Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Existing Note in the Connectivity Fee Schedule, 74347-74351 [2024-20638]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices
EGCs by increasing the credibility of
their financial reporting given that they
are typically newer to the capital
markets and feature a higher degree of
information asymmetry between
management and investors.
Improvements in audit quality provide
investors with more accurate
information, which helps them make
more informed investment decisions.
More accurate information in financial
statements may also increase investors’
confidence and, in turn, facilitate
capital formation.
To the extent that an EGC’s auditor’s
existing quality control standards do not
meet the requirements under QC 1000
and the changes that auditors make to
their quality control system impact the
performance of audit engagements, this
could lead to a spillover externality
effect whereby EGCs themselves may
have to incur additional costs. For
example, an EGC could have to allocate
more resources to its own internal
control systems or to additional requests
for more extensive or additional
evidence from audit firms.303 While this
could be costly to the EGC, enhanced
internal control over financial reporting
at the EGC and audits that are
performed in compliance with
applicable professional standards are
expected to also benefit investors. Audit
firms may also raise audit fees for EGCs
as a result of implementing QC 1000.
Higher audit-related costs, in the form of
EGCs’ costs to support the audit and/or
in fees paid to auditors, would in turn
raise EGCs’ overall costs and possibly
adversely impact their ability to be
competitive in the product markets that
they operate. These potential costs to
EGCs will be reduced to the extent EGC
auditors will already be required to
comply with the Other QC Standards or
may choose not to pass on their
incremental costs arising from the QC
1000 requirements in the form of higher
audit fees. As discussed above,
Commission analysis shows that
approximately 88% of registered firms
performing PCAOB engagements will,
by the effective date of QC 1000, already
be subject to quality control
requirements that share a basic structure
with the requirements in QC 1000.
PCAOB staff analysis also shows that
approximately 98% of EGCs were
audited by firms that performed audits
for both EGC and non-EGC issuers.304
303 See
Alexander, C, S. Bauguess, G. Bernile, Y.
A. Lee, and J. Marietta-Westberg (2013) ‘‘Economic
Effect of SOX Section 404 Compliance: A Corporate
Insider Perspective,’’ Journal of Accounting and
Economics, at 56, 267–290. Based on a survey data,
this paper shows the compliance costs of SOX 404
weigh disproportionately on smaller firms.
304 See Adopting Release, supra note 9, at 375.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Sep 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
Therefore, for 98% of EGCs being
audited, there likely would be minimal
incremental costs for QC 1000 to apply
to EGCs, either due to their auditor
implementing QC 1000, as required to
audit its other issuers, or implementing
the Other QC Standards.
Accordingly, after considering the
protection of investors and whether the
action will promote efficiency,
competition, and capital formation, we
believe there is a sufficient basis to
determine that applying the
Amendments to the audits of EGCs is
necessary or appropriate in the public
interest.305
V. Conclusion
The Commission has reviewed and
considered the Amendments, the
information submitted therewith by the
PCAOB, the comment letters received,
and the recommendation of the
Commission’s staff. The Commission
concludes that the determinations made
by the PCAOB as described in the
Adopting Release are reasonable.
Generally, the Amendments establish an
integrated, risk-based quality control
standard that can be applied by firms of
varying sizes and complexities and that
will lead registered public accounting
firms to significantly improve their
quality control systems, thereby
improving audit quality and investor
protection. Specifically, the
Amendments make the following
important changes, among others, to the
existing quality control standards,
which will advance the Board’s investor
protection mandate under SOX:
• Replace the current standards,
which: (i) were developed by the
AICPA, a professional organization for
certified public accountants; (ii) were
last updated in 1997; (iii) focus on
evaluating firms’ compliance with their
own policies; (iv) do not require
evaluation or reporting; and (v) do not
contain express obligations for firms to
perform any specific monitoring;
• Incorporate a risk-based approach
to quality control, driving firms to
proactively identify and manage the
specific risks associated with their
305 As
noted above, during the Commission’s
comment period, two commenters raised concerns
that the design-only requirement would burden
smaller firms, which could impact smaller issuers
and broker-dealers, including emerging growth
companies. See letters from Chamber and PICPA.
Although these commenters mentioned EGCs in the
context of commenting on the design-only
requirement, neither suggested that firms should be
required to apply different quality control standards
to the audits of EGCs versus non-EGCs. For the
reasons stated above, we agree with the Board that
QC 1000 should apply to all registered public
accounting firms, including with respect to the
audits of EGCs, because of the firm-wide nature of
QC systems.
