Notice2025-14358

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE American LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE Texas, Inc.; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendments and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes, Each as Modified by the Amendment, To Expand the Virtual Control Circuit Service in 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
July 30, 2025

Issuing agencies

Securities and Exchange Commission

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 144 (Wednesday, July 30, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 30, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35950-35954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-14358]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-103548; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2025-12, SR-NYSEAMER-2025-21, 
SR-NYSEARCA-2025-29, SR-NYSETEX-2025-03, SR-NYSENAT-2025-07]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE 
American LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE Texas, Inc.; NYSE National, Inc.; 
Notice of Filing of Amendments and Order Granting Accelerated Approval 
of Proposed Rule Changes, Each as Modified by the Amendment, To Expand 
the Virtual Control Circuit Service in the Connectivity Fee Schedule

July 25, 2025.

I. Introduction

    On April 7, 2025, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE 
American LLC (``NYSE American''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NYSE 
Texas, Inc. (``NYSE Texas''), and NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE 
National'') (each an ``Exchange,'' collectively, ``Exchanges'') each 
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), 
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposal to amend its 
connectivity fee schedule to add and establish fees for connectivity 
from the Mahwah Data Center to one or more trading floors. On April 16, 
2025, NYSE American filed Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule 
change.\3\ The proposed rule changes were published for comment in the 
Federal Register on April 28, 2025.\4\ On June 11, 2025, pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ the Commission designated a longer 
period within which to approve the proposed rule changes, disapprove 
the proposed rule changes, or institute proceedings to determine 
whether to disapprove the proposed rule changes.\6\ The Commission has 
not received any comments on the proposed rule changes. On June 26, 
2025, NYSE, NYSE Arca, NYSE Texas and NYSE National each filed 
Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change, and NYSE American filed 
Amendment No. 2 to its proposed rule change (each an ``Amendment'' and 
collectively, ``Amendments'').\7\ The Amendments superseded each 
Exchange's prior filing in its entirety.\8\ This order provides notice 
of the filings of Amendment No. 1 to NYSE, NYSE Arca, NYSE Texas and 
NYSE National's proposed rule changes, and notice of the filing of 
Amendment No. 2 to NYSE American's proposed rule change, and grants 
approval of the proposed rule changes, each as modified by Amendment 
No. 1 or Amendment No. 2, as applicable, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 to NYSE American's proposed rule change more 
closely conformed the text of Exhibit 1 of the proposed rule change 
to the filed Form 19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 102898 (April 22, 
2025), 90 FR 17635 (SR-NYSE-2025-12); 102897 (April 22, 2025), 90 FR 
17658 (SR-NYSEAMER-2025-21); 102899 (April 22, 2025), 90 FR 17640 
(SR-NYSEARCA-2025-29); 102902 (April 22, 2025), 90 FR 17665 (SR-
NYSETEX-2025-03); 102900 (April 22, 2025), 90 FR 17675 (SR-NYSENAT-
2025-07).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 103224, 90 FR 25698 
(June 17, 2025) (designating July 27, 2025, as the date by which the 
Commission shall either approve, disapprove, or institute 
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule 
change).
    \7\ Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule changes for NYSE, NYSE 
Arca, NYSE Texas and NYSE National, and Amendment No. 2 to NYSE 
American's proposed rule change are identical in substance. For ease 
of reference, this order provides page citations to SR-NYSE-2025-12 
Amendment No. 1, which is available on the Commission's website at: 
<a href="https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2025-12/srnyse202512-617407-1811334.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2025-12/srnyse202512-617407-1811334.pdf</a> (``Amendment No. 1'').
    \8\ The Amendments revise the proposals to provide additional 
explanation for why the Exchanges believe the proposed service is 
reasonable. Specifically, the Exchanges, in the Amendments, provide 
additional support for the assertion that telecommunication service 
providers (``Telecoms'') provide a substantially similar substitute 
for the Exchanges' proposed service, including a description of the 
path the Telecoms and Exchanges take to the Exchanges' trading 
floors. The Exchanges also clarify that the pathways offered by the 
proposed connections and the Telecom circuits are not normalized 
within the Exchange buildings. The Amendment for each filing is 
available on the Commission's website at: <a href="https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2025-12/srnyse202512-617407-1811334.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2025-12/srnyse202512-617407-1811334.pdf</a> (SR-NYSE-
2025-12); <a href="https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyseamer-2025-21I/srnyseamer202521-617427-1811354.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyseamer-2025-21I/srnyseamer202521-617427-1811354.pdf</a> (SR-NYSEAMER-2025-21); <a href="https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2025-29/srnysearca202529-617428-1811374.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2025-29/srnysearca202529-617428-1811374.pdf</a> (SR-NYSEARCA-2025-29); <a href="https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysetex-2025-03/srnysetex202503-617467-1811414.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysetex-2025-03/srnysetex202503-617467-1811414.pdf</a> (SR-NYSETEX-2025-
03); <a href="https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2025-07/srnysenat202507-617447-1811394.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2025-07/srnysenat202507-617447-1811394.pdf</a> (SR-NYSENAT-2025-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by the 
Amendments

