Notice2025-14753
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Definition of the Backtesting Charge
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 5, 2025
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 148 (Tuesday, August 5, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 5, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37608-37612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-14753]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-103602; File No. SR-FICC-2025-017]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Definition of
the Backtesting Charge
July 31, 2025.
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 July 23, 2025, 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 consists of modifications to FICC's
Government Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``GSD Rules'') \3\
that would revise the definition of the Backtesting Charge to (1)
clarify that the calculation of the backtesting coverage and any
applicable Backtesting Charge does not include any amounts already
collected as a Backtesting Charge; and (2) revise the calculation of
both the backtesting coverage and any applicable Backtesting Charge to
exclude all other margin amounts already collected intraday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the GSD Rules,
available at <a href="http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures">www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
FICC is proposing to revise the definition of Backtesting Charge in
the GSD Rules to clarify the current calculation of that charge and
adopt a change to the calculation.
First, the proposed changes would clarify in the GSD Rules that the
backtesting coverage calculated in connection with the Backtesting
Charge and the calculation of that charge for a Netting Member or
Segregated Indirect Participant do not include amounts collected from
that Netting Member or Segregated Indirect Participant as a Backtesting
Charge. This change, and other drafting changes to the definition of
the Backtesting Charge described below, would reflect FICC's current
practice and provide Members with a better understanding of the
calculation of this margin component.
Second, the proposed changes would revise the calculation of the
backtesting coverage calculated in connection with the Backtesting
Charge and the calculation of that charge by excluding amounts already
collected intraday from the Netting Member or Segregated Indirect
Participant as another component of the Required Fund Deposit or
Segregated Customer Margin, as applicable. This proposed change would
remove from these calculations an assumption that FICC would collect
all intraday margin requirements before the Netting Member or
Segregated Indirect Participant defaults. Therefore, the proposal would
enhance FICC's ability to produce margin levels commensurate with the
risks presented by its Members, in compliance with the requirements of
Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
FICC, through GSD, serves as a central counterparty and provider of
clearance and settlement services for transactions in the U.S.
government securities, as well as repurchase and reverse repurchase
transactions involving U.S. government securities.\5\ As part of its
market risk management strategy,\6\ FICC manages its credit exposure to
Members by determining the appropriate Required Fund Deposit (or
Segregated Customer Margin, when applicable) to the Clearing Fund and
monitoring its sufficiency, as provided for in the GSD Rules.\7\
Required Fund Deposits and Segregated Customer Margin deposits serve as
margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GSD also clears and settles certain transactions on
securities issued or guaranteed by U.S. government agencies and
government sponsored enterprises.
\6\ FICC's market risk management strategy is designed to comply
with Rule 17ad-22(e)(4) under the Act, where these risks are
referred to as ``credit risks.'' 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(4).