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
74347
practices, along with a set of mandates,
tailored to the size of the audit practice,
which should assure that the quality
control system is designed,
implemented, and operated with an
appropriate level of rigor;
• Emphasize the importance of
accountability and firm governance
through requirements around roles and
responsibilities, assigning operational
responsibility to individuals for
particular aspects of the QC system, and
the introduction of a certification by
certain responsible individuals; and
• Create a framework for evaluation
and reporting to the PCOAB which will
be consistently applied across all firms
operating a QC system under QC 1000.
Therefore, in connection with the
PCAOB’s filing and the Commission’s
review,
A. The Commission finds that the
Amendments are consistent with the
requirements of Title I of SOX and the
rules and regulations thereunder and are
necessary or appropriate in the public
interest or for the protection of
investors; and
B. Separately, the Commission finds
that the application of the Amendments
to the audits of EGCs is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, after
considering the protection of investors
and whether the action will promote
efficiency, competition, and capital
formation.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
section 107 of SOX and section 19(b)(2)
of the Exchange Act, that the
Amendments (File No. PCAOB–2024–
02) be and hereby are approved.
By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024–20714 Filed 9–11–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–100964; File No. SR–
NYSEAMER–2024–52]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE
American LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Amending the Existing
Note in the Connectivity Fee Schedule
September 6, 2024.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3
notice is hereby given that on August
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
U.S.C. 78a.
3 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
2 15
E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM
12SEN1
74348
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices
27, 2024, NYSE American LLC (‘‘NYSE
American’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed
with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the
proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have
been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend the
existing note in the Connectivity Fee
Schedule (‘‘Fee Schedule’’) regarding
cabinet and combined waitlists. The
proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange’s website at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission’s Public Reference
Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission, the
self-regulatory organization included
statements concerning the purpose of,
and basis for, the proposed rule change
and discussed any comments it received
on the proposed rule change. The text
of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below,
of the most significant parts of such
statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend the
existing note in the Fee Schedule
regarding cabinet and combined
waitlists.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Background
Shortly after the onset of the Covid–
19 pandemic, the Exchange began
experiencing unprecedented User 4
4 For purposes of the Exchange’s colocation
services, a ‘‘User’’ means any market participant
that requests to receive colocation services directly
from the Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 76009 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR
60213 (October 5, 2015) (SR–NYSEMKT–2015–67).
As specified in the Fee Schedule, a User that incurs
colocation fees for a particular colocation service
pursuant thereto would not be subject to colocation
fees for the same colocation service charged by the
New York Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE’’), NYSE
Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc. and NYSE National,
Inc. (together, the ‘‘Affiliate SROs’’). Affiliate SROs.
Each Affiliate SRO has submitted substantially the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Sep 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
demand for cabinets and power at the
Mahwah, New Jersey data center
(‘‘MDC’’).5 In order to manage its
inventory, in late 2020, the Exchange
filed to create purchasing limits and a
waitlist for cabinet orders (‘‘Cabinet
Waitlist’’).6 In early 2021, the Exchange
filed to create additional purchasing
limits and a waitlist for orders for
additional power in the MDC.7
In 2021 and 2022, the Exchange
expanded the amount of space and
power available in the MDC by opening
a new colocation hall (i.e., Hall 4). ICE
is currently expanding the amount of
colocation space and power available at
the MDC through a new colocation hall
(i.e., Hall 5).
The Exchange subsequently amended
the Fee Schedule to provide an
alternative procedure by which the
Exchange can allocate power in the
Mahwah Data Center via depositguaranteed orders from Users made
within a 90-day ‘‘Ordering Window.’’ 8
The Ordering Window procedure was
designed with the goal of addressing
both (a) whether customer demand
would support additional expansion
projects to provide further power, and
(b) the fact that previous procedures in
the Fee Schedule were not well-tailored
to allocating large amounts of power
that become available all at once, such
as when a new colocation hall opens.9
Orders received during an Ordering
Window are not considered finalized
until the Exchange has received the
User’s signed order form and a deposit
equal to two months’ worth of the
monthly recurring costs of the amount
of new power ordered.
same proposed rule change to propose the changes
described herein. See SR–NYSE–2024–49, SR–
NYSEARCA–2024–71, SR–NYSECHX–2024–27,
and SR–NYSENAT–2024–24.
5 Through its Fixed Income and Data Services
(‘‘FIDS’’) (previously ICE Data Services) business,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (‘‘ICE’’) operates the
MDC. The Exchange and the Affiliate SROs are
indirect subsidiaries of ICE.
6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90732
(December 18, 2020), 85 FR 84443 (December 28,
2020) (SR–NYSE–2020–73, SR–NYSEAMER–2020–
66, SR–NYSEArca–2020–82, SR–NYSECHX–2020–
26, and SR–NYSENAT–2020–28) (establishing the
procedures in current Colocation Note 6(a) and
7(a)).