A. Background

    The Exchanges currently offer a virtual control circuit (``VCC'') 
service \9\ that is a unicast connection through which two Users can 
establish a connection between two points over dedicated bandwidth.\10\ 
The Exchanges offer VCC connections between two Users in the Mahwah 
Data Center (``MDC'').\11\ The Exchanges, in 2024, amended this service 
to also offer VCCs between the MDC and the U.S. FIDS remote access 
centers; specifically, the Exchanges offer a connection between a User 
in the MDC and either the same User outside the MDC at a remote access 
center or a third party outside the MDC at a remote access center.\12\ 
Fees for VCC services are based on the bandwidth requirements chosen by 
the User per VCC connections.\13\ Connectivity to VCCs requires 
permission from both parties before the Exchanges will establish the 
connection.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80311 (March 24, 
2017), 82 FR 15741 (March 30, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2016-45); 80309 (March 
24, 2017), 82 FR 15725 (March 30, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-63); 80310 
(March 24, 2017), 82 FR 15763 (March 30, 2017) (SR-NYSEARCA-2016-
89); 83351 (May 31, 2018), 83 FR 26314 (June 6, 2018) (SR-NYSENAT-
2018-07); 87408 (October 28, 2019), 84 FR 58778 (November 1, 2019) 
(SR-NYSECHX-2019-12) (adding the VCC service and related fees).
    \10\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 7, at 4.
    \11\ Id. The Exchanges state that through its Fixed Income and 
Data Services (``FIDS'') business, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 
(``ICE'') operates the MDC and that the Exchanges are indirect 
subsidiaries of ICE. See id., at 4 n.5.
    \12\ Id. See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 101582 
(November 12, 2024), 89 FR 90812 (November 18, 2024) (SR-NYSE-2024-
69); 101575 (November 12, 2024), 89 FR 90770 (November 18, 2024) 
(SR-NYSEAMER-2024-64); 101576 (November 12, 2024), 89 FR 90775 
(November 18, 2024) (SR-NYSEARCA-2024-91); 102902 (November 12, 
2024), 89 FR 90893 (November 18, 2024) (SR-NYSECHX-2024-31); 101578 
(November 12, 2024), 89 FR 90794 (November 18, 2024) (SR-NYSENAT-
2024-28) (adding VCC services between the MDC and the U.S. remote 
access centers to the connectivity fee schedule).
    \13\ Id. at 5.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges propose to further expand this service to offer 
connectivity from the MDC to the NYSE, NYSE American, and NYSE Arca 
trading floors (each a ``Trading Floor,'' collectively, ``Trading 
Floors'').\15\ These connections may be between a User at the MDC and 
itself on a Trading Floor, or between a User at the MDC and a third 
party on

