Notice2026-19041
Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the LCH SA CDSClear Trade Registration Fund
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
September 17, 2026
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 179 (Thursday, September 17, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 179 (Thursday, September 17, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58936-58940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19041]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-106352; File No. SR-LCH SA-2026-006]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Order Approving Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the LCH SA CDSClear Trade Registration Fund
September 14, 2026.
I. Introduction
On July 20, 2026, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts
business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``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 establish a Trade
Registration Fund. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on August 5, 2026.\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\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 106024 (July 31, 2026),
91 FR 50584 (Aug. 5, 2026) (File No. SR-LCH SA-2026-006)
(``Notice''). CDS Clearing Procedures (``Procedures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change
LCH SA is a clearing agency registered with the Commission. Through
its CDSClear business unit, LCH SA provides central counterparty
(``CCP'') services for security-based swaps, including credit default
swaps (``CDS'') and options on CDS. LCH SA is an affiliate of LCH, Ltd,
through common ownership by LCH Group Holdings Limited (``LCH Group'').
LCH SA's ultimate parent company is London Stock Exchange Group.
As a CCP, LCH SA is exposed to certain risk, including the risk
that Clearing Members (``Members'') may default on their obligations.
In that case, as a CCP, LCH SA is obligated to perform the obligations
of the defaulting Members. To mitigate such risk and control exposures
to its Members, LCH SA requires that Members deposit a certain amount
of collateral, or margin, in respect of the transactions that they
submit for clearing. The Proposed Rule Change would introduce a form of
margin forbearance, through amendments to LCH SA's CDS Clearing Rule
Book (``Rule Book'') \4\ and CDS Clearing Procedures (``Procedures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In order to formalize the relationship between LCH SA and
its clearing members, LCH SA adopted the Rule Book. See LCH SA's
website for the latest version of the LCH SA CDS Clearing Rule Book.
<a href="https://www.lseg.com/en/post-trade/clearing/clearing-resources/rulebooks/lch-sa#t-over-the-counter-credit-default-swaps">https://www.lseg.com/en/post-trade/clearing/clearing-resources/rulebooks/lch-sa#t-over-the-counter-credit-default-swaps</a>.
Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings
assigned to them in Rule Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Description of Proposed Rule Changes
The Proposed Rule Change would establish a form of margin
forbearance, or a delay in posting sufficient margin, to facilitate the
registration (i.e., acceptance for clearing) of trades submitted by
Members. As noted, LCH SA requires that Members deposit a certain
amount of collateral, or margin, in respect of the transactions that
they submit for clearing. If the amount of collateral, including a
collateral buffer, is insufficient, LCH SA's current policy is to
reject such trades from clearing. The Proposed Rule Change would create
a Trade Registration Fund (``TRF'') facility which could be used by
Members to satisfy the requisite collateral and thereby avoid trade
rejections.
Currently, Members contribute funds to the CDS Default Fund, a
shared pool of assets, including cash and liquid assets. LCH SA can use
the CDS Default Fund to resolve losses in case of a Member's default.
LCH SA proposes to require Members to contribute to the TRF, which will
be separate from the Default Fund, and allow Members to draw upon this
facility in certain situations where additional collateral is necessary
to avoid trade rejections. LCH SA proposes to implement this change in
the following ways.
i. CDS Clearing Rule Book
LCH SA proposes to introduce new terms to its Rule Book, which will
be
[[Page 58937]]
incorporated into provisions surrounding the new TRF. A ``TRF
Allowance'' will refer to margin provided by LCH SA to Members in LCH
SA's discretion, while the ``Available TRF Allowance'' will refer to
the portion of the TRF Allowance not already used up as margin by the
Member. The ``TRF Contribution'' will describe the amount that a Member
must contribute, as calculated by LCH SA based on a Member's usage,
which will be called the ``TRF Utilization.'' LCH SA will not include
the TRF Allowance within its calculation for contributions to the CDS
Default Fund.
``Credit Tolerance'' will also be included as a new term within the
Rule Book. As LCH SA has explained, this would be a second layer of
forbearance that could be extended by LCH SA if a Member has already
exhausted its Available TRF Allowance, although LCH SA does not intend
to disclose the maximum value of this additional tolerance, including
to the Member itself, because of what it describes as operational
flexibility.\5\ ``Available Credit Tolerance'' will refer to whatever
portion remains of the Credit Tolerance that is not already used for
margin by a Member. Finally, LCH SA will also define ``Tolerance
Check,'' whereby the total forbearance available to a Member through
both the TRF Allowance and the Credit Tolerance will be determined by
LCH SA. Section 2.3 of the Rule Book would be amended to include a new
paragraph making clear that these facilities would be available on a
first-in-time basis, allocated in the order that intraday trades are
received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Notice, at 50586.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operationally, LCH SA proposes to create the TRF by separating the
TRF Allowance from the CDS Default Fund. Currently, Members must
contribute [euro]10 million to the CDS Default Fund. Under LCH SA's new
procedures, the contribution amount would remain the same, at a
minimum, but be split so that [euro]7 million is apportioned to the CDS
Default Fund while at least [euro]3 million will be the TRF
Contribution.
