Notice2026-20074
Self-Regulatory Organizations; CME Securities Clearing Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To amend the CMESC Stress Testing & Guaranty Fund Sizing Policy and Proposed Amendments to Rule 402(b)
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
October 1, 2026
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 189 (Thursday, October 1, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 189 (Thursday, October 1, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62580-62584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20074]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-106516; File No. SR-CMESC-2026-006]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; CME Securities Clearing Inc.;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To amend the CMESC Stress Testing
& Guaranty Fund Sizing Policy and Proposed Amendments to Rule 402(b)
September 28, 2026.
I. Introduction
On August 6, 2026, CME Securities Clearing Inc. (``CMESC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed
rule change SR-CMESC-2026-006 (``Proposed Rule Change''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder. The Proposed Rule Change
would amend the CMESC Stress Testing & Guaranty Fund Sizing Policy (or
the ``Policy'') \3\ and amend Rule 402(b) of the CMESC Rulebook
(``CMESC Rules'').\4\ The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on August 18, 2026.\5\ The Commission
has received no comments on the changes proposed. For the reasons
discussed below, the
[[Page 62581]]
Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ As part of the Proposed Rule Change, CMESC filed, as Exhibit
5b, changes proposed to the Policy. Pursuant to 17 CFR 240.24b-2,
CMESC requested confidential treatment of the Exhibit 5b.
\4\ The CMESC Rules are available at <a href="https://www.cmegroup.com/rulebook/CMESC/CMESC%20Rulebook.pdf">https://www.cmegroup.com/rulebook/CMESC/CMESC%20Rulebook.pdf</a>. Terms not otherwise defined
herein are defined in the CMESC Rules or in the Proposed Rule
Change.
\5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 106131 (Aug. 13, 2026),
91 FR 53469 (Aug. 18, 2026) (File No. SR-CMESC-2026-006) (``Notice
of Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
Under the Policy, CMESC states that it performs stress testing to
estimate its exposures to participants that could result from the
realization of potential stress scenarios, such as extreme price
changes, multiple defaults, or changes in other valuation inputs and
assumptions.\6\ CMESC states that the Policy provides that stress
scenarios are built using historical and hypothetical market moves.\7\
CMESC further states that it uses identical stress scenarios for
purposes of credit stress testing and liquidity stress testing to
ensure that CMESC has adequate resources to manage its credit risk and
liquidity risk in extreme but plausible market conditions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, at 53469.
\7\ Id.
\8\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, at 53470.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMESC states that it currently uses the stress testing methodology
to size and maintain its Guaranty Fund.\9\ Specifically, the Guaranty
Fund is sized to cover an amount at least equal to the largest
theoretical loss to CMESC in excess of initial margin resulting from
the default of two member families (the ``cover two standard'').\10\ In
determining the largest theoretical loss resulting from the default of
two member families, CMESC measures the largest net debtor amount
(``LND'') at the Member Family-level, covering Member Accounts and the
User Accounts of a predefined number of Users with the largest credit
exposures at each Member.\11\ Under CMESC Rules, CMESC may maintain the
Guaranty Fund size at an amount larger than the cover two standard,
with a buffer based on CMESC's assessment of the cover two amounts,
volatility in the market, or for other reasons, in order to better
ensure that the Guaranty Fund meets the cover two standard between
official calculations and to prevent significant fluctuations of
Members' Required Guaranty Fund Contributions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, at 53469.
\10\ See CMESC Rule 402(a), supra note 4.
\11\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, at 53471.
\12\ See CMESC Rule 402(a), supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under CMESC Rules, a member's Required Guaranty Fund Contribution
is calculated based on each Member's proportionate share of the
aggregate Required Guaranty Fund Contribution and subject to a ten
million dollar minimum contribution amount.\13\ CMESC states that the
Policy provides the allocation of the Guaranty Fund to determine each
Member's Required Guaranty Fund Contribution amount be based on each
member's relative LND and its gross notional at a weight of 90% and
10%, respectively.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See CMESC Rule 402(b), supra note 4. CMESC states that each
Member's Required Guaranty Fund Contribution is calculated as the
greater of two amounts: (1) a minimum contribution requirement of
ten million dollars, or (2) the Member's proportionate share of the
Guaranty Fund. See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, at 53471.