[[Page 35951]]

a Trading Floor (``Trading Floor Connections'').\16\ As with the 
existing VCCs, the Trading Floor Connections would be unicast 
connections over dedicated bandwidth over the IGN network.\17\ The 
Trading Floor Connections can be in the form of a VCC between the MDC 
and a single Trading Floor (``Trading Floor VCC'') or a virtual routing 
and forwarding service between the MDC and one or more Trading Floors 
(``Trading Floor VRF'').\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As noted by the Exchanges, ``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 and 
NYSE Texas do not have trading floors. Id. at 4 n.3.
    \16\ Id. at 4. The connection would run between the MDC and the 
User's or third party's equipment physically located on one or more 
of the Trading Floors.
    \17\ See id.
    \18\ The Exchanges state that because both Trading Floor VCCs 
and Trading Floor VRFs use the IGN network, both sets of connections 
are substantially the same in latency and reliability. A User would 
choose between them based on factors including technical preference 
and consistency. As an example, the Exchanges state that a User 
might prefer a Trading Floor VRF if it was setting up a link between 
the MDC and two Trading Floors but might prefer to use a Trading 
Floor VCC if it was already using VCCs. Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the current VCC service, the monthly charge for a Trading 
Floor VCC or VRF connection would be based on the size of the bandwidth 
connection the User requests.\19\ The Exchanges propose to charge the 
same fee for the Trading Floor Connections as the Exchanges currently 
charge for VCCs.\20\ The per connection fees for one Trading Floor VCC 
and one Trading Floor VRF connection would be identical to each other 
and to the current fees for a VCC connection.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 5.
    \20\ Id. The Exchanges state that all Trading Floor Connections 
must be authorized by both parties before FIDS will establish the 
connection.
    \21\ Id. The Exchanges note that although the proposed fees for 
the Trading Floor VCC and the Trading Floor VRF are identical, a 
User's monthly fee could vary based which form of connection the 
User chooses. For example, if a User chooses to purchase VCCs or a 
combination of VCCs and a VRF, it would be charged separately for 
each connection. If the User chose one VRF to connect to multiple 
Trading Floors, it would be charged for one connection. The 
Exchanges propose to amend the connectivity fee schedule to clarify 
the potential impact of the choice of the connection on the fees. 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that Users would determine how the Trading 
Floor Connections are used and that neither the Exchanges nor FIDS have 
visibility into Users' Trading Floor Connections.\22\ The Exchanges 
state that the Trading Floor Connections are not used for latency-
sensitive trading data, but for trading-related data or communications 
like email or chat with a User's back office.\23\ Specifically, 
potential uses could include receiving and transmitting trading-related 
information, including trading data and clearing information (e.g., an 
options market maker \24\ on a Trading Floor using a computer with a 
firm's options market data to provide verbal bids/offers in response to 
floor broker requests for quotes) and providing access to back office 
services to individuals physically located on a Trading Floor.\25\ Each 
Exchange represents that a User's Trading Floor Connection will not be 
through the Exchange's execution systems and that a Trading Floor 
Connection will not provide direct access or order entry to the 
Exchange's execution systems.\26\ The Exchanges also state that 
establishing a Trading Floor Connection would not give FIDS or an 
Exchange the right to use the relevant Exchange's systems.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id. at 8.
    \24\ Id. at 5 n.8 and accompanying text.
    \25\ Id. at 5.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges further represent that all NYSE, NYSE American, and 
