the

Member is clearing for) that Business Day. FICC proposes to determine
the end of day gross position of a Member by netting the par value of
all compared buy/sell transactions, Repo Transactions, and unsettled
obligations of the Member (including any such activity submitted by the
Member for a Non-Member that the Member is clearing for) at the end of
the Business Day by CUSIP Number and taking the sum of the absolute par
value of each such CUSIP Number.
    The two proposed position management fees would better align
pricing with costs of services provided by GSD because they would be
driven by position management and, as stated above, GSD's costs
associated with position management have increased. The proposed
intraday position fee of $0.04 per million par value is aimed to
reflect the costs associated with monitoring and management of Members'
intraday DVP positions. The proposed end of day position fee of $0.115
per million par value is aimed to reflect the costs associated with end
of day processing, overnight position management, and various risk and
operational activities required to assure the ability of FICC to
continue to provide a dependable, stable and efficient clearing and
settlement service for Members.
Section IV of GSD Fee Structure
    In order to reduce pricing complexity further, FICC is proposing to
eliminate all netting fees provided in renumbered Section IV of the GSD
Fee Structure, i.e., (1) the two seven-tiered netting fees for both
Broker Accounts and Dealer Accounts, (2) the ``into the net'' fees of
$0.015 per one million of par value for Broker Accounts and $0.016 per
one million of par value for Dealer Accounts for each Compared Trade,
Start Leg of a Repo Transaction, Close Leg of a Repo Transaction, Fail
Deliver Obligation, and Fail Receive Obligation, and (3) the ``out of
the net'' fees of $0.175 per one million of par value for each Deliver
Obligation and Receive Obligation created as a result of the netting
process. This would reduce pricing complexity and thereby enhance
pricing transparency because the proposal would eliminate the necessity
for Members to reconcile their fees to the multiple-tiered netting
fees, the ``into the net'' fees, and the ``out of the net'' fees.
    In addition, FICC is proposing to delete from renumbered Section
IV.C. of the GSD Fee Structure the Repo Transaction processing fees and
related language for Term Repo Transactions in the DVP service that
have been compared and netted but not yet settled. This would reduce
pricing complexity and thereby enhance pricing transparency because
there would no longer be separate Repo Transaction processing fees for
Term Repo Transactions. As proposed, Term Repo Transactions would be
assessed the proposed position management fees, just like overnight
Repo Transactions and buy/sell transactions.
Section V of GSD Fee Structure
    In order to reduce pricing complexity, FICC is proposing to
eliminate fees applicable to additional accounts from current Section V
of the GSD Fee Structure. FICC believes this proposed change would
reduce pricing complexity and thereby enhance pricing transparency
because Members would no longer need to differentiate and keep track of
their main accounts versus their additional accounts. As proposed, each
account of every Comparison-Only Member and Netting Member would now be
subject to the same fee, i.e., the minimum monthly fee.
    In order to better align pricing with the costs of services
provided by GSD, FICC is proposing changes to fees associated with
accounts of Comparison-Only Members and Netting Members. Specifically,
FICC is proposing to modify the minimum monthly fee in proposed Section
V of the GSD Fee Structure. As proposed, the minimum monthly fee would
be increased from $1,000 to $2,500 per account and would apply to all
accounts of every Comparison-Only Member and Netting Member instead of
just their sole or primary account.\16\ FICC is proposing to increase
the minimum monthly fee to $2,500 per account because FICC believes
this change would better reflect GSD's costs of account monitoring,
which have increased as described above in Item II.(A)1.(ii)B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As proposed, the minimum monthly fee would apply to all
accounts of a Netting Member, including any account the Netting
Member may have as a Sponsoring Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iv) Expected Member Impact
    In general, FICC anticipates that the proposal would result in fee
increases for Members that currently have large directional term
repurchase agreement positions. This is because under the current GSD
Fee Structure, Members with Term Repo Transactions are charged less
than Members with overnight Repo Transactions. In contrast, under the
proposal the Members would be assessed the same position management
fees for both their Term Repo Transactions as well as their overnight
Repo Transactions.