\14\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, at 53471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Description of the Proposed Rule Change
CMESC proposes to amend the Policy to: (i) provide greater detail
in the description of its scenarios for stress testing, including the
historical and hypothetical stress scenarios it will employ for credit
stress testing and liquidity stress testing; (ii) provide further
explanation of the rationale for CMESC's methodology for sizing the
Guaranty Fund and the rationale for how Member contributions to the
Guaranty Fund are allocated, particularly regarding the weighted
components on which allocation of Members' contributions to the
Guaranty Fund are based; and (iii) make other minor changes to add
clarity and improve accuracy and readability of the Policy.\15\
Further, CMESC proposes to modify existing Rule 402(b) to clarify and
align the description of the Guaranty Fund allocation process across
its documentation.\16\ Each of the proposed changes is described in
more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, at 53469.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Proposed Amendments to the Description of the Stress Scenarios
First, the Proposed Rule Change would propose changes in the
introductory paragraph of Section 4.1 to clarify that the historical
and hypothetical market moves CMESC uses to build historical and
hypothetical scenarios are designed to represent extreme but plausible
market conditions. CMESC states that this clarification ensures the
Policy language is aligned with the requirements in Rule 17ad17ad-
22(e)(4)(iii) and 17ad-22(e)(7)(i) that stress scenarios contemplate
``extreme but plausible market conditions.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Proposed Rule Change would identify ``historical'' and
``hypothetical'' as two categories of stress scenarios in Section 4.1
by separating them into two subparagraphs and supplementing the
existing descriptions for each category. With respect to the historical
category of stress scenarios, the Proposed Rule Change would clarify
the process by which specific dates are selected and captured within
historical scenarios, i.e., through both quantitative and qualitative
evaluation methodologies. The Proposed Rule Change would further
propose to retain the current reference to ``market behavior'' in the
Policy and to remove the existing reference to ``observed and
projected'' market behavior. CMESC states that removing the terms
``observed and projected'' makes the distinction between historical and
hypothetical scenarios clearer.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the hypothetical category of stress scenarios, the
Proposed Rule Change would amend its existing description of
hypothetical scenarios to clarify that hypothetical scenarios will
include theoretically driven scenarios. The Proposed Rule Change
further clarifies that hypothetical scenarios shall not include
potential event-driven scenarios, as event-driven scenarios are
proposed to be reclassified and recategorized as a distinct type of
historical scenarios pursuant to CMESC's other proposed amendments to
Section 4.1 that are discussed in greater detail below.
Third, the Proposed Rule Change would add new text to Section 4.1
that describes how stress shocks applied within the stress testing
methodology are designed to capture different interest rate
environments. Specifically, the Proposed Rule Change would add new text
that will explain that in order to capture the effect of different
interest rate environments, the shocks that are calculated will be
based upon varying return types.
Fourth, the Proposed Rule Change would recategorize and rename the
three existing categories of stress scenarios set forth in Table 1
(Stress Scenario Categories as reflected in the proposed amendments) of
the Policy into the following three categories: (i) ``Historical: Risk
Factor Shocks'' scenarios, (ii) ``Historical: Event-Driven'' scenarios,
and (iii) ``Hypothetical'' scenarios. Further, the Proposed Rule Change
would change the description of the new stress scenarios in Table 1,
discussed in greater detail below. CMESC states that these proposed
changes to Table 1 are intended to provide greater clarity regarding
CMESC's stress testing methodology.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical: Risk Factor Shocks Scenarios
The Proposed Rule Change would make several changes to Table 1 for
the ``Historical'' scenario category. First, the
[[Page 62582]]
Proposed Rule Change would rename the category, designated as
``Historical: Risk Factor Shocks,'' separate from Historical Event-
Driven Shocks as described below. CMESC states that the renamed the
Historical: Risk Factor Shocks category will include additional
information on the risk factors considered in defining historical
scenarios based on risk factor shocks.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Proposed Rule Change would delete and replace the
existing description of historical scenarios to include those based on
a systematic application of quantitative filters across available risk
factor curves relevant to U.S. Treasury securities, including but not
limited to the on-the-run curve, the off-the-run curve, and the repo
curve, over a defined lookback period. Third, the current Policy
provides that historical dates that exhibit the largest curve movements
are to be considered as constituting historical scenarios. The Proposed
Rule Change would remove the term ``curve'' from the preceding
sentence. CMESC states that the word ``curve'' is unnecessarily
limiting given CMESC's consideration of other types of movements in
crafting historical scenarios.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, Table 1 of the current Policy describes the various risk
factors that may be considered by CMESC in identifying the largest
curvature movements for purposes of establishing historical scenarios.