7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91515
(April 8, 2021), 86 FR 19674 (April 14, 2021) (SR–
NYSE–2021–12, SR–NYSEAMER–2021–08, SR–
NYSEArca–2021–11, SR–NYSECHX–2021–02, and
SR–NYSENAT–2021–03) (establishing the
procedures in current Colocation Note 6(b) and
7(b)).
8 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98937
(November 14, 2023), 88 FR 80795 (November 20,
2023) (SR–NYSE–2023–29, SR–NYSEAMER–2023–
39, SR–NYSEArca–2023–53, SR–NYSECHX–2023–
16, and SR–NYSENAT–2023–18) (‘‘Ordering
Window Approval Order’’).
9 Id., at 80794.
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Exchange had a power and
cabinet waitlist (‘‘Combined Waitlist’’)
in place before the Ordering Window.
The Exchange found that when the
Combined Waitlist was in effect,
approximately 2⁄3 of its offers of power
were rejected. Users further down the
Combined Waitlist received power only
after those higher up the Combined
Waitlist were offered the power and
rejected it. As a result, the Users that
actually wanted power received it only
after a delay that lasted weeks or even
months.
Proposed Changes
In response, the Exchange proposes to
amend Fee Schedule Colocation Note 7
(Cabinet and Combined Waitlists)
(‘‘Note 7’’) to require that Users wanting
to be placed on a waitlist must
guarantee their order with a deposit.10
Requiring Users to submit deposits with
their orders in order to be placed on the
waitlist would help avoid delays for
Users further down the list, by
encouraging Users to carefully assess
their true power and cabinet needs and
protecting against Users ordering more
power or cabinets than they actually
intend to purchase. Requiring Users to
submit deposits along with their orders
was approved by the Commission in the
Exchange’s Ordering Window filing,11
and so the deposit requirement here
would not be novel.
To implement the change, Note 7(a),
which sets forth the practices the
Exchange follows for a Cabinet Waitlist,
would be revised to provide that a User
would be placed on the Cabinet Waitlist
based on the date its finalized order is
received, and that a User’s order would
be finalized when the Exchange receives
(a) User’s signed order form and (b) a
deposit equal to two months’ worth of
the monthly recurring costs of the
power requested for the cabinets
ordered.12
Note 7(b), which sets forth the
practices the Exchange follows for a
Combined Waitlist, similarly would be
revised to provide that a User would be
placed on the Combined Waitlist based
10 The proposed change would not apply to Users
that are already on a waitlist at the time the
proposed change becomes operative.
11 See Ordering Window Approval Order, supra
note 8.
12 Because monthly charges are calculated based
on power, not on cabinets, the Exchange proposes
to calculate the deposit based on the power
requested for the cabinets ordered. In such a case,
the deposit would be calculated as (a) the number
of kilowatts allocated to the cabinets the User is
ordering, multiplied by (b) the appropriate ‘‘Per kW
Monthly Fee’’ as indicated in the Connectivity Fee
Schedule. The Per kW Monthly Fee is a factor of
the total number of kilowatts allocated to all of a
User’s dedicated cabinets and varies based on the
total kilowatts allocated to a User.
E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM
12SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices
on the date its finalized order for
cabinets and/or additional power is
received, and that a User’s order would
be finalized when the Exchange receives
(a) User’s signed order form and (b) a
deposit equal to two months’ worth of
the monthly recurring costs of (i) the
power requested for the cabinets
ordered and/or (ii) the additional power
ordered.13
Note 7(a) and (b) would be revised to
provide that:
• If a User changes the size of its
order while it is on the Cabinet or
Combined Waitlist, as the case may be,
and any additional deposit is received
by the Exchange, it will maintain its
place, provided that the User may not
increase the size of its order such that
it would exceed the Cabinet Limits or
Combined Limits, as applicable.
• If a User wishes to reduce the size
of its order while it is on the Cabinet or
Combined Waitlist, its deposit would
not be reduced or returned, but rather
would be applied against the User’s first
and subsequent months’ invoices after
cabinets are, and/or the power is,
delivered until the deposit is depleted.
• If the User removes its order from
the Cabinet Waitlist or Combined
Waitlist, its deposit will be returned.
• A User that is removed from the
Cabinet or Combined Waitlist but
subsequently submits a new finalized
order for cabinets and/or additional
power will be added back to the bottom
of the waitlist.
• The deposit will be applied to the
User’s first and subsequent months’
invoices after the cabinets are and/or
additional power is delivered until the
deposit is completely depleted.
General
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
The proposed changes would not
apply differently to distinct types or
sizes of market participants. Rather,
they would apply to all Users equally.
As is currently the case, the Fee
Schedule would be applied uniformly to
all Users. FIDS does not expect that the
proposed rule change will result in new
Users.
