Notice2026-01983
Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Risk Management Framework, ICC Risk Management Model Description, and ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures
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
February 2, 2026
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 21 (Monday, February 2, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4769-4771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-01983]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-104715; File No. SR-ICC-2025-012]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Risk Management
Framework, ICC Risk Management Model Description, and ICC End-of-Day
Price Discovery Policies and Procedures
January 28, 2026.
I. Introduction
On December 4, 2025, 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 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to revise the ICC
Risk Management Framework, ICC Risk Management Model Description, and
ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures (the ``Proposed
Rule Change''). The Proposed Rule Change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on December 18, 2025.\3\ The Commission has not
received any comments on the Proposed Rule Change. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is approving the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 104408 (Dec. 15, 2025),
90 FR 59251 (Dec. 18, 2025) (File No. SR-ICC-2025-012) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change
ICC is registered with the Commission as a clearing agency for the
purpose of clearing CDS contracts for its Clearing Participants.\4\ It
maintains the ICC Risk Management Framework (``RMF''), which identifies
the risks that ICC faces and articulates its risk management approach
for each risk type; the ICC Risk Management Model Description
(``RMMD''), which describes ICC's quantitative risk models and the
associated methods and techniques that ICC uses to determine its
initial margin and guaranty fund requirements; \5\ and the ICC End-of-
Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures (``Pricing Policy''), which
sets out ICC's end-of-day price discovery process. Through its end-of-
day price discovery process, ICC determines prices for cleared
contracts using submissions made by Clearing Participants.\6\ ICC
proposes changes to the RMF and RMMD to adjust the way it calculates
its liquidity charge. Further, it proposes changes to the RMF, RMMD,
and Pricing Policy to reflect governance changes and to make other
minor edits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the
meanings assigned to them in ICC's Clearing Rules, Risk Management
Framework, Risk Management Model Description, or End-of-Day Price
Discovery Policies and Procedures, as applicable. The Rules are
available at <a href="https://www.ice.com/clear-credit/regulation">https://www.ice.com/clear-credit/regulation</a>.
\5\ For additional information about the RMMD, see Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 102969 (May 1, 2025), 90 FR 19362, 19363
(May 7, 2025) (File No. SR-ICC-2025-001).
\6\ For additional information about the Pricing Policy, see
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 101489 (Oct. 31, 2024), 89 FR
88094 (Nov. 6, 2024) (File No. SR-ICC-2024-012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Liquidity Charge
In the event that a Clearing Participant defaults, ICC may
liquidate the Clearing Participant's portfolio to obtain the resources
necessary to satisfy the Clearing Participant's obligations.\7\ To
account for the transaction costs associated with liquidating a
defaulting Clearing Participant's portfolio under stressed market
conditions, ICC considers a liquidity charge in its Initial Margin
requirement.\8\ In estimating the liquidity charge for CDS index
instruments, ICC considers the bid-offer width (``BOW'') values used
for ICC's end-of-day price discovery process.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Ice Clear Credit Clearing Rules, Rule 20-605(a)(ii).
\8\ Notice, 90 FR at 59251.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each CDS index instrument has three predefined BOWs corresponding
to different market conditions, which ICC refers to as Level I, Level
II, and Level III.\10\ Level III BOWs are the largest and are
associated with extreme market conditions.\11\ Level II BOWs are
smaller than Level III BOWs and are associated with market conditions
that experience some measure of volatility.\12\ Level I BOWs are the
smallest; they are associated with normal market conditions.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 59251-52.
\11\ Id. at 59252.
\12\ Id. at 59251-52.
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICC currently uses different BOWs to estimate CDS index instrument
liquidity charges depending on whether a position is short or long.\14\
For short protection positions, ICC uses the BOW for Level III
conditions; and for long protection positions, ICC uses the BOW for
Level II conditions.\15\ By using a larger BOW for short protection
positions than for long protection positions, ICC intended to reflect
that selling protection may carry more risk and incur higher cost of
liquidation than purchasing protection.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id. at 59252.
