Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74547 

18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 

19 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

20 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to 

give the Commission written notice of its intent to 

file the proposed rule change, along with a brief 

description and text of the proposed rule change, 

at least five business days prior to the date of filing 

of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time 

as designated by the Commission. The Exchange 

has satisfied this requirement. 

21 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 22 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Amendment No. 1 corrects the presentation of 

changes in Exhibit 5 by reflecting the deletion of the 

prior ‘‘Oversight of the Policy’’ section as part of the 

updated governance and oversight provisions. This 

amendment was filed with the Commission on 

August 24, 2023. 

4Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe 

Limited; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, 

as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to 

Amendments to its Operational Risk and Resilience 

Policy, Exchange Act Release No. 98237 (Aug. 29, 

2023); 88 FR 60727 (Sep. 5, 2023) (SR–ICEEU– 

2023–021) (‘‘Notice’’). 

5Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe 

Limited; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for 

Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change, as 

Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to 

Amendments to its Operational Risk and Resilience 

Policy; Exchange Act Release No. 98573 (Sep. 27, 

2023), 88 FR 68240 (Oct. 3, 2023) (File No. SR– 

ICEEU–2023–021). 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were solicited 

or received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The Exchange has filed the proposed 

rule change pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 18 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.19 Because the 

proposed rule change does not: (i) 

significantly affect the protection of 

investors or the public interest; (ii) 

impose any significant burden on 

competition; and (iii) become operative 

prior to 30 days from the date on which 

it was filed, or such shorter time as the 

Commission may designate, if 

consistent with the protection of 

investors and the public interest, the 

proposed rule change has become 

effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 

thereunder.20

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of such proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 21 of the Act to 

determine whether the proposed rule 

change should be approved or 

disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include file number SR– 

NYSEAMER–2023–49 on the subject 

line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to file 

number SR–NYSEAMER–2023–49. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549 on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also 

will be available for inspection and 

copying at the principal office of the 

Exchange. Do not include personal 

identifiable information in submissions; 

you should submit only information 

that you wish to make available 

publicly. We may redact in part or 

withhold entirely from publication 

submitted material that is obscene or 

subject to copyright protection. All 

submissions should refer to file number 

SR–NYSEAMER–2023–49 and should 

be submitted on or before November 21, 

2023. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.22

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23940 Filed 10–30–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–98799; File No. SR–ICEEU– 

2023–021] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE 

Clear Europe Limited; Order Approving 

Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by 

Amendment No. 1, Relating to 

Amendments to its Operational Risk 

and Resilience Policy 

October 25, 2023. 

I. Introduction 

On August 15, 2023, ICE Clear Europe 

Limited (‘‘ICE Clear Europe’’ or 

‘‘Clearing House’’) 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 Operational Risk and 

Resilience Policy (the ‘‘Policy’’). On 

August 24, 2023, ICE Clear Europe filed 

Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule 

change to make certain changes to the 

Exhibits 5.3 Notice of the proposed rule 

change, as modified by Amendment No. 

1, was published for comment in the 

Federal Register on September 5, 2023.4

On October 3, 2023, the Commission 

designated a longer period for 

Commission action on the proposed rule 

change until December 4, 2023.5 The 

Commission has not received comments 

regarding the proposed rule change. For 

the reasons discussed below, the 

Commission is approving the proposed 

rule change, as modified by Amendment 

No. 1 (hereinafter ‘‘the Proposed Rule 

Change’’). 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 

A. Background 

ICE Clear Europe is registered with 

the Commission as a clearing agency for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74548 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

6The Policy defines operational risk as the risk 

of an event occurring which negatively impacts the 

achievement of business objectives resulting from 

inadequate or failed internal operational controls, 

people, systems, or external events. 

7See Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear 

Europe Limited; Order Approving Proposed Rule 

Change Relating to ICE Clear Europe Operational 

Risk and Resilience Policy, Exchange Act Release 

No. 96351 (Nov. 18, 2022); 87 FR 72553 (Nov. 25, 

2022) (SR–ICEEU–2022–015). 

8For more information regarding the changes 

relating to the Outsourcing and Third Party Risk 

Management Policy, See Self-Regulatory 

Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order 

Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by 

Amendment No. 1 and Partial Amendment No. 2, 

Relating to Amendments to the Outsourcing Policy, 

Exchange Act Release No. 98387 (Sep. 14, 2023); 88 

FR 64953 (Sep. 20, 2023) (SR–ICEEU–2023–018). 9Following publication of the Notice, the 

Commission approved ICE Clear Europe’s proposed 

change to the name of the Outsourcing Policy, as 

well as other changes to the Outsourcing Policy. See 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe 

Limited; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, 

as Modified by Amendment No. 1 and Partial 

Amendment No. 2, Relating to Amendments to the 

Outsourcing Policy, Exchange Act Release No. 

