101666 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2024 / Notices 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Securities Exchange Act Release No. 100935 

(Sept. 5, 2024), 89 FR 73734 (Sept. 11, 2024) (File 

No. SR–ICC–2024–005) (‘‘Notice’’). 

4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

5Securities Exchange Act Release No. 101440 

(Oct. 25, 2024), 89 FR 86867 (Oct. 31, 2024) (File 

No. SR–ICC–2024–005). 

6Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein 

have the meanings assigned to them in ICC’s 

Clearing Rules or the Treasury Policy, as applicable. 

7Notice, 89 FR at 73734. 

8 ICC also proposes several non-substantive 

changes to the Treasury Policy. For example, the 

current Treasury Policy notes that ‘‘Treasury 

reconciles daily and previous day cash and 

collateral balances.’’ This language would be 

modified to read ‘‘Treasury reconciles daily: current 

and previous day cash and non-cash collateral 

balances.’’ 

9Notice, 89 FR at 73736. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12 ICE Clear Credit LLC Treasury Operations 

Policies and Procedures. 

13Notice, 89 FR at 73737. 

14 Id. These changes also would apply where ICC 

invests Guaranty Fund and Margin cash in reverse 

repos. As explained below, in certain 

circumstances, ICC may invest in reverse repos USD 

cash posted by Clearing Participants to satisfy 

Guaranty Fund and Margin requirements. See infra 

Section II.3. 

15Notice, 89 FR at 73737. 

16 Id. 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–101871; File No. SR–ICC– 

2024–005] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE 

Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to 

ICC’s Treasury Operations Policies 

and Procedures 

December 10, 2024 

I. Introduction 

On August 22, 2024, ICE Clear Credit 

LLC (‘‘ICC’’), filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to 

revise the ICC Treasury Operations 

Policies and Procedures (‘‘Treasury 

Policy’’) (‘‘Proposed Rule Change’’). The 

Proposed Rule Change was published 

for comment in the Federal Register on 

September 11, 2024.3

On October 25, 2024, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,4

the Commission designated a longer 

period within which to approve, 

disapprove, or institute proceedings to 

determine whether to approve or 

disapprove the Proposed Rule Change, 

until December 10, 2024.5 The 

Commission has not received any 

comments on the Proposed Rule 

Change. For the reasons discussed 

below, the Commission is approving the 

Proposed Rule Change. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 

ICC is registered with the Commission 

as a clearing agency for the purpose of 

clearing CDS contracts.6 Its Treasury 

Policy contains policies and procedures 

used to support the ICC Treasury 

Department (‘‘Treasury Department’’). 

The Treasury Department manages ICC’s 

margin and guaranty fund assets posted 

by Clearing Participants as collateral.7

The Proposed Rule Change would 

make a number of changes to the 

Treasury Policy that fit into seven 

categories: (i) additions to the minimum 

criteria for ICC’s settlement banks; (ii) 

alterations to the investment guidelines 

contained in the Treasury Policy; (iii) 

clarifications that add detail to the 

Treasury Policy; (iv) increases to the 

breadth of certain Treasury Policy 

provisions; (v) various corrections to the 

Treasury Policy; (vi) deletion of 

unnecessary language from the Treasury 

Policy; and (vii) certain changes to make 

the Treasury Policy more consistent 

with federal and ICC rules.8

1. Minimum Criteria for Settlement 

Banks 

ICC maintains relationships with 

various settlement banks to facilitate the 

holding and movement of Margin and 

Clearing Fund cash and collateral 

between ICC and its Clearing 

Participants.9 The current Treasury 

Policy includes standards and criteria 

that settlement banks must meet in 

order to be considered for such a 

relationship with ICC, including 

capitalization, operational capability, 

and regulatory supervision.10 To aid in 

ICC’s management of liquidity risk 

arising from settlement arrangements 

with these banks, the Proposed Rule 

Change would add a requirement that a 

settlement bank provide ICC with 

specific liquidity information.11 An 

example of liquidity information that 

ICC requires from settlement banks is 

the banks’ Liquidity Coverage Ratio. In 

the event that a bank does not report 

LCR, the Proposed Rule Change would 

specify that ICC will consider other 

criteria to assess the liquidity of the 

bank. These other criteria may include 

a description of the bank’s liquidity risk 

management policy or the liquidity 

coverage ratio of the settlement bank’s 

affiliated reporting entity within the 

bank’s group. 

2. Investment Guidelines 

The Treasury Policy governs ICC’s 

investment strategy for its own 

operating capital and for the Margin and 

Guaranty Fund cash collateral that it 

holds. That strategy is designed to 

provide yield with reduced credit and 

market risk while preserving liquidity 

and principal.12

With respect to ICC’s operating 

capital, currently, the Treasury Policy 

requires ICC to invest operating capital 

in either bank deposits or in U.S. 

Treasury/Agency reverse repurchase 

agreements (‘‘repos’’). However, in the 

event that bank deposits or reverse 

repos are unavailable or not feasible, 

ICC may make direct investments in 

U.S. Treasury securities with a maturity 

of no greater than 98 days.13

With respect to reverse repos, the 

current Treasury Policy requires that the 

value of treasury collateral received by 

ICC must be between 100.5 percent and 

102 percent of the invested U.S. Dollar 

amount. The Proposed Rule Change 

would eliminate this range and instead 

require that the value of the treasury 

collateral received by ICC be 102 

percent of the invested U.S. Dollar 

amount. ICC believes this change would 

reflect current market practice and 

provide greater protection to ICC.14

In addition, to provide ICC with 

greater flexibility to implement its 

investment strategy while still 

maintaining the quality of its 

investments,15 the Proposed Rule 

Change would eliminate the current 

limitation on the Treasury Department’s 

ability to invest operating capital in U.S. 

Treasury securities only if bank deposits 

or reverse repos are unavailable or 

infeasible and instead allow ICC’s 

Treasury Department the discretion to 

invest operating capital in bank 

deposits, reverse repos, or U.S. Treasury 

securities with a final maturity of no 

greater than 98 days. The Proposed Rule 

Change also would specify that ICC 

would primarily directly invest in U.S. 

Treasury securities with respect to 

stable balances, for example, restricted 

cash held for regulatory capital 

purposes.16

3. Additions of Clarifying Details 

The Proposed Rule Change would add 

clarifying details to the Treasury Policy. 

In a discussion of the Treasury 

Department’s responsibilities, the 

Proposed Rule Change would add a 

sentence explaining that ICC’s capacity 

to facilitate the prompt and accurate 

clearance and settlement of securities 

transactions and derivative agreements, 

contracts, and transactions for which 

ICC is responsible, and to safeguard 

securities and funds in ICC’s custody or 

control for which it is responsible, is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2024 / Notices 101667 

17Notice, 89 FR at 73734. 