A ``TRF Initial Member,'' another new term proposed for the Rule
Book, will be a Member who has not used its TRF Allowance in the
trailing 90 day period and would therefore be subject only to the
[euro]3 million minimum payment. Other Members would see their
contribution calculated relative to the average of the peak daily TRF
Utilization over the preceding 180 days, divided by the total of all
TRF Utilization of all non-defaulting Members.\6\ LCH SA will refer to
this as the ``TRF Contribution Percentage,'' which it will use to
calculate the TRF Contribution by multiplying it against the TRF
Allowance. Descriptions of these calculations will be moved from
Article 4.4.1.3 of the Rule Book to amended Section 6.6 of the
Procedures. Amended Section 6.5 of the Procedures, as well as Article
4.4.1.2 of the Rule Book, would also make clear that the TRF Allowance
Amount, when added to the Combined Unmargined Risk,\7\ will constitute
the CDS Default Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ LCH SA has said that the contribution would top out at
[euro]30 million, thereby capping Member contributions. See Notice,
at 50587.
\7\ As defined in the Rule Book, Combined Unmargined Risk means
the theoretical losses caused by an Event of Default occurring in
respect of the Members that are responsible for the two highest
daily Group Member Uncovered Risks over the last sixty Clearing Days
plus a buffer equal to 10 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCH SA proposes to add Article 4.2.2.5 to the Rule Book in order to
explain how the TRF Allowance and Credit Tolerances are intended to
function. Neither facility is intended to lead to a transfer of
collateral or payment from LCH SA, or to use assets contained in the
CDS Default Fund (except following a Member's default). Because the
facilities are intended only as forbearance, Members would be required
to transfer additional collateral in excess of any margin shortfall
resulting from the utilization of the facilities at the next collateral
call, but LCH SA may require it sooner. New language in Article 4.2.2.6
would limit the return of collateral to Clearing Members only to
instances where they have not utilized either the TRF Allowance or
Credit Tolerance facilities. And additions to Article 4.2.3.1 would add
the TRF Utilization amount to a list of items disclosed to Members,
such as the margin balance, shortfall, and requirement for margin
accounts. Other changes to the Rule Book would be administrative, such
as the updating of rule references or re-working numbering to account
for added and amended provisions.
ii. CDS Clearing Procedures
The Proposed Rule Change would also modify the Procedures to
describe the changes related to the TRF Allowance.
Specifically, Section 2.3 would be renamed to add language
indicating that it will apply to the TRF Allowance and Credit
Tolerance. A new paragraph (e) will be added to the section describing
how these facilities would be used. For example, it will make clear
that the Available TRF Allowance, followed by available Credit
Tolerance, could be allocated by LCH SA to satisfy notional and
collateral checks prior to the novation of eligible transactions. LCH
SA would determine the maximum value of these facilities, and the TRF
Allowance would be notified to the Members, while the Credit Tolerance,
as also made clear in the Rule Book, would not. Additional language
would clarify that Members would not be able to direct these facilities
to any specific account, and that the facilities would become available
on a first in time basis, tied to the order in which LCH SA receives
and processes trades.
New paragraph (e) would also make clear that when a Member is
subject to a risk-reducing event, thereby freeing up collateral, it
would first be allocated to the Credit Tolerance, followed by the TRF
Allowance, if applicable, rather than other collateral posted by the
Member. In this way, the new facilities would always be drawn down
first. The paragraph would add a further clarification that the maximum
value of the TRF Allowance, normally consisting of several factors,
would also include the internal credit score of the Member.
Finally, changes would include references, where relevant, to the
Available TRF Allowance and Available Credit Tolerance, and other
technical amendments or corrections to typographical errors.
LCH SA has also proposed to make changes to Section 3 of the
Procedures. These changes would ensure that the TSF Allowance and the
Credit Tolerance are not currently utilized before LCH SA accepts a
request for the return of collateral to Clearing Members in certain
circumstances, such as for non-Euro denominated cash collateral as
outlined in paragraphs 3.8 (h) and (i), eligible collateral provided on
a bilateral basis as outlined in paragraph 3.10.1(c), or eligible
collateral held at the Bank of New York Mellon as outlined in paragraph
3.17(b).