98387 (Sep. 14, 2023); 88 FR 64953 (Sep. 20, 2023) 

(SR–ICEEU–2023–019). 

10The Clearing House requires that for each 

important business service, the following 

dependencies must be identified: people, processes, 

technology, facilities, and underlying information. 

11Enteprise Risk Management is the Second Line 

of defense and is responsible for challenging the 

First Line and monitoring adherence to the 

requirement of this policy. Key Controls have an 

expected high level of mitigation and the associated 

risks have an inherent risk score of ‘‘High’’ or ‘‘Very 

High’’. First Line refers to the defense (or Risk 

Owner) responsible for managing the risks to within 

the Board appetite and ensuring adherence to all 

the requirements in the Policy. 

the purpose of clearing security-based 

swaps. In its role as a clearing agency 

for security-based swaps, ICE Clear 

Europe maintains the Policy to address 

how ICE Clear Europe identifies, 

assesses, manages, monitors, and reports 

its operational risks. ICE Clear Europe is 

proposing to amend the Policy to add 

new scenario analysis and testing 

relating to operational risk and 

resilience, require that ICE Clear Europe 

assess emerging risks, and update the 

review process for the Policy. The 

Policy has five sections: (1) 

Introduction, (2) Operational Risk and 

Resilience Framework, (3) Risk and 

Control Assessments, (4) Governance 

and Oversight, and (5) Appendix. To 

effect these amendments, the Proposed 

Rule Change would amend all sections 

except the Introduction, renumber or 

relabel various provisions throughout 

the Policy, and update the version 

history to reflect these changes. 

B. Operational Risk and Resilience 

Framework 

Section 2 of the Policy, ‘‘Operational 

Risk and Resilience Framework,’’ 

describes the overall framework that ICE 

Clear Europe uses to address operational 

risk 6 and maintain operational 

resilience. Specifically, ICE Clear 

Europe uses this framework to reduce 

the likelihood of an operational 

disruption event within acceptable 

tolerance, and mitigate and quickly 

recover from an operational disruption 

event. In addition to the Policy itself, 

the policies and procedures in the 

framework are: (i) the Incident 

Management Policy; (ii) the Business 

Continuity & Disaster Recovery Policy; 

(iii) the Information Security Policy and 

Cyber Security Strategy; (iv) the 

Outsourcing Policy; and (v) the Vendor 

Management Policy.7

ICE Clear Europe proposes to update 

the description of the operational risk 

and resilience framework to reflect the 

new name of the Outsourcing Policy. 

ICE Clear Europe recently changed the 

name of the Outsourcing Policy to the 

Outsourcing and Third Party Risk 

Management Policy, and the Proposed 

Rule Change would reflect this update.8

The Proposed Rule Change also would 

add language to reflect that the updated 

policy has been approved by the Board 

and is pending regulatory approval.9

ICE Clear Europe proposes to update 

the description of its scenario analysis 

and testing found in Section 2.6 of the 

Policy. As noted in the Policy, ICE Clear 

Europe has scenario analysis and testing 

in place to identity any operational 

resilience weakness, and it conducts 

such testing on important business 

services to determine if it can remain 

within the impact tolerances under a 

range of extreme but plausible 

disruption scenarios. ICE Clear Europe 

proposes to make additions to this 

section without deleting any language, 

except for one exception noted below 

relating to the Board. 

Specifically, the Proposed Rule 

Change would add a requirement that 

the Clearing House must maintain an 

inventory of scenarios for the purposes 

of scenario analysis and testing. 

Moreover, the Policy currently specifies 

that the testing should include scenarios 

which disrupt more than one important 

business service simultaneously and 

take into account dependencies.10 The 

Proposed Rule Change would specify 

that such dependencies should be both 

internal and external. The Proposed 

Rule Change would also add language 

stating that a portion of the scenarios 

should be identified and selected for 

reverse stress testing (through a 

practical test where possible or a desk 

top exercise), and that, over a three-year 

cycle, all scenarios would have to be 

tested at least once by either a practical 

test or a desk top exercise. In addition, 

the inventory of scenarios would need 

to be reviewed on at least an annual 

basis in order to determine if the 

scenarios are still fit for purpose and if 

updates are required. The annual review 

of the inventory would be the 

responsibility of the First Line with 

Second Line review, and would be 

approved by the Executive Risk 

Committee (‘‘ERC’’).11 The ERC would 

also be responsible for approving any 

changes to the list of scenarios outside 

of the annual review cycle. The detailed 

scope of the testing based on the 

scenarios in the inventory and the 

results of testing and assessment against 

the risk register would be shared with 

the Second Line for review. The 

Proposed Rule Change would also 

specify that the scenario analysis and 

testing results would be submitted to 

the ERC or relevant Board subcommittee by removing a reference to 

the Board and replacing it with the 

relevant Board sub-committee. 