The proposed changes are not
otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services
and/or related fees, and the Exchange is
not aware of any problems that
13 The deposit would be calculated as (a) the
number of kilowatts allocated to the cabinets the
User is ordering, if any, plus the number of
kilowatts of additional power, multiplied by (b) the
appropriate ‘‘Per kW Monthly Fee’’ as indicated in
the Connectivity Fee Schedule. The Per kW
Monthly Fee is a factor of the total number of
kilowatts allocated to all of a User’s dedicated
cabinets and varies based on the total kilowatts
allocated to a User.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Sep 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
customers would have in complying
with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,14 in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,15 in particular, because it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the
public interest and because it is not
designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The
Exchange further believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,16 because it
provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its members and issuers and
other persons using its facilities and
does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
The Exchange believes that the
proposed change is reasonable because
requiring Users to submit deposits with
their orders in order to be placed on the
waitlist would help avoid delays for
Users further down the list, by
encouraging Users to carefully assess
their true power and cabinet needs and
protecting against Users ordering more
power or cabinets than they actually
intend to purchase. Without firm,
guaranteed commitments from
waitlisted Users to purchase cabinets or
power if made available, the Exchange
runs the risk of overestimating
waitlisted Users’ true demand, creating
delays for Users further down the list.
The proposed deposit requirement
would address this by discouraging
waitlisted Users from submitting orders
for more cabinets or power than they
actually intend to purchase.
The proposed deposit requirement is
reasonable because, on the one hand, it
is not so onerous as to dissuade Users
from submitting orders, and, on the
other hand, it is not so trivial that it
would fail to deter Users from
submitting exaggerated orders. It is
14 15
U.S.C. 78f(b).
U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
15 15
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
74349
substantially similar to the deposit
provision already required under the
Ordering Window, and as such, the
deposit requirement here would not be
novel.17
In addition, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change is reasonable
because the deposit is proportional to
the size of the order, and not a fixed
amount. As a result, smaller Users
would not be disproportionately
affected by the deposit requirement.
Under the proposed procedure, if a
User wishes to reduce an order while on
a waitlist, its deposit would not be
reduced or returned, but rather would
be applied against the User’s first and
subsequent months’ invoices after the
cabinets are, or the power is, delivered
until the deposit is completely depleted.
The Exchange believes that this would
remove impediments and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system because a
waitlisted User would be reimbursed for
all of its deposit even if it reduces its
order. This would remove any incentive
a User otherwise might have to
understate its needs for cabinets and/or
power out of a concern that it would not
be reimbursed for the full amount of its
deposit.
The Proposed Change Is Equitable and
Not Unfairly Discriminatory
The Exchange believes that the
proposed change provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly
discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers because it is
not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The
proposed changes would apply equally
to all types and sizes of market
participants. All Users would receive
equal notice of the deposit requirement
through the proposed changes to Note 7,
and the deposit requirement would be
the same for all Users. Smaller Users
with more modest power needs would
not be disadvantaged by the proposed
changes, as the deposit is proportional
17 See Ordering Window Approval Order, supra
note 8. The NYSE requires market participants to
submit deposits in other contexts as well. For
example, since 2012, the NYSE has required
prospective issuers to pay a $25,000 initial
application fee as part of the process for listing a
new security on the exchange. This fee functions as
a deposit that is credited toward the issuer’s listing
fees after it is listed on the exchange. The deposit
functions as ‘‘a disincentive for impractical
applications by issuers.’’ The deposit is forfeited if
the issuer does not ultimately list on the exchange.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68470
(December 19, 20212), 77 FR 76116 at 76117
(December 26, 2012) (SR–NYSE–2012–68).
E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM
12SEN1
74350
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
to the size of the order and not a fixed
amount.
The proposed deposit requirement is
equitable because, on the one hand, it is
not so onerous as to dissuade Users
from submitting orders, and, on the
other hand, it is not so trivial that it
would fail to deter Users from
submitting exaggerated orders. It is
substantially similar to the deposit
provision already required under the
Ordering Window, and as such, the
deposit requirement here would not be
novel.18
Under the proposed procedure, if a
User wishes to reduce an order while on
a waitlist, its deposit would not be
reduced or returned, but rather would
be applied against the User’s first and
subsequent months’ invoices after the
cabinets are, or the power is, delivered
until the deposit is completely depleted.
The Exchange believes that this is
equitable because a waitlisted User
would be reimbursed for all of its
deposit even if it reduces its order. This
would remove any incentive a User
otherwise might have to understate its
needs for cabinets and/or power out of
a concern that it would not be
reimbursed for the full amount of its
deposit.