18 Id. For example, ICC proposes that a 

description of one of the Treasury Department’s 

responsibilities should indicate that it works with 

Clearing Participants to assist with other cash and 

non-cash collateral related requests rather than cash 

and collateral related requests. Similar changes are 

also made in the introduction to the Treasury 

Department section and the Funds Management, 

Types of Funds section of the Treasury Policy. 

19Notice, 89 FR at 73734. 

20 Id. at 73735. 

21 Id. ICC’s proposal would incorporate Margin 

and other related defined terms throughout the 

Treasury Policy. 

22Unlike the term Client Positions, Client-Related 

Positions is a term defined in ICC Rule 102. 

23 Id. at 73735. The Proposed Rule Change would 

indicate that Initial Margin collateral is maintained 

and managed separately for Clearing Participant 

House Positions (‘‘House Margin’’) and clearing 

activities associated with indirect participant or 

client positions (i.e., Client-Related Margin referred 

to in the Treasury Policy as ‘‘Client Margin’’). The 

definitions for House Position, Client-Related 

Positions, and Client Related Margin (Client-Related 

Initial Margin) are in Rule 102 of the ICC Rule Book. 

24Notice, 89 FR at 73735. 

25 Id. 

26 Id. ICC also proposes replacing Trade Payments 

with transaction payments in this provision. 

27 Id. at 73736. 

28 Id. 

29 Id. 

30 Id. at 73737. 

31 Id. These procedures include cite checks for 

validating the status of margin payments; a check 

of prior-day cash balances, withdrawals, and/or 

deposits; and a comparison of current and expected 

balances. 

32 Id. at 73737. 

aided by the Treasury Department. ICC 

also proposes clarifying that references 

to the Guaranty Fund in the Treasury 

Policy are to the General Guaranty Fund 

as defined in ICC Rule 102.17 The 

Proposed Rule Change would modify 

certain current references to ‘‘cash and 

collateral’’ and ‘‘cash or collateral’’ to 

‘‘cash and non-cash collateral’’ and 

‘‘cash and/or non-cash collateral,’’ 

respectively.18 It also would modify the 

current description of the Treasury 

Department as being responsible for 

managing postings by ICC Clearing 

Participants to a statement that the 

Treasury Department is responsible for 

managing Guaranty Fund collateral 

postings by ICC Clearing Participants.19

In the Treasury Department 

Organizational Structure and 

Governance subsection of the Treasury 

Policy, ICC also proposes adding text to 

clarify that the Treasury Director 

oversees the Treasury Department and 

reports to the ICC Chief Operating 

Officer.20

Where ICC describes the types of 

funds it manages, ICC proposes 

specifying that the definition for Margin 

is in Rule 102 of ICC’s Clearing Rules 

and that the Treasury Policy would refer 

to Initial Margin and Mark-to-Market 

Margin collectively as Margin.21

Similarly, the Proposed Rule Change 

would highlight the location of 

definitions for House Margin, ClientRelated Positions, and Client-Related 

Margin; clarify that the Treasury Policy 

would use the term Client Positions in 

place of Client-Related Positions; 22 and 

give a definition of House Margin and 

Client-Related Margin.23

ICC also proposes adding clarifying 

language to a subsection of the Treasury 

Policy discussing ICC’s investment of 

US Dollar cash.24 This language would 

identify the Federal Reserve Bank 

(‘‘FRB’’) of Chicago as a central bank. 

The amendments would also clarify that 

if ICC is unable to deposit all or a 

portion of its Guaranty Fund and 

Margin that was posted as USD cash at 

its FRB accounts, ICC’s Treasury 

Department may invest such cash in US 

Treasury/Agency reverse repurchase 

agreements rather than Treasury/Agency 

reverse repurchase agreements. 

Similarly, in a subsection of the 

Treasury Policy addressing liquidity 

protection, ICC proposes specifying that 

it would call additional Initial Margin, 

rather that additional margin, if a 

Clearing Participant does not meet 

certain liquidity requirements.25

The Proposed Rule Change would 

also add detail to the Cash Settlement 

section of the Treasury Policy. ICC 

proposes adding options premia and 

interest on Mark-to-Market Margin to a 

list of Transaction Payments in order to 

reflect current ICC practice.26 In a 

discussion of ICC’s direct settlement 

model, ICC also proposes adding detail 

to clarify its settlement operations.27

Specifically, ICC would add text 

indicating that in the direct settlement 

model, Clearing Participants must 

establish settlement bank arrangements 

and make all requested payments to ICC 

within the required timeframe. The 

Treasury Policy would be further 

updated to note that, under the direct 

settlement model, ICC does not 

maintain accounts at each of the 

Clearing Participant settlement banks. 

Instead, ICC maintains direct debit 

authority over the Clearing Participant 

settlement bank accounts as such 

authority is granted by each Clearing 

Participant. 

ICC’s proposal would also add detail 

to the discussion of Clearing Participant 

requirements for direct settlement. 

Specifically, ICC proposes clarifying 

that, under the direct settlement model, 

Clearing Participants are responsible for 

ensuring that ICC has timely received all 

requested payments. If timely payment 

is not received, the Clearing Participant 

may be declared to be in default of its 

obligations to ICC. This proposed 

addition is meant to clarify ICC’s 

existing practices.28

In relation to the description of ICC’s 

daily settlement process in the Treasury 

Policy, ICC proposes additions that 

would describe current practice.29 To 

that end, the Treasury Policy would be 

updated to explain that ICC’s daily 

settlement process occurs with each 

Clearing Participant every business day 

as applicable, and that settlement is 

final and irrevocable at the earlier of the 

time when (i) ICC receives the relevant 

payment or (ii) a financial institution 

used by ICC sends a confirmation 

message to ICC confirming that the 

relevant payment has been made. 