C. Risk and Control Assessments 

Section 3 of the Policy, ‘‘Risk and 

Control Assessments,’’ addresses the 

process that identifies, assesses, 

manages, monitors, and reports 

operational risk. The Proposed Rule 

Change would add a new section on 

control validation and assessment, 

outlining that upon entry to the risk 

register or when a material change is 

made to a Key Control, Enterprise Risk 

Management (‘‘ERM’’) will confirm that 

validation of Key Controls is carried out. 

Additionally, the amendments would 

state that validation may be verified 

directly by ERM or through ERM’s 

oversight of validations performed by 

the First Line. The amendments would 

also replace two references to control 

testing with control validation 

throughout the Policy to be consistent 

with the new section. The Proposed 

Rule Change does not redefine control 

testing and is meant to align with the 

Clearing House’s Global Enterprise Risk 

Management Policy. 

In Section 3.2, ‘‘Risk Assessment,’’ the 

amendments would address emerging 

risks by adding a paragraph stating that 

there should be an assessment of the 

Velocity for emerging risks. Velocity 

would be defined as an estimate of the 

time frame within which impact of a 

risk may be realized, and would be 

considered as an additional factor 

utilized in prioritizing Emerging Risks. 

Other non-substantive drafting 

clarifications would be made in this 

section, such as renumbering to account 

for the new section on control 

validation and assessment. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74549 

12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C). 

13 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

14 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(2)(v) and (e)(17). 

15 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

D. Governance and Oversight 

In Section 4, ‘‘Governance and 

Oversight,’’ the amendments would add 

three new sections: ‘‘Reviews,’’ ‘‘Breach 

Management,’’ and ‘‘Exception 

Handling.’’ 

The ‘‘Reviews’’ section would replace 

the previous ‘‘Oversight of the Policy’’ 

section, which stated only that the 

Policy is subject to the oversight of the 

Risk Oversight Department and that 

failure to comply with the Policy shall 

be escalated to the Board. This 

statement must be removed to ensure 

consistency with the Operational Risk 

and Resilience Framework section 

discussed above, which specifies that 

the First Line of defense is responsible 

for ensuring adherence to all the 

requirements in the Policy, with the 

Risk Oversight Department and 

Enterprise Risk Management acting as 

the Second Line of defense, with 

responsibility for challenging the First 

Line and monitoring adherence to the 

requirement of the Policy. 

Instead, the new ‘‘Reviews’’ section of 

the Policy would include a number of 

provisions governing the oversight and 

review of the Policy. First, it would 

specify that the owner of the Policy 

would be responsible for ensuring that 

the Policy remains up to date and is 

reviewed in accordance with ICE Clear 

Europe’s governance processes. It would 

also provide that, unless otherwise 

stated, a document review will be 

conducted by the document owner and/ 

or relevant staff as appropriate, with 

sign off being provided by the head of 

the department (or their delegate) and 

the Chief Risk Officer. Such document 

reviews would need to encompass, at a 

minimum, regulatory compliance; 

documentation and purpose; 

implementation; use; and open items 

from previous validations or reviews 

(where appropriate). The results of the 

review, including any findings, would 

need to be reported to ICE Clear 

Europe’s Executive Risk Committee, 

along with the priority of findings, 

proposed remediations, and target due 

date to remediate the findings. Finally, 

the ‘‘Reviews’’ section would specify 

that the document owner will aim to 

remediate the findings, complete 

internal governance, and receive 

regulatory approvals (where applicable) 

before the next annual review is due. 

The new ‘‘Breach Management’’ 

section would specify that the 

document owner would be responsible 

for reporting material breaches or 

unapproved deviations from the Policy 

to their Head of Department, the Chief 

Risk Officer, and the Head of Regulation 

and Compliance (or, as applicable, their 

respective delegates). Those individuals 

together would determine if further 

escalation should be made to relevant 

senior executives, the Board, and/or 

competent authorities. 

Finally, the new ‘‘Exception 

Handling’’ section would specify that 

exceptions to the Policy must be 

approved in accordance with ICE Clear 

Europe’s governance process for the 

approval of changes, which would only 

take effect after completion of all 

necessary internal and regulatory 

approvals. 

