Notice2022-14888
Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Model Validation Framework
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
July 13, 2022
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41776-41780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14888]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34- 95214; File No. SR-ICC-2022-006]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Model Validation
Framework
July 7, 2022.
I. Introduction
On May 17, 2022, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend its Model Validation Framework (the ``Framework''). The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June
3, 2022.\3\ The Commission did not receive comments regarding the
proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission
is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Model
Validation Framework; Exchange Act Release No. 95002 (May 27, 2022);
87 FR 33851 (June 3, 2022) (File No. SR-ICC-2022-006) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change <SUP>4</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the
meanings assigned to them in the Framework or ICC's Clearing Rules,
as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Background
The Framework describes the process for ICC assuring the
effectiveness of its models, including changes to existing models and
the adoption of new models. ICC's processes rely on four controls:
initial validation; ongoing monitoring and validation; investigation;
and independent periodic review. The proposed rule change would: (a)
expand the scope of the Framework to include all of ICC's models; (b)
reorganize certain sections of the Framework; (c) update and strengthen
ICC's requirements regarding initial validation, ongoing monitoring and
validation, and independent periodic review; (d) assign additional
responsibilities under the Framework to ICC's Risk Oversight Officer
(``ROO''); and (e) clarify the independence requirements for
validators.
B. Scope
The current Framework applies to ICC's models that make up its risk
management system, meaning its models relating to margin, guaranty
fund, and liquidity. The proposed rule change would expand the scope of
the Framework so that it applies to all of ICC's models and not just
those related to its risk management system. The proposed rule change
therefore would define a ``Model'' as a quantitative method, system, or
approach that applies statistical, economic, financial, or mathematical
theories, techniques, and assumptions to process input data into
quantitative estimates. This change would bring within the scope of the
Framework ICC's Model related to counterparty credit.\5\ Thus, after
the proposed rule change, the Framework would apply to all of ICC's
Models, not only those related to its risk management system. ICC is
making this change because it determined it was beneficial to apply the
requirements of the Framework to all of its Models, and not just those
related to its risk management system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Notice, 87 FR at 33851.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this change, the proposed rule change would make two
changes to the organization of the current Framework. First, the
current Framework begins with an introductory section that describes
ICC's risk management system and the Models that comprise the risk
management system. Given that, as proposed, the Framework would apply
to all of ICC's Models and not just those Models that are part of its
risk management system, the proposed rule change would delete the
current introductory section and replace it with a new overview
section. Instead of describing ICC's risk management system and the
components of the risk management system, the new overview section
would provide a general description of ICC's Models. The new overview
section further would define the purpose of the Framework as providing
assurances that ICC's Models are performing as expected, in line with
their design objectives and business use.
Second, throughout the Framework, the proposed rule change would
replace references to ICC's risk management system with references to
ICC's Models. For example, the current Framework classifies changes to
ICC's Models based on how the changes affect the risk management
system's assessment of risk. The proposed rule change instead would
classify changes based on how they affect a Model's assessment of risk.
C. Other Organizational Changes
The proposed rule change would make three organizational changes
that would, in ICC's view, more appropriately position details
regarding Model controls, Model Change materiality, and Model
development. First, with regard to controls, the proposed rule change
would move information found in current Subsection 1.3 to a new
Subsection 3.1. Current Subsection 1.3 provides an overview of the four
controls used by ICC to assure the effectiveness of its Models,
including changes to existing Models and new Models: initial
validation; ongoing monitoring and validation; investigation; and
independent periodic review. The proposed rule change would move the
description of these controls, including a visual diagram of how the
controls work together, to a new Subsection 3.1. Because Section 3 of
the Framework describes each of the four controls in detail, ICC
maintains that this overview of the controls is more appropriate in new
Subsection 3.1, rather than at the beginning of the Framework.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Notice, 87 FR at 33852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, with regard to materiality, the proposed rule change would
renumber current Subsection 2.2 as new Subsection 1.3. New Subsection
1.3 would be substantively the same as current Subsection 2.2 and would
contain a discussion of how ICC classifies proposed changes to its
Models. ICC classifies Model Changes as either Materiality A or
Materiality B, depending on how substantially the proposed change
affects a Model's assessment of risk.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Notice, 87 FR at 33852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with regard to development, the proposed rule change would
move to new Subsection 1.4 language currently found in Subsection 1.2
regarding the development of Models and Model Change, while maintaining
the substance of this language.\8\ Thus, under the proposed rule
change, as in the current Framework, new Model and
[[Page 41777]]
Model Change development includes design, implementation, user-
acceptance testing, and deployment phases, and is subject to additional
ICC governance, as appropriate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The change would clarify, without changing ICC's processes,
that the model development process is applicable to new Models as
well as Model Changes.
