Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 74347 

303See 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. 

304See Adopting Release, supra note 9, at 375. 

305As 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. 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

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

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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
74348 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 

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. 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. 

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’’). 

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. 

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. 

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

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 74349 

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). 

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). 

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, 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
74350 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 

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 

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). 

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

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– 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 74351 

25 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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 

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. 

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. 

Modality of completion Number of 

respondents 

Frequency 

of response 

Average 

burden per 

response 

(minutes) 

Estimated 

total annual 

burden 

(hours) 

Average 

theoretical 

hourly cost 

amount 

(dollars) * 

Average 

wait time 

in field office 

or for 

teleservice 

centers 

(minutes) ** 

Total annual 

opportunity 

cost 

(dollars) *** 

SSA–821–BK In Office 64,330 1 30 32,165 * $13.30 ** 24 *** 770,030 

SSA–821–BK Phone .... 128,660 1 30 64,330 * 13.30 ** 19 *** 1,397,458 

SSA–821–BK Returned 

Via Mail ..................... 192,990 1 40 128,660 * 13.30 ........................ *** 1,710,380 

SSA–821–BK Electronic ......................... 25,320 1 45 18,990 * 13.30 ........................ *** 252,567 

Totals .................... 411,300 ........................ ........................ 244,145 ........................ ........................ *** 4,130,435 

* 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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1