Notice2025-07211
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, To Amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 28, 2025
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 80 (Monday, April 28, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 80 (Monday, April 28, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17658-17662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-07211]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-102897; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2025-21]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No.
1, To Amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule
April 22, 2025.
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 April 7, 2025, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment
No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
\3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\4\ On April 16, 2025, the Exchange filed Partial Amendment No.
1 to the proposed rule change to more closely conform the text of
Exhibit 1 of the proposed rule change to the filed Form 19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend the virtual control circuit service
in the Connectivity Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to include
connectivity to the New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American, and
NYSE Arca, Inc. trading floors. The proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's website at <a href="http://www.nyse.com">www.nyse.com</a>, 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 virtual control circuit
(``VCC'') service in the Fee Schedule to include connectivity to the
New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE American, and NYSE Arca,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') trading floors (``Trading Floors'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Trading Floor'' is used as defined in, as applicable, NYSE
Rule 6A (Trading Floor), NYSE American Scope of Terms (17), and NYSE
Arca Rule 1 (Definitions), Floor, Trading Floor and Options Trading
Floor. NYSE National, Inc. and NYSE Texas, Inc. do not have trading
floors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the Fee Schedule includes VCC services, which may be
between two Users \6\ in the Mahwah, New Jersey data center
(``MDC''),\7\ a User inside the MDC and another party outside of the
MDC at a remote access center, or a User inside the MDC and the same
User outside of the MDC at a remote access center.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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 NYSE,
NYSE Arca, NYSE National, Inc. and NYSE Texas, Inc. (together, the
``Affiliate SROs''). Each Affiliate SRO has submitted substantially
the same proposed rule change to propose the change described
herein. See SR-NYSE-2025-12, SR-NYSEARCA-2025-29, SR-NYSETEX-2025-
03, and SR-NYSENAT-2025-07.
\7\ Through its Fixed Income and Data Services (``FIDS'')
business, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (``ICE'') operates the
MDC. The Exchange and the Affiliate SROs are indirect subsidiaries
of ICE.
\8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 101575 (November 12,
2024), 89 FR 90770 (November 18, 2024) (SR-NYSEAMER-2024-64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to include
connections between the MDC and a Trading Floor, which may be between a
User and itself on the Trading Floor or between the User and a third
party on the Trading Floor. More specifically, a User may have a
unicast connection through which it can establish a connection between
the MDC and a Trading Floor over dedicated bandwidth (``TF
Connections'').\9\ Such a TF Connection can be in the form of a VCC
between the MDC and a single Trading Floor (``TF
[[Page 17659]]
VCC''), or a virtual routing and forwarding service between the MDC and
one or more Trading Floors (``TF VRF''). No matter what the form of the
TF Connection, it runs between the MDC and the User's or third party's
equipment physically located on a Trading Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Information flows over existing network connections in two
formats: ``unicast'' format, which is a format that allows one-to-
one communication, similar to a phone line, in which information is
sent to and from the Exchange; and ``multicast'' format, which is a
format in which information is sent one-way from the Exchange to
multiple recipients at once, like a radio broadcast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF VCC and TF VRF connections are both TF Connections even though
TF VCCs may connect to one Trading Floor and TF VRFs may connect to one
or more Trading Floors, because although they are different in terms of
their technical setup, they both utilize the same IGN network and thus
are substantially the same in latency and reliability. A User would
choose between them based on the factors that it wished, including
technical preference and consistency. For example, if a User was
setting up a link between the MDC and two Trading Floors, it may prefer
a TF VRF, but if it had VCCs elsewhere in its setup, it may have a
technological preference for a TF VCC.