ICC’s amendments would also add 

detail to the Custodial Assets section of 

the Treasury Policy. ICC proposes 

clarifying that its policies regarding 

acceptable forms of cash and non-cash 

collateral for Initial Margin and 

Guaranty Fund and their associated 

‘‘haircuts’’ are designed to provide 

protection for market risk management 

in addition to liquidity risk 

management. Additionally, ICC’s 

proposed changes to the excess 

collateral sub-section would require that 

Clearing Participant requests to transfer 

excess collateral be completed prior to 

9 a.m. ET for GBP denominated 

collateral in addition to EUR 

denominated collateral in order to 

receive the assets on the same day. ICC 

proposes this change because currently 

the sub-section does not contain the 

applicable GBP deadline for the transfer 

of excess GBP denominated collateral.30

In the treasury reconciliations section, 

the Proposed Rule Change would clarify 

that ICC’s Treasury Department 

conducts a daily reconciliation process 

with respect to its cash and non-cash 

collateral accounts in accordance with 

its internal procedures.31 ICC also 

proposes clarifying that ‘‘cite checks’’ 

involve the manual review of 

transaction activity rather than the 

manual review of the ISG requests. In 

ICC’s view, this would be a clarifying 

change because the term ‘‘ISG requests’’ 

is vague and undefined.32

4. Proposed Changes That Broaden 

Certain Provisions 

The Proposed Rule Change also 

increases certain provisions’ breadth. In 

the section of the Treasury Policy 

covering the Treasury Department’s 

responsibilities, the current term 

‘‘settlement issues’’ would be replaced 

with the term ‘‘treasury management 

related issues.’’ As a result of this 

proposed change, the Treasury Policy 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
101668 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2024 / Notices 

33 Id. at 73735. 

34 Id. 

35 Id. 

36 Id. at 73736. 

37 Id. 

38 Id. at 73736. Similar changes are made 

throughout the Treasury Policy. 

39 ICE Clear Credit LLC Treasury Operations 

Policies and Procedures. 

40Notice, 89 FR at 73737. 

41 Id. at 73734. 42 Id. 43 Id. 44 Id. 45 Id. 46 ICC’s proposed replacement of cash 

management strategies with collateral management 

strategies is described above in Section 4. 47Notice, 89 FR at 73735. 

would specify that the Treasury 

Department is responsible for 

maintaining relationships and contacts 

with Clearing Participants to efficiently 

and effectively identify, validate, 

escalate and correct ‘‘treasury 

management related issues’’ rather than 

‘‘settlement issues.’’ ICC also proposes 

replacing the phrase ‘‘substitute 

collateral for cash’’ with the phrase 

‘‘perform collateral substitutions’’ in 

another provision in the same section. 

As a result of this change, the Treasury 

Policy would describe the Treasury 

Department as being responsible for 

managing the process whereby Clearing 

Participants ‘‘perform collateral 

substitutions’’ instead of the process 

whereby Clearing Participants 

‘‘substitute collateral for cash.’’ ICC 

proposes these changes to provide a 

more complete picture of its current 

payment practices.33 Additionally, the 

Proposed Rule Change would replace 

the word cash with the word collateral 

in a separate provision. As a result of 

this proposed change, the Treasury 

Department would be required to work 

to develop ‘‘investment and collateral’’ 

management strategies rather than 

‘‘investment and cash’’ management 

strategies. In ICC’s view, this change 

would more fully describe the scope of 

ICC’s current practice and be consistent 

with the rest of the Treasury Policy.34

The Proposed Rule Change would 

also broaden the Funds Management 

section of the Treasury Policy. In this 

section’s discussion of investment of 

Guaranty Fund and Margin 

requirements posted in US Dollar cash, 

ICC proposes adding that bilateral 

reverse repo transactions may be settled 

through alternative counterparties that 

may be added to the Treasury Policy in 

the future. The policy already notes that 

these repos are settled through a specific 

bank or additional counterparties that 

may be added in the future. This 

proposed addition aims to encompass 

potential future changes in ICC’s 

financial service provider 

relationships.35

In the Treasury Policy’s Cash 

Settlement section, ICC proposes 

changing how it describes its settlement 

banking relationships. Currently, ICC 

provides the names of its backup 

settlement banks in a subsection of the 

Treasury Policy addressing its banking 

relationships. Instead of naming specific 

backup settlement banks in one 

provision, ICC proposes that the 

provision indicate that ICC maintains 

appropriate backup settlement banking 

relationships. In the same subsection, 

ICC also proposes conforming changes 

related to this proposed change. 

Similarly, when addressing bank to 

bank and credit SWIFT messages, ICC’s 

proposal would remove a reference to 

ICC’s specific settlement banks and 

instead refer to ‘‘applicable ICC 

settlement banks.’’ These changes 

would help ICC avoid amending the 

Treasury Policy if its specific settlement 

banks it uses change.36 ICC’s 

amendments would also add text to a 

subsection discussing when settlement 

banks fail to perform. This text currently 

lists specific banks that ICC’s Treasury 

Department would instruct Clearing 

Participants to wire funds to directly if 

they do not pay because a settlement 

bank failed to perform. The Proposed 

Rule Change would add a new bank to 

the current list. It would also provide 

that if a settlement bank does not 

perform, ICC’s Treasury Department 

would instruct the Clearing Participant 

to wire funds directly to ICC’s accounts 

at alternative or additional settlement 

banks. These changes would broaden 

the list of settlement banks that ICC may 

designate.37

ICC also proposes replacing references 

to specific types of SWIFT messages 

with more general descriptions. Making 

this change would account for potential 

changes to specific types of SWIFT 

messages.38

ICC proposes broadening provisions 

in the Custodial Assets section of the 

Treasury Policy as well. Currently, the 

Treasury Policy provides that ICC 

accounts for the risk associated with 

changes in the value of US Treasuries 

and non-USD currencies by applying 

‘‘haircuts.’’ 39 The amendments would 

instead provide that ICC accounts for 

the risk associated with fluctuations in 

the value of cash and non-cash 

collateral by applying ‘‘haircuts.’’ ICC 

proposes this change because ICC 

accepts more than just U.S. Treasuries 

and non-USD currencies as collateral.40

5. Proposed Corrections to the Treasury 

Policy 

ICC also proposes to make various 

corrections to the Treasury Policy. In 

the Treasury Department 

Responsibilities section of the Treasury 

Policy, ICC proposes replacing a 

reference to margin requirements with a 

more general reference to requirements, 

a reference to margin deficit payments 

with a reference to payments, a 

reference to margin accounts with a 

reference to accounts, and a reference to 

the daily margin process with a 

reference to the daily clearing process. 