For the reasons above, the proposed
changes do not unfairly discriminate
between or among market participants
that are otherwise capable of satisfying
any applicable co-location fees,
requirements, terms, and conditions
established from time to time by the
Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent
with the Act.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange believes that the
proposal will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.19
The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change does not impose
any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. The
proposed rule change is designed to
help avoid delays for waitlisted Users,
by encouraging Users to carefully assess
their true power and cabinet needs and
protecting against Users ordering more
power or cabinets than they actually
intend to purchase. Without firm,
guaranteed commitments from
waitlisted Users to purchase cabinets or
18 See Ordering Window Approval Order, supra
note 8.
19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Sep 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
power if made available, the Exchange
runs the risk of overestimating
waitlisted Users’ true demand, creating
delays for Users further down the list.
The proposed deposit requirement
would address this by discouraging
waitlisted Users from submitting orders
for more cabinets or power than they
actually intend to purchase, thereby
facilitating a more equitable distribution
of cabinets and power. Moreover, the
Ordering Window already requires a
deposit, and as such, the deposit
requirement here would not be novel.20
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From
Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were solicited
or received with respect to the proposed
rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The Exchange has filed the proposed
rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 21 and Rule
19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.22 Because the
proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of
investors or the public interest; (ii)
impose any significant burden on
competition; and (iii) become operative
prior to 30 days from the date on which
it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if
consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the
proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii)
thereunder.23
At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. If the
Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 24 of the Act to
determine whether the proposed rule
20 See Ordering Window Approval Order, supra
note 8.
21 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
22 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).
23 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule
19b–4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to
give the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change at least five business
days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
24 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
change should be approved or
disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include file number SR–
NYSEAMER–2024–52 on the subject
line.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to file
number SR–NYSEAMER–2024–52. This
file number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
internet website (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also
will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. Do not include personal
identifiable information in submissions;
you should submit only information
that you wish to make available
publicly. We may redact in part or
withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or
subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number
SR–NYSEAMER–2024–52 and should
be submitted on or before October 3,
2024.
E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM
12SEN1
74351
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.25
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024–20638 Filed 9–11–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Docket No: SSA–2024–0031]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Request
The Social Security Administration
(SSA) publishes a list of information
collection packages requiring clearance
by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in compliance with
Public Law 104–13, the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, effective October
1, 1995. This notice includes revisions
of OMB-approved information
collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the
accuracy of the agency’s burden
estimate; the need for the information;
its practical utility; ways to enhance its
quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to
minimize burden on respondents,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Mail, email, or
Modality of completion
Number of
respondents
SSA–821–BK In Office
SSA–821–BK Phone ....
SSA–821–BK Returned
Via Mail .....................
SSA–821–BK Electronic .........................
Totals ....................
fax your comments and
recommendations on the information
collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer
and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at
the following addresses or fax numbers.
(OMB) Office of Management and
Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA. You
may submit your comments online
through https://www.reginfo.gov/public/
do/PRAMain, referencing Docket ID
Number [SSA–2024–0031].
(SSA) Social Security Administration,
OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director,
Mail Stop 3253 Altmeyer, 6401 Security
Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 833–
410–1631. Email address:
OR.Reports.Clearance@ssa.gov. Or you
may submit your comments online
through https://www.reginfo.gov/public/
do/PRAmain by clicking on Currently
under Review—Open for Public
Comments and choosing to click on one
of SSA’s published items.
Please reference Docket ID Number
[SSA–2024–0031] in your submitted
response.
The information collections below are
pending at SSA. SSA will submit them
to OMB within 60 days from the date of
this notice. To be sure we consider your
comments, we must receive them no
later than November 12, 2024.
Individuals can obtain copies of the
collection instruments by writing to the
above email address.
Average
burden per
response
(minutes)
Frequency
of response
Estimated
total annual
burden
(hours)
1. Work Activity Report—
Employee—20 CFR 404.1520(b),
404.1571–404.1576, 404.1584–404.1593,
and 416.971–404.976—0960–0059.
Section 223(d) of the Social Security Act
(Act) defines the term ‘‘disability’’ as the
inability to engage in any substantial
gainful activity (SGA) by reason of any
medically determinable physical or
mental impairment which one expects
to result in death, or which lasted or is
expected to last for a continuous period
of not less than 12 months. Social
Security Disability (SSDI) and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
applicants or recipients can become
entitled to payments based on their
inability to engage in SGA because of a
physical or mental condition. SSA uses
Form SSA–821–BK to obtain work
information during the initial claims
process; the continuing disability
review process; post-adjudicative work
issue actions; and for Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) claims involving
work issues. SSA reviews and evaluates
the data to determine if the applicant or
recipient meets the disability
requirements of the law. The
respondents are applicants or recipients
of Title II Social Security Disability, and
Title XVI SSI applicants.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMBapproved information collection.