NYSE Arca equities and options members and member organizations, 
including NYSE floor brokers and Designated Market Makers, and floor 
brokers, options market makers, and specialists on the NYSE American 
and NYSE Arca Trading Floors remain subject to NYSE, NYSE American, and 
NYSE Arca rules regarding activities on the Trading Floors.\28\ The 
Exchanges state that all NYSE, NYSE American 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.\29\ The 
Exchanges represent that the proposed connections from the MDC to the 
Trading Floors do not contravene or limit the rules or the ability of 
the NYSE, NYSE American, or NYSE Arca to surveil for compliance with 
such rules.\30\ These rules include NYSE Rules 36 (Communications 
Between Exchange and Member Offices), 98 (Operation of a DMM Unit), and 
104 (Dealings and Responsibilities of DMMs.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id. at 5.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has historically applied a ``market-based'' test in 
its assessment of market data fees, which has also been applied in the 
context of connectivity fees, such as those proposed here.\32\ Under 
that test, the Commission considers ``whether the exchange was subject 
to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal 
. . . , including the level of any fees.'' \33\ If an exchange meets 
this 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.\34\ If an exchange cannot demonstrate that it was subject 
to significant competitive forces, it must ``provide a substantial 
basis, other than competitive forces, . . . demonstrating that the 
terms of the proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not 
unreasonably discriminatory.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90209 (October 15, 
2020), 85 FR 67044 (October 21, 2020) (File Nos. 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) (Notice of Filings 
of Partial Amendment No. 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval 
to Proposed Rule Changes, Each as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 
3, To Establish a Wireless Fee Schedule Setting Forth Available 
Wireless Bandwidth Connections and Wireless Market Data Connections) 
(``Wireless Order'').
    See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85459 (March 29, 
2019), 84 FR 13363, 13367 (April 4, 2019) (File Nos. SR-BOX-2018-24; 
SR-BOX-2018-37; and SR-BOX-2019-04) (Order Disapproving Proposed 
Rule Changes To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC Options 
Facility To Establish BOX Connectivity Fees for Participants and 
Non-Participants Who Connect to the BOX Network); and 88493 (March 
27, 2020) 85 FR 18617 (April 2, 2020) (File Nos. SR-BOX-2018-24; SR-
BOX-2018-37; and SR-BOX-2019-04) (Order Affirming Action by 
Delegated Authority and Disapproving Proposed Rule Changes Related 
to Connectivity and Port Fee) (``BOX Order'').
    \33\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74781 (December 9, 2008) (``2008 ArcaBook 
Approval Order'').
    \34\ Id. See also In the Matter of the Application of SIFMA, 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84432, 22 (October 16, 2018), 
available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2018/34-84432.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2018/34-84432.pdf</a> (``SIFMA Decision''), vacated on other grounds, NASDAQ 
Stock Mkt., LLC v. SEC, 961 F.3d 421 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
    \35\ 2008 ArcaBook Approval Order, supra note 33, at 74781. See 
also SIFMA Decision, supra note 34, at 22. See also BOX Order, supra 
note 32, at 18622-24 (noting that the exchange had failed to 
demonstrate significant competitive forces, and therefore did not 
establish a basis on which to conclude that the proposed fees were 
equitable and reasonable.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule changes, each as 
modified by Amendment No. 1 or Amendment No. 2, as applicable, are 
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and 
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities 
exchange.\36\ In particular, the Commission finds that each of the 
proposed rule changes is consistent

