Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Back-Testing Framework, 59258-59261 [2021-23258]
Download as PDF
59258
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 26, 2021 / Notices
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[FR Doc. 2021–22817 Filed 10–25–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–C
[Release No. 34–93391; File No. 265–33]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Asset Management Advisory
Committee; Meeting
Public Availability of the Securities and
Exchange Commission’s FY 2019
Service Contract Inventory
Securities and Exchange
Commission.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice.
In accordance with Section 743 of
Division C of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111–117), SEC is publishing this notice
to advise the public of the availability
of the FY2019 Service Contract
Inventory (SCI) along with the FY2020
SCI Planned Analysis.
The SCI provides information on
FY2019 actions above the simplified
acquisition threshold for service
contracts. The inventory organizes the
information by function to show how
SEC distributes contracted resources
throughout the agency. The SEC
developed the inventory per the
guidance issued on January 17, 2017, by
the Office of Management and Budget’s
Office of Federal Procurement Policy
(OFPP). OFPP’s guidance is available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/
2017/service_contract_inventories.pdf.
The Service Contract Inventory
Analysis for FY2019 provides
information based on the FY 2019
Inventory. Please note that the SEC’s FY
2019 Service Contract Inventory data is
now included in government-wide
inventory available on
www.acquisition.gov. The governmentwide inventory can be filtered to display
the inventory data for the SEC. The SEC
has posted the FY 2019 SCI Analysis
and its FY 2020 plans for analyzing data
on the SEC’s homepage at https://
www.sec.gov/about/secreports.shtml
and https://www.sec.gov/open.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions regarding the service
contract inventory to Vance Cathell,
Director Office of Acquisitions
202.551.8385 or CathellV@sec.gov.
Dated: October 21, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–23306 Filed 10–25–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:39 Oct 25, 2021
Securities and Exchange
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
[Release No.: 34–93396]
Jkt 256001
Notice is being provided that
the Securities and Exchange
Commission Asset Management
Advisory Committee (‘‘AMAC’’) will
hold a public meeting on November 3,
2021, by remote means. The 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.
Persons needing special
accommodations to take part because of
a disability should notify the contact
person listed below. The public is
invited to submit written statements to
the Committee. The meeting will
include a discussion of matters in the
asset management industry relating to
the Evolution of Advice and the Small
Advisers and Small Funds
Subcommittees, including potential
recommendations.
DATES: The public meeting will be held
on November 3, 2021. Written
statements should be received on or
before October 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held by
remote means and webcast on
www.sec.gov. Written statements may be
submitted by any of the following
methods. To help us process and review
your statement more efficiently, please
use only one method. At this time,
electronic statements are preferred.
SUMMARY:
Commission’s Public Reference Room,
100 F Street NE, Room 1580,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Operating
conditions may limit access to the
Commission’s public reference room.
All statements received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not
redact or edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You
should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christian Broadbent, Senior Special
Counsel, Neil Lombardo, Senior Special
Counsel, or Jay Williamson, Branch
Chief, at (202) 551–6720, Division of
Investment Management, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington DC 20549–3628.
In
accordance with Section 10(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C.-App. 1, and the regulations
thereunder, Sarah ten Siethoff,
Designated Federal Officer of the
Committee, has ordered publication of
this notice.1
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021–23265 Filed 10–25–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–93388; File No. SR–ICC–
2021–018]
Electronic Statements
• Use the Commission’s internet
submission form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/other.shtml); or
• Send an email message to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File
Number 265–33 on the subject line; or
Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE
Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
ICC Back-Testing Framework
Paper Statements
• Send paper statements to Vanessa
Countryman, Federal Advisory
Committee Management Officer,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File No.
265–33. This file number should be
included on the subject line if email is
used. The Commission will post all
statements on the Commission’s website
at (https://www.sec.gov/comments/26533/265-33.htm).
Statements also will be available for
website viewing and printing in the
On August 24, 2021, 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
(SR–ICC–2021–018) to revise the ICE
CDS Clearing: Back-Testing Framework
(‘‘Back-Testing Framework’’) to include
additional description on the lookback
period for back-testing and other
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
October 20, 2021.