Section 6 of the Procedures would also be amended by LCH SA to
incorporate the TRF Allowance and Credit Tolerance. Section 6.2 would
define terms relevant to the facilities, such as the TRF Contribution
Percentage, while Section 6.3 would explain the definition of the TRF
Initial Member. Section 6.5 would clarify that the CDS Default Fund is
equal the sum of the Combined Unmargined Risk and the TRF Allowance,
and state the formula that LCH SA uses to arrive at this calculation.
Finally, Article 4.4.1.3 of the Rule Book would be moved to the
Procedures, specifically amended Section 6.6. It will state the
operational changes to the CDS Default Fund, such as the separation of
the TRF Allowance
[[Page 58938]]
Amount from the CDS Default Fund, and the subsequent reduction of the
minimum ordinary contribution to [euro]7 million, along with a [euro]3
million minimum TRF contribution.
Section 8 of the Procedures LCH SA would also see amendments, as
paragraph 8.3(a) would make clear that multiple failures by a Member to
submit a complete price submission file could lead to an increase in
the ordinary contribution, but not the TRF Contribution.
iii. LCH Counterparty Credit Risk Policy
LCH SA has also proposed to make changes to the LCH Counterparty
Credit Risk Policy (``CCRP''). New section 9.7 would set daily credit
limits on TRF usage, expressed as a percentage of the total CDS Clear
TRF. It would also set a group cap whereby an affiliated group of
Members could not use TRF in excess of the sum of that group's Default
Fund contributions plus its TRF contributions. A table would be added,
which would make clear the limit on Member tolerance, or maximum TRF,
along with the group cap limit that is tied to an internal credit
score.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Policy makes clear that these limits are to be applied
daily per Clearing Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other changes to the CCRP would include changes unrelated to the
TRF. For example, Section 6.1, which requires that every relevant
counterparty, including certain non-US dormant Members, go through a
documented credit review before being onboarded, would also be subject
to a new review on a 12 months rolling basis, instead of just annually.
Section 6.2 would introduce new minimum Internal Credit Scores for two
categories of RepoClear sponsored clearing participants, including
Guaranteed Sponsored Members, formalizing a minimum creditworthiness
standard. Additionally, amendments to Section 6.3 of the Policy would
require that the LCH Executive Risk Committee (``ERCo'') sign off on
new Clearing Member applications, including cases where a member of one
of LCH SA's affiliated CCPs applies to join a different affiliated CCP,
and which would also implicate the new credit scoring rule. Changes
would also extend new participant categories within the CCRP, including
New Sponsored Clearing Agents and Guaranteeing Agent Members. Finally,
it would be made clear that existing Members that extend to a new
business line, or a different service, would need Credit Risk Team and
ERCo approval.
Certain annexes within the CCRP would also see revisions under the
Proposed Rule Change. Annex I of Section 9.2 would ensure that non-US
business Guaranteed Sponsored Members have their exposure monitoring
requirements tracked the same way as other sponsored participants,
while changes to Annex I under Section 9.3 would extend tracking of a
Member's stress-test losses and default fund contribution to the non-US
business RepoClear Guaranteed Sponsored Clearing structure. The
Guaranteeing Agents backing the Guaranteed Sponsored Members would have
their exposure expanded to also include the stress losses of the
Members they guaranty so that the exposure captures the risk an agent
takes on by guaranteeing others in addition to its own positions.\9\
And Annex I under Section 9.11 would create a new framework, the Credit
Risk Resources (``CRR''), which would tie additional resource
requirements to the combined credit quality of both the sponsored
Member and the Guaranteeing Agent, whereby a decline in the combined
credit quality would require greater stress-loss coverage and an
initial margin multiplier. The proposed rule change would amend a table
in Section 9.2 to add Guaranteed Sponsored Members. This change would
confirm that LCH SA monitors certain thresholds for Guaranteed
Sponosored Members daily, such as ICS and initial margin to net asset
value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Net of any prefunded resources already posted by the
guaranteeing agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\10\ 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.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
\11\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,\12\ 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.\13\ 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id.
\14\ 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 the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to LCH SA. More specifically, for the reasons given below,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\15\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) \16\
and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii)(B) \17\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\16\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(4)(i).
\17\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(6)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 LCH SA be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions.\18\
Based on a review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below,
the proposed changes by LCH SA are consistent with the promotion of the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions at LCH SA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCH SA's changes are designed to help ensure that transactions are
completed as entered. Without the TRF, Members face the prospect of
having trades rejected from clearing because of insufficient
collateral, including a collateral buffer, even when the insufficiency
may be covered by a subsequent margin call, as in intraday activities.