The Proposed Rule Change would include additional information regarding
the specific risk factors considered in defining historical scenarios
based upon risk factor shocks. Using the defined risk factor curves
referenced above, CMESC would identify historical dates that exhibit
the largest movements. Further, the Proposed Rule Change would
characterize such identified historical dates as historical scenarios
that capture three distinct types of market scenarios: (i) such
scenarios that capture the largest upward and downward movements for
defined tenors on the applicable curves, which would be designated as
``individual tenor shocks''; (ii) such scenarios that capture
structural shifts across the curves, which would be designated as
``yield curve shape shocks''; and (iii) such scenarios that capture
uncorrelated risk factors that are identified using Principal Component
Analysis (``PCA''), to explain the majority of yield curve variances,
which would be designated as ``statistical risk identification.''
Fifth, within the yield curve shape shocks stress scenario, the
Proposed Rule Change would make changes to identify and describe the
types of shifts and movements that are considered across different risk
factor curves, including parallel shifts, slope movements, and
curvature movements.
Sixth, the Proposed Rule Change would define the specific tenors
for the risk factor curves that are currently being contemplated to be
used to identify the yield curve movements, while recognizing that the
defined tenors may change from time to time.
Seventh, regarding the application of PCA, the Proposed Rule Change
would make changes to highlight that CMESC identifies specific
historical dates that have statistically extreme results for the
defined components.
Historical: Event-Driven Scenarios
The Proposed Rule Change would make several changes to Table 1 for
the ``Event-Driven'' scenario category. First, the Proposed Rule Change
would make changes to refer to event-driven scenarios as a type of
historical scenario by renaming the event-driven scenario category as
the ``Historical: Event-Driven'' scenario. CMESC states that the
current Policy already accounts for this treatment of event-driven
scenarios and already includes the consideration of historical
scenarios designed to capture the effects of major historical event
shocks as stress scenarios.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Proposed Rule Change would clarify that the inclusion
of event-driven scenarios such as significant Federal Reserve rate
adjustments are designed to ensure that realized market dislocations
are appropriately captured in CMESC's stress testing methodology,
including those that fall outside the lookback period.
Third, the Proposed Rule Change would make additional amendments
regarding the historical nature of event-driven scenarios. CMESC states
that these additional amendments are proposed to support readability
and clarity without changing the construct of the scenarios
themselves.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, at 53471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothetical Scenarios
The Proposed Rule Change would make several changes to Table 1 for
the ``Hypothetical--Principal Component Analysis (``PCA'')'' scenario
category. First, the Proposed Rule Change would strike the reference to
``Principal Component Analysis (`PCA')'' from the name of the scenario
category, designating this category as ``Hypothetical.'' CMESC states
that this change would emphasize that hypothetical scenarios are
theoretically driven to capture potential future events with no direct
historical precedent.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id. CMESC also states that despite the term ``PCA'' being
removed from the name of the category, PCA will continue to be used
to determine hypothetical scenarios. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Proposed Rule Change would remove references that
characterize hypothetical scenarios as being event-driven.
Third, the Proposed Rule Change would outline in greater detail how
CMESC will construct hypothetical scenarios, which includes using a
systemic combination of principal components determined through PCA to
generate a comprehensive set of extreme by plausible market shocks.
Further, the Proposed Rule Change would make changes to specify that
the determination of component variances will consider two business
days of interest rate changes and detail how CMESC selects the number
of principal components to simulate curvature shifts. The Proposed Rule
Change would make changes to state that CMESC will ultimately create
the scenarios derived from PCA by using a combination of PCA scores for
the largest factors.
Fourth, the Proposed Rule Change would further specify that CMESC
will apply plausibility thresholds (defined at the tenor level based on
historical data) designed to ensure the PCA-generated scenario shocks
remain extreme but plausible.