I. Introduction
1 Due to scheduling challenges, earlier advance
publication was not possible.
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 26, 2021 / Notices
clarifications.3 The proposed rule
change was published in the Federal
Register on September 14, 2021.4 The
Commission did not receive 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
The Back-Testing Framework
discusses ICC’s back-testing approach
and analysis to verify that the number
of actual losses is consistent with the
number of projected losses, and
includes guidelines for remediating
poor back-testing results. ICC proposes
revising the Back-Testing Framework to
include additional description on the
lookback period for back-testing, which
refers to the maximum back-testing
sample size, and other clarifications.
The proposed revisions to the BackTesting Framework are described in
detail as follows.5
ICC proposes a clarification change in
Subsection 1.2 to specify that the ICC
Risk Management Department (‘‘ICC
Risk’’) may consider back-testing
analysis based on alternative statistical
tests to assess the performance of its
models in terms of statistical reliability,
in addition to its current consideration
of clustering of exceedances, which
refers to excessive losses.
ICC proposes new Subsection 2.1
(Lookback Period for Back-Testing of the
Production Model with Clearing
Participant Portfolios) to include
additional description of the lookback
period for back-testing, which refers to
the maximum back-testing sample size.
ICC represents that proposed Subsection
2.1 would not change its methodology.6
Specifically, proposed Subsection 2.1
defines back-testing as statistics-based
hypothesis testing, and clarifies that the
larger the sample size is, the more
reliable the inference is from such
testing. Proposed Subsection 2.1
describes the performance of production
model back-testing analysis for Clearing
Participant (‘‘CP’’) related portfolios
reflecting all available observations over
periods of various market conditions.
The proposed language also describes
the maximum back-testing sample size,
3 Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise
defined have the meaning set forth in the ICC Rules
or the Back-Testing Framework.
4 Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the ICC Back-Testing Framework,
Exchange Act Release No. 92893 (Sept. 8, 2021); 86
FR 51204 (Sept. 14, 2021) (SR–ICC–2021–018)
(‘‘Notice’’).
5 The following description of the proposed rule
change is substantially excerpted from the Notice.
6 See Notice at 51205.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:39 Oct 25, 2021
Jkt 256001
or the lookback period, and the benefit
of allowing for a greater sample size that
would incorporate observations from
various market regimes to assess model
performance and thus ensure more
reliable inferences from back-testing.
The proposed language also analyzes
short lookback periods, which may
exclude extreme stress market
conditions, in combination with high
risk quantile estimates (e.g., greater than
99%). ICC also proposes to introduce an
alternative statistical test and describe
how the model is considered to pass or
fail such test. Proposed Figure 1
provides an illustration under the
alternative statistical test across
different sample sizes and risk
quantiles. Following proposed Figure 1,
ICC would explain its rationale for
establishing the minimum back-testing
window length for the initial margin
risk horizon, or the Margin Period of
Risk (‘‘MPOR’’) model analysis.
Proposed Subsection 2.1 also references
the performance of additional analyses,
as described in Section 4 of the BackTesting Framework which contain
guidelines to remediate poor backtesting results. Proposed Subsection 2.1
includes language concerning the
reporting of back-testing results for
portfolios, including those with an
insufficient number of observations.
Given the proposed addition of new
Subsection 2.1, ICC proposes to
renumber the subsequent subsections of
the Back-Testing Framework document.
ICC proposes additional clarifications
to the Back-Testing Framework. The
proposed amendments include a
footnote in amended Subsection 2.6
(BTLS Exceedance Summaries) that
references a relevant Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’)
regulation with respect to ICC’s
performance of production model 99%
back-testing analysis for all CP related
portfolios. ICC also proposes
amendments to Section 4 (Guidelines to
Remediate Poor Back-Testing Results).