[[Page 35952]]

with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \37\ which requires that a national 
securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable 
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other 
persons using its facilities; Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\38\ which 
requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed, 
among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and 
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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 not be designed to permit unfair discrimination 
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and Section 6(b)(8) of 
the Act,\39\ which requires that the rules of a national securities 
exchange do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary 
or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ In approving the proposed rule changes, each as modified by 
Amendment No. 1 or Amendment No. 2, as applicable, the Commission 
notes that it has considered the proposed rules' impact on 
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 
78c(f).
    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that the Trading Floor Connections are offered 
on terms that are reasonable and do not impose a burden on competition 
that is not necessary or appropriate because they are offered in a 
competitive environment where substantially similar substitutes are 
available.\40\ The Exchanges state that the Trading Floor Connections 
compete with circuits offered by Telecoms.\41\ These Telecom circuits, 
like the Trading Floor Connections, can also provide connectivity 
between the MDC and the Trading Floors.\42\ The Exchanges state that 
sixteen Telecoms currently have installed their equipment in the 
Exchanges' two meet-me-rooms at the MDC.\43\ The Exchanges state that 
there are also Telecoms currently located in the same buildings as the 
Trading Floors.\44\ The Telecoms would connect to a Trading Floor 
entity's equipment in the same building as the Trading Floor, in an 
area that the Exchanges state is ``essentially a meet-me-room.'' \45\ 
The Exchanges state that once the Trading Floor Connections and the 
Telecom circuits reach the Trading Floor buildings, the connections 
would extend to the Trading Floor itself through the Exchanges' network 
and infrastructure.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 7, at 7-10. The Exchanges 
further state that the Trading Floor Connections are offered on 
terms that are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because 
they are voluntary and available to all market participants on an 
equal basis. They also believe that the proposal to offer two forms 
of Trading Floor Connections (VCCs and VRFs) is equitable, not 
unfairly discriminatory and would not impose a burden on competition 
that is not necessary or appropriate because both forms of 
connectivity are over the IGN network and therefore are 
substantially the same in latency and reliability. See id., at 11-
12.
    \41\ Id. at 7.
    \42\ See id. at 8.
    \43\ Id. at 7-8. The Exchanges filed to add meet-me-room 
services and associated fees in 2023. See Securities Exchange Act 
Release Nos. 97998 (July 26, 2023), 88 FR 50238 (August 1, 2023) 
(SR-NYSE-2023-27); 97999 (July 26, 2023), 88 FR 50190 (August 1, 
2023) (SR-NYSEAMER-2023-36); 98000 (July 26, 2023), 88 FR 50244 
(August 1, 2023) (SR-NYSEARCA-2023-47); 98001 (July 26, 2023), 88 FR 
50196 (August 1, 2023) (SR-NYSECHX-2023-14); 98002 (July 26, 2023), 
88 FR 50232 (August 1, 2023) (SR-NYSENAT-2023-12).
    \44\ Id. at 8.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id. The Exchanges represent that ``[t]he path the traffic 
takes from when it enters the building of the Trading Floor to the 
Trading Floor--its pathway--is the same irrespective of whether the 
service is a Telecom circuit or a TF Connection.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that the Telecoms are not at a competitive 
disadvantage created by the Exchanges with respect to the Telecoms' 
connectivity inside the MDC and the Trading Floor buildings. 