    Using the same example from Item II.(A)1.(ii)B (entitled ``CURRENT
FEES--Pricing Alignment with Costs of Services Provided by GSD''),
under the proposal, both Member A and Member B would be assessed the
same fee for position management of their respective Repo Transactions
because the proposal would harmonize how fees are assessed for the
management of positions related to overnight Repo Transactions and Term
Repo Transactions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ When comparing with fees under the current GSD Fee
Structure, excluding transaction processing fees and clearance
charges, as proposed, Member A would see a fee increase of
approximately 2.6 times and Member B would see a decrease of
approximately twenty percent (20%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Meanwhile, FICC anticipates that Members with high volumes of buy/
sell transactions that maintain minimal positions would see a decrease
in their fees because the position management fee associated with their
activities would be minimal.
    FICC anticipates that the proposal would have a lesser impact on
fees for Members with diversified portfolios of varying transaction
types/terms.
(v) Alternatives Considered
    During development of this proposal, FICC considered a range of
alternatives to the proposal, including:
    (i) A tiered, fixed monthly membership fee based on Members'
historical activity level, which would provide certainty to Members
regarding their monthly fee amounts. However, establishing an equitable
baseline for such a fixed membership fee would be difficult because
Members' volumes and positions vary (materially in some cases) over
time due to market events, trading strategies or corporate outlook,
and, as such, Members' utilization of GSD services would change
accordingly;
    (ii) A single fee based on Members' end of day positions; however,
under this alternative, Members with end of day positions would
disproportionally subsidize intraday position holders who do not carry
end of day positions as well as Members with large transaction volumes
but minimal end of day positions;
    (iii) A combination of two fees based on Members' end of day and
intraday positions, respectively; however, under this alternative,
Members with end of day and/or intraday positions would
disproportionally subsidize Members with large transaction volumes but
minimal intraday and/or end of day positions; and
    (iv) A combination of two fees based on Members' end of day
positions and

transaction processing, respectively; however, under this alternative,
Members with end of day positions would disproportionately subsidize
intraday position holders with minimal end of day positions.
    Given the shortcomings noted above, FICC did not choose the
foregoing alternatives.
(vi) Conforming, Clarifying, and Technical Changes
    FICC is proposing a number of conforming, clarifying, and technical
changes. The proposed rule changes to make conforming, clarifying, and
technical changes are set forth in proposed Sections I, III, IV, V, VI,
VII, VIII, and XII of the GSD Fee Structure, as further described
below.
Section I of GSD Fee Structure
    FICC is proposing to rename the heading of Section I of the GSD Fee
Structure from ``Trade Comparison Fees'' to ``Transaction Fees'' to
better reflect the proposed changes to that section, as described
above.
    FICC is proposing to rename the heading of Section I.A. of the GSD
Fee Structure from ``Trade Submission'' to ``Transaction Processing.''
In addition, FICC is proposing changes throughout Section I.A. of the
GSD Fee Structure to clarify that references to a ``trade'' means a
``buy/sell transaction.'' FICC is also proposing a number of conforming
changes in Section I.A. of the GSD Fee Structure. Specifically, FICC is
proposing to delete a reference to ``submission fee'' and replace it
with ``processing fee.'' FICC is also proposing to update the reference
to ``subsection D'' to reflect the proposed re-lettering of that
subsection.
    Additionally, FICC is proposing to update the format of (i) the
$.50 rejection fee to $0.50 in Section I.A. of the GSD Fee Structure,
(ii) the 15 cents yield-to-price conversion charge to $0.15 in the
proposed Section I.B. of the GSD Fee Structure, (iii) the 25 cents and
5 cents modification/cancellation fees to $0.25 and $0.05,
respectively, in the proposed Section I.C. of the GSD Fee Structure,
(iv) the 25 cents coupon pass-through fee to $0.25 in the proposed
Section I.D. of the GSD Fee Structure, (v) the $.75 repurchase
agreement collateral substitution fee to $0.75 in the proposed Section
I.E. of the GSD Fee Structure, (vi) the $.07 and $.025 recording fees
to $0.07 and $0.025 in the proposed Section I.G. of the GSD Fee
Structure, and (vii) the $.07 recording fee to $0.07 in the proposed
Section I.H. of the GSD Fee Restructure, in order to be consistent with
the format of the other fees in the GSD Fee Structure.