These proposed changes would improve 

the accuracy of the Treasury Policy 

because, in practice, the references to 

requirements, payments, accounts, and 

processes are not limited solely to 

margin.41 The Proposed Rule Change 

would also indicate that ICC, rather than 

ICC’s Risk Department, generates daily 

requirements for all Clearing 

Participants (including requirements for 

indirect participants, i.e., Client-Related 

requirements). ICC’s entity-wide 

clearing systems automatically create 

these requirements, not the ICC Risk 

Department.42 The Proposed Rule 

Change would also modify the 

description of these requirements to 

indicate that they would be based on 

‘‘cleared positions’’ rather than ‘‘cleared 

trades.’’ In ICC’s view, the word 

‘‘positions’’ better describes Clearing 

Participants’ cleared activity at ICC.43

ICC also proposes correcting text related 

to receipt of payments under the 

Treasury Policy.44 Currently, the 

Treasury Policy notes that Treasury 

ensures that payments are received and 

honored by Clearing Participant’s CDS 

related banking relationships. Because 

ICC does not base its settlement of 

transactions on whether a Clearing 

Participant’s bank honors a payment 

direction, ICC proposes correcting this 

text to note that Treasury ensures that 

payments are received from Clearing 

Participants.45 ICC also proposes 

removing text reading, ‘‘within the Risk 

Management framework of the clearing 

house’’ from a provision that currently 

reads ‘‘working within the Risk 

Management framework of the clearing 

house to develop investment and cash 

management strategies.’’ The proposed 

rule change would require the Treasury 

Department to work to develop 

investment and collateral management 

strategies.46 ICC proposes removing the 

Risk Management Framework language 

from this provision because the relevant 

investment and collateral management 

policies are now housed in the Treasury 

Policy instead of the Risk Management 

Framework.47 In the Treasury 

Department Organizational Structure 

and Governance section of the Treasury 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2024 / Notices 101669 

48 Id. 

49 Id. 

50 Id. 

51 Id. 

52 Id. 

53 Id. 

54 Id. at 73736. 

55 Id. 

56 Id. 

57 ICC’s proposal would also refer to the Client 

Account as a Cleared Swaps Customer Account. 

The Proposed Rule Change would incorporate these 

definitions throughout the Treasury Policy. 

58Specifically, ICC proposes replacing FRB 

House cash account with FRB House Account and 

FRB Client cash account with FRB Client Account. 

59Notice, 89 FR at 73736. 

60 Id. at 73737. 

61 Id. 

Policy, ICC proposes removing text 

indicating that the Treasury Department 

is part of ICC’s Operations Department. 

The Treasury Department is not and has 

never been a part of the Operations 

Department.48

ICC also proposes corrections to the 

Funds Management section of the 

Treasury Policy. Specifically, ICC would 

replace certain current references to the 

Treasury Director making investments 

with statements that the Treasury 

Department makes these investments. 

ICC proposes these changes because it is 

ICC’s practice for Treasury Department 

personnel to make these investments 

under the Treasury Director’s 

supervision.49

In the Funds Management section’s 

discussion of investment of US Dollar 

cash posted as Margin or to the 

Guaranty Fund, ICC proposes a change 

to reflect that ICC has multiple FRB 

accounts rather than a single FRB 

account.50 ICC also proposes changing 

the description of the minimum cash it 

is required to invest in a bilateral 

reverse repo under certain 

circumstances. The current description 

states that the minimum cash 

requirement is equal to 45% of the top 

two Clearing Participant’s ‘‘risk 

margin,’’ plus any excess margin not 

released, plus 45% of the total Guaranty 

Fund. The revised description would 

state that the minimum cash 

requirement is equal to 45% of the top 

two Clearing Participant’s ‘‘Margin 

requirement,’’ plus any excess margin 

not released, plus 45% of the total 

Guaranty Fund. ICC believes this change 

better reflects ICC’s current practices 

because it is more detailed and accurate. 

ICC believes the term ‘‘Margin 

requirement’’ specifically includes both 

initial and mark-to-market margin 

requirements whereas the term ‘‘risk 

margin’’ is less specific.51 Where the 

Funds Management section discusses 

outside investment management of 

Guaranty Fund and Margin cash, ICC 

proposes using the plural term 

‘‘investment managers’’ instead of the 

singular ‘‘investment manager’’ because, 

in practice, ICC uses more than one 

outside investment manager to help it 

invest Guaranty Fund and Margin 

cash.52 In a discussion of liquidity 

protection, ICC’s proposal would 

describe a requirement for Clearing 

Participants to maintain ‘‘tiers of 

collateral’’ rather than ‘‘tiers of assets.’’ 

This is because ICC believes the term 

‘‘collateral’’ is more accurate in this 

instance because it is a more precise 

description.53

ICC proposes corrections to the cash 

settlement section of the Treasury 

Policy as well. In relation to routine 

settlement procedures, the Treasury 

Policy currently indicates that, during 

the process of monitoring whether a 

Clearing Participant has made timely 

payment, if a Clearing Participant’s 

payment is late ICC’s Treasury 

Department contacts the Clearing 

Participant and/or the agent bank. 

Because ICC contacts the Clearing 

Participant directly if a payment is late 

and does not contact the agent bank, ICC 

proposes removing the reference to the 

agent bank.54 With respect to settlement 

procedures during a SWIFT outage, the 

current Treasury Policy indicates that in 

the event that ICC is unable to send 

SWIFT messages to its direct settlement 

banks, the following back-up procedures 

would be used. ICC proposes changes to 

this provision so that it indicates that in 

the event that ICC is unable to send 

SWIFT messages to ‘‘Clearing 

Participant settlement banks,’’ rather 

than ‘‘direct settlement banks,’’ it would 

use certain back-up procedures. This 

proposal corrects an incorrect reference 

to ‘‘direct settlement banks’’ in the 

current Treasury Policy.55 For the same 

reason, ICC proposes replacing the term 

‘‘direct settlement banks’’ with 

‘‘Clearing Participants’’ in revisions to 

procedures for communicating directly 

with a Clearing Participant when there 

is a SWIFT outage.56 Specifically, ICC 

proposes changes to the Treasury Policy 

noting that when there is a SWIFT 

message disruption, it may become 

necessary to send a report directly to 

‘‘ICC’s Clearing Participants’’ rather 

than ‘‘ICC’s direct settlement banks.’’ As 

noted above, under the direct settlement 

model, ICC does not maintain accounts 

at each of the Clearing Participant 

settlement banks. Instead, ICC maintains 

direct debit authority over the Clearing 

Participant settlement bank accounts as 

such authority is granted by each 

Clearing Participant. Thus, it is more 

accurate to describe the settlement 

banks as they relate to ICC’s Clearing 

Participants, rather than being ICC’s 

direct settlement banks. 

ICC also proposes correcting language 

in the Treasury Policy related to its FRB 

accounts. Currently, a subsection of the 

Treasury Policy addressing ICC’s FRB 

accounts addresses the possibility that 

ICC would have only one FRB account. 