The User may use its TF Connection, for example, for receiving and
transmitting trading-related data, including pre- and post-trade data
and clearing information. Such a use would include an options Market
Maker \10\ on the NYSE American or NYSE Arca options trading floor
using a computer that has their firm's theoretical values and options
market data, which they then use to provide verbal bid/offers in
response to floor broker requests for quotes. A User also may also use
its TF Connection for providing services to individuals physically
located on the trading floor, including access to back-office systems,
such as by using it to communicate with counterparts that are off the
Trading Floor by email or chat. The User determines how its TF
Connection is used: neither FIDS nor the Exchange has any visibility
into a TF Connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, as applicable, NYSE American Rule 920NY (Market
Makers) and NYSE Arca Rule 6.32-O (Market Maker Defined).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the avoidance of doubt, all Exchange options members and member
organizations,\11\ including without limitation options floor brokers,
market makers and specialist, as well NYSE and NYSE Arca members
operating on their respective trading floors,\12\ remain subject to
Exchange, NYSE and NYSE Arca rules regarding activities on the relevant
Trading Floor. The proposed connections from the MDC to a Trading Floor
do not contravene or limit such rules or the ability of the Exchange,
NYSE or NYSE Arca to surveil for compliance with such rules, including
without limitation NYSE Rules 36 (Communications Between Exchange and
Members Offices), 98 (Operation of a DMM Unit), and 104 (Dealings and
Responsibilities of DMMs). All Exchange, NYSE or NYSE Arca rules would
continue to apply, including any rules regarding limitations on the use
of electronic communications from or to the Trading Floor. All Exchange
or Affiliate SRO rules would continue to apply, including any rules
regarding limitations on the use of electronic communications from or
to the Trading Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See NYSE American Rule 2(b)(i)--Equities (``Member,''
``Membership,'' ``Member Firm,'' etc.); NYSE American Rule
900.2NY(5).
\12\ These members are NYSE equities floor brokers and
Designated Market Makers and NYSE Arca options market makers,
specialists and floor brokers. See generally 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All TF Connections must be authorized by both parties to the
connection before FIDS will establish a connection. Establishing a
User's TF Connection will not give FIDS or the Exchange any right to
use the relevant exchange's system. A TF Connection will not provide
direct access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system, and a
User's TF Connection will not be through the Exchange's execution
system.
No change to the existing fee is proposed. As with the existing VCC
service, when a User requests a TF Connection, it would identify the
size of bandwidth connection it required, and the monthly charge for
the TF Connection would be based on the size of the bandwidth
requested.
While the proposed fees for the TF VCC and TF VRF are identical,
the amount of the monthly fee may differ based on whether the form
chosen by the User is a TF VCC or TF VRF. This is because the TF VCC
connects the MDC to one Trading Floor, while the TF VRF may connect the
MDC to more than one Trading Floor. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes
to add a note to the Fee Schedule to clarify the difference between the
two.
To make the change, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule
as follows (new text italicized):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Amount of charge
Type of service (Mb) (monthly charge)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtual Routing and Forwarding 1 $200
service to Trading Floor or Virtual
Control Circuit*...................
3 400
5 500
10 800
25 1,200
50 1,800
100 2,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A virtual control circuit (``VCC'') is between the Mahwah data center
and a single end point, including a Trading Floor, while a virtual
routing and forwarding service (``VRF'') can be between the Mahwah
data center and one or more Trading Floors. If the User chooses VCCs
or a combination of a VCC and a VRF for connectivity to several
Trading Floors, it will be charged separately for each connection. If
the User chooses one VRF for connectivity to multiple trading floors,
the User will be charged for one connection.
General
The proposed rule change would not apply differently to distinct
types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it 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.
Use of the services proposed in this filing are completely
voluntary and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory basis.
The proposed change is 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,\13\ in general, and
[[Page 17660]]
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ 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,\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable.
In considering the reasonableness of proposed services and fees,
the Commission's market-based test considers ``whether the exchange was
subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its
proposal . . . , including the level of any fees.'' \16\ If the
Exchange meets that burden, ``the Commission will find that its
proposal is consistent with the Act unless `there is a substantial
countervailing basis to find that the terms' of the proposal violate
the Act or the rules thereunder.'' \17\ Here, the Exchange is subject
to significant competitive forces in setting the terms on which it
offers its proposal, in particular because substantially similar
substitutes are available, and the third-party vendors are not at a
competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90209 (October 15,
2020), 85 FR 67044, 67049 (October 21, 2020) (Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to Establish a Wireless Fee Schedule Setting
Forth Available Wireless Bandwidth Connections and Wireless Market
Data Connections) (SR-NYSE-2020-05, SR-NYSEAMER-2020-05, SR-
NYSEArca-2020-08, SR-NYSECHX-2020-02, SR-NYSENAT-2020-03, SR-NYSE-
2020-11, SR-NYSEAMER-2020-10, SR-NYSEArca-2020-15, SR-NYSECHX-2020-
05, SR-NYSENAT-2020-08) (``Wireless Approval Order''), citing
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR
74770, 74781 (December 9, 2008) (``2008 ArcaBook Approval Order'').
See NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
\17\ Wireless Approval Order, supra note 16, at 67049, citing
2008 ArcaBook Approval Order, supra note 16, at 74781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013 the MDC opened two meet-me-rooms to telecommunications
service providers (``Telecoms''),\18\ to enable Telecoms to offer
circuits into the MDC. The TF Connections compete with circuits
currently offered by the 16 third-party Telecoms that have installed
their equipment in the MDC's two meet-me-rooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Telecoms are licensed by the Federal Communications
Commission and are not required to be, or be affiliated with, a
member of the Exchange or an Affiliate SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Telecom circuits (including any circuit-based network services
a Telecom may offer) are reasonable substitutes for TF Connections. The
Commission has recognized that products do not need to be identical to
be considered substitutable; it is sufficient that they be
substantially similar.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 2008 ArcaBook Approval Order, supra note 16, at 74789
and note 295 (recognizing that products need not be identical to be
substitutable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecoms can provide Users with connections to the Trading Floors.
Specifically, Telecoms can connect to a Trading Floor entity's
equipment in the same building as the Trading Floor. That connection
would then extend to the Trading Floor through the relevant exchange's
network and infrastructure. The path the traffic takes from the MDC to
the Trading Floor, to the extent that FIDS controls it, is similar
irrespective of whether the service is provided by a Telecom or FIDS.
Those pathways are not normalized within an exchange building, but they
do not need to be, and the Exchange believes that Users have no
expectation that they would be. As described above, these connections
are not used for latency-sensitive trading data, but rather for
trading-related data or more conventional communications such as email
or chat with the User's back office. While Users expect such
connections to be reliable and work at a reasonable speed, the Exchange
believes that they have no expectation that these connections would be
latency sensitive, as they would when transmitting trading data from
co-location to the matching engine within the MDC. In other words, the
circuits provided by the Telecoms directly compete with the TF
Connections.
The providers of the TF Connection and Telecom circuits design them
to perform with particular combinations of equipment, latency,
bandwidth, price, termination point, and other factors that they
believe will attract Users, and Users choose from among these competing
services on the basis of their business needs.
The TF Connections are sufficiently similar substitutes to the
circuits offered by the 16 Telecoms. While neither the Exchange nor
FIDS knows the end point of any particular Telecom circuit, the
Exchange understands that the Telecoms can offer circuits terminating
in any location, including the Trading Floors.\20\ Moreover, the
Telecoms may offer smaller circuits that are the same as or similar
size to the TF Connections. Ultimately, Users can choose to configure
their pathway in the way that best suits their business needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Specifically, any Telecom can connect to a Trading Floor's
equipment in the same building as the Trading Floor. That connection
would then extend to the Trading Floor through the relevant
exchange's network and infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TF Connections do not have a distance or latency advantage over
the Telecoms' circuits within the MDC. FIDS has normalized (a) the
distance between the meet-me-rooms and the colocation halls and (b) the
distance between the rooms where the FIDS circuits and the TF
Connections exit the MDC and the colocation halls. As a result, a User
choosing whether to use the TF Connections or Telecom circuits does not
face any difference in the distances or latency within the MDC. The
Exchange is not aware of any differences under its control that give
the Exchange a latency advantage.
The Exchange also believes that the TF Connections do not have any
bandwidth advantage or substantial distance advantage over the
Telecoms' circuits within the buildings of the Trading Floors. The
Exchange believes that the Telecoms offer circuits with a variety of
latency and bandwidth specifications, some of which may exceed the
specifications of the TF Connections.\21\ The Exchange believes that
Users consider these latency and bandwidth factors--as well as other
factors, such as equipment, price and termination point--in determining
which offerings will best serve their business needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The specifications of FIDS's competitors' circuits are not
publicly known. The Exchange understands that FIDS has gleaned any
information it has about its competitors through anecdotal
communications, by observing customers' purchasing choices in the
competitive market, and from its own experience as a purchaser of
circuits from telecommunications providers to build FIDS's own
networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the Exchange is not aware of anything that would make the
Telecoms' circuits inadequate substitutes for the TF Connections.