Specifically, the Exchanges state that Trading Floor Connections do not 
have a competitive advantage over the Telecom circuits in terms of the 
pathways that the connections would take to reach the Trading 
Floors.\47\ With respect to the MDC, the Exchanges state that the 
Trading Floor Connections do not have a distance or latency advantage 
over the Telecoms' circuits.\48\ 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 Trading Floor 
Connections exit the MDC and the colocation halls.\49\ As a result, 
according to the Exchanges, a User choosing whether to use the Trading 
Floor Connections or Telecom circuits does not face any difference in 
the distances or latency within the MDC.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id. at 9. The Exchanges state with respect to the MDC that 
they are not aware of any differences under their control that give 
the Exchanges a latency advantage. Id.
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Trading Floor buildings, the Exchanges state 
that the Trading Floor Connections do not have any bandwidth or 
substantial distance advantage over the Telecoms' circuits within the 
buildings of the Trading Floors.\51\ The Exchanges state that once the 
Trading Floor Connections and the Telecom circuits connections reach 
the Trading Floor buildings, the pathways that both types of 
connections would take to reach the Trading Floor are the same (i.e., 
extending to the Trading Floor itself through the Exchanges' network 
and infrastructure).\52\ The Exchanges also state that Telecoms can 
offer circuits with a variety of latency and bandwidth specifications, 
some of which may exceed the specifications of the Trading Floor 
Connections.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Id. at 8. The Exchanges acknowledge that the pathways of 
the Trading Floor Connections and the Telecom circuits are not 
normalized within Exchanges' buildings (i.e., the length of the 
connections may ``slightly'' differ) but state that the connections 
do not need to be normalized because Users would not use them for 
latency-sensitive purposes (e.g., transmitting data to the matching 
engine). Id. Instead, the Exchanges state that they would be used 
for purposes such as communicating with the back office. Id. The 
Exchanges note that Users would choose to purchase connections based 
on factors such as bandwidth, price, termination point, technical 
preference and consistency. Id.
    \53\ Id. The Exchanges note that the specifications of FIDS's 
competitors' circuits are not public. The Exchanges understand that 
any information FIDS has about its competitors was obtained 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. Id. at 9 n.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges also state that they have no competitive advantage 
over Telecom circuits with respect to fees they charge the Telecoms for 
access to the meet-me-rooms at the MDC.\54\ The Exchanges believe that 
the amount of the meet-me-room fees they can charge Telecoms are 
constrained, and they do not have a competitive advantage over any 
third-party competitor by virtue of owning and operating the MDC meet-
me-rooms.\55\ The Exchanges state that they are incentivized to set 
fees to operate in the meet-me-room at a reasonable rate because 
reasonable fees will incentivize Telecoms to participate in the meet-
me-rooms.\56\ The Exchanges state that these Telecoms would compete 
with each other by pricing circuits at competitive rates, which will 
draw Users to the MDC and that the Exchanges benefit from the Telecoms 
selling circuits to Users because these Users increase the customer 
base to which the Exchanges can sell their colocations services, 
including cabinets, power, ports, and connectivity to third-party data 
feeds.\57\ The Exchanges also state that more Users would lead, in many 
cases, to greater participation on the Exchanges.\58\ The Exchanges 
state that the incentive to attract Telecoms to the MDC meet-me-rooms 
constrains the Exchanges' meet-me-room fees such that the Exchanges do 
not have an advantage in terms of costs when compared to