Fifth, the Proposed Rule Change would make changes designed to
promote consistency across U.S. Treasury curves within the hypothetical
scenario shocks scenario category. CMESC states that these steps are
designed to recognize the relationships between relevant U.S. Treasury
curves (including the repo curve) within the hypothetical scenario
shocks, using appropriate adjustments or returns as appropriate.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, at 53471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed Amendments to the Explanation and Description of the
Guaranty Fund
Proposed Amendments to the Explanation of Guaranty Fund Sizing
The Proposed Rule Change would amend several footnotes located in
Section 5 of the Policy. First, the Proposed Rule Change would amend an
existing footnote in Section 5 of the Policy to further clarify the
applicability of the defined term ``Member Family'' to the stress
testing of CMESC's financial resources. Second, the Proposed Rule
Change would add a new footnote to
[[Page 62583]]
Section 5.2.1 of the Policy. This footnote pertains to the Guaranty
Fund sizing formula to clarify the rationale underpinning CMESC's
selection of the number of Users (i.e., the number of User Accounts)
that are considered in determining the cover two shortfall. The
proposed footnote further describes that the number of Users is
determined by CMESC's risk management team to capture the number of
Users that may be in Default if their Member were to Default under
extreme by plausible market conditions. CMESC states that the
clarifying footnote reflects with what is currently provided in the
CMESC Risk Management Framework.\26\ CMESC further states that the
addition of this footnote to Section 5.2.1 of the Policy will serve the
purpose of maintaining consistency and alignment across the related
policies implementing and administering the sizing of financial
resources and the management of credit risk exposures arising from
potential Defaults of Member Families to CMESC.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Amendments to the Description of Allocation of the Guaranty
Fund
The Proposed Rule Change would make two amendments to Section 5.2.2
of the Policy and one amendment to Rule 402(b) regarding the
description of the Guaranty Fund allocation.
First, the Proposed Rule Change would make changes to clarify the
term ``gross notional'' used in Section 5.2.2 refers to the gross
notional of outstanding securities transactions of a Member. Second,
the Proposed Rule Change would add a new footnote to Section 5.2.2 that
explains that the LND component in this dual-component methodology
aligns contributions with the tail risk (i.e., as captured by CMESC's
stress scenarios) that each Member (including as it relates to a
predefined number of its authorized Users) presents to CMESC. Further,
the proposed footnote will explain that the LND component is
complemented by the gross notional of outstanding securities
transactions component, which is designed to ensure that each Member is
subject to a certain level of potential mutualization risk via the
Guaranty Fund regardless of their tail risk. The proposed footnote
further explains that the weighting logic is designed to yield Guaranty
Fund allocations that capture the risk of each Member and to
incentivize active participation by Members in the close-out process in
the event of a Participant Default. CMESC states that this weighting
structure enhances the clarity of the Policy by providing the rationale
for complementation and administration of the allocation of the
Guaranty Fund.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the Proposed Rule Change would amend Rule 402(b) in two
separate locations to clarify the intended process and methodology for
allocating the Guaranty Fund to individual Members. Specifically, the
Proposed Rule Change would replace both references to ``Member Family''
in Rule 402(b) with references to ``Member.'' CMESC states that the
Member Family's activity is not intended to be part of the allocation
process for individual Members.\29\ Instead, the allocation of each
individual Member's Required Guaranty Fund Contribution is derived from
that individual Member's own LND and that individual Member's own gross
notional outstanding. CMESC states that this proposed amendment is
being made to reflect the intended allocation process.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, at 53472.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Other Minor Changes
The Proposed Rule Change would make several other minor changes to
the Policy. First, the Proposed Rule Change would make changes in
Section 4.1 (Stress Scenarios) to replace the term ``two day'' period
with the term ``two-business day'' period. Second, the Proposed Rule
Change would make changes in Section 1 (Purpose and Statement of
Policy) to replace the term ``present to'' with the term ``presented
to.'' Third, the Proposed Rule Change would make technical changes in
Section 4.2 (Review of Stress Testing Results & Methodology) by
replacing the word ``liquidity'' with ``liquid.'' Finally, the Proposed
Rule Change would make changes to Sectio 5.2.2 (SC Guaranty Fund
Allocation) to replace the term ``described above'' with the term ``for
each Member.'' CMESC states that these minor changes are designed to
add clarity and support readability of the Policy.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion and Commission Findings
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \32\ 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 rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. 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 CMESC. In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\33\ Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(iii),\34\ and
Rule 17ad-22(e)(7).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
\33\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\34\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(4)(iii).