Due to certain requirements that ICC 

segregate funds, ICC currently has 

separate FRB accounts for house and 

client margin. To reflect this, ICC would 

refer to ‘‘accounts’’ instead of an 

‘‘account’’ or ‘‘account(s)’’ and remove 

outdated language focused on the 

possibility that ICC would have a single 

FRB account. ICC would also add text 

defining the terms House Account and 

Client Account,57 replace text to utilize 

those terms,58 and note that ICC 

maintains separate margin accounts for 

each Clearing Participant’s House 

Positions and Client Positions. 

The Proposed Rule Change would 

also correct portions of the Custodial 

Assets section of the Treasury Policy 

and update reporting requirements for 

ICC’s custodial banks. Instead of 

indicating that custodial banks are 

required annually to submit a specific 

report, the updated Treasury Policy 

would explain that custodial banks are 

subject to ongoing monitoring pursuant 

to ICC’s Counterparty Monitoring 

Procedures, and the current requirement 

that custodial banks must submit the 

specific report to ICC would be 

removed.59 With respect to its collateral 

haircut methodology, ICC’s proposed 

changes would require ICC’s Treasury 

Department to provide a report 

containing current ‘‘haircuts’’ to the ICC 

Risk Department at least once a month 

rather than only once a month and, 

further, this requirement would no 

longer depend on whether the haircuts 

changed. Relatedly, ICC proposes 

changes to reflect its current practice of 

making its haircuts publicly available 

and notifying Clearing Participants of 

any changes to those haircuts.60 The 

current Treasury Policy notes only that 

ICC will establish and publish the 

haircuts to Clearing Participants 

monthly. 

In the Bank Monitoring section of the 

Treasury Policy, ICC proposes updating 

the current reference to the CDS 

Clearing Counterparty Monitoring 

Procedures to reflect that these 

procedures are now called the 

Counterparty Monitoring Procedures.61

6. Proposed Deletions of Obsolete and 

Unnecessary Text 

ICC’s proposal would delete 

unnecessary and obsolete language 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
101670 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2024 / Notices 

62Notice, 89 FR at 73735. 

63 Id. 

64 Id. at 73736. 

65As described in Section II.5, ICC proposes 

changes to the Treasury Policy to send these reports 

to ICC’s Clearing Participants rather than ICC’s 

direct settlement banks. See infra Section II.5. 

66Notice, 89 FR at 73736. 

67Nevertheless, per other ICC policies, such as 

the ICE Corporate Information and Security Policy, 

the Commission expects this information would be 

sent in a secure manner. 

68Notice, 89 FR at 73736. 

69 Id. 70 Id. 71 Id. at 73737. 72 Id. 73Notice, 89 FR at 73735. For example, ICC 

would add the word requirements to the 

introductory paragraph of the Funds Management 

section so that it notes that Treasury is responsible 

for developing investment strategies and managing 

each of the types of funds and requirements in 

accordance with their respective restrictions and 

ICC’s Investment Policy. In another example, ICC 

proposes clarifying that the Treasury Department is 

responsible for cash and non-cash collateral 

originating from Initial Margin requirements posted 

by Clearing Participants. 

74 Id. 

throughout the Treasury Policy. In the 

description of the funds and 

requirements that ICC’s Treasury 

Department manages, the Proposed Rule 

Change would remove a footnote 

identifying where to find the definition 

of Guaranty Fund because, under ICC’s 

proposal, the location of this definition 

is now found in the Treasury 

Department Responsibilities section of 

the Treasury Policy.62

ICC proposes changing the 

description of ICC’s investment of US 

Dollar Cash posted as Margin or in the 

Guaranty Fund to remove language it 

deems unnecessary. Currently, a 

provision in this section indicates that, 

to facilitate reverse repo transactions, 

ICC has arrangements in place to settle 

reverse repo transactions, either by triparty or bilateral, and that both 

arrangements settle delivery vs. 

payment. The proposed provision 

would instead note that, to facilitate 

reverse repo transactions, ICC has 

arrangements in place to settle reverse 

repo transactions delivery vs. payment. 

This section of the Treasury Policy also 

currently requires that when a security 

must be substituted, ICC will ensure the 

replacement security is eligible and is 

valued correctly by reviewing the 

replacement ticket issued by the 

counterparty. ICC proposes deleting this 

requirement in its entirety. In each case, 

ICC proposes the deletions because it 

does not believe that the Treasury 

Policy needs to discuss these matters at 

the current level of detail.63

The Proposed Rule Change would 

delete unnecessary provisions in the 

Cash Settlement section of the Treasury 

Policy as well. With respect to nonroutine settlement procedures, the 

Treasury Policy current explains that if 

ICC must process a cash payment from 

a Clearing Participant outside of the 

normal daily process, an ICC authorized 

person will work with the Clearing 

Participant to confirm the particulars of 

the non-routine settlement. The 

Treasury Policy currently further 

explains that ICC sends SWIFT MT– 

204(USD)\MT–202(EUR) settlement 

instructions to the designated bank via 

the SWIFT network. The proposed rule 

change would maintain the substance of 

this provision—ICC would work with 

the Clearing Participant to confirm 

settlement outside of the daily process— 

but it would delete the reference to the 

specific SWIFT message. ICC maintains 

that reference the specific SWIFT 

message is unnecessary because ICC and 

the Clearing Participant in question 

would be expected to separately confirm 

the particulars of the settlement, and 

further the type of SWIFT message 

could change in the future.64

In the Treasury Policy’s discussion of 

settlement procedures in the event of a 

SWIFT outage, the Proposed Rule 

Change would also remove the 

requirement that Margin Deficit Call 

Reports would be sent using a password 

protected email. The Treasury Policy 

currently explains that, in the event of 

a SWIFT outage, it may become 

necessary for ICC to manually send 

these reports,65 as needed to satisfy 

margin debit calls. The Treasury Policy 

currently explains that these Margin 

Deficit Call Reports would be sent using 

a password protected email. The 

Proposed Rule Change would remove 

the requirement that the email be 

password protected. Because ICC does 

not believe that email security measures 

need to be addressed in the Treasury 

Policy, the Proposed Rule Change 

would instead require Margin Deficit 

Call Reports to be sent via email.66

Thus, ICC would still send the Margin 

Deficit Call Reports via email, as 

needed, but the Treasury Policy would 

not contain a requirement that this 

email be password protected.67

Currently, the Treasury Policy 

explains that, when a bank rejects a 

SWIFT debit message because of a 

technical defect, the Treasury 

Department will manually update the 

SWIFT Transaction Summary Report 

and will manually initiate and send a 

SWIFT MT202 (bank to bank) and/or 

MT204 (direct debit) message to reverse 

and/or correct previous message(s) to 

the bank. ICC would amend this text to 

indicate that the Treasury Department 

will correct the previous message(s) 

and/or re-issue a corrected SWIFT 

message to the bank. Thus, rather than 

referring to the specific type of SWIFT 

message (i.e. MT202), the revised 

Treasury Policy would refer to SWIFT 

messages generally. This change would 

remove what ICC views as unnecessary 

detail regarding reissuing and correcting 

the SWIFT message and the specific 

type of SWIFT message that will be sent, 

and further helps ensure that the 

Treasury Policy remains accurate if the 

numbers of SWIFT messages are 

updated or otherwise changed.68

ICC would also remove unnecessary 

text from the Treasury Policy’s 

Custodial Assets section and Treasury 

Management for Client Business section. 