    For better organization of the GSD Fee Structure, FICC is proposing
to relocate current Sections III.B. (Auction Takedown Process), III.F.
(Coupon Pass-Through Fee), and III.G. (Repo Collateral Substitution
Fees), which cover fees associated with the Auction Takedown Service,
pass-through of coupon payments, and the processing of repurchase
agreement collateral substitution requests, to proposed Sections I.F.,
I.D., and I.E., respectively, of the GSD Fee Structure because each of
these fees is a type of transaction fee.
    In addition, FICC is proposing to revise the section on Auction
Takedown Process (proposed Section I.D. of the GSD Fee Structure) by
replacing the words ``locked-in trades'' with ``buy/sell transactions''
because all trades associated with the Auction Takedown Service are
locked-in. FICC is also proposing to change this section to reflect
that, instead of the ``Trade Submission'' fees, fees for trades
associated with the Auction Takedown Service would include the proposed
``Transaction Processing'' fees in Section I.A. of the GSD Fee
Structure and the proposed ``Position Management Fees'' in Section II
of the GSD Fee Structure.
    FICC is proposing a conforming change in the proposed Section I.G.
of the GSD Fee Structure by deleting the reference to ``Trade
Submission'' fee schedule and replacing it with ``Transaction
Processing'' fees.
Section III of GSD Fee Structure
    FICC is proposing the renumbering of this section from current
Section II of the GSD Fee Structure to proposed Section III of the GSD
Fee Structure.
Section IV of GSD Fee Structure
    FICC is proposing to rename the heading of renumbered Section IV of
the GSD Fee Structure from ``Netting Fee and Charges (in addition to
the comparison fee)'' to ``Other Charges (in addition to the
transaction fees)'' to better reflect the proposed changes to this
section, as described above.
    As described above, for better organization of the GSD Fee
Structure, FICC is also proposing to relocate current Sections III.B.
(Auction Takedown Process), III.F. (Coupon Pass-Through Fee), and
III.G. (Repo Collateral Substitution Fees) to proposed Sections I.F.,
I.D., and I.E., respectively, of the GSD Fee Structure. These proposed
changes would necessitate a re-lettering of all subsequent provisions
in renumbered Section IV of the GSD Fee Structure.
    In addition, FICC is proposing to rename the heading of renumbered
Section IV.C. of the GSD Fee Structure from ``Repo Transaction
Processing Fee'' to ``GCF Repo Transaction and CCIT Transaction
Processing Fee'' to better reflect the proposed changes to this
section. FICC is also proposing two conforming changes: (i) Relocate
and update the reference to ``Repo Broker'' definition to appear right
after the first usage of ``Repo Broker'' in this section and (ii)
reflect the remaining fee in renumbered Section IV.C. of the GSD Fee
Structure in a singular form.
    In addition, FICC is proposing a conforming change in renumbered
Section IV.D. of the GSD Fee Structure to reflect the proposed
renumbering of sections in the GSD Fee Structure by changing a
reference from ``Section III'' to ``Section IV.''
Section V of GSD Fee Structure
    Currently, the minimum monthly fee does not apply if the total
monthly fees incurred by the sole or primary account of a Comparison-
Only Member or a Netting Member pursuant to existing Sections I and III
of the GSD Fee Structure exceed the minimum monthly fee; however, this
is not expressly stated in the current GSD Fee Structure. FICC is
proposing to add a sentence to proposed Section V of the GSD Fee
Structure that would make it clear to Members that the minimum monthly
fee would not apply to an account if the total monthly fees incurred by
the account pursuant to Sections I, II (a proposed new section), and IV
(renumbered from III) of the GSD Fee Structure exceed $2,500.
Section VI of GSD Fee Structure
    FICC is proposing changes in Section VI of the GSD Fee Structure to
clarify that references to ``trades'' means ``buy/sell transactions and
Repo Transactions.''
Section VII of GSD Fee Structure
    FICC is proposing two changes to Section VII of the GSD Fee
Structure. The first change is being proposed in order to conform to
the deletion of the fee for additional accounts in proposed Section V
of the GSD Fee Structure, as described above in Item II.(A)1.(iii)
(entitled ``PROPOSED FEE CHANGES''). Specifically, FICC is proposing to
delete the reference to the fee for additional accounts, which is being
eliminated under the proposal.