E. Appendix 

The Proposed Rule Change also 

would modify and update three of the 

appendixes, add one new appendix, and 

remove a section from one appendix. 

Specifically, the Proposed Rule 

Change would modify and update the 

table included as Appendix D, 

‘‘Assessment of Expected Level of Risk 

Mitigation,’’ by renaming the current 

‘‘Mitigation’’ column as ‘‘Rating’’ and 

adding a new column labeled 

‘‘Examples,’’ which would include 

specific examples for each level of 

rating (high, medium, and low). 

The Proposed Rule Change would 

update and modify the table included as 

Appendix E, ‘‘Control Effectiveness 

Ratings,’’ by renaming the current 

‘‘Effectiveness’’ and ‘‘Guidelines’’ 

columns as ‘‘Rating’’ and ‘‘Control 

Assessment Guidelines,’’ respectively. 

In addition, an additional bullet point 

would be in the guideline column for 

the ‘‘Unsatisfactory’’ rating, specifying 

that this rating would apply where the 

control validation and/or assessment 

and audit programs result in major 

findings. 

The columns for the table included as 

Appendix F, ‘‘Control Remediation 

Recommendation & Timelines,’’ 

(Appendix F) would also be renamed. 

The current heading labeled Control 

Effectiveness would be renamed to 

Control Effectiveness Rating, and the 

heading labeled Mitigation would be 

renamed to Level of Risk Mitigation. In 

addition, for the scenario with a Control 

Effectiveness Rating of Needs 

Improvement and a High Level of Risk 

Mitigation, the recommendation would 

be changed from Medium to High. 

A new table would be added as 

Appendix G, ‘‘Velocity Assessment 

Guidance,’’ in connection with the 

amendments to Section 3.2 discussed 

above relating to an assessment of the 

velocity of emerging risks. This section 

would include a chart separating the 

Velocity Rating into categories of 

Immediate (less than six months), Short 

Term (between six and 18 months), and 

Medium Term (greater than 18 months), 

and a description noting that each rating 

is assessed based on the time in which 

the impact of a risk may be realized if 

the risk is unmitigated (e.g., an 

immediate risk is one for which the 

impact may be realized within six 

months of the risk event occurring if the 

risk is unmitigated). 

Finally, the amendments would 

remove the section labeled Control 

Testing Scope following the chart on 

Risk Mitigation in Appendix H, to 

conform to the change in the Policy to 

refer to control validation rather than 

control testing. 

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.12 For 

the reasons discussed below, the 

Commission finds that the Proposed 

Rule Change is consistent with Section 

17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,13 and Rules 

17Ad–22(e)(2)(v) and 17Ad–22(e)(17) 

thereunder.14

i. 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 ICE Clear Europe be designed to 

promote the prompt and accurate 

clearance and settlement of securities 

transactions and, to the extent 

applicable, derivative agreements, 

contracts, and transactions.15 Based on 

its review of the record, and for the 

reasons discussed below, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

changes to the Policy are consistent 

with the promotion of the prompt and 

accurate clearance and settlement of 

securities transactions. 

As a registered clearing agency, ICE 

Clear Europe faces a number of 

operational risks that could impact or 

threaten its ability to clear and settle 

transactions if they are not eliminated or 

mitigated. As noted above, ICE Clear 

Europe maintains the Policy to address 

how it identifies, assesses, manages, 

monitors, and reports such operational 

risks. Improving or enhancing the Policy 

likewise improves or enhances ICE 

Clear Europe’s ability to manage or 

mitigate its operational risks and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74550 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

16 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

17 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(2)(v). 

18 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(2)(v). 

19 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(17). 

20 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(17). 

21 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

22 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(2)(v) and (e)(17). 

23 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

24 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). 

25 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

therefore ensure that it can continue to 

clear and settle securities transactions. 

For example, as discussed above, the 

Proposed Rule Change would update 

the Policy to require ICE Clear Europe 

to maintain an inventory of scenarios for 

the purposes of scenario analysis and 

testing, which inventory would need to 

be reviewed on at least an annual basis 

in order to determine if the scenarios are 

still fit for purpose and if updates are 

required. These new requirements 

should help ensure that ICE Clear 

Europe personnel identify and maintain 

an appropriate inventory of scenarios, 

determine in a timely manner if updates 

to the inventory or scenarios are needed, 

and identify any gaps and necessary 

resolutions or updates to the inventory 

and scenarios sooner than what is 

currently required. 