Specifically, ICC would remove 

outdated language contemplating a 

scenario where ICC only has one FRB 

securities account.69 ICC has multiple 

FRB securities accounts.70 Further, 

when discussing when client margin is 

due, ICC proposes removing text 

highlighting that ICC’s deadlines are in 

keeping with daily payment processes. 

ICC states that it views this text as 

unnecessary.71 The remaining text 

would still note when payments related 

to client business are due to ICC. 

In Appendix 2 of the Treasury Policy, 

ICC would remove information related 

to its key contacts at a number of 

specific banks. Specifically, ICC 

proposes removing the names of banks 

for which it maintains a list of key 

contacts. ICC does not believe it needs 

to list this level of detail in the Treasury 

Policy because the specific banks are 

likely to change.72

7. Proposed Changes for Consistency 

Purposes 

Finally, some of ICC’s proposed 

changes are designed to ensure that the 

Treasury Policy is internally consistent 

with itself, other ICC rules and 

procedures, and external regulatory 

requirements. In the Funds Management 

Section of the Treasury Policy, ICC 

proposes to add the word 

‘‘requirements’’ in multiple places to 

ensure that Margin and Guaranty Fund 

requirements are referred to consistently 

throughout the document.73 To ensure 

the Treasury Policy is consistent with 

other ICC rules and procedures, ICC 

proposes adding language to the 

Treasury Policy indicating that it 

maintains and manages House Margin 

and Client Margin separately.74 To 

ensure the Treasury Policy is consistent 

with certain regulatory requirements 

applicable to ICC, the Proposed Rule 

Change would require that Initial 

Margin and Guaranty Fund 

requirements are held in a manner 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2024 / Notices 101671 

75 Id. 

76 Id. 

77Similar changes are made throughout the 

Treasury Policy. 

78 Id. at 73735. 

79 Id. 

80 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C). 

81 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

82 17 CFR 240Ad–22(e)(7). 

83 17 CFR 240Ad–22(e)(16). 

84 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

85Notice, 89 FR at 73734. 

which minimizes the risk of loss or 

delay in ICC’s access to collateral, 

which mirrors the language used in the 

relevant regulatory requirements.75 This 

would be a change from the current 

language, which indicates that Margin 

and Guaranty Fund requirements must 

be held in highly liquid and short term 

investments. 

The text and titles in and around 

several tables in the Funds Management 

section of the Treasury Policy would 

also be changed to ensure they are 

consistent with other sections of the 

Treasury Policy.76 Specifically, in these 

tables ICC proposes using the terms 

‘‘USD cash’’ instead of ‘‘US Dollar 

Cash’’ and ‘‘US Cash,’’ ‘‘US Treasury 

Securities’’ instead of ‘‘US Treasuries,’’ 

and ‘‘EUR cash’’ instead of ‘‘Euro Cash’’ 

to mirror the terms used in the rest of 

the revised Treasury Policy.77 ICC also 

proposes using defined terms 

throughout the Treasury Policy, such as 

House Margin. 

ICC proposes changes to the 

Participants’ Withdrawal subsection of 

the Funds Management section as well. 

Specifically, ICC would add text 

indicating that Guaranty Fund deposits 

are not eligible to be returned to a 

withdrawing Clearing Participant until 

after all of the open positions of such 

withdrawing Clearing Participant are 

closed out and all obligations of such 

withdrawing Clearing Participant to ICC 

have been satisfied. ICC proposes this 

change to make this provision 

consistent with Rule 807 of the ICC 

Rulebook. Similarly, a current provision 

in the Participants’ Withdrawal 

subsection indicates that, if a Clearing 

Participant provides notice of 

withdrawal less than 60 days from the 

end of the quarter, the Clearing 

Participant’s withdrawal will be 

effective at the end of the subsequent 

calendar quarter. However, because this 

is not consistent with or required under 

ICC’s rules, the Proposed Rule Change 

would delete this provision from the 

Treasury Policy.78

Finally, in the section of the Treasury 

Policy discussing ICC’s use of 

committed repo facilities, ICC proposes 

modifying certain text describing how 

expenses are attributed. Currently, the 

Treasury Policy indicates that interest 

expenses incurred through such 

facilities are attributed to the account of 

the defaulting Clearing Participant. 

ICC’s proposal would indicate that all 

expenses incurred through such 

facilities, including interest expenses, 

are attributed to the account of the 

defaulting Clearing Participant. ICC 

indicates that this proposed change is 

consistent with the approach for 

allocation of close-out costs to a 

defaulter under ICC’s Rulebook.79

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.80 For the reasons given 

below, the Commission finds that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 81 and 

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(7) 82 and (e)(16).83

A. Consistency With Section 

17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 

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

ICC’s rules, among other things, must be 

‘‘designed to promote the prompt and 

accurate clearance and settlement of 

securities transactions and, to the extent 

applicable, derivative agreements, 

contracts, and 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.’’ 84 Based on a 

review of the record, and for the reasons 

discussed below, ICC’s proposed rule 

change is consistent with Section 

17A(b)(3)(F). 

Among other things, the Proposed 

Rule Change updates the Treasury 

Policy by adding additional detail to 

various provisions and making various 

clarifications.85 For example, the 

Proposed Rule Change would better 

explain what the Treasury Department 

does; define specific terms, such as 

Margin, and use those terms 

consistently throughout the Treasury 

Policy; and align the language and 

descriptions used in the Treasury Policy 

with ICC’s current practices, such as 

assigning responsibility for ICC’s timely 

receipt of requested payments to the 

Clearing Participants under the direct 

settlement model. 