    The second change is being proposed in order to make it clear that
a Sponsoring Member would be subject to the minimum monthly fee set
forth in proposed Section V of the GSD Fee Structure, as described
above in Item II.(A)1.(iii) (entitled ``PROPOSED FEE

CHANGES''). This is a clarifying change because, pursuant to the GSD
Rules, Sponsoring Members are by definition also Netting Members,\18\
and, as proposed, each account of every Netting Member would be subject
to the minimum monthly fee, which would include any account the Netting
Member may have as a Sponsoring Member. This proposed change would make
it clear to a Sponsoring Member that its Sponsoring Member Omnibus
Account would be subject to the minimum monthly fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The term ``Sponsoring Member'' means a Netting Member whose
application to become a Sponsoring Member has been approved by the
Board pursuant to GSD Rule 3A. See GSD Rule 1, Definitions. GSD
Rules, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section VIII of GSD Fee Structure
    In current Section VIII of the GSD Fee Structure, FICC is proposing
(i) a technical change to reflect the reference to the GSD Fee
Structure as ``Fee Structure'' instead of ``fee structure'' and (ii)
changes to clarify that references to a ``trade'' means a ``buy/sell
transaction.'' In addition, FICC is proposing a change to clarify that
a CCIT Transaction, like a Term GCF Repo Transaction, would be
considered to have one Start Leg and one Close Leg during its term.
This clarification is being proposed because a CCIT Transaction is
similar to a GCF Repo Transaction, and FICC believes this would be a
helpful clarification for Members.
Section XII of GSD Fee Structure
    FICC is proposing a conforming change in current Section XII of the
GSD Fee Structure by deleting the reference to ``comparison and netting
fees'' and replacing it with ``transaction fees.'' In addition, FICC is
proposing a technical change by deleting the outdated reference to
``Operations and Planning Committee'' and replacing it with Board,
which is defined in GSD Rule 1 (Definitions) as ``the Board of
Directors of Fixed Income Clearing Corporation or a committee thereof
acting under delegated authority.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See GSD Rule 1. GSD Rules, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(vii) Member Outreach
    Beginning in December 2017, FICC conducted outreach to each Member
in order to provide them with notice of the proposed changes and the
anticipated impact for the Member. As of the date of this filing, no
written comments relating to the proposed changes have been received in
response to this outreach. The Commission will be notified of any
written comments received.
(viii) Implementation Timeframe
    Pending Commission approval, FICC expects to implement this
proposal on July 2, 2018. As proposed, a legend would be added to the
GSD Fee Structure stating that there are changes that have been
approved by the Commission but have not yet been implemented. The
proposed legend also would include a date on which such changes would
be implemented and the file number of this proposal, and state that,
once this proposal is implemented, the legend would automatically be
removed from the GSD Fee Structure.
2. Statutory Basis
    FICC believes this proposal is consistent with the requirements of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
registered clearing agency. Specifically, FICC believes this proposal
is consistent with Sections 17A(b)(3)(D) \20\ and 17A(b)(3)(F) \21\ of
the Act and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii),\22\ as promulgated under the Act,
for the reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that the GSD Rules provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its participants.\23\ FICC believes the proposed rule
changes to the GSD Fee Structure, described in detail in Item
II.(A)1.(iii) (entitled ``PROPOSED FEE CHANGES''), to better align
pricing with costs of GSD services would provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees. As described above in Item II.(A)1.(ii)B
(entitled ``CURRENT FEES--Pricing Alignment with Costs of Services
Provided by GSD''), GSD's costs have increased due to the continued
increasing risk management costs and are no longer aligned with the
current GSD Fee Structure. This proposal would better align GSD's
pricing (e.g., fees associated with the DVP service as well as the
minimum monthly fee) with costs attributed to GSD's management of
Members' DVP positions and costs of account monitoring, respectively.