\7\ See GSD Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation), supra
note 3. Segregated Customer Margin is, generally, the margin that an
Agent Clearing Member or Sponsoring Member is required to deposit
with FICC to support the obligations of its Segregated Indirect
Participants. See GSD Rule 1 (Definitions), id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objective of a Member's Required Fund Deposits is to mitigate
potential losses to FICC associated with liquidating a Member's
portfolio in the event FICC ceases to act for that Member (hereinafter
referred to as a ``default'').\8\
[[Page 37609]]
The aggregate amount of all Members' Required Fund Deposits constitutes
the Clearing Fund, and FICC would access the Clearing Fund should a
defaulting Member's own Required Fund Deposit be insufficient to
satisfy losses to FICC caused by the liquidation of that Member's
portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The GSD Rules identify when FICC may cease to act for a
Member and the types of actions FICC may take. For example, FICC may
suspend a firm's membership with FICC, or prohibit or limit a
Member's access to FICC's services, in the event that Member
defaults on a financial or other obligation to FICC. See GSD Rule 21
(Restrictions on Access to Services), id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the GSD Rules, each Member's Required Fund Deposit
amount and each Segregated Indirect Participant's Segregated Customer
Margin amount consists of a number of applicable components, each of
which is calculated to address specific risks faced by FICC, as
identified within the Margin Component Schedule in the GSD Rules.\9\
These components include, as applicable, the VaR Charge, Blackout
Period Exposure Adjustment, Backtesting Charge, Holiday Charge,
Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit, Margin Liquidity Adjustment Charge,
and Portfolio Differential Charge.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See GSD Rules (Margin Component Schedule), id.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FICC employs daily backtesting to determine the adequacy of each
Member's Required Fund Deposit and Segregated Indirect Participant's
Segregated Customer Margin. Backtesting is performed both for internal
reporting and in connection with the calculation of the Backtesting
Charge margin component. Through this backtesting, FICC compares the
Required Fund Deposit \11\ for each Member with the simulated
liquidation gains/losses using the actual positions in the Member's
portfolio, and the actual historical security returns. FICC
investigates the cause(s) of any backtesting deficiencies. As a part of
this investigation, FICC pays particular attention to Members with
backtesting deficiencies that bring the results for that Member below
its 99 percent confidence target (i.e., greater than two backtesting
deficiency days in a rolling 12-month period) to determine if there is
an identifiable cause of repeat backtesting deficiencies. FICC also
evaluates whether multiple Members may experience backtesting
deficiencies for the same underlying reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For backtesting comparisons, FICC uses the Required Fund
Deposit amount without regard to the actual collateral posted by the
Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Backtesting Charge is an additional charge that may be added to
a Member's Required Fund Deposit or a Segregated Indirect Participant's
Segregated Customer Margin at the start of the day and/or in an
intraday margin collection.\12\ As described in the Margin Component
Schedule in the GSD Rules, FICC may assess a Backtesting Charge if a
Member or Segregated Indirect Participant has a 12-month trailing
backtesting coverage below the 99 percent backtesting coverage target.
If assessed, the Backtesting Charge is generally equal to the Member's
or Segregated Indirect Participant's third largest deficiency that
occurred during the previous 12 months.\13\ The GSD Rules provide FICC
with the discretion to adjust the Backtesting Charge amount based on
its assessment of the impact of other circumstances on the likelihood
of, and estimated size of, future backtesting deficiencies for a
Netting Member or Segregated Indirect Participant. Based on its
assessment of the impact of these circumstances, FICC may, in its
discretion, adjust the Backtesting Charge for a Netting Member or
Segregated Indirect Participant in an amount that FICC determines to be
more appropriate for maintaining such firm's backtesting results above
the 99 percent coverage threshold (including a reasonable buffer).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ GSD Rules (Margin Component Schedule), supra note 3.
\13\ Id.
\14\ Such circumstances could include, for example, material
differences in the three largest backtesting deficiencies observed
over the prior 12-month period, variability in the net settlement
activity after the collection of the Member's intraday Required Fund
Deposit, seasonality in observed backtesting deficiencies and
observed market price volatility in excess of the Member's
historical VaR Charge(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Backtesting Charge may be assessed on a Netting Member's or
Segregated Indirect Participant's start of day portfolio (currently
referred to in the GSD Rules as the ``Regular Backtesting Charge'') or
on a Netting Member's or Segregated Indirect Participant's intraday
portfolio (currently referred to in the GSD Rules as the ``Intraday
Backtesting Charge''). FICC calculates the Backtesting Charge at least
monthly and, based on those calculations, may either impose a new
Backtesting Charge or remove an existing Backtesting Charge, or FICC
may either increase or decrease an existing Backtesting Charge as
necessary to maintain its target backtesting coverage.
Proposed Changes to the Definition of the Backtesting Charge
FICC is proposing to make two changes to the definition of
Backtesting Charge in the GSD Rules. The proposed changes would clarify
FICC's existing practices in calculating this charge and reflect a
change to that calculation.