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id. at 59252 n.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICC proposes changes to its RMF and RMMD to use the BOW for Level
III conditions to estimate CDS index instrument liquidity charges
irrespective of whether a position is short or long. To implement this
change in the RMF, ICC proposes changing Section IV.B.2 so that it
indicates that ICC's liquidity charge approach assumes, in general,
that short protection and long protection positions are liquidated at
the same BOWs rather than different BOWs.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id. at 59252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the RMMD, ICC proposes removing symbols for BOW exposure for
bought and sold protection positions from the Table of Mathematical
Symbols and Notations. ICC also proposes removing equations and related
language from Section II.2 of the RMMD distinguishing between the
liquidation of short protection positions at Level III conditions and
long protection positions at Level II conditions. Specifically, ICC
proposes removing language discussing Level II conditions. These
symbols and language are no longer necessary and the equations no
longer reflect ICC's approach,\18\ because, as explained above, the
amended methodology would assume that short and long protection
positions are liquidated at the same BOWs (Level III conditions).\19\
The proposed changes, including the addition of references to symbols
corresponding to Level III Bid/Offer conditions, reflect that. ICC also
proposes adding language to the RMMD clarifying that Levels I, II, and
III range
[[Page 4770]]
from normal to extreme market conditions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed approach would make the index liquidity charge
methodology more conservative and establish a single approach for both
short and long positions.\21\ As noted above, currently ICC uses Level
II BOWs for long protection positions, which are smaller than Level III
and thus could result in smaller margin requirements than for short
positions. Thus, use of Level III BOWs for long protection positions
could result in larger margin requirements than currently. ICC's
proposed approach would also align ICC's treatment of CDS index and
single name instruments in relation to estimating the liquidity charge
by using symmetric BOWs for each type of instrument.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id. at 59252 n.6.
\22\ Id. at 59252. Symmetric BOWs apply the same conditions for
both long and short protection positions. Alternatively, asymmetric
BOWs apply different conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Governance Changes and Other Minor Edits
ICC recently established the ICC Board Risk Committee and ICC
Nominating Committee.\23\ The ICC Board Risk Committee assists the
Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to risk
management of ICC. In doing so, it oversees ICC's risk management
models, systems, and processes used to identify and manage systemic,
market, credit, and liquidity risks at ICC; and oversees matters that
could materially affect ICC's risk profile.\24\ The ICC Nominating
Committee is responsible for evaluating the independence and fitness of
persons proposed to be designated as Managers of the Board.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Notice, 90 FR at 59252.
\24\ For additional information about the Board Risk Committee,
see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 103161 (May 30, 2025), 90 FR
23970 (June 5, 2025) (File No. SR-ICC-2025-006).
\25\ For additional information about the Nominating Committee,
see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 101820 (Dec. 5, 2024), 89 FR
99917 (Dec. 11, 2024) (File No. SR-ICC-2024-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICC proposes changes to the RMF, RMMD, and Pricing Policy that
reflect the new committees.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Notice, 90 FR at 59252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in Section II of the RMF, ICC proposes adding the Board
Risk Committee and the Nominating Committee to the list of relevant
committees for the purposes of risk governance and to a chart showing
ICC's governance structure. The Proposed Rule Change edits the chart
showing ICC's Governance Structure in Section II of the RMF to refer to
the Risk Committee as the CDS Risk Committee to distinguish it from the
Board Risk Committee.\27\ ICC would also update Section II.A to reflect
that there are nine committees which are integral to ICC's risk
management.\28\ To reflect their responsibilities, ICC proposes adding
descriptions of the Board Risk Committee and Nominating Committee to
Section II.A.\29\ Throughout the RMF, ICC proposes changes to specify
which items are subject to Board Risk Committee Review.\30\ These items
include, policies and procedures, memoranda regarding Clearing
Participant membership applications, whether a Clearing Participant
should be suspended, position or concentration limits, margin and
guaranty fund levels, performance and composition of collateral, margin
methodology changes, and model revisions. In certain instances,
including with respect to margin and guaranty fund levels as well as
the performance and composition of collateral, ICC proposes that the
Board Risk Committee, rather than the Board, receive periodic
reporting. This proposed change would align the Board Risk Committee's
responsibilities with its mandate to assist the Board in fulfilling its
oversight responsibilities.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id.
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, in the Initial Margin Methodology section of the RMMD
and Section 3 of the Pricing Policy, ICC proposes adding that each
respective document is subject to Board Risk Committee review at least
annually. Currently, these documents only indicate that they are
subject to review by the Risk Committee and review and approval by the
Board of Managers at least annually.
ICC also proposes minor edits to its Pricing Policy. In the Pricing
Policy, ICC proposes corrections to numbering of certain tables
throughout the document.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion and Commission Findings
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
organization.\33\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the
``burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with
the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . .
is on the self-regulatory organization [`SRO'] that proposed the rule
change.'' \34\ The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose
and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with
applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific
to support an affirmative Commission finding,\35\ and any failure of an
SRO to provide this information may result in the Commission not having
a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and
regulations.\36\ Moreover, ``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's
representations in a proposed rule change is not sufficient to justify
Commission approval of a proposed rule change.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
\34\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
\35\ Id.