\9\ Notice, 87 FR at 33852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Controls
As mentioned above, the current Framework describes ICC's process
for assuring the effectiveness of its Models, including Model changes
and the adoption of new Models, using four controls: initial
validation; ongoing monitoring and validation; investigation; and
independent periodic review. While maintaining the overall substance of
these four controls, the proposed rule change would revise certain
details relating to how ICC carries out the first, second, and fourth
controls.
Initial Validation
The current Framework requires that ICC complete an internal
initial validation for all changes to its Models and an independent
initial validation for Materiality A Model Changes. ICC relies on this
control to validate the conceptual soundness of a change, as well as
the soundness of the proposed approach to ongoing monitoring and
validation of the change.
Under the proposed rule change, ICC would be required to complete
an internal initial validation for all changes to its Models and an
independent initial validation for Materiality A Model Changes, the
same as the current Framework. The proposed rule change also would
require that ICC conduct an independent initial validation for all new
Models, consistent with the application of the Framework to all of
ICC's Models. As part of this revision, the proposed rule change would
add the term Model or new Model to certain provisions that describe the
components of the independent initial validation.
Moreover, as part of the independent initial validation, the
current Framework requires a report detailing all open items reflecting
the independent validator's comments, rated using a priority scale. The
proposed rule change would maintain this requirement for a report, but
would further specify that the report should include information
describing the work performed by the independent validator as part of
the independent initial validation process, including, but not limited
to, any analysis of or challenges to the assumptions of the change to
existing Model or the new Model. This change would memorialize ICC's
current practice with respect to these reports.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Notice, 87 FR at 33852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ongoing Monitoring and Validation
The current Framework requires that ICC use the second control,
ongoing monitoring and validation, to assure that it has appropriately
configured and calibrated a Model and any change, and to assure that a
Model is performing as desired. Under the proposed rule change, ICC
would be required to conduct ongoing monitoring and validation, the
same as in the current Framework, but the proposed rule change would
apply the ongoing monitoring and validation to all of ICC's Models, in
accordance with the change to the scope of the Framework discussed
above.
The current Framework describes three components of ongoing
monitoring and validation: parameter setting, execution monitoring, and
outcome analysis. The proposed rule change would retain these same
three components, while revising the description of parameter setting
and outcome analysis as described below.
The current Framework describes parameter setting, which ICC
conducts pursuant to its Risk Parameter Setting and Review Policy. The
proposed rule change would maintain the current description of
parameter setting but would replace the specific reference to the Risk
Parameter Setting and Review Policy with a general reference to ICC's
policies. As described in the Notice, ICC is making this change because
ICC considers such references unnecessary, as the Framework is not
intended to introduce other policies.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Notice, 87 FR at 33852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current Framework describes outcome analysis, which involves
comparing the results of a Model to actual or hypothetical outcomes.
The current Framework explains that ICC performs two types of outcome
analysis: historical back testing and forward looking stress testing.
The current Framework goes on to state that ICC describes its back-
testing practices in the ICC Back-Testing Framework and its stress
testing practices in the ICC Stress-Testing Framework. The proposed
rule change would revise this description to note that ICC conducts
several types of outcome analyses, rather than just two, and further
would remove the references to the ICC Back-Testing Framework and the
ICC Stress-Testing Framework. ICC is making this change because ICC in
fact performs other outcome analysis, in addition to historical back
testing and forward looking stress testing, such as liquidity stress
testing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Notice, 87 FR at 33852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Periodic Review
The current Framework describes the purpose of the fourth and final
control, independent periodic review, as confirming that a Model or
change is still fit for purpose, that underlying assumptions are still
valid, and that ICC has performed the ongoing monitoring and validation
as required in the initial validation. The proposed rule change would
not alter this overall description, but would revise aspects of the
independent periodic review, as currently described in the Framework.