First, the proposed rule changes would clarify FICC's current
practices with respect to the Backtesting Charge. These changes would
state that, in calculating a Netting Member's or Segregated Indirect
Participant's backtesting coverage (for purposes of calculating the
Backtesting Charge) and in calculating any applicable Backtesting
Charge, FICC does not include amounts already collected as a
Backtesting Charge from that Netting Member or Segregated Indirect
Participant. As described above, the objective of the Backtesting
Charge is to increase Required Fund Deposits for Netting Members and
Segregated Indirect Participants that are likely to experience
backtesting deficiencies by an amount sufficient to maintain such
firm's backtesting coverage above the 99 percent confidence threshold.
By excluding amounts already collected as a Backtesting Charge from
this calculation, FICC is able to more accurately evaluate a firm's
historical backtesting deficiencies to determine if any adjustment to
its Backtesting Charge is appropriate.
FICC is also proposing to clarify in the definition of Backtesting
Charge that the backtesting coverage calculation described therein is
the coverage that is calculated for purposes of calculating the
Backtesting Charge. FICC also performs backtesting for internal and
regulatory reporting or other risk management purposes that may use a
different methodology than the backtesting that is performed for
purposes of calculating and assessing a Backtesting Charge. For
example, FICC may include or exclude amounts already collected as a
Backtesting Charge or as another margin component on an intraday basis
in determining backtesting coverage for other risk management purposes.
FICC's regulatory backtesting does not directly impact its Members and,
therefore, is not described in the GSD Rules. However, because the two
methodologies may differ, the proposed change would ensure no confusion
between the different coverage calculations.
The proposed changes would also remove the defined terms for
Intraday Backtesting Charge and Regular Backtesting Charge from the
definition of the Backtesting Charge. The definition would continue to
state that the Backtesting Charges may be calculated on both the start
of day and intraday portfolio of Netting Members and Segregated
Indirect Participants. However, because the Backtesting Charge that is
calculated and collected at the start of day and intraday
[[Page 37610]]
otherwise are identical, the two separate defined terms are not needed.
Together, these clarifications to the definition of Backtesting
Charge would reflect FICC's current practice and provide Members with a
better understanding of the calculation of this margin component.
Second, the proposed changes would revise the GSD Rules by
excluding all other amounts that FICC has collected from a Netting
Member or Segregated Indirect Participant intraday from the calculation
of a Netting Member's or Segregated Indirect Participant's backtesting
coverage (for purposes of calculating the Backtesting Charge) and in
calculating any applicable Backtesting Charge. The rationale for this
proposed change is the same as the rationale for excluding amounts
already collected as a Backtesting Charge from the same calculations,
as described above. Specifically, by excluding all margin resources
that were collected intraday, the proposed change would make it less
likely for FICC to undercount potential backtesting deficiencies. This
change would remove from these calculations an assumption that FICC
would collect all intraday margin requirements before the Netting
Member or Segregated Indirect Participant default, because this
assumption could underestimate the potential losses that FICC may
experience if a Netting Member or Segregated Indirect Participant
defaults prior to funding its intraday margin calls. Therefore, the
proposal would enhance FICC's ability to produce margin levels
commensurate with the risks presented by its Members, in compliance
with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed GSD Rule Changes
FICC would modify the definition of Backtesting Charge in the
Margin Component Schedule of the GSD Rules by removing the defined
terms for ``Intraday Backtesting Charge'' and ``Regular Backtesting
Charge''. The proposed changes would also modify the description of the
12-month backtesting coverage that is used in determining when a
Backtesting Charge may apply to a Netting Member or Segregated Indirect
Participant by stating ``as such [backtesting] coverage is calculated
for purposes of calculating the Backtesting Charge''.
Finally, the proposed changes would include a paragraph in the
definition of Backtesting Charge that states ``[i]n calculating a
Netting Member's or Segregated Indirect Participant's backtesting
coverage (for purposes of calculating the Backtesting Charge) and in
calculating any applicable Backtesting Charge, the Corporation would
not include amounts already collected from that Netting Member or
Segregated Indirect Participant as (i) a Backtesting Charge, and (ii)
other components of the Required Fund Deposit or Segregated Customer
Margin, as applicable, on an intraday basis pursuant to this Margin
Component Schedule.'' This proposed change would both clarify FICC's
existing practice and reflect the proposed change to its calculation
methodology described herein.