Nor does the Exchange have a competitive advantage over any third-
party competitors by virtue of the fact
[[Page 17661]]
that it owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. In most cases,
circuits coming out of the MDC are provided by the Telecoms.\22\
Currently, 16 Telecoms operate in the meet-me-rooms and provide a
variety of circuit choices. It is in the Exchange's best interest to
set the fees that Telecoms pay to operate in the meet-me-rooms at a
reasonable level \23\ so that market participants, including Telecoms,
will maximize their use of the MDC. By setting the meet-me-room fees at
a reasonable level, the Exchange encourages Telecoms to participate in
the meet-me-rooms and to sell circuits to Users for connecting into and
out of the MDC. These Telecoms then compete with each other by pricing
such circuits at competitive rates. These competitive rates for
circuits help draw in more Users and Hosted Customers to the MDC, which
directly benefits the Exchange by increasing the customer base to whom
the Exchange can sell its colocation services, which include cabinets,
power, ports, and connectivity to many third-party data feeds, and
because having more Users and Hosted Customers leads, in many cases, to
greater participation on the Exchange. In this way, by setting the
meet-me-room fees at a level attractive to telecommunications firms,
the Exchange spurs demand for all of the services it sells at the MDC,
while setting the meet-me-room fees too high would negatively affect
the Exchange's ability to sell its services at the MDC.\24\
Accordingly, there are real constraints on the meet-me-room fees the
Exchange charges, such that the Exchange does not have an advantage in
terms of costs when compared to third parties that enter the MDC
through the meet-me-rooms to provide services to compete with the
Exchange's services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Note that in the case of wireless connectivity, a User
still requires a fiber circuit to transport data. If a Telecom is
used, the data is transmitted wirelessly to the relevant pole, and
then from the pole to the meet-me-room using a fiber circuit.
\23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97999 (July 26,
2023), 88 FR 50190 (August 1, 2023) (SR-NYSEAmer-2023-36).
\24\ See id. at 50193. Importantly, the Exchange is prevented
from making any alteration to its meet-me-room services or fees
without filing a proposal for such changes with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anything, the Exchange would be subject to a competitive
disadvantage vis-[agrave]-vis the Telecoms. They are not subject to the
Commission's filing requirements, and therefore can freely change their
services and pricing in response to competitive forces. In contrast,
the Exchange's service and pricing would be standardized as set out in
this filing, and the Exchange would be unable to respond to pricing
pressure from its competitors without seeking a formal fee change in a
filing before the Commission.
The Exchange does not propose to change the existing prices. If
they were at a level that Users found to be too high, Users would
likely respond by choosing one of the many alternative options offered
by the 16 Telecoms. Conversely, if the prices were aimed at
undercutting comparable Telecom circuits, the Telecoms might reassess
whether it makes financial sense for them to continue to participate in
the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Their departure might negatively impact User
participation in colocation and on the Exchange. As a result, the
Exchange is not motivated to undercut the prices of Telecom circuits.
In sum, because the Exchange is subject to significant competitive
forces in setting the terms on which it offers its proposal, in
particular because the Exchange believes that a substantially similar
substitute for TF Connectivity is available, and the Exchange has not
placed third-party vendors at a competitive disadvantage created by the
Exchange, the proposed fees for the TF Connectivity are reasonable.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Wireless Approval Order, supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the proposed change is reasonable.
The Proposed Change Is Equitable
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 market participants. Rather, it would apply to all market
participants equally.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable
because only Users that voluntarily select to receive TF Connectivity
would be charged for it. The proposed TF Connectivity is available to
all Users on an equal basis, and all Users that voluntarily choose to
purchase TF Connectivity would be charged the same amount for that
circuit as all other market participants purchasing that type of TF
Connectivity or a VCC.