Average
theoretical
hourly cost
amount
(dollars) *
Average
wait time
in field office
or for
teleservice
centers
(minutes) **
Total annual
opportunity
cost
(dollars) ***
64,330
128,660
1
1
30
30
32,165
64,330
* $13.30
* 13.30
** 24
** 19
*** 770,030
*** 1,397,458
192,990
1
40
128,660
* 13.30
........................
*** 1,710,380
25,320
411,300
1
........................
45
........................
18,990
244,145
* 13.30
........................
........................
........................
*** 252,567
*** 4,130,435
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
* We based this figure on the average of both DI payments based on SSA’s current FY 2024 data (https://mwww.ba.ssa.gov/legislation/
2024FactSheet.pdf), and U.S. worker’s hourly wages, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_
nat.htm).
** We based this figure on averaging the average FY 2024 wait times for field offices, based on SSA’s current management information data.
*** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application;
rather, these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual
charge to respondents to complete the application.
2. Claimant’s Medication—20 CFR
404.1512, 416.912—0960–0289. To
receive Old Age Survivors and
Disability Insurance (OASDI) and SSI
payments, the relevant State Disability
Determination Service (DDS) or field
office (FO) must first adjudicate
claimants’ applications. If the DDS or
FO denies an initial application, the
claimants may request for
25 17
reconsideration of the initial denial. At
that time, the claimants may submit
addition documentation to further
justify their claims. If the DDS denies
the claim at the reconsideration level,
the claimant may then request a hearing
before a judge. Before the hearing, SSA
allows the claimant to submit additional
evidence to support their claim. In
addition, since judges must obtain
information from the claimant to update
and complete their medical record and
to verify the accuracy of the
information, SSA also sends the
claimant Form HA–4632, Claimant’s
Medications, to request information
from the claimant regarding the current
medications they use. This information
helps the judge overseeing the case to
fully investigate: (1) the claimant’s
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Sep 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM
12SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74347-74351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20638]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-100964; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2024-52]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the
Existing Note in the Connectivity Fee Schedule
September 6, 2024.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on August
[[Page 74348]]
27, 2024, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
\3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend the existing note in the
Connectivity Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') regarding cabinet and
combined waitlists. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend the existing note in the Fee
Schedule regarding cabinet and combined waitlists.
Background
Shortly after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Exchange
began experiencing unprecedented User \4\ demand for cabinets and power
at the Mahwah, New Jersey data center (``MDC'').\5\ In order to manage
its inventory, in late 2020, the Exchange filed to create purchasing
limits and a waitlist for cabinet orders (``Cabinet Waitlist'').\6\ In
early 2021, the Exchange filed to create additional purchasing limits
and a waitlist for orders for additional power in the MDC.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For purposes of the Exchange's colocation services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive
colocation services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76009 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60213
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-67). As specified in the Fee
Schedule, a User that incurs colocation fees for a particular
colocation service pursuant thereto would not be subject to
colocation fees for the same colocation service charged by the New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago,
Inc. and NYSE National, Inc. (together, the ``Affiliate SROs'').
Affiliate SROs. Each Affiliate SRO has submitted substantially the
same proposed rule change to propose the changes described herein.
See SR-NYSE-2024-49, SR-NYSEARCA-2024-71, SR-NYSECHX-2024-27, and
SR-NYSENAT-2024-24.
\5\ Through its Fixed Income and Data Services (``FIDS'')
(previously ICE Data Services) business, Intercontinental Exchange,
Inc. (``ICE'') operates the MDC. The Exchange and the Affiliate SROs
are indirect subsidiaries of ICE.
\6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90732 (December 18,
2020), 85 FR 84443 (December 28, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-73, SR-
NYSEAMER-2020-66, SR-NYSEArca-2020-82, SR-NYSECHX-2020-26, and SR-
NYSENAT-2020-28) (establishing the procedures in current Colocation
Note 6(a) and 7(a)).
\7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91515 (April 8,
2021), 86 FR 19674 (April 14, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-12, SR-NYSEAMER-
2021-08, SR-NYSEArca-2021-11, SR-NYSECHX-2021-02, and SR-NYSENAT-
2021-03) (establishing the procedures in current Colocation Note
6(b) and 7(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021 and 2022, the Exchange expanded the amount of space and
power available in the MDC by opening a new colocation hall (i.e., Hall
4). ICE is currently expanding the amount of colocation space and power
available at the MDC through a new colocation hall (i.e., Hall 5).