With respect to proposed fees associated with the DVP service, a Member
whose DVP positions result in higher position management costs to GSD
would be charged a relatively higher fee as that would be reflective of
the higher costs to GSD in managing those positions of the Member. On
the other hand, a Member whose DVP positions require less management by
GSD would be charged a lower fee that is reflective of the lower costs
to GSD in managing those positions of the Member. Accordingly, FICC
believes the proposed fees would be equitably allocated because Members
with similar DVP positions would be treated alike under the proposal.
With respect to proposed changes to the minimum monthly fee, each
account of every Comparison-Only Member and Netting Member would be
subject to a minimum monthly fee threshold that reflects the costs of
account monitoring. To the extent applicable monthly fees for such an
account fall below the proposed minimum monthly fee threshold, then the
Comparison-Only Member or the Netting Member, as applicable, would be
assessed the minimum monthly fee for that account. FICC believes the
proposed changes to the minimum monthly fee would allow FICC to
equitably allocate fees that are reflective of the costs of account
monitoring among the accounts that are being monitored. FICC believes
the proposed rule changes discussed in this paragraph would be
reasonable because the proposed fees would be commensurate with the
costs of resources allocated by GSD to manage Members' DVP positions
and monitor accounts of Comparison-Only Members and Netting Members. In
addition, taken collectively, the proposed fee changes are designed to
maintain GSD's existing revenue derived from fees associated with the
DVP service and the minimum monthly fee, in accordance with the current
GSD Fee Structure, which fees have been in effect since January 1, 2016
\24\ and July 3, 2000,\25\ respectively. Therefore, FICC believes the
proposed rule changes to the GSD Fee Structure described in detail in
Item II.(A)1.(iii) (entitled ``PROPOSED FEE CHANGES'') to better align
pricing with costs of GSD services are consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76840 (January 6,
2016), 81 FR 1450 (January 12, 2016) (FR-FICC-2015-005).
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43026 (July 12,
2000), 65 FR 44555 (July 18, 2000) (SR-GSCC-00-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the GSD
Rules be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions.\26\ The proposed rule changes to
make conforming, clarifying, and technical changes, as described in
Item II.(A)1.(vi) (entitled ``CONFORMING, CLARIFYING, AND TECHNICAL
CHANGES''), would help ensure that the GSD Rules, including the GSD Fee
Structure, remain accurate

and clear to Members. Having accurate and clear GSD Rules would help
Members to better understand their rights and obligations regarding
GSD's clearance and settlement services. When Members better understand
their rights and obligations regarding GSD's clearance and settlement
services, they can act in accordance with the GSD Rules, which FICC
believes would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions by GSD. As such, FICC believes the proposed
rule changes to make conforming, clarifying, and technical changes are
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act requires FICC to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to provide sufficient information to enable
participants to identify and evaluate the risks, fees, and other
material costs they incur by participating in the covered clearing
agency.\27\ The proposed rule changes to reduce the complexity of the
GSD Fee Structure, as described in Item II.(A)1.(iii) (entitled
``PROPOSED FEE CHANGES''), and to make conforming, clarifying, and
technical changes, as described in Item II.(A)1.(vi) (entitled
``CONFORMING, CLARIFYING, AND TECHNICAL CHANGES'') would help ensure
that the GSD Fee Structure is transparent and clear to Members. Having
a transparent and clear GSD Fee Structure would help Members to better
understand GSD's fees and help provide Members with increased
predictability and certainty regarding the fees they incur in
participating in GSD. As such, FICC believes the proposed rule changes
to reduce the complexity of the GSD Fee Structure and to make
conforming, clarifying, and technical changes are consistent with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC believes the proposed rule changes to fees associated with the
DVP service to better align GSD's pricing with its costs of services
could have an impact on competition because these changes would likely
either increase or decrease Members' fees when compared to their fees
under the current GSD Fee Structure. FICC believes these proposed rule
changes could both burden competition and promote competition by
altering Members' fees. When fees are decreased because of these
proposed rule changes, the proposal could promote competition by
positively impacting Members' operating costs. Conversely, when the
proposed rule changes result in fee increases for Members, the proposal
could burden competition by negatively affecting Members' operating
costs. While some Members may experience large increases in their fees
when compared to their fees under the current GSD Fee Structure, FICC
does not believe such change in fees would in and of itself mean that
the burden on competition is significant. This is because even though
the amount of the fee increase may be significant, FICC believes the
increase in fees would similarly affect all Members that tend to
maintain large directional term repurchase agreement positions\28\ and
therefore the burden on competition would not be significant.