Currently, poor back-testing results
require a peer review of the risk models
by the Risk Working Group (‘‘RWG’’),
which is comprised of risk
representatives from ICC’s CPs, and
remedial actions to improve model
performance. Section 4 currently states
that model performance analysis along
with the model assumptions are
presented to the RWG for review and
discussions. In addition to the model
assumptions, the proposed change
would include the number of
observations for the RWG’s review and
discussions. Section 4 also currently
states that a back-testing analysis
without overlapping periods will be
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59259
performed in order to confirm poorbacking results if the number of
observed exceedances falls in the ‘‘red
zone’’ of the so-called Basel Traffic
Light System (BTLS) of the Basel
Committee Supervisory Framework. The
proposed rule change would amend
such statement to include the RWG’s
assessment of the sufficiency of the
number of observations in performing
the portfolio-level back-testing analysis,
thus supplementing the current
complementary back-testing analysis
without overlapping periods. ICC also
proposes to update Section 5,
containing a list of references, to
include a reference to the alternative
statistical test described above in the
proposed new Subsection 2.1.
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.7 For the
reasons given below, the Commission
finds that the proposal is consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 8
and Rules 17Ad–22(e)(2)(i) and (v), and
17Ad–22(e)(6)(vi) thereunder.9
A. Consistency With Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
requires, among other things, that the
rules of ICC be designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions
and, to the extent applicable, derivative
agreements, contracts, and transactions,
as well as to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of ICC or for which
it is responsible.10
As discussed above, the proposed rule
change would revise the Back-Testing
Framework to include additional
description of the lookback period for
back-testing and other clarifications. For
the specific reasons discussed below,
the Commission believes that, in
general, the proposed rule change
would help ensure the sound operation
of the Back-Testing Framework that
should enhance the overall risk
management and financial stability of
ICC, and thereby promote ICC’s prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of
7 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F).
9 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(2)(i) and (v), and
(e)(6)(vi).
10 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F).
8 15
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
59260
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 26, 2021 / Notices
credit default swap (‘‘CDS’’)
transactions, and help assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds
which are in ICC’s custody or control or
for which ICC is responsible.
First, the Commission believes that
the proposed clarification in Subsection
1.2, in specifying that ICC Risk may use
alternative statistical tests to assess the
performance of its risk models for
statistical reliability, would strengthen
its back-testing approach and analysis
by supplementing its consideration of
the clustering of exceedances or
excessive losses.
Second, as discussed above, the
proposed rule change also would
introduce a new Subsection 2.1 that
provides additional detail and
explanation regarding the lookback
period for its back-testing analysis
methodology. Specifically, the
Commission believes that proposed
Subsection 2.1, in clarifying that backtesting is statistics-based hypothesis
testing and that a larger sample size
enhances the reliability of the inferences
from such testing, would establish a
clear risk management rationale for
ICC’s methodology to assess the
performance of production model backtesting analysis for CP related portfolios
reflecting all available observations over
periods of various market conditions.
The Commission also believes that
proposed Subsection 2.1, in analyzing
short lookback periods and describing
in detail an alternative statistical test by
illustrating its application across
different sample sizes and risk
quantiles, would provide a transparent,
risk-based explanation for setting the
minimum back-testing window length
for ICC’s MPOR model analysis. The
Commission also believes that proposed
Subsection 2.1, in referencing additional
analyses described in Section 4
(Guidelines to Remediate Poor BackTesting Results), and describing the
reporting of back-testing results for
portfolios, including those with an
insufficient number of observations,
would enhance the clarity and
transparency of ICC’s back-testing
procedures and contribute to the
effective implementation of its overall
back-testing approach. The Commission
also believes that the proposed
renumbering of sections that follow
proposed new Subsection 2.1 will
provide further clarity and enhance the
readability of the Back-Testing
Framework document.
Third, as discussed above, ICC
proposes additional clarifications to the
Back-Testing Framework that the
Commission believes, taken together,
will enhance the clarity of its backtesting approach, procedures, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:39 Oct 25, 2021
Jkt 256001
guidelines for remediating poor backtesting results. Specifically, the
proposed amendments to Subsection 2.6
(BTLS Exceedance Summaries), in
clearly referencing a relevant CFTC
regulation with respect to ICC’s
performance of production model 99%
back-testing analysis for all CP related
portfolios, would help assure continued
compliance with such regulation. The
proposed amendments to Section 4
(Guidelines to Remediate Poor BackTesting Results), in specifying that the
RWG will review and discuss the
number of observations in conducting
its risk model performance analysis, and
also assess the sufficiency of the number
of observations on the portfolio level
back-testing analysis without
overlapping periods, would strengthen
the RWG’s analysis and better inform
remedial actions. Finally, the proposed
amendment to Section 5, in including a
clear reference to the alternative
statistical test described above in the
proposed new Subsection 2.1, would
assure that the RWG and relevant ICC
Risk personnel have access to further
details in using such test.