First, the current Framework states that ICC's Chief Risk Officer
(``CRO'') provides support and information to allow the independent
validators to perform periodic reviews of all ICC Model Components and
related practice at least every twelve months. The proposed rule change
would revise this language slightly, to state that the CRO would
provide support and information to allow the independent validators to
perform the periodic reviews of all ICC Model Components and related
practices, in line with the established periodicity of review.
To clarify the periodicity of review, the proposed rule change
would add language explaining that, under applicable regulations issued
by the Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, ICC is
required to perform independent periodic reviews on its Models related
to financial risk management and liquidity risk management on an annual
basis.\13\ Moreover, the proposed rule change would add language to
explain that for those Models not subject to these regulatory
requirements, ICC's ROO, in consultation with the Risk Committee, would
set an established periodicity for independent periodic review, and ICC
would rely on the date of the engagement letter to track the
requirement.\14\ ICC noted that currently the ROO, as the individual
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Framework,
determines the appropriate periodicity of review for Models, in
consultation with the Risk Committee.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ICC stated that in practice ICC would continue to ensure
that not more than twelve months passes between each independent
periodic review. Notice, 87 FR at 33852.
\14\ ICC explained in the Notice that this language memorializes
a current responsibility of the ROO. Notice, 87 FR at 33852.
\15\ Notice, 87 FR at 33852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the proposed rule change would revise the description of
the
[[Page 41778]]
components of the independent periodic review. The current Framework
provides that the independent periodic review must demonstrate that a
Model or change is fit for purpose; that its underlying assumptions are
still valid; that ICC has complied with any conditions associated with
approval of the Model or change; and that ICC has been complying with
its ongoing monitoring and validation requirements. The proposed rule
change would add language to note that the third component, compliance
with any conditions associated with the approval of the Model or
change, may not always be applicable. This component would not be
applicable, for example, if there were no open items or conditions
established during ICC's approval of the Model or change.
The proposed rule change also would revise the description of the
report that an independent periodic review must produce. The current
Framework requires that an independent periodic review produce a report
from the independent validator providing a summary of the completed
evaluation and details of any remaining open items for remediation,
classified by priority. The proposed rule change would maintain this
requirement, but would further specify that the report should include
information describing the work performed by the independent validator
as part of the independent periodic review process, including, but not
limited to, any analysis of or challenges to the assumptions of the
Model.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ICC stated in the Notice that this change would memorialize
current practices. Notice, 87 FR at 33852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule change also would add language stating that
timelines for remedial actions would consider any applicable governance
or regulatory actions, or technology implementations, and ICC would
consult with the Risk Committee regarding closure of any priority items
or observation items, and any changes to previously presented
timeframes. ICC stated in the Notice that it is making this change to
ensure that it remediates high priority items as soon as possible and
considers any applicable governance or regulatory actions or technology
implementations in timelines for remedial actions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Notice, 87 FR at 33852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the proposed rule change would add language to state that
ICC, at its discretion, could undertake ad hoc reviews of methodologies
that do not meet the definition of a Model under the Framework. These
methodologies could include, for example, third-party or vendor-
supplied products. The current Framework does not contain provisions
related to ad hoc reviews of third-party products. This change would
allow ICC to apply the Framework to such products that could include,
for example, the ISDA pricing model.
E. Risk Oversight Officer
Currently, the ROO is the owner of the Framework, and in that role
is responsible to the ICC President for the successful operation and
maintenance of the Framework. The current Framework assigns certain
responsibilities to the ROO, such as maintaining a list of pre-approved
Independent Model Validators. Under the proposed rule change, the ROO
would remain the owner of the Framework and would retain its current
responsibilities. The proposed rule change would specify certain other
responsibilities for the ROO, in addition to these current
responsibilities, as described below.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ICC explained in the Notice that these changes would
memorialize current responsibilities of the ROO. Notice, 87 FR at
33853.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current Framework requires ICC's CRO to review and determine
what changes to ICC's Models qualify as Model Changes, and further
classify such changes as Materiality A or Materiality B. The current
Framework further states that if the ROO and CRO cannot reach agreement
on a specific change, ICC classifies the change as Materiality A. Thus,
the current Framework contemplates the ROO having a role in reviewing
and classifying Model Changes. The proposed rule change would make this
role explicit by requiring that the ROO, in addition to the CRO, review
and determine what changes to ICC's Models qualify as Model Changes,
and further classify such changes as Materiality A or Materiality B.
