Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges and the NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges Related to Co-Location Services, 8662-8666 [2021-02475]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8662
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Notices
(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 rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
NYSEAMER–2021–05 on the subject
line.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–NYSEAMER–2021–05. This
file number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
internet website (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change.
Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from
comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish
to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File
Number SR–NYSEAMER–2021–05 and
should be submitted on or before March
1, 2021.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Feb 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.18
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–02465 Filed 2–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS
ANNOUNCEMENT: 86 FR 7759, February
1, 2021.
PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF
THE MEETING: Thursday, February 4,
2021 at 2:00 p.m.
The Closed
Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
February 4, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., has been
cancelled.
CHANGES IN THE MEETING:
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
For further information; please contact
Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office
of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
Dated: February 4, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–02692 Filed 2–4–21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–91044; File No. SR–
NYSEARCA–2021–07]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE
Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca
Equities Fees and Charges and the
NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges
Related to Co-Location Services
February 2, 2021.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3
notice is hereby given that, on January
19, 2021, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE
Arca’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been
prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
18 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 15 U.S.C. 78a.
3 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
1 15
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend the
NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges
and the NYSE Arca Options Fees and
Charges (together, the ‘‘Fee Schedules’’)
related to co-location services to add
two Partial Cabinet Solution bundles.
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
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 its
Fee Schedules related to co-location 4
services to add two Partial Cabinet
Solution (‘‘PCS’’) bundles that would be
offered to Users.5
4 The Exchange initially filed rule changes
relating to its co-location services with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) in 2010. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 63275 (November 8, 2010), 75 FR
70048 (November 16, 2010) (SR–NYSEArca–2010–
100).
5 For purposes of the Exchange’s co-location
services, a ‘‘User’’ means any market participant
that requests to receive co-location services directly
from the Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 76010 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR
60197 (October 5, 2015) (SR–NYSEArca–2015–82).
As specified in the Fee Schedules, a User that
incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location
service pursuant thereto would not be subject to colocation fees for the same co-location service
charged by the Exchange’s affiliates New York
Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE
Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (together,
the ‘‘Affiliate SROs’’). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 70173 (August 13, 2013), 78 FR 50459
(August 19, 2013) (SR–NYSEArca–2013–80). Each
Affiliate SRO has submitted substantially the same
proposed rule change to propose the changes
described herein. See SR–NYSE–2021–05, SR–
NYSEAMER–2021–04, SR–NYSECHX–2021–01,
and SR–NYSENAT–2021–01.
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Notices
Proposed Addition of Option E and
Option F PCS Bundles
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
The Fee Schedules currently list four
PCS bundles, Options A through D. As
originally formulated, each PCS bundle
option included a partial cabinet
powered to a maximum of 2 kilowatts
(‘‘kW’’); access to the liquidity center
network (‘‘LCN’’) and internet protocol
(‘‘IP’’) networks, the local area networks
available in the data center; two fiber
cross connections; and connectivity to
one of two time feeds.6 The PCS
bundles are designed to attract smaller
Users, including those with minimal
power or cabinet space demands or
those for which the costs attendant with
having a dedicated cabinet are too
burdensome.7 Users are only eligible to
purchase PCS bundles if they meet
specified requirements, set forth in
General Note 2 of Fee Schedules.8
In May 2020, the Exchange amended
PCS bundle Options C and D to each
include two 10 Gb connections to the
NMS Network, an alternate dedicated
network connection that Users could
use to access the NMS feeds for which
the Securities Industry Automation
Corporation (‘‘SIAC’’) is engaged as the
securities information processor
(‘‘SIP’’).9 These two 10 Gb NMS
Network connections were added to the
Option C and D bundles at no additional
cost.
In response to customer interest, the
Exchange now proposes to add two new
PCS bundles to the Fee Schedules.
Proposed Options E and F would be
substantially similar to Options C and
D, respectively, with the difference that
each connection included in the
proposed bundles would be upgraded to
40 Gb from 10 Gb: That is, proposed
Options E and F would include a 1 kw
8663
(Option E) or 2 kw (Option F) partial
cabinet, one 40 Gb LCN connection, one
40 Gb IP network connection, two 40 Gb
NMS Network connections, and either
the Network Time Protocol Feed or the
Precision Timing Protocol. Users
selecting an Option E or F bundle would
be charged the same initial charge of
$10,000 that currently applies to
Options C and D. In addition, Users
would be charged monthly recurring
charges (‘‘MRC’’) of $18,000 for an
Option E bundle and $19,000 for an
Option F bundle. The Exchange
proposes that Users that purchase
Option E or F bundles on or before
December 31, 2021 would receive a 50%
reduction in the MRC for the first 12
months.