The Proposed Rule Change also 

updates the Treasury Policy by 

correcting certain inaccuracies within 

the policy, deleting unnecessary 

language, and making various 

conforming changes to ensure that the 

Treasury Policy is internally consistent 

with itself, consistent with other ICC 

policies and rules, and consistent with 

external rules. For example, because 

relevant investment and collateral 

management policies are now housed in 

the Treasury Policy instead of the Risk 

Management Framework, ICC would 

remove language indicating that 

developing investment and collateral 

management strategies could only be 

performed within ICC’s Risk 

Management Framework. As a result, 

ICC’s Treasury Department will be 

required to work to develop investment 

and collateral management strategies 

irrespective of whether it does so within 

ICC’s Risk Management Framework. The 

Treasury Policy would also be updated 

to correctly identify the parties 

responsible for investing certain funds, 

correctly identify certain procedures 

referenced within the Treasury Policy, 

and make changes reflecting that ICC 

has more than one FRB account and 

more than one investment manager. ICC 

would also remove what it believes are 

unnecessary details from certain 

provisions of the Treasury Policy, such 

as information identifying specific types 

of repo transactions and specific 

information regarding email security. To 

help ensure the Treasury Policy is both 

internally and externally consistent, the 

Proposed Rule Change would revise the 

Treasury Policy to indicate that ICC 

manages House Margin and Client 

Margin separately—consistent with 

other ICC policies and procedures—and 

modify certain terms used in the 

Treasury Policy to mirror the terms used 

elsewhere in the Treasury Policy and in 

other ICC rules. These changes also 

improve the clarity of the Treasury 

Policy and decrease the possibility for 

error in using and applying the Treasury 

Policy. Moreover, eliminating 

unnecessary details and provisions from 

the Treasury Policy helps ensure both 

that it will need to be amended less 

frequently in the event those details 

change and that, in the event revisions 

are necessary, that such revisions are 

less prone to error. Avoiding errors in 

the amendment process also improves 

their clarity as a whole and decreases 

the possibility for error in applying 

them. 

The Proposed Rule Change would 

also expand certain provisions in the 

Treasury Policy by replacing specific 

terms in the Treasury Policy with more 

general terms and adding broadening 

language to existing text. For example, 

in certain instances, ICC would refer to 

collateral generally instead of more 

specific forms of collateral. ICC would 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
101672 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2024 / Notices 

86Certain maturity limitations will still apply to 

the U.S. Treasuries in which ICC is allowed to 

invest. Id. at 73738. 

87 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

88 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(7). 

89 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(7). 

90 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(16). 

91Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78961 

(Sept. 28, 2016), 81 FR 70786, 70837 (Oct. 13, 2016) 

(File No. S7–03–14). 

92 Id. 

93 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(16). 

also account for potential changes in 

banking relationships and SWIFT 

messages by referring to these 

relationships and messages more 

generally. Taken together, the use of 

these broader, more general terms 

would immediately improve the 

accuracy of the Treasury Policy and 

help ensure that it remains accurate in 

the event there are non-substantive 

changes to ICC’s banking relationships 

and the specific types of SWIFT 

messages that ICC uses. 

By adding additional details and 

clarifications, correcting inaccuracies, 

deleting unnecessary language, making 

conforming changes to ensure internal 

and external consistency, and replace 

unnecessarily specific terms with 

broader, more general terms, the 

Proposed Rule Change helps ensure that 

the Treasury Policy is and will remain 

clear, consistent, and current, which in 

turn decreases the likelihood that the 

Treasury Policy and its provisions will 

be applied erroneously or 

inconsistently. This decreases the 

likelihood of ICC’s mismanagement of 

collateral, which facilitates the prompt 

and accurate clearance and settlement of 

transactions and assures the 

safeguarding of securities and funds 

within ICC’s custody or control. 

ICC also proposes adding additional 

criteria for settlement banks. Because 

settlement banks ultimately custody the 

funds that Clearing Participants will use 

to satisfy their obligations to ICC, ICC 

needs visibility into a settlement bank’s 

liquidity. To ensure that ICC has such 

visibility, the Proposed Rule Change 

would update the Treasury Policy to 

require that settlement banks provide 

specific liquidity information to ICC. An 

example of the liquidity information 

that ICC requires from settlement banks 

is the banks’ Liquidity Coverage Ratio. 

In the event that the bank does not 

report LCR, the Proposed Rule Change 

would specify that ICC will consider 

other criteria to assess the liquidity of 

the bank. These other criteria may 

include a description of the bank’s 

liquidity risk management policy or the 

liquidity coverage ratio of the settlement 

bank’s affiliated reporting entity within 

the bank’s group. Ensuring that ICC has 

this information will help ICC avoid a 

relationship with a settlement bank that 

is unable to satisfy obligations on a 

Clearing Participant’s behalf, despite the 

Clearing Participant being financially 

sound. Preventing relationships with 

illiquid settlement banks would help 

facilitate the prompt and accurate 

clearance and settlement of transactions 

and assure the safeguarding of securities 

and funds within ICC’s custody or 

control. 

Finally, ICC proposes changes to its 

investment guidelines. Specifically, ICC 

proposes eliminating the restriction that 

it may only invest in certain U.S. 

Treasury Securities when bank deposits 

or Treasury/Agency reverse repos 

become unavailable or are not feasible. 

The Proposed Rule Change would 

specify that ICC would primarily 

directly invest in U.S. Treasury 

securities with respect to stable 

balances, for example, restricted cash 

held for regulatory purposes. ICC 

proposes this change because it believes 

the change would give it greater 

flexibility while preserving the quality 

of investments. ICC also proposes 

requiring the value of collateral in the 

case of a reverse repo to be fixed at 102 

percent instead of ranging between 

100.5 percent to 102 percent. Given the 

safety of these investments, ICC’s 

proposal to potentially invest cash held 

for regulatory purposes in U.S. Treasury 

securities is consistent with the 

safeguarding of securities and funds 

within ICC’s custody or control.86

Further, ICC’s proposal to ensure that 

the value of collateral will always be 

102 percent in a reverse repo provides 

ICC with greater protection in the event 

that it provides cash to an entity in 

exchange for the entity’s promise to 

repurchase a security from ICC at a 

higher price because it helps to ensure 

that ICC will receive a larger amount if 

an entity is unable to purchase 

securities back at the agreed upon price. 

This protects ICC as it invests its cash 

balances and therefore is consistent 

with the safeguarding of securities and 

funds within ICC’s control. 

Accordingly, the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the 

requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of 

the Act.87

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad–22(e)(7) 

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(7) requires ICC to 

‘‘establish, implement, maintain, and 

enforce written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to . . . effectively 

measure, monitor, and manage the 

liquidity risk that arises or is borne by 

the covered clearing agency . . . by at 

a minimum . . . undertaking due 

diligence to confirm that it has a 

reasonable basis to believe each of its 

liquidity providers, whether or not such 

liquidity provider is a clearing member, 

has . . . the capacity to perform as 

required under its commitments to 

provide liquidity to the covered clearing 

agency.’’ 88 Based on a review of the 

record, and for the reasons discussed 

below, ICC’s proposed rule change is 

consistent with Rule 17Ad–22(e)(7). 