By helping to assure the sound
operation of the Back-Testing
Framework, which ICC uses to manage
the credit exposures associated with
clearing CDS transactions, the
Commission believes that the proposed
rule change would help improve ICC’s
ability to avoid the losses that could
result from the miscalculation of ICC’s
credit exposures and margin
requirements for such transactions.
Because such losses could disrupt ICC’s
ability to operate and thus clear and
settle CDS transactions, the Commission
finds the proposed rule change, by
helping to enhance ICC’s overall risk
management and financial stability,
would promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities
and derivative transactions. Because
such losses could also threaten access to
securities and funds in ICC’s control,
the Commission finds the proposed rule
change would help assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds that
are in the custody or control of ICC or
for which it is responsible.
Therefore, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change would
promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and derivative agreements,
contracts, and transactions, and assure
the safeguarding of securities and funds
in ICC’s custody and control or for
which ICC is responsible, consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.11
B. Consistency With Rules 17Ad–
22(e)(2)(i) and (v) Under the Act
Rules 17Ad–22(e)(2)(i) and (v) require
that ICC establish, implement, maintain,
and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to
provide for governance arrangements
that are clear and transparent and
specify clear and direct lines of
responsibility, respectively.12 As
discussed above, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change,
in specifying that ICC Risk may use
alternative statistical tests to assess the
performance of its risk models for
statistical reliability, would provide ICC
Risk with procedural clarity in
conducting its back-testing analysis of
risk models. The Commission believes
that the proposed amendments in
Section 4, in specifying that the RWG
will review and discuss the number of
observations in conducting its risk
model performance analysis, and also
assess the sufficiency of the number of
observations on the portfolio level backtesting analysis without overlapping
periods, would clarify the scope of the
RWG’s responsibility in reviewing poor
back-testing results and would help the
RWG to take more fully informed
remedial actions, such as making risk
model enhancements or introducing adhoc parameter values to achieve an
increased conservative bias of the risk
models. Finally, the proposed
amendment to Section 5, in including a
clear reference to the alternative
statistical test described above in the
proposed new Subsection 2.1, would
assure that the RWG and relevant ICC
Risk personnel have the correct source
document to govern the ongoing use of
such test for verifying the accuracy of
risk management models.
The Commission believes that these
aspects of proposed rule change would
clearly assign and document the
respective roles and responsibilities of
ICC Risk and the RWG in implementing
the Back-Testing Framework, and
thereby improving the related
governance arrangements for performing
the appropriate scope of back-testing
analysis and taking remedial actions if
poor back-testing results warrant such
action. The Commission therefore finds
that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rules 17Ad–22(e)(2)(i)
and (v).13
C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad–
22(e)(6)(vi) Under the Act
Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(vi) requires that
ICC establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures
12 17
11 15
PO 00000
U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F).