Taken together, these enhancements 

to the Policy should enhance ICE Clear 

Europe’s operational resilience, which 

in turn should decrease the likelihood 

that operational incidents would disrupt 

its ability to promptly and accurately 

clear and settle securities transactions. 

Accordingly, the Commission finds that 

the Proposed Rule Change is consistent 

with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.16

ii. Consistency With Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(2)(v) 

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(2)(v) require that ICE 

Clear Europe establish, implement, 

maintain, and enforce written policies 

and procedures reasonably designed to 

provide governance arrangements that, 

among other things, are clear and 

transparent and specify clear and direct 

lines of responsibility.17

As discussed above, the Proposed 

Rule Change would add new sections to 

the Policy addressing reviews, breach 

management, and exception handling. 

Among other things, the section 

addressing reviews would make the 

document owner responsible for 

ensuring that the Policy remains up-todate and is reviewed in accordance with 

ICE Clear Europe’s governance 

processes. Additionally, document 

reviews will be conducted by the 

document owner and signed off by the 

head of the department (or their 

delegate) and the Chief Risk Officer. 

These reviews would encompass, at a 

minimum, regulatory compliance; 

documentation and purpose; 

implementation; use; and, where 

appropriate, open items from previous 

validations or reviews. 

Under the new section covering 

breach management, the document 

owner also would be responsible for 

reporting material breaches or 

unapproved deviations from the Policy 

to their Head of Department, the Chief 

Risk Officer, and the Head of Regulation 

and Compliance (or, as applicable, their 

respective delegates). 

Under the new section addressing 

exception handling, exceptions to the 

Policy would need to be approved in 

accordance with ICE Clear Europe’s 

governance process for the approval of 

changes, and could only take effect after 

completion of all necessary internal and 

regulatory approvals. 

Additionally, the Proposed Rule 

Change would add a new section to the 

Policy on control validation and 

assessment, outlining that upon entry to 

the risk register or when a material 

change is made to a Key Control, ERM 

will confirm that validation of Key 

Controls is carried out. The Proposed 

Rule Change would also amend the 

Policy to state that validation may be 

verified directly by ERM or through 

ERM’s oversight of validations 

performed by the First Line. 

Taken together, these changes would 

help establish clear and direct 

responsibilities for the document owner 

of the Policy. Accordingly, the 

Commission finds that the Proposed 

Rule Change is consistent with Rule 

17Ad–22(e)(2)(v).18

iii. Consistency With Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(17) 

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(17) requires that ICE 

Clear Europe establish, implement, 

maintain, and enforce written policies 

and procedures reasonably designed to 

manage its operational risks by, among 

other things, identifying the plausible 

sources of operational risk, both internal 

and external, and mitigating their 

impact through the use of appropriate 

systems, policies, procedures, and 

controls.19

By adding a requirement to maintain 

an inventory of scenarios for the 

purposes of scenario analysis and test 

and review those scenarios annually, 

the Proposed Rule Change would 

support ICE Clear Europe’s ability to 

identify plausible sources of operational 

risk, both internal and external, and 

mitigate their impact through the Policy, 

which supports Ice Clear Europe’s 

efforts to manage and mitigate its 

operational risks. Accordingly, the 

Commission finds that the Proposed 

Rule Change is consistent with Rule 

17Ad–22(e)(17).20

IV. Conclusion 

On the basis of the foregoing, the 

Commission finds that the Proposed 

Rule Change, as modified by 

Amendment no. 1, is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act, and in 

particular, with the requirements of 

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,21 and 

Rules 17Ad–22(e)(2)(v) and 17Ad– 

22(e)(17) thereunder.22

It is therefore ordered pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 23 that the 

Proposed Rule Change (SR–ICEEU– 

2023–021) be, and hereby is, 

approved.24

For the Commission, by the Division 

of Trading and Markets, pursuant to 

delegated authority.25

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23941 Filed 10–30–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. PA–61; File No. S7–19–23] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of a new system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC) proposes to establish 

SEC–36, Harassment Prevention and 

Response Program Records under the 

Privacy Act of 1974. The information in 

the system concerns internal inquiries 

and/or investigations into allegations of 

harassment reported to SEC by 

applicants for employment, current and 

former SEC employees, fellows, interns, 

and individuals who conduct business 

with the SEC; and resolutions of 

allegations of workplace harassment. 

The Harassment Prevention and 

Response Program addresses harassment 

concerns that are raised separate and 

apart from harassment claims that may 

also be raised under the procedures for 

administrative equal employment 

opportunity complaints. 

DATES: The system of records will 

become effective October 31, 2023, with 

the exception of the routine uses, which 

will become effective November 30, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1