[[Page 35953]]

third parties that enter through the meet-me-room to provide competing 
services.\59\ In fact, according to each Exchange, setting meet-me-room 
fees too high would negatively impact the Exchange's ability to sell 
its services to Users at the MDC.\60\ With respect to the Telecoms' 
presence in the Trading Floor buildings, the Exchanges represent that 
the Telecoms do not pay a fee to connect to the Trading Floor entity's 
equipment in the same room as the Trading Floor.\61\ The Exchanges also 
represent that the Trading Floor entities do not pay fees to any of the 
Exchanges for the connection.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See supra note 43.
    \55\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 7, at 9-10.
    \56\ Id. at 9.
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.
    \59\ Id. at 10.
    \60\ Id. The Exchanges also state that they are at a competitive 
disadvantage compared to the Telecoms because the Exchanges are 
required to file their services and pricing with the Commission 
pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.
    \61\ Id. at 9.
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that the Trading Floor Connections would be 
offered at the same price as the VCCs currently offered by the 
Exchanges, and if Users found the fees too high, they have the option 
to choose alternative options offered by the Telecoms.\63\ The 
Exchanges also state that they have no incentive to undercut fees that 
the Telecoms offer or might offer for competing services because the 
Telecoms might reassess whether it make sense to participate in the 
Exchanges' meet-me-rooms, which could negatively impact User 
participation in colocation and on the Exchanges.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Id. at 10.
    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges have demonstrated that they are subject to 
significant competitive forces in setting the terms on which they offer 
Trading Floor Connections, in particular because substantially similar 
substitutes are available.\65\ As stated earlier, the Exchanges state 
that Telecoms are available at both the MDC and the Trading Floor 
buildings.\66\ The Exchanges have demonstrated that they do not have a 
competitive advantage compared to the Telecoms with respect to the 
Trading Floor Connections. Based on the record, the Commission believes 
that there are sufficiently comparable alternatives to the Trading 
Floor Connections. Thus, the Exchanges are subject to significant 
competitive forces that constrain the terms on which the Trading Floor 
Connections are offered, and the Commission approves the proposals, as 
amended, because there is no substantial countervailing basis to find 
that the terms of the proposals, as amended, violate the Act or rules 
thereunder.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See ArcaBook Approval Order, supra note 33, at 74785; SIFMA 
Decision, supra note 76, at 43-44 (citation omitted) (``We recognize 
that products need not be identical to be substitutable.'').
    \66\ See supra notes 43-44 and accompanying text.
    \67\ See Wireless Order, supra note 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Trading Floor Connections are not offered on terms that are 
unfairly discriminatory or would impose a burden on competition not 
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. In particular, the 
proposed services are available to all market participants equally, and 
the Exchanges have sufficiently demonstrated that they do not have a 
competitive advantage compared to the Telecoms.
    Based on this, the Commission finds the proposed rule changes, as 
modified by Amendment No. 1 or Amendment No. 2, as applicable, to be 
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\68\ which requires that the 
rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable 
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its 
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and Section 
6(b)(8), which prohibits any national securities exchange from imposing 
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance 
of the Act. Further, because the Trading Floor Connections are designed 
to offer market participants an additional option for Users to transmit 
information related to trading and clearing to entities and individuals 
on the Trading Floors, including market makers and floor brokers, and 
competitors may offer a similar level of services for the reasons 
discussed above, the Commission finds the proposals, as amended, to be 
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that the 
rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and 
equitable principles of trade, 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 not be 
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, 
brokers, or dealers.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \69\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed 
rule changes of NYSE, NYSE Arca, NYSE Texas and NYSE National, each as 
modified by Amendment No. 1, and the proposed rule change of NYSE 
American, as modified by Amendment No. 2, are consistent with the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on the Amendments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 
or Amendment No. 2, as applicable, to the proposed rule changes 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="http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>); or
    <bullet> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#295b5c454c044a4644444c475d5a695a4c4a074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="790b0c151c541a1614141c170d0a390a1c1a571e160f">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>. Please include 
File Numbers SR-NYSE-2025-12, SR-NYSEAMER-2025-21, SR-NYSEARCA-2025-29, 
SR-NYSETEX-2025-03, SR-NYSENAT-2025-07 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 Numbers SR-NYSE-2025-12, SR-
NYSEAMER-2025-21, SR-NYSEARCA-2025-29, SR-NYSETEX-2025-03, SR-NYSENAT-
2025-07. These file numbers 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="http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>). Copies of the filing will be available for inspection 
and copying at the principal office of the Exchanges. 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 Numbers SR-NYSE-2025-12, SR-NYSEAMER-2025-21, SR-
NYSEARCA-2025-29, SR-NYSETEX-2025-03, SR-NYSENAT-2025-07 and should be 
submitted on or before August 20, 2025.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by the 
Amendments

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule 
changes of NYSE, NYSE Arca, NYSE Texas and NYSE National, each as 
modified by Amendment No. 1, and the proposed rule change of NYSE 
American, as

[[Page 35954]]

modified by Amendment No. 2, prior to the 30th day after the date of 
publication of notice of the Amendments in the Federal Register. The 
Amendments revise the proposals to provide additional explanation for 
why the Exchanges believe the proposed service is reasonable. 
Specifically, the Exchanges, in the Amendments, provide additional 
support for the assertion that Telecoms provide a substantially similar 
substitute for the Exchanges' proposed service. The Commission believes 
that the Amendments provide additional support for why the proposals 
are consistent with the Act, thereby facilitating the Commission's 
ability to make the findings set forth above to approve the proposals.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\70\ the 
Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule changes of 
NYSE, NYSE Arca, NYSE Texas and NYSE National, each as modified by 
Amendment No. 1, and the proposed rule change of NYSE American, as 
modified by Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the 
Act,\71\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-NYSE-2025-12; SR-NYSEAMER-
2025-21; SR-NYSEARCA-2025-29; SR-NYSETEX-2025-03; SR-NYSENAT-2025-07), 
as amended, be, and hereby are approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-14358 Filed 7-29-25; 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 July 30, 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.