Frm 00149
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13 17
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
26OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 26, 2021 / Notices
reasonably designed to cover its credit
exposures to its participants by
establishing a risk-based margin system
that, at a minimum, is monitored by
management on an ongoing basis and is
regularly reviewed, tested, and verified
by, among other things: (A) Conducting
backtests of its margin model at least
once each day using standard
predetermined parameters and
assumptions; and (B) conducting a
sensitivity analysis of its margin model
and a review of its parameters and
assumptions for backtesting on at least
a monthly basis, and considering
modifications to ensure the backtesting
practices are appropriate for
determining the adequacy of ICC’s
margin resources.14
Consistent with such back-testing
requirements, the proposed rule change
would not modify ICC Risk’s current
back-testing practices of performing
daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly
portfolio-level back-testing analyses,
performing monthly parameter reviews
and parameter sensitivity analyses, and
remediating poor back-testing results
under the Back-Testing Framework.15
For the reasons discussed below, the
Commission finds that the proposed
rule change would enhance such backtesting practices to help ICC monitor its
credit exposures to its clearing
participants and maintain the ongoing
effectiveness of its risk-based margin
system and overall risk management
framework. As described above,
proposed new Subsection 2.1 (Lookback
Period for Back-Testing of the
Production Model with Clearing
Participant Portfolios), in adding a
detailed description of the maximum
back-testing sample size, or lookback
period, and an alternative statistical test
for enhanced analysis and verification
of the accuracy of risk model
performance, would clarify and
strengthen ICC’s back-testing analysis
for CP related portfolios. Proposed
Subsection 2.1, in establishing the
minimum back-testing window length
for the Margin Period of Risk (MPOR)
model analysis, subjecting the MPOR
model to the performance of additional
analyses for portfolios with an
insufficient number of available
observations, and clarifying the
reporting of back-testing results for such
portfolios, would help ensure that the
back-testing practices for MPOR models
are appropriate for determining the
accuracy of ICC’s margin resources. If
red-zone results appear from
overlapping back-testing periods,
Section 4, as amended, would require
14 17
CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(6)(vi).
Notice at 51205.
15 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:39 Oct 25, 2021
Jkt 256001
ICC Risk to assess the sufficiency of the
number of observations on the portfoliolevel back-testing analysis, which would
supplement its complementary backtesting analysis without overlapping
periods. The Commission therefore
finds that these aspects of the proposed
rule change, taken together, are
consistent with Rule 17Ad–
22(e)(6)(vi).16
IV. Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, the
Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with the requirements of the
Act, and in particular, with the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of
the Act 17 and Rules 17Ad–22(e)(2)(i)
and (v), and 17Ad–22(e)(6)(vi)
thereunder.18
It is therefore ordered pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 19 that the
proposed rule change (SR–ICC–2021–
018) be, and hereby is, approved.20
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.21
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
59261
Submit completed loan
applications to: U.S. Small Business
Administration, Processing and
Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.
Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,
U.S. Small Business Administration,
409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050,
Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice
of the President’s major disaster
declaration for Private Non-Profit
organizations in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, dated 10/08/2021, is
hereby amended to include the
following areas as adversely affected by
the disaster.
Primary Counties: Dauphin, Delaware.
All other information in the original
declaration remains unchanged.
ADDRESSES:
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Number 59008)
James Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2021–23307 Filed 10–25–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026–03–P
[FR Doc. 2021–23258 Filed 10–25–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[Disaster Declaration #17217 and #17218;
Pennsylvania Disaster Number PA–00116]
Presidential Declaration Amendment of
a Major Disaster for Public Assistance
Only for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Amendment 2.
AGENCY:
This is an amendment of the
Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for Public Assistance Only for
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(FEMA–4618–DR), dated 10/08/2021.
Incident: Remnants of Hurricane Ida.
Incident Period: 08/31/2021 through
09/05/2021.
DATES: Issued on 10/20/2021.
Physical Loan Application Deadline
Date: 12/07/2021.
Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan
Application Deadline Date: 07/08/2022.
CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(6)(vi).
U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F).
18 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(2)(i) and (v), and
(e)(6)(vi).
19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
20 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).
21 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
17 15
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Presidential Declaration Amendment of
a Major Disaster for the State of New
York
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Amendment 4.
AGENCY:
This is an amendment of the
Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New York
(FEMA–4615–DR), dated 09/05/2021.
Incident: Remnants of Hurricane Ida.
Incident Period: 09/01/2021 through
09/03/2021.
DATES: Issued on 10/20/2021.
Physical Loan Application Deadline
Date: 11/04/2021.
Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan
Application Deadline Date: 06/06/2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan
applications to: U.S. Small Business
Administration, Processing and
Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.
Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,
U.S. Small Business Administration,
409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050,
Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice
of the President’s major disaster
declaration for the State of NEW YORK,
SUMMARY:
SUMMARY:
16 17
[Disaster Declaration #17147 and #17148;
New York Disaster Number NY–00208]
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59258-59261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23258]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-93388; File No. SR-ICC-2021-018]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Back-Testing
Framework
October 20, 2021.