\35\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of a clearing agency 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.\36\ The
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) for the
reasons discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described above in Section III., CMESC proposes to amend the
Policy to provide more detail to the description of how they will
implement their stress testing methodology, enhance the clarity of the
Policy, and clarify the intended operation of Rule 402(b). As described
in more detail above in Section II., the Policy was established by
CMESC to provide guidelines for monitoring, assessing, and mitigating
risks associated with the exposures arising from Participants'
position. Further, the Policy outlines how CMESC performs stress
testing to estimate its exposures to Participants that could result
from the realization of potential stress scenarios.
By providing clearer and more comprehensive descriptions of CMESC's
stress testing methodology and Guaranty Fund sizing and allocation
processes, the Proposed Rule Change should help CMESC to strengthen
CMESC's risk management documentation and support its ability to
maintain adequate financial resources. These changes should promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
by ensuring that CMESC has appropriate policies and procedures in place
to manage credit and liquidity risks in extreme but plausible market
conditions. The increased transparency regarding CMESC's stress testing
scenarios, financial resource sizing, and allocation mechanisms should
enable market participants to better understand and
[[Page 62584]]
have greater confidence in CMESC's risk management framework, thereby
supporting the efficiency and reliability of the clearing process.
Moreover, the clarifications regarding how financial resources are
sized and allocated should help to ensure the safeguarding of
securities and funds in the custody or control of CMESC.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Consistency With Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(iii)
Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(iii) under the Exchange Act requires that a
covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively
identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to
participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and
settlement processes by maintaining additional financial resources at a
minimum to enable it to cover a wide range of foreseeable stress
scenarios that include, but are not limited to, the default of the
participant family that would potentially cause the largest aggregate
credit exposure for the covered clearing agency in extreme but
plausible market conditions.\38\ The Proposed Rule Change is consistent
with Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(iii) under the Exchange Act for the reasons
stated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described above in more detail in Section II., the Policy was
established by CMESC to provide guidelines for monitoring, assessing,
and mitigating risks associated with the exposures arising from
Participants' position. Further, the Policy outlines how CMESC performs
stress testing to estimate its exposures to Participants that could
result from the realization of potential stress scenarios. As described
in more detail in Section III., the Proposed Rule Change provides more
detail to the description of how CMESC will implement its stress
testing methodology, enhances the clarity of the Policy and clarifies
the intended operation of Rule 402(b).
The Proposed Rule Change should help to enhance CMESC's stress
testing documentation by providing more detailed descriptions of (i)
the methodology for constructing and categorizing stress scenarios
(i.e., historical risk factor shocks, historical event-drive, and
hypothetical); (ii) how stress shocks are designed to capture different
interest rate environments; (iii) the specific construction logic for
historical scenarios, including individual tenor shocks, yield curve
shape shocks, and statistical risk identification using PCA; (iv) the
specific construction logic for hypothetical scenarios, including the
systematic combination of principal components, application of
plausibility thresholds, and promotion of curve consistency; and (v)
the rationale for the cover two standard, including the determination
of the appropriate number of Users to consider in calculating the LND
for the two Member Families with the largest exposures.
By clarifying and enhancing the documentation of these
methodologies within the Policy, the Proposed Rule Change should help
to strengthen CMESC's ability to maintain financial resources
sufficient to cover a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that
include, but are not limited to, the default of the participant family
that would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure for
the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the proposed rule change
is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(iii).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Consistency With Rule 17ad-22(e)(7)
Rule 17ad-22(e)(7) under the Exchange Act requires a covered
clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure,
monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by
the covered clearing agency.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section II., CMESC uses identical stress scenarios
for both credit stress testing and liquidity stress testing. By
clarifying and enhancing the documentation of stress scenarios and the
cover two standard in the manner described above in Section III., the
Proposed Rule Change should help to strengthen CMESC's ability to
maintain sufficient liquid resources to effect settlement of payment
obligations with a high degree of confidence under extreme but
plausible stress scenarios. Additionally, enhanced descriptions of
stress scenarios should provide greater transparency regarding CMESC's
liquidity stress testing methodology and how CMESC calculates and
maintains liquid resources necessary to effect settlement obligations
in extreme but plausible market conditions with a high degree of
confidence.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the proposed rule change
is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(7).\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Exchange Act and in particular with therequirements of Section 17A of
the Exchange Act \42\ and the rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act \43\ that proposed rule change SR-CMESC-2026-006 be, and
hereby is, approved.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
\44\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposals' 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.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-20074 Filed 9-30-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 1, 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.