Impact Study
FICC performed an impact study on Backtesting Charges collected for
the period beginning June 3, 2024, through May 30, 2025 (``Impact Study
Period'). If the proposed change to exclude amounts collected intraday
had been in place during the Impact Study Period, the aggregate average
daily Backtesting Charges would have increased by approximately
$166.61MM or 121.2% for the start of the day margin cycle and $137.41MM
or 90.3% for the intraday margin cycle at GSD. The impact study also
indicated that if the proposed change had been in place, overall margin
would have increased by approximately $166.61MM or 0.30% for the start
of the day margin cycle and $137.41MM or 0.25% for the intraday margin
cycle at GSD during the Impact Study Period.
During the Impact Study Period, 29 Netting Members would have been
impacted by the proposed changes to the charges applied to the start of
the day margin cycle, and 19 Netting Members would have been impacted
by the proposed changes to the charges applied to the intraday margin
cycle.\16\ On average, at the impacted Member level, the proposed
changes would have increased the Backtesting Charge applied during the
start of the day margin cycle by approximately $5.95MM or 8.6% of each
impacted Netting Member's overall margin requirement, and by
approximately $7.61MM or 17.4% of each impacted Netting Member's
overall margin requirement for the Backtesting Charge applied during
the intraday margin cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ FICC did not have any Segregated Indirect Participants
during the Impact Study Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The largest average percentage and dollar increases in the start of
the day margin requirement for any Netting Member would have been
approximately 91.8%, or $97.26MM (0.16% of the Netting Member's average
Net Capital).\17\ The largest average percentage increase in the
intraday margin requirement for any Netting Member would have been
approximately 58.9%, or $6.09MM (0.01% of the Netting Member's average
Net Capital). The largest average dollar increase in the intraday
margin requirement for any Netting Member would have been approximately
$46.52MM, or 48.1% (16.21% of the Netting Member's average Net
Capital).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The term ``Net Capital'' means, as of a particular date,
the amount equal to the net capital of a broker or dealer as defined
in 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(2), or any successor rule or regulation
thereto. See GSD Rule 1 (Definitions), supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation Timeframe
FICC would implement the proposed rule change by no later than 60
Business Days after approval by the Commission. FICC would announce the
effective date of the proposed changes by an Important Notice posted to
its website.
2. Statutory Basis
FICC believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, FICC
believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\18\ and Rules 17ad-22(e)(6)(i) and
(e)(23)(ii), promulgated under the Act,\19\ for the reasons described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\19\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (e)(23)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the GSD Rules be
designed to, among other things, promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\20\ The proposed
rule changes would provide Members with a clearer understanding of the
methodology used to calculate the Backtesting Charge by including in
the GSD Rules a clear description of the exclusion of both Backtesting
Charges and other intraday margin components from that methodology.
Members would be better able to anticipate their risk management
obligations to FICC and, therefore, manage the risks their clearing
activity presents to FICC when the GSD Rules are clearer and more
transparent regarding the margin calculation methodology. FICC believes
this result would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and, as such, the proposed
changes would be consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37611]]
Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that FICC
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a
minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the
risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio,
and market.\22\ FICC is proposing to enhance the calculation
methodology of the backtesting coverage used for purposes of
calculating the Backtesting Charge and the calculation of the
Backtesting Charge by excluding from those calculations other
components of the Required Fund Deposit or Segregated Customer Margin,
as applicable, that had been collected on an intraday basis. This
revision to the calculation methodology would remove an assumption that
FICC's Netting Members or Segregated Indirect Participants would only
default after they had met those intraday margin requirements. In this
way, the revised calculation methodology for the backtesting coverage
and Backtesting Charge would better cover FICC's credit exposures to
these participants, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-
22(e)(6)(i).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(6)(i).
