74314 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4For 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. 87408 (October 28, 2019), 84 FR 58778 

at n.6 (November 1, 2019) (SR–NYSECHX–2019– 

12). 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 American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., 

and NYSE National, Inc. (together, the ‘‘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–NYSEAMER–2024–52, SR– 

NYSEARCA–2024–71, and SR–NYSENAT–2024– 

24. 

5Through 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. 

6See 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)). 

7See 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)). 

8See 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’’). 

about the special characteristics of a 

closed-end fund that makes periodic 

repurchase offers. 

The Commission staff estimates that 

80 funds make use of rule 23c–3 

annually, including 14 funds that are 

relying upon rule 23c–3 for the first 

time. The Commission staff estimates 

that on average a fund spends 89 hours 

annually in complying with the 

requirements of the rule and Form N– 

23c–3, with funds relying upon rule 

23c–3 for the first time incurring an 

additional one-time burden of 28 hours. 

The Commission therefore estimates the 

total annual hour burden of the rule’s 

and form’s paperwork requirements to 

be 7,512 hours. In addition to the 

burden hours, the Commission staff 

estimates that the average yearly cost to 

each fund that relies on rule 23c–3 to 

print and mail repurchase offers to 

shareholders is about $38,003.10. The 

Commission estimates total annual cost 

is therefore about $3,040,248. 

Estimates of average burden hours 

and costs are made solely for purposes 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are 

not derived from a comprehensive or 

even representative survey or study of 

the costs of Commission rules and 

forms. Compliance with the collection 

of information requirements of the rule 

and form is mandatory only for those 

funds that rely on the rule to repurchase 

shares of the fund. The information 

provided to the Commission on Form 

N–23c–3 will not be kept confidential. 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

The public may view background 

documentation for this information 

collection at the following website: 

www.reginfo.gov. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice by October 15, 2024 to (i) 

MBX.OMB.OIRA.SEC_desk_officer@

omb.eop.gov and (ii) Austin Gerig, 

Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, c/o 

Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an 

email to: PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. 

Dated: September 9, 2024. 

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20700 Filed 9–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–100966; File No. SR– 

NYSECHX–2024–27] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Chicago, Inc.; 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 

27, 2024, NYSE Chicago, Inc. (‘‘NYSE 

Chicago’’ 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. 

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

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 74315 

9 Id., at 80794. 

10The proposed change would not apply to Users 

that are already on a waitlist at the time the 

proposed change becomes operative. 

11See Ordering Window Approval Order, supra 

note 8. 

12Because 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. 

13The 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. 

14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

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. 

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 

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 

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. 

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, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
74316 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 

17See 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). 

18See Ordering Window Approval Order, supra 

note 8. 

19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

20See 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 

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

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 

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 

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 74317 

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). 25 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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. 

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– 

NYSECHX–2024–27 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–NYSECHX–2024–27. 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–NYSECHX–2024–27 and should be 

submitted on or before October 3, 2024. 

For the Commission, by the Division 

of Trading and Markets, pursuant to 

delegated authority.25

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20640 Filed 9–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[SEC File No. 270–629, OMB Control No. 

3235–0719] 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request; Extension: Rule 

13n–1—13n–12; Form SDR 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 

20549–2736 

Notice is hereby given that pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(‘‘PRA’’) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) a request for approval of 

extension of the previously approved 

collection of information provided for in 

Rules 13n–1 through 13n–12 (17 CFR 

240.13n–1 through 240.13n–12) and 

Form SDR (‘‘Rules’’), under the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

U.S.C. 78m(n)(3) et seq.). 

Under the Rules, security-based swap 

data repositories (‘‘SDRs’’) are required 

to register with the Commission by 

filing a completed Form SDR (the filing 

of a completed Form SDR also 

constitutes an application for 

registration as a securities information 

processor (‘‘SIP’’)). SDRs are also 

required to abide by certain minimum 

standards set out in the Rules, including 

a requirement to update Form SDR, 

abide by certain duties and core 

principles, maintain data in accordance 

with the rules, keep systems in 

accordance with the Rules, keep 

records, provide reports to the 

Commission, maintain the privacy of 

security-based swaps (‘‘SBSs’’) data, 

make certain disclosures, and designate 

a Chief Compliance Officer. In addition, 

there are a number of collections of 

information contained in the Rules. The 

information collected pursuant to the 

Rules is necessary to carry out the 

mandates of the Dodd-Frank Act and 

help ensure an orderly and transparent 

market for SBSs. 

Assuming a maximum of three SDRs, 

the Commission estimates that the total 

that the total burden for the Rules and 

Form SDR for all respondents is 127,505 

hours annually and approximately 

382,511 burden hours for all 

respondents over three years. In 

addition, the Commission estimates that 

the total cost of the Rules and Form SDR 

for all respondents is approximately 

$29,905,416 annually and 

approximately $89,716,248 for all 

respondents over three years. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

under the PRA unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The public may view background 

documentation for this information 

collection at the following website: 

www.reginfo.gov. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent by 

October 15, 2024 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain and (ii) Austin 

Gerig, Director/Chief Information 

Officer, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 

F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or 

by sending an email to: PRA_Mailbox@

sec.gov. 

Dated: September 9, 2024. 

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20695 Filed 9–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1