The Exchange subsequently amended the Fee Schedule to provide an
alternative procedure by which the Exchange can allocate power in the
Mahwah Data Center via deposit-guaranteed orders from Users made within
a 90-day ``Ordering Window.'' \8\ The Ordering Window procedure was
designed with the goal of addressing both (a) whether customer demand
would support additional expansion projects to provide further power,
and (b) the fact that previous procedures in the Fee Schedule were not
well-tailored to allocating large amounts of power that become
available all at once, such as when a new colocation hall opens.\9\
Orders received during an Ordering Window are not considered finalized
until the Exchange has received the User's signed order form and a
deposit equal to two months' worth of the monthly recurring costs of
the amount of new power ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98937 (November 14,
2023), 88 FR 80795 (November 20, 2023) (SR-NYSE-2023-29, SR-
NYSEAMER-2023-39, SR-NYSEArca-2023-53, SR-NYSECHX-2023-16, and SR-
NYSENAT-2023-18) (``Ordering Window Approval Order'').
\9\ Id., at 80794.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange had a power and cabinet waitlist (``Combined
Waitlist'') in place before the Ordering Window. The Exchange found
that when the Combined Waitlist was in effect, approximately \2/3\ of
its offers of power were rejected. Users further down the Combined
Waitlist received power only after those higher up the Combined
Waitlist were offered the power and rejected it. As a result, the Users
that actually wanted power received it only after a delay that lasted
weeks or even months.
Proposed Changes
In response, the Exchange proposes to amend Fee Schedule Colocation
Note 7 (Cabinet and Combined Waitlists) (``Note 7'') to require that
Users wanting to be placed on a waitlist must guarantee their order
with a deposit.\10\ Requiring Users to submit deposits with their
orders in order to be placed on the waitlist would help avoid delays
for Users further down the list, by encouraging Users to carefully
assess their true power and cabinet needs and protecting against Users
ordering more power or cabinets than they actually intend to purchase.
Requiring Users to submit deposits along with their orders was approved
by the Commission in the Exchange's Ordering Window filing,\11\ and so
the deposit requirement here would not be novel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The proposed change would not apply to Users that are
already on a waitlist at the time the proposed change becomes
operative.
\11\ See Ordering Window Approval Order, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To implement the change, Note 7(a), which sets forth the practices
the Exchange follows for a Cabinet Waitlist, would be revised to
provide that a User would be placed on the Cabinet Waitlist based on
the date its finalized order is received, and that a User's order would
be finalized when the Exchange receives (a) User's signed order form
and (b) a deposit equal to two months' worth of the monthly recurring
costs of the power requested for the cabinets ordered.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Because monthly charges are calculated based on power, not
on cabinets, the Exchange proposes to calculate the deposit based on
the power requested for the cabinets ordered. In such a case, the
deposit would be calculated as (a) the number of kilowatts allocated
to the cabinets the User is ordering, multiplied by (b) the
appropriate ``Per kW Monthly Fee'' as indicated in the Connectivity
Fee Schedule. The Per kW Monthly Fee is a factor of the total number
of kilowatts allocated to all of a User's dedicated cabinets and
varies based on the total kilowatts allocated to a User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 7(b), which sets forth the practices the Exchange follows for
a Combined Waitlist, similarly would be revised to provide that a User
would be placed on the Combined Waitlist based
[[Page 74349]]
on the date its finalized order for cabinets and/or additional power is
received, and that a User's order would be finalized when the Exchange
receives (a) User's signed order form and (b) a deposit equal to two
months' worth of the monthly recurring costs of (i) the power requested
for the cabinets ordered and/or (ii) the additional power ordered.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The deposit would be calculated as (a) the number of
kilowatts allocated to the cabinets the User is ordering, if any,
plus the number of kilowatts of additional power, multiplied by (b)
the appropriate ``Per kW Monthly Fee'' as indicated in the
Connectivity Fee Schedule. The Per kW Monthly Fee is a factor of the
total number of kilowatts allocated to all of a User's dedicated
cabinets and varies based on the total kilowatts allocated to a
User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 7(a) and (b) would be revised to provide that:
If a User changes the size of its order while it is on the
Cabinet or Combined Waitlist, as the case may be, and any additional
deposit is received by the Exchange, it will maintain its place,
provided that the User may not increase the size of its order such that
it would exceed the Cabinet Limits or Combined Limits, as applicable.
If a User wishes to reduce the size of its order while it
is on the Cabinet or Combined Waitlist, its deposit would not be
reduced or returned, but rather would be applied against the User's
first and subsequent months' invoices after cabinets are, and/or the
power is, delivered until the deposit is depleted.
If the User removes its order from the Cabinet Waitlist or
Combined Waitlist, its deposit will be returned.
A User that is removed from the Cabinet or Combined
Waitlist but subsequently submits a new finalized order for cabinets
and/or additional power will be added back to the bottom of the
waitlist.
The deposit will be applied to the User's first and
subsequent months' invoices after the cabinets are and/or additional
power is delivered until the deposit is completely depleted.