I. Introduction
On August 24, 2021, 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 (SR-ICC-2021-018)
to revise the ICE CDS Clearing: Back-Testing Framework (``Back-Testing
Framework'') to include additional description on the lookback period
for back-testing and other
[[Page 59259]]
clarifications.\3\ The proposed rule change was published in the
Federal Register on September 14, 2021.\4\ The Commission did not
receive comments on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed
below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined have
the meaning set forth in the ICC Rules or the Back-Testing
Framework.
\4\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Back-Testing
Framework, Exchange Act Release No. 92893 (Sept. 8, 2021); 86 FR
51204 (Sept. 14, 2021) (SR-ICC-2021-018) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change
The Back-Testing Framework discusses ICC's back-testing approach
and analysis to verify that the number of actual losses is consistent
with the number of projected losses, and includes guidelines for
remediating poor back-testing results. ICC proposes revising the Back-
Testing Framework to include additional description on the lookback
period for back-testing, which refers to the maximum back-testing
sample size, and other clarifications. The proposed revisions to the
Back-Testing Framework are described in detail as follows.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The following description of the proposed rule change is
substantially excerpted from the Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICC proposes a clarification change in Subsection 1.2 to specify
that the ICC Risk Management Department (``ICC Risk'') may consider
back-testing analysis based on alternative statistical tests to assess
the performance of its models in terms of statistical reliability, in
addition to its current consideration of clustering of exceedances,
which refers to excessive losses.
ICC proposes new Subsection 2.1 (Lookback Period for Back-Testing
of the Production Model with Clearing Participant Portfolios) to
include additional description of the lookback period for back-testing,
which refers to the maximum back-testing sample size. ICC represents
that proposed Subsection 2.1 would not change its methodology.\6\
Specifically, proposed Subsection 2.1 defines back-testing as
statistics-based hypothesis testing, and clarifies that the larger the
sample size is, the more reliable the inference is from such testing.
Proposed Subsection 2.1 describes the performance of production model
back-testing analysis for Clearing Participant (``CP'') related
portfolios reflecting all available observations over periods of
various market conditions. The proposed language also describes the
maximum back-testing sample size, or the lookback period, and the
benefit of allowing for a greater sample size that would incorporate
observations from various market regimes to assess model performance
and thus ensure more reliable inferences from back-testing. The
proposed language also analyzes short lookback periods, which may
exclude extreme stress market conditions, in combination with high risk
quantile estimates (e.g., greater than 99%). ICC also proposes to
introduce an alternative statistical test and describe how the model is
considered to pass or fail such test. Proposed Figure 1 provides an
illustration under the alternative statistical test across different
sample sizes and risk quantiles. Following proposed Figure 1, ICC would
explain its rationale for establishing the minimum back-testing window
length for the initial margin risk horizon, or the Margin Period of
Risk (``MPOR'') model analysis. Proposed Subsection 2.1 also references
the performance of additional analyses, as described in Section 4 of
the Back-Testing Framework which contain guidelines to remediate poor
back-testing results. Proposed Subsection 2.1 includes language
concerning the reporting of back-testing results for portfolios,
including those with an insufficient number of observations. Given the
proposed addition of new Subsection 2.1, ICC proposes to renumber the
subsequent subsections of the Back-Testing Framework document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Notice at 51205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICC proposes additional clarifications to the Back-Testing
Framework. The proposed amendments include a footnote in amended
Subsection 2.6 (BTLS Exceedance Summaries) that references a relevant
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') regulation with respect
to ICC's performance of production model 99% back-testing analysis for
all CP related portfolios. ICC also proposes amendments to Section 4
(Guidelines to Remediate Poor Back-Testing Results). Currently, poor
back-testing results require a peer review of the risk models by the
Risk Working Group (``RWG''), which is comprised of risk
representatives from ICC's CPs, and remedial actions to improve model
performance. Section 4 currently states that model performance analysis
along with the model assumptions are presented to the RWG for review
and discussions. In addition to the model assumptions, the proposed
change would include the number of observations for the RWG's review
and discussions. Section 4 also currently states that a back-testing
analysis without overlapping periods will be performed in order to
confirm poor-backing results if the number of observed exceedances
falls in the ``red zone'' of the so-called Basel Traffic Light System
(BTLS) of the Basel Committee Supervisory Framework. The proposed rule
change would amend such statement to include the RWG's assessment of
the sufficiency of the number of observations in performing the
portfolio-level back-testing analysis, thus supplementing the current
complementary back-testing analysis without overlapping periods. ICC
also proposes to update Section 5, containing a list of references, to
include a reference to the alternative statistical test described above
in the proposed new Subsection 2.1.