The Proposed Rule Change would add 

to ICC’s minimum criteria for settlement 

banks by requiring that a settlement 

bank provide specific liquidity 

information such as the Liquidity 

Coverage Ratio. Obtaining this 

information can help ensure that ICC is 

able to determine whether a settlement 

bank with which it has a relationship is 

facing liquidity issues. Performing such 

diligence is consistent with the 

requirements of Rule 17Ad–22(e)(7) 

because a settlement bank’s liquidity 

issues may prevent an otherwise liquid 

Clearing Participant from satisfying its 

obligations. 

Accordingly, that the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the 

requirements of Rule 17Ad–22(e)(7).89

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(16) 

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(16) requires ICC to 

‘‘establish, implement, maintain, and 

enforce written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to . . . safeguard 

the covered clearing agency’s own and 

its participants’ assets, minimize the 

risk of loss and delay in these assets, 

and invest such assets in instruments 

with minimal credit, market, and 

liquidity risks.’’ 90 Based on a review of 

the record, and for the reasons 

discussed below, ICC’s proposed rule 

change is consistent with Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(16). 

As noted above, ICC proposes 

eliminating the restriction that it may 

only invest its operating capital in 

certain U.S. Treasury Securities when 

bank deposits or Treasury/Agency 

reverse repos become unavailable or are 

not feasible. While ICC is not required 

to invest its own or its Participants’ 

assets, if it does so, it generally should 

seek to minimize the risk of loss or 

delay in access to the invested assets by 

investing in highly liquid assets.91 The 

Commission has previously stated that 

U.S. Treasury securities are highly 

liquid.92 ICC’s proposal to invest its 

assets in U.S. treasury securities is 

therefore consistent with Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(16). 

Accordingly, the Proposed Rule 

Change is consistent with the 

requirements of Rule 17Ad–22(e)(16).93


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2024 / Notices 101673 

94 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

95 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(7). 

96 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(16). 

97 In approving the proposed rule change, the 

Commission considered the proposal’s impacts on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 

U.S.C. 78c(f). 

98 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 101428 

(October 24, 2024), 89 FR 86393. 

4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

5 Id. 

6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(31). 

IV. Conclusion 

On the basis of the foregoing, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act, and in 

particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the 

Act 94 and Rule 17Ad–22(e)(7) 95 and 

(e)(16) thereunder.96

It is therefore ordered pursuant to 

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

proposed rule change (SR–ICC–2024– 

005) be, and hereby is, approved.97

For the Commission by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.98

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29474 Filed 12–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–101870; File No. SR– 

CBOE–2024–047] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe 

Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation 

of a Longer Period for Commission 

Action on a Proposed Rule Change To 

Amend Its Rules Regarding the Types 

of Complex Orders Available for 

Flexible Exchange Options (‘‘FLEX’’) 

Trading at the Exchange 

December 10, 2024. 

On October 11, 2024, Cboe Exchange, 

Inc. (‘‘Cboe Options’’ or the 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to 

adopt rules to govern new types of 

complex orders available for FLEX 

trading. The proposed rule change was 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register on October 30, 2024.3

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 4 provides 

that, within 45 days of the publication 

of notice of the filing of a proposed rule 

change, or within such longer period up 

to 90 days as the Commission may 

designate if it finds such longer period 

to be appropriate and publishes its 

reasons for so finding, or as to which the 

self-regulatory organization consents, 

the Commission shall either approve the 

proposed rule change, disapprove the 

proposed rule change, or institute 

proceedings to determine whether the 

proposed rule change should be 

disapproved. The 45th day after 

publication of the notice for this 

proposed rule change is December 14, 

2024. The Commission is extending this 

45-day time period. 

The Commission finds that it is 

appropriate to designate a longer period 

within which to take action on the 

proposed rule change so that it has 

sufficient time to consider the proposed 

rule change. Accordingly, the 

Commission, pursuant to Section 

19(b)(2) of the Act,5 designates January 

28, 2025, as the date by which the 

Commission shall either approve or 

disapprove, or institute proceedings to 

determine whether to disapprove, the 

proposed rule change (File No. SR– 

CBOE–2024–047). 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.6

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29473 Filed 12–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, 

pursuant to the provisions of the 

Government in the Sunshine Act, Public 

Law 94–409, that the Securities and 

Exchange Commission will hold an 

Open Meeting on Wednesday, December 

18, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (ET). 

PLACE: The meeting will be webcast on 

the Commission’s website at 

www.sec.gov. 

STATUS: This meeting will begin at 10:00 

a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public 

via webcast on the Commission’s 

website at www.sec.gov. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. The Commission will consider 

whether to approve the 2025 Final 

Budget and Accounting Support Fee 

for the Public Company Accounting 

Oversight Board 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information, please contact 

Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office 

of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400. 

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.) 

Dated: December 11, 2024. 

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29635 Filed 12–12–24; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[SEC File No. 270–514, OMB Control No. 

3235–0572] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request; Reinstatement Without 

Change: Reports of Evidence of 

Material Violations 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 

20549–2736 

Notice is hereby given that pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520, the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments 

on the collection of information 

summarized below. The Commission 

plans to submit the existing collection 

of information to the Office of 

Management and Budget for 

reinstatement without change. 

On February 6, 2003, the Commission 

published final rules, effective August 5, 

2003, entitled ‘‘Standards of 

Professional Conduct for Attorneys 

Appearing and Practicing Before the 

Commission in the Representation of an 

Issuer’’ (17 CFR 205.1–205.7). The 

information collection embedded in the 

rules is necessary to implement the 

Standards of Professional Conduct for 

Attorneys prescribed by the rule and 

required by Section 307 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7245). The 

rules impose an ‘‘up-the-ladder’’ 

reporting requirement when attorneys 

appearing and practicing before the 

Commission become aware of evidence 

of a material violation by the issuer or 

any officer, director, employee, or agent 

of the issuer. An issuer may choose to 

establish a qualified legal compliance 

committee (‘‘QLCC’’) as an alternative 

procedure for reporting evidence of a 

material violation. In the rare cases in 

which a majority of a QLCC has 

concluded that an issuer did not act 

appropriately, the information may be 

communicated to the Commission. The 

collection of information is, therefore, 

an important component of the 

Commission’s program to discourage 

violations of the federal securities laws 

and promote ethical behavior of 

attorneys appearing and practicing 

before the Commission. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1