General
The proposed changes would not apply differently to distinct types
or sizes of market participants. Rather, they would apply to all Users
equally. As is currently the case, the Fee Schedule would be applied
uniformly to all Users. FIDS does not expect that the proposed rule
change will result in new Users.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and
the Exchange is not aware of any problems that customers would have in
complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange further believes
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act,\16\ because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other
persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because requiring Users to submit deposits with their orders in order
to be placed on the waitlist would help avoid delays for Users further
down the list, by encouraging Users to carefully assess their true
power and cabinet needs and protecting against Users ordering more
power or cabinets than they actually intend to purchase. Without firm,
guaranteed commitments from waitlisted Users to purchase cabinets or
power if made available, the Exchange runs the risk of overestimating
waitlisted Users' true demand, creating delays for Users further down
the list. The proposed deposit requirement would address this by
discouraging waitlisted Users from submitting orders for more cabinets
or power than they actually intend to purchase.
The proposed deposit requirement is reasonable because, on the one
hand, it is not so onerous as to dissuade Users from submitting orders,
and, on the other hand, it is not so trivial that it would fail to
deter Users from submitting exaggerated orders. It is substantially
similar to the deposit provision already required under the Ordering
Window, and as such, the deposit requirement here would not be
novel.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Ordering Window Approval Order, supra note 8. The NYSE
requires market participants to submit deposits in other contexts as
well. For example, since 2012, the NYSE has required prospective
issuers to pay a $25,000 initial application fee as part of the
process for listing a new security on the exchange. This fee
functions as a deposit that is credited toward the issuer's listing
fees after it is listed on the exchange. The deposit functions as
``a disincentive for impractical applications by issuers.'' The
deposit is forfeited if the issuer does not ultimately list on the
exchange. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68470 (December
19, 20212), 77 FR 76116 at 76117 (December 26, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-
68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is
reasonable because the deposit is proportional to the size of the
order, and not a fixed amount. As a result, smaller Users would not be
disproportionately affected by the deposit requirement.
Under the proposed procedure, if a User wishes to reduce an order
while on a waitlist, its deposit would not be reduced or returned, but
rather would be applied against the User's first and subsequent months'
invoices after the cabinets are, or the power is, delivered until the
deposit is completely depleted. The Exchange believes that this would
remove impediments and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system because a waitlisted User would be
reimbursed for all of its deposit even if it reduces its order. This
would remove any incentive a User otherwise might have to understate
its needs for cabinets and/or power out of a concern that it would not
be reimbursed for the full amount of its deposit.
The Proposed Change Is Equitable and Not Unfairly Discriminatory
The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposed changes
would apply equally to all types and sizes of market participants. All
Users would receive equal notice of the deposit requirement through the
proposed changes to Note 7, and the deposit requirement would be the
same for all Users. Smaller Users with more modest power needs would
not be disadvantaged by the proposed changes, as the deposit is
proportional
[[Page 74350]]
to the size of the order and not a fixed amount.
The proposed deposit requirement is equitable because, on the one
hand, it is not so onerous as to dissuade Users from submitting orders,
and, on the other hand, it is not so trivial that it would fail to
deter Users from submitting exaggerated orders. It is substantially
similar to the deposit provision already required under the Ordering
Window, and as such, the deposit requirement here would not be
novel.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Ordering Window Approval Order, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed procedure, if a User wishes to reduce an order
while on a waitlist, its deposit would not be reduced or returned, but
rather would be applied against the User's first and subsequent months'
invoices after the cabinets are, or the power is, delivered until the
deposit is completely depleted. The Exchange believes that this is
equitable because a waitlisted User would be reimbursed for all of its
deposit even if it reduces its order. This would remove any incentive a
User otherwise might have to understate its needs for cabinets and/or
power out of a concern that it would not be reimbursed for the full
amount of its deposit.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms, and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
designed to help avoid delays for waitlisted Users, by encouraging
Users to carefully assess their true power and cabinet needs and
protecting against Users ordering more power or cabinets than they
actually intend to purchase. Without firm, guaranteed commitments from
waitlisted Users to purchase cabinets or power if made available, the
Exchange runs the risk of overestimating waitlisted Users' true demand,
creating delays for Users further down the list. The proposed deposit
requirement would address this by discouraging waitlisted Users from
submitting orders for more cabinets or power than they actually intend
to purchase, thereby facilitating a more equitable distribution of
cabinets and power. Moreover, the Ordering Window already requires a
deposit, and as such, the deposit requirement here would not be
novel.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Ordering Window Approval Order, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\22\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
\22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
\23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \24\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSEAMER-2024-52 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEAMER-2024-52. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEAMER-2024-52 and should
be submitted on or before October 3, 2024.
[[Page 74351]]
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-20638 Filed 9-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