The current Framework requires ICC's Risk Department to maintain
the ICC Model Inventory, which is a central repository of key
information about all ICC Models, their components, and any changes to
the Models. Under the proposed rule change, the ROO, rather than the
Risk Department, would maintain the Model Inventory. In addition, the
current Framework requires the ROO to review the model inventory at
least quarterly. Under the proposed rule change, the ROO also would
review the model inventory at least quarterly, but the ROO would do so
in conjunction with the Risk Department.
Before implementing a Materiality A Model Change, the current
Framework requires ICC to, among other things, complete an independent
validation, obtain a report of the independent validation, and receive
no objection to the independent validation from the Risk Committee. As
part of receiving the no-objection, the current Framework requires that
the CRO or its designee present the independent validation report to
the Risk Committee. Under the proposed rule change, ROO and CRO (or its
designee) together would present this report to the Risk Committee.
Similarly, when completing an independent periodic review, the
current Framework requires the independent validator to produce a
report, as described above. The current Framework requires that the CRO
or its designee present the independent periodic review report to the
Risk Committee. Under the proposed rule change, ROO and CRO (or its
designee) together would present this report to the Risk Committee.
Moreover, the proposed rule change would assign the ROO an
additional responsibility with respect to independent periodic reviews.
As discussed above, applicable regulations specify how often ICC must
review certain of its Models. For those Models not subject to these
regulatory requirements, the ROO, in consultation with the Risk
Committee, would establish the periodicity for review.
Finally, the current Framework requires the ROO to maintain a list
of pre-approved Independent Model Validators. The current Framework
further provides that the CRO or ROO can propose new Model Validators
to add to the list and makes the ROO responsible for adding a new Model
Validator. As part of adding a Model Validator, the current Framework
requires that the ROO provide a written summary describing how the
proposed new Model Validator meets the necessary technical expertise
and independence requirements. Under the proposed rule change, the ROO
would continue to maintain a list of pre-approved Independent Model
Validators, the CRO or ROO would propose new Model Validators, and the
ROO would continue to be responsible for adding a new Model Validator.
As part of adding a new Model Validator, the proposed rule change would
further require that the ROO review resum[eacute]s/CVs of the proposed
new Model Validator, in addition to providing a written summary
demonstrating how the proposed new Model Validator meets the necessary
technical expertise and independence requirements.
[[Page 41779]]
F. Independence Requirements
The current Framework requires that independent validators meet
certain independence and technical expertise requirements. The proposed
rule change would maintain these requirements while further specifying
that in cases of a team of validators, all members must meet the
independence requirements, and ICC will consider members on a
collective basis when evaluating for technical expertise requirements.
III. Discussion and Commission Findings
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\19\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \20\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) and 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i)
thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
\20\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) and (e)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\22\ Based on its
review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, the
Commission believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
promotion of the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions at ICC because it would expand the scope of the
Framework and improve the operation of the Framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the scope of the Framework, as discussed in Part
II.B above, the proposed rule change would apply the Framework to all
of ICC's Models. This change would bring into the Framework ICC's Model
related to counterparty credit and other Models that ICC may adopt in
the future. The Commission believes this change should help ICC to
maintain the effectiveness of its Model related to counterparty
credit--and any other Models that ICC may adopt in the future--by
subjecting these Models to the Framework's requirements and controls.
The Commission further believes that having an effective counterparty
credit Model may in turn allow ICC to avoid credit losses that could
disrupt its ability to promptly and accurately clear transactions.
The Commission believes the other aspects of the proposed rule
change discussed above should improve the operation of the Framework.