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 17ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act requires that FICC establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to provide for 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.\24\ The proposed rule change would enhance the definition of
the Backtesting Charge by providing Members with a better understanding
of the calculation methodology utilized for both the relevant
backtesting coverage and the Backtesting Charge. The proposed rule
change would also make revisions to that definition by removing
unnecessary defined terms for ``Intraday Backtesting Charge'' and
``Regular Backtesting Charge'' in order to simplify the description of
the Backtesting Charge. Finally, the proposed rule change would include
additional clarification that the backtesting coverage referred to in
the definition is the coverage that is a calculation for purposes of
calculating the Backtesting Charge. These changes would collectively
simplify the definition of the Backtesting Charge and provide Members
with additional information regarding the related margin requirements.
In this way, the proposal would enhance Members' ability to evaluate
the risks and material costs they may incur by participating in FICC
and, as such, FICC believes the proposed changes are consistent with
the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(23)(ii).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of Act requires that the rules of a clearing
agency do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\26\ FICC does
not believe the proposed rule change would present any burden or have a
material impact on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the proposed changes are designed to ensure that the GSD
Rules remain transparent, accurate and clear. The proposal would
accomplish this by providing a clearer description of the calculation
of the backtesting coverage and the Backtesting Charge, removing
unnecessary defined terms for ``Intraday Backtesting Charge'' and
``Regular Backtesting Charge'' and clarifying in the GSD Rules that the
backtesting coverage referenced therein is the coverage utilized in
connection with calculating the Backtesting Charge. These proposed
changes would not have an impact on competition.
Second, the proposed changes are intended to facilitate FICC's
compliance with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency.
Specifically, the proposal would enhance the calculation of the
backtesting coverage and Backtesting Charge to exclude additional
components of the Required Fund Deposit or Segregated Customer Margin,
as applicable, that had been collected on an intraday basis. This
proposed change would remove an assumption that FICC's Netting Members
or Segregated Indirect Participants would only default after they had
met those intraday margin requirements. While this change could result
in an increase to Members' Backtesting Charges, when such charges are
applicable, the change would apply equally to all Members and would not
inhibit access to FICC's services or favor any particular Member over
another. Furthermore, the proposed enhancement would result in a
calculation of the backtesting coverage and Backtesting Charge that
would better cover FICC's credit exposures to its Members and, as such,
FICC believes this proposed change is necessary and appropriate to
facilitate its compliance with requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i)
under the Act.\27\ Therefore, FICC does not believe that the proposed
rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others
FICC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. If any additional written comments are received, they
will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by
Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to
Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General
Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should
submit only information that they wish to make available publicly,
including their name, email address, and any other identifying
information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's
instructions on how to submit comments, available at <a href="http://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/how-submit-comment">www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/how-submit-comment</a>. General questions regarding the rule
filing process or logistical questions regarding this filing should be
directed to the Main Office of the SEC's Division of Trading and
Markets at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3d7d1c2c7cacdc4c2cdc7cec2d1c8c6d7d0e3d0c6c08dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4034322124292e27212e242d21322b253433003325236e272f36">[email protected]</span></a> or 202-551-5777.
FICC reserves the right to not respond to any comments received.
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.
[[Page 37612]]
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
<bullet> Use the Commission's internet comment form (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>); or
<bullet> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5220273e377f313d3f3f373c2621122137317c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ef9d9a838ac28c8082828a819b9caf9c8a8cc1888099">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
file number SR-FICC-2025-017 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
<bullet> 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-2025-017. 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 (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>). Copies of the filing will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of FICC and on DTCC's website
(<a href="http://www.dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings">www.dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings</a>). Do not include personal
identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in
part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is
obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should
refer to File Number SR-FICC-2025-017 and should be submitted on or
before August 26, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-14753 Filed 8-4-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 5, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.