[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 80 (Monday, April 28, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17675-17680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-07214]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-102900; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2025-07]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Virtual Control Circuit
Service in 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 National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' 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 prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
\3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend the virtual control circuit service
in the Connectivity Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to include
connectivity to the New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, and
NYSE Arca, Inc. trading floors. The proposed 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
[[Page 17676]]
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 LLC, (``NYSE
American'') and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') trading floors
(``Trading Floors'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``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, Inc. do not have trading
floors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the Fee Schedule includes VCC services, which may be
between two Users \5\ in the Mahwah, New Jersey data center
(``MDC''),\6\ 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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. 83351 (May 31, 2018), 83 FR 26314 at n.9
(June 6, 2018) (SR-NYSENAT-2018-07). 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 American, NYSE Arca, 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-NYSEAMER-2025-21, SR-NYSEARCA-2025-
29, and SR-NYSETEX-2025-03.
\6\ 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.
\7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 101578 (November 12,
2024), 89 FR 90794 (November 18, 2024) (SR-NYSENAT-2022-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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'').\8\ Such a TF Connection can be in the form of a VCC
between the MDC and a single Trading Floor (``TF 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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 \9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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 NYSE, NYSE American and NYSE Arca
equities and options members and member organizations,\10\ including
without limitation 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 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 NYSE, NYSE
American 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See NYSE Rule 2(b) (``Member,'' ``Membership,'' ``Member
Firm,'' etc.); NYSE Rule 1.1(e) (Definitions); NYSE American Rule
2(b)(i)--Equities (``Member,'' ``Membership,'' ``Member Firm,''
etc.); NYSE American Rule 900.2NY(5) (Definitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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):
[[Page 17677]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Amount of charge
Type of service (Mb) (monthly charge)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtual Routing and Forwarding 1 $200
service to Trading Floor or Virtual 3 400
Control Circuit *..................
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,\11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ 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,\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\13\ 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.'' \14\ 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.'' \15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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).
\15\ Wireless Approval Order, supra note 15, at 67049, citing
2008 ArcaBook Approval Order, supra note 15, at 74781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013 the MDC opened two meet-me-rooms to telecommunications
service providers (``Telecoms''),\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 2008 ArcaBook Approval Order, supra note 15, 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
[[Page 17678]]
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.\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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.\19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 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 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.\20\ 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 \21\ 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.\22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 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.
\21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98002 (July 26,
2023), 88 FR 50232 (August 1, 2023) (SR-NYSENat-2023-12).
\22\ See id. at 50235. 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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Wireless Approval Order, supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 17679]]
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 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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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.\25\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 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
(B) 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
Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSENAT-2025-07 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-NYSENAT-2025-07. 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
[[Page 17680]]
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-NYSENAT-2025-07 and should be submitted on or before May 19, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-07214 Filed 4-25-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P