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.\7\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds that
the proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \8\ and
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v), and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
\8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v), and (e)(6)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, as well
as to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the proposed rule change would revise the Back-
Testing Framework to include additional description of the lookback
period for back-testing and other clarifications. For the specific
reasons discussed below, the Commission believes that, in general, the
proposed rule change would help ensure the sound operation of the Back-
Testing Framework that should enhance the overall risk management and
financial stability of ICC, and thereby promote ICC's prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of
[[Page 59260]]
credit default swap (``CDS'') transactions, and help assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in ICC's custody or
control or for which ICC is responsible.
First, the Commission believes that the proposed clarification in
Subsection 1.2, in specifying that ICC Risk may use alternative
statistical tests to assess the performance of its risk models for
statistical reliability, would strengthen its back-testing approach and
analysis by supplementing its consideration of the clustering of
exceedances or excessive losses.
Second, as discussed above, the proposed rule change also would
introduce a new Subsection 2.1 that provides additional detail and
explanation regarding the lookback period for its back-testing analysis
methodology. Specifically, the Commission believes that proposed
Subsection 2.1, in clarifying that back-testing is statistics-based
hypothesis testing and that a larger sample size enhances the
reliability of the inferences from such testing, would establish a
clear risk management rationale for ICC's methodology to assess the
performance of production model back-testing analysis for CP related
portfolios reflecting all available observations over periods of
various market conditions. The Commission also believes that proposed
Subsection 2.1, in analyzing short lookback periods and describing in
detail an alternative statistical test by illustrating its application
across different sample sizes and risk quantiles, would provide a
transparent, risk-based explanation for setting the minimum back-
testing window length for ICC's MPOR model analysis. The Commission
also believes that proposed Subsection 2.1, in referencing additional
analyses described in Section 4 (Guidelines to Remediate Poor Back-
Testing Results), and describing the reporting of back-testing results
for portfolios, including those with an insufficient number of
observations, would enhance the clarity and transparency of ICC's back-
testing procedures and contribute to the effective implementation of
its overall back-testing approach. The Commission also believes that
the proposed renumbering of sections that follow proposed new
Subsection 2.1 will provide further clarity and enhance the readability
of the Back-Testing Framework document.
Third, as discussed above, ICC proposes additional clarifications
to the Back-Testing Framework that the Commission believes, taken
together, will enhance the clarity of its back-testing approach,
procedures, and guidelines for remediating poor back-testing results.
Specifically, the proposed amendments to Subsection 2.6 (BTLS
Exceedance Summaries), in clearly referencing a relevant CFTC
regulation with respect to ICC's performance of production model 99%
back-testing analysis for all CP related portfolios, would help assure
continued compliance with such regulation. The proposed amendments to
Section 4 (Guidelines to Remediate Poor Back-Testing Results), in
specifying that the RWG will review and discuss the number of
observations in conducting its risk model performance analysis, and
also assess the sufficiency of the number of observations on the
portfolio level back-testing analysis without overlapping periods,
would strengthen the RWG's analysis and better inform remedial actions.
Finally, the proposed amendment to Section 5, in including a clear
reference to the alternative statistical test described above in the
proposed new Subsection 2.1, would assure that the RWG and relevant ICC
Risk personnel have access to further details in using such test.