The Exchange believes that it is equitable that it offers two types
of TF Connectivity: TF VCCs that may connect to one Trading Floor, and
TF VRFs that may connect to one or more Trading Floors. Although they
would differ in terms of their technical setup, a TF VCC and TF VRF
would be on the same IGN network, and therefore substantially the same
in latency and reliability. A User's choice between them may be based
on a variety of factors, including technical preference and
consistency. By offering these varied technological options, FIDS
provides potential Users more choices from which to choose the option
that they prefer and would work best for their specific needs. The
Exchange proposes to add a note to the Fee Schedule to clarify the
difference, thereby making it easier for potential purchasers of the
service to assess what connectivity will best serve them.
The Proposed Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
The Exchange believes its proposal is not unfairly discriminatory.
The proposed change does not apply differently to distinct types or
sizes of market participants. Rather, it applies to all market
participants equally. The purchase of any proposed service is
completely voluntary and the Fee Schedule will be applied uniformly to
all market participants.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal is not
unfairly discriminatory because only Users that voluntarily select to
receive TF Connectivity would be charged for it. TF Connectivity is
available to all market participants on an equal basis, and all Users
that voluntarily choose to purchase TF Connectivity are charged the
same amount as all other market participants purchasing that type of TF
Connectivity or a VCC.
The Exchange believes that it is not unfairly discriminatory that
it offers two types of TF Connectivity: TF VCCs that may connect to one
Trading Floor, and TF VRFs that may connect to one or more Trading
Floors. Although they would differ in terms of their technical setup, a
TF VCC and TF VRF would be on the same IGN network, and therefore
substantially the same in latency and reliability. A User's choice
between them may be based on a variety of factors, including technical
preference and consistency. By offering these varied technological
options, FIDS provides potential Users more choices from which to
choose the option they prefer and that would work best for their
specific needs. The Exchange proposes to add a note to the Fee Schedule
to clarify the difference, thereby making it easier for potential
purchasers of the service to assess what connectivity will best serve
them.
For the reasons above, the proposed change does not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms, and conditions
[[Page 17662]]
established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Partial Amendment No. 1 added this sentence to more closely
conform the text of Exhibit 1 of the proposed rule change to the
filed Form 19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed change would not impose a burden on competition among
national securities exchanges or among members of the Exchange.
The proposed change would enhance competition in the market for
circuits transmitting data into and out of colocation at the MDC to the
Trading Floors, by adding TF Connectivity to the existing VCC service,
in addition to the 16 Telecoms that also sell circuits to Users. As
noted above, TF Connectivity does not have any bandwidth, or other
advantage over the Telecoms' circuits.\28\ The proposal would not
burden competition in the sale of such circuits, but rather, enhance it
by providing Users with an additional choice for their circuit needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The Exchange is not aware of any current latency advantage.
As noted above, the pathways offered by TF Connectivity and the
Telecoms are not normalized within an exchange building, but they do
not need to be, and the Exchange believes that Users have no
expectation that they would be. These connections are not used for
latency-sensitive trading data, but rather for trading-related data
or more conventional communications such as email or chat with the
User's back office. While Users expect such connections to be
reliable and work at a reasonable speed, the Exchange believes that
they have no expectation that these connections would be latency
sensitive, as they would when transmitting trading data from co-
location to the matching engine within the MDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that it would not be a burden on competition
that it offers two types of TF Connectivity: TF VCCs that may connect
to one Trading Floor, and TF VRFs that may connect to one or more
Trading Floors. Although they would differ in terms of their technical
setup, a TF VCC and TF VRF would be on the same IGN network, and
therefore substantially the same in latency and reliability. A User's
choice between them may be based on a variety of factors, including
technical preference and consistency. By offering these varied
technological options, FIDS provides potential Users more choices from
which to choose the option they prefer and that would work best for
their specific needs. The Exchange proposes to add a note to the Fee
Schedule to clarify the difference, thereby making it easier for
potential purchasers of the service to assess what connectivity will
best serve them.
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
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be 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
<bullet> Use the Commission's internet comment form (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>); or
<bullet> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#285a5d444d054b4745454d465c5b685b4d4b064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d2f283138703e3230303833292e1d2e383e733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
file number SR-NYSEAMER-2025-21 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
<bullet> 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-2025-21. 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 (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>). 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-2025-21 and should
be submitted on or before May 19, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-07211 Filed 4-25-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 28, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.