Regardless of whether the burden on competition is deemed significant,
FICC believes any burden on competition that is created by the proposed
rule changes to fees associated with the DVP service would be necessary
and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as permitted
by Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Though admittedly a fee increase would be more impactful
for Members that are smaller than for Members that are larger, FICC
believes such difference in impact is due to the relative market
positions of the respective Members and not as a result of these
proposed rule changes.
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes the proposed rule changes to the minimum monthly fee
to better align GSD's pricing with its costs of services could have an
impact on competition but only to the extent that the minimum monthly
fee applies to a Comparison-Only Member's or Netting Member's
account(s) (because the minimum monthly fee only applies if the
threshold amount is not reached as described above). There would be no
impact on competition, however, if an account incurs applicable fees
that exceed the proposed minimum monthly fee threshold because the
minimum monthly fee would not apply to the account. When the minimum
monthly fee would apply, FICC believes the proposed rule changes to the
minimum monthly fee could burden competition by increasing Members'
fees and thereby negatively affecting such Members' operating costs.
FICC does not believe such burden on competition would be significant
because the proposed minimum monthly fee would apply equally to all
Comparison-Only Members and Netting Members that have minimal activity
in their accounts. Regardless of whether the burden on competition is
deemed significant, FICC believes any burden on competition that is
created by the proposed rule changes to the minimum monthly fee would
be necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act,
as permitted by Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule changes to better align GSD's pricing (e.g., fees
associated with the DVP service as well as the minimum monthly fee)
with the costs of services would be necessary in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because the GSD Rules must provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its participants.\31\ As described above, the proposed rule changes
would result in fees that are equitably allocated (by better aligning
pricing with costs so that (i) a Member whose positions result in
higher costs to GSD for maintaining such positions would be charged a
relatively higher fee, and a Member whose positions require less
maintenance by GSD would be charged a lower fee and (ii) fees that are
reflective of the costs of account monitoring would be allocated among
the accounts that are being monitored) and would result in reasonable
fees (by being designed to be revenue neutral and commensurate with
costs). As such, FICC believes the proposed rule changes to better
align GSD's pricing with the costs of services would be necessary in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as permitted by Section
17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes any burden on competition that is created by the
proposed rule changes to better align GSD's pricing (e.g., fees
associated with the DVP service as well as the minimum monthly fee)
with the costs of services would also be appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule changes would provide GSD
with the ability to assess fees that are not only reflective of the
services utilized by Members but are also commensurate with FICC's
increased risk management costs, such as costs of account monitoring,
intraday margining, and end of day risk management. Having the ability
to assess fees that are reflective of the services provided by GSD and
that are commensurate with GSD's costs of providing such services would
help GSD to continue providing dependable and stable clearance and
settlement services to its Members. As such, FICC believes the proposed
rule changes to better align GSD's pricing with the costs of services
would be appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act,

as permitted by Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC does not believe the proposed rule changes to reduce the
complexity of the GSD Fee Structure and to make conforming, clarifying,
and technical changes, as discussed above in Items II.(A)1.(iii) and
(vi), respectively, would impact competition.\34\ The proposed rule
changes to address the complexity of the GSD Fee Structure would allow
Members to better understand the GSD Fee Structure and allow them more
ease in reconciling to it. Making conforming, clarifying, and technical
changes to ensure the GSD Fee Structure remains clear and accurate
would facilitate Members' understanding of the GSD Fee Structure and
their obligations thereunder. Having transparent, accessible, clear,
and accurate provisions in the GSD Fee Structure would improve the
readability and clarity of the GSD Rules regarding the fees that
Members would incur by participating in GSD. These changes would apply
equally to all Members and would not affect Members' rights and
obligations. As such, FICC believes the proposed rule changes to reduce
the complexity of the GSD Fee Structure and to make conforming,
clarifying, and technical changes would not have any impact on
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not
been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by FICC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FICC-2018-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2018-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FICC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2018-003 and should be submitted on
or before May 29, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09693 Filed 5-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P