By helping to assure the sound operation of the Back-Testing
Framework, which ICC uses to manage the credit exposures associated
with clearing CDS transactions, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change would help improve ICC's ability to avoid the
losses that could result from the miscalculation of ICC's credit
exposures and margin requirements for such transactions. Because such
losses could disrupt ICC's ability to operate and thus clear and settle
CDS transactions, the Commission finds the proposed rule change, by
helping to enhance ICC's overall risk management and financial
stability, would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities and derivative transactions. Because such
losses could also threaten access to securities and funds in ICC's
control, the Commission finds the proposed rule change would help
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds that are in the custody
or control of ICC or for which it is responsible.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change would
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions,
and assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICC's custody
and control or for which ICC is responsible, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Consistency With Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) Under the Act
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) require that ICC establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that are
clear and transparent and specify clear and direct lines of
responsibility, respectively.\12\ As discussed above, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change, in specifying that ICC Risk may
use alternative statistical tests to assess the performance of its risk
models for statistical reliability, would provide ICC Risk with
procedural clarity in conducting its back-testing analysis of risk
models. The Commission believes that the proposed amendments in Section
4, in specifying that the RWG will review and discuss the number of
observations in conducting its risk model performance analysis, and
also assess the sufficiency of the number of observations on the
portfolio level back-testing analysis without overlapping periods,
would clarify the scope of the RWG's responsibility in reviewing poor
back-testing results and would help the RWG to take more fully informed
remedial actions, such as making risk model enhancements or introducing
ad-hoc parameter values to achieve an increased conservative bias of
the risk models. Finally, the proposed amendment to Section 5, in
including a clear reference to the alternative statistical test
described above in the proposed new Subsection 2.1, would assure that
the RWG and relevant ICC Risk personnel have the correct source
document to govern the ongoing use of such test for verifying the
accuracy of risk management models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that these aspects of proposed rule change
would clearly assign and document the respective roles and
responsibilities of ICC Risk and the RWG in implementing the Back-
Testing Framework, and thereby improving the related governance
arrangements for performing the appropriate scope of back-testing
analysis and taking remedial actions if poor back-testing results
warrant such action. The Commission therefore finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi) Under the Act
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi) requires that ICC establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
[[Page 59261]]
reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants
by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, is
monitored by management on an ongoing basis and is regularly reviewed,
tested, and verified by, among other things: (A) Conducting backtests
of its margin model at least once each day using standard predetermined
parameters and assumptions; and (B) conducting a sensitivity analysis
of its margin model and a review of its parameters and assumptions for
backtesting on at least a monthly basis, and considering modifications
to ensure the backtesting practices are appropriate for determining the
adequacy of ICC's margin resources.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with such back-testing requirements, the proposed rule
change would not modify ICC Risk's current back-testing practices of
performing daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly portfolio-level back-
testing analyses, performing monthly parameter reviews and parameter
sensitivity analyses, and remediating poor back-testing results under
the Back-Testing Framework.\15\ For the reasons discussed below, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change would enhance such back-
testing practices to help ICC monitor its credit exposures to its
clearing participants and maintain the ongoing effectiveness of its
risk-based margin system and overall risk management framework. As
described above, proposed new Subsection 2.1 (Lookback Period for Back-
Testing of the Production Model with Clearing Participant Portfolios),
in adding a detailed description of the maximum back-testing sample
size, or lookback period, and an alternative statistical test for
enhanced analysis and verification of the accuracy of risk model
performance, would clarify and strengthen ICC's back-testing analysis
for CP related portfolios. Proposed Subsection 2.1, in establishing the
minimum back-testing window length for the Margin Period of Risk (MPOR)
model analysis, subjecting the MPOR model to the performance of
additional analyses for portfolios with an insufficient number of
available observations, and clarifying the reporting of back-testing
results for such portfolios, would help ensure that the back-testing
practices for MPOR models are appropriate for determining the accuracy
of ICC's margin resources. If red-zone results appear from overlapping
back-testing periods, Section 4, as amended, would require ICC Risk to
assess the sufficiency of the number of observations on the portfolio-
level back-testing analysis, which would supplement its complementary
back-testing analysis without overlapping periods. The Commission
therefore finds that these aspects of the proposed rule change, taken
together, are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Notice at 51205.
\16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in
particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
\17\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v), and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)
thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v), and (e)(6)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2021-018) be, and hereby is,
approved.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
\20\ 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).
\21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23258 Filed 10-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P