Indeed, LCH SA's policy is to reject trades where Members do not have
sufficient collateral, currently on deposit at LCH SA, to cover such
trades. The TRF, however, would help facilitate the acceptance of new
trades by allowing Members additional collateral leeway in the form of
forbearance, which LCH SA interprets as delaying collection of
additional collateral until the next collateral call, while having on
hand financial resources, in the form of the TRF, which LCH SA could
draw on
[[Page 58939]]
if needed in the event of a default.\19\ While Members would still be
required to make additional collateral deposits at subsequent
collateral calls, and to have their deposits into the TRF calculated
relative to its utilization, the TRF would allow submitted trades to
avoid immediate rejection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Notwithstanding Credit Tolerance, which would be unfunded,
though still subject to subsequent collateral calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proposed Rule Change therefore will promote the acceptance of
trades that may have otherwise been rejected, while ensuring that
sufficient collateral at LCH SA can support those trades. Therefore, it
will contribute to the prompt and accurate clearing of securities
transactions.
Changes to the CCRP, as well, help promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions. These changes
would allow LCH SA to improve its risk assessment. For example, the
exposure to LCH by Guaranteeing Agents, who are responsible for the
activities of Guaranteed Sponsored Members, would be subject to stress
losses in addition to those of their guarantees. In this way, LCH SA
can better account for the risk it undertakes, thereby protecting its
continued viability and ensuring it can continue to guarantee trades as
a central clearing counterparty.
Additional changes to the CCRP would also set daily credit limits
on the TRF usage, limiting LCH SA's credit exposure. The group cap on
TRF usage especially would limit the risk undertaken by LCH SA as it
would prevent multiple affiliated entities from each taking advantage
of individual Member Tolerance and thereby expose LCH SA to a potential
combined risk.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Consistency With Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(i) Under the Act
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) requires each covered clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, effectively identify,
measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and
those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes,
including by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its
credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of
confidence.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described above, LCH SA has designed the TRF Allowance to be
appropriately sized to the contributions of the respective Members, and
to the risk their activities expose LCH SA. For example, the TRF
Allowance will be funded, initially, by a minimum set contribution, and
then adjusted upwards to reflect the TRF Utilization of the Member, as
calculated by LCH SA. This facility is, therefore, a separate pool of
funds, funded by Members, which LCH SA can draw from on behalf of
Members in certain circumstances, and not a debt facility reliant on an
extension of credit. Additionally, LCH SA will only approve trades that
do not exceed collateral requirements as supplemented by the new TRF
Allowance and Credit Tolerance, and then require Members to deposit
additional collateral at the next collateral call. In this way, LCH SA
ensures that adequate collateral is always posted, even as it provides
more flexible ways for Members to post such collateral. Moreover,
because the facilities intended to be used will be pre-funded through
Member contributions, LCH SA will avoid risking the extension of
unfunded commitments. Member Tolerance would also ensure that
forbearance extensions are sized to each Member based on its
creditworthiness and contributions, while LCH SA's discretion in
requiring collateral transfers at any time to cover margin shortfall
would further support mitigation of its credit exposure.
These changes would help LCH SA better measure and manage credit
exposure in other ways. It would introduce new internal credit scores,
a new cadence of credit review, and formalize a new creditworthiness
standard for certain Members, which would mitigate credit exposure by
limiting unfunded Member transactions. Similarly, LCH SA's formula for
determining a Member's TRF Contribution would quantify a Member's draw
on the facility and ensure that contributions are related to usage,
thereby imposing costs on higher risk Members, which would also
ultimately mitigate credit exposure. Finally, LCH SA would also review
its exposure to the creditworthiness of sponsored member guarantors,
helping to ensure that LCH SA's risk management framework adequately
manages LCH SA's credit exposure associated with the TRF.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the
Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Consistency With Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(ii)(B) Under the Act
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii)(B) requires each covered clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, cover, if the covered
clearing agency provides central counterparty services, its credit
exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin
system that, at a minimum, monitors intraday exposures on an ongoing
basis.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(6)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCH SA would monitor a Member's use of the TRF on an intraday
basis. Before accepting for clearing and novating an intraday trade,
LCH SA will, among other things, conduct a Tolerance Check. As
discussed above, a Tolerance Check is the process by which LCH SA
determines whether there is sufficient Available TRF Allowance and, as
the case may be, sufficient Available Credit Tolerance, in respect of a
Member to satisfy the margin requirement for a new trade. Thus, LCH
will monitor, on an intraday basis, its exposures to Members through
the TRF. Additionally, the Proposed Rule Change incorporates additional
measurement functions within LCH SA's clearing model, such as
monitoring the credit exposure of GAMs alongside GSMs. By including
GSMs within a monitoring framework in order to determine credit risk
exposure, LCH SA could better ensure that trading activities, including
margin, are adequately funded.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii)(B) under
the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,\25\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) \26\ and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii)(B) \27\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\26\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(4)(i).
\27\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(6)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\28\ that the proposed rule change (SR-LCH SA-2026-006) be, and hereby
is, approved.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
\29\ 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).
[[Page 58940]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-19041 Filed 9-16-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 17, 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.