\36\ Id.
\37\ Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 447 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After carefully considering the Proposed Rule Change, the
Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \38\ and Rules 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v)
and (e)(6)(i) thereunder,\39\ as described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\39\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) and (e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Under Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, ICC's rules, among other
things, must be ``designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions and . . . to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible . . . .''
\40\ Based on a review of the record, and for the reasons discussed
below, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section II.A above, ICC proposes changes to how it
incorporates BOWs in its estimation of liquidity charges for CDS index
instruments. Currently, ICC uses the BOW associated with extreme market
conditions (Level III) to estimate the CDS index instrument liquidity
charge for short protection positions. For long protection positions,
ICC uses the BOW associated with market conditions that experience some
measure of volatility
[[Page 4771]]
(Level II).\41\ ICC proposes several changes to use the Level III BOW
to estimate the CDS index instrument liquidity charge for both short
and long protection positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Notice, 90 FR at 59252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By using symmetric BOWs, ICC makes its treatment of CDS index
instruments more conservative.\42\ Level III BOWs are larger than Level
II BOWs.\43\ As such, ICC may collect more margin with the proposed
changes than it otherwise would under the current methodology.
Collecting additional margin increases the likelihood that ICC would
collect sufficient margin collateral to address a Clearing
Participant's default. This would in turn help assure the safeguarding
of non-defaulting Clearing Participants' collateral by reducing the
likelihood that ICC would need to use mutualized collateral to cover
losses caused by a defaulting Clearing Participant. Further, it would
increase the likelihood that ICC continues to provide services without
interruption in the event of a default, thereby helping to promote
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Id. at 59252 n.6.
\43\ Id. at 59252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using a symmetric BOW is also consistent with ICC's treatment of
CDS single name instruments.\44\ The CDS single name liquidity charge
methodology does not use different BOWs for short and long protection
positions.\45\ This added consistency simplifies ICC's liquidity charge
methodology and ultimately makes it clearer. A clearer liquidity charge
methodology enhances ICC's ability to manage risk and aids it in
safeguarding securities and funds in its custody or control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Id.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICC also proposes governance changes and other minor edits to its
RMF, RMMD, and Pricing Policy. Several proposed changes update these
documents to account for the recently created ICC Board Risk Committee
and ICC Nominating Committee.\46\ ICC also proposes corrections to the
numbering of certain tables throughout the Pricing Policy.\47\ By
making the RMF, RMMD, and Pricing Policy more accurate and up to date,
ICC decreases the possibility of delays and miscommunications in
carrying out the duties those documents outline. By potentially
reducing delays and miscommunications, ICC improves the chances that it
is appropriately managing its risk and is prepared for a Clearing
Participant default. Thus, these proposed changes enhance ICC's ability
to safeguard securities and funds in its custody or control and promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Id.
\47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Consistency With Rule 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v)
Under Rule 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v), ICC must, ``establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that are
clear and transparent and specify clear and direct lines of
responsibility.'' \49\ Based on a review of the record, and for the
reasons discussed below, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with
Rule 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed changes reflect current ICC governance arrangements in
the RMF, RMMD, and Pricing Policy. Specifically, ICC proposes adding
references to the recently established Board Risk Committee and
Nominating Committee. Such changes ensure that these documents are up
to date, clear, and clearly assign and document responsibility and
accountability for relevant items to these committees.
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Consistency With Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i)
Under Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i), ICC must, ``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 . . . .''
\51\ Based on a review of the record, and for the reasons discussed
below, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-
22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the liquidity charge is one component of ICC's
methodology for determining Initial Margin requirements. ICC's proposed
changes would use Level III BOWs for both long and short positions.
Using Level III BOWs for long positions makes the liquidity charge more
conservative, as it could result in increased margin requirements for
these positions than currently. As such, this change could lead to ICC
collecting margin amounts larger than it would under the current
approach and producing margin levels more commensurate with the
contracts that ICC clears.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Notice, 90 FR at 59252 n.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i).\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(6)(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, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \54\ and Rules 17ad-
22(e)(2)(i) and (v) and (e)(6)(i) thereunder.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\55\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) and (e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2025-012) be, and hereby is,
approved.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impacts 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.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-01983 Filed 1-30-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 2, 2026.
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.