For example, the Commission believes that the changes discussed in Part
II.C above should help to improve the organization and readability of
the Framework and therefore make it easier to use and apply. The
Commission further believes that memorializing additional
responsibilities for the ROO, as discussed in Part II.E above, should
clarify these responsibilities and help to ensure that ICC personnel,
including the current ROO and successor ROOs, can review, understand,
and follow these responsibilities. Finally, the Commission believes
that specifying how the independence requirements would apply to a team
of validators, as discussed in Part II.F above, should help to ensure a
clear and consistent application of these requirements to such teams.
The Commission believes these changes, overall, should improve the
operation of the Framework.
The Commission also believes that the changes discussed in Part
II.D above should improve the Framework by revising certain details
with respect to the four controls. For example, specifying that ICC
must conduct an independent initial validation for all new Models
should help to ensure that ICC personnel complete such validations,
consistent with current practice. Because independent initial
validations can identify errors and issues, the Commission believes
that requiring independent initial validations for all new Models
should help to ensure that any new Model is effective and well
calibrated. Specifying that an independent validator's report must
describe the work performed by the independent validator, including,
but not limited to, any analysis of or challenges to the assumptions of
the change to existing Model or the new Model should help ICC to revise
and improve such assumptions, as needed. Revising the description of
parameter setting and outcome analysis to remove references to other
extraneous ICC policies would simplify this description and help to
ensure that it does not become out of date due to changes to other
policies. Finally, the Commission believes that the revisions to the
independent periodic review would help to ensure that ICC completes
validations as required by applicable regulations, while making the
provisions broad enough to encompass reviews not covered by applicable
regulations, including ad hoc reviews of methodologies that do not meet
the definition of a Model.
For these reasons, the Commission believes the proposed rule change
would expand the scope of the Framework and improve the operation of
the Framework. The Commission further believes that because the
Framework enables ICC to confirm the appropriate functioning of its
Models, expanding the scope and improving the operation of the
Framework should in turn help ICC to maintain effective and well-
designed Models. Such Models may in turn allow ICC to avoid credit
losses or liquidity shortfalls that could disrupt its ability to
promptly and accurately clear transactions.
The Commission therefore believes that, by improving the Framework,
the proposed rule change would help to ensure the effectiveness of
ICC's models and therefore its ability to promptly and accurately clear
and settle securities transactions, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) requires that ICC establish, implement,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to provide for governance arrangements that specify clear and
direct lines of responsibility.\24\ As discussed in Part II.E above,
the proposed rule change would make a number of amendments to the
Framework to memorialize additional responsibilities of ICC's ROO.\25\
The Commission believes that memorializing these responsibilities in
the Framework, as opposed to following unwritten practices, is
consistent with the maintaining written policies and procedures
designed to provide for clear and direct lines or responsibility. The
Commission believes this is true because memorializing these
responsibilities should help to ensure that they can be reviewed,
understood, and followed by ICC personnel, including the current ROO
and successor ROOs. The Commission therefore believes these changes
would specify clear and direct lines of responsibility for the ROO,
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(v).
\25\ Notice, 87 FR at 33852.
\26\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) requires that ICC establish, implement,
maintain and
[[Page 41780]]
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as
applicable, maintain a sound risk management framework for
comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general
business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are
borne by ICC, which, among other things, includes risk management
policies, procedures, and systems designed to identify, measure,
monitor, and manage the range of risks that arise in or are borne by
ICC, that are subject to review on a periodic basis and approved by the
board of directors annually.\27\ As discussed above, the proposed rule
change would expand the scope of the Framework so that it applies
consistently across all of ICC's Models and not just those related to
its risk management system. For example, bringing within the scope of
the Framework ICC's Model related to counterparty credit. Moreover,
under the revised Framework, ICC would review this Model on a periodic
basis. The Commission further believes that this Model helps ICC manage
a risk borne by ICC, the risk created by credit exposures to ICC's
counterparties. The Commission therefore believes this change should
help ensure that ICC reviews on a periodic basis a policy that ICC uses
to identify, measure, monitor, and manage a risk borne by ICC,
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).
\28\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \29\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) and 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i)
thereunder.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\30\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) and (e)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\31\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2022-006), be, and hereby
is, approved.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
\32\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14888 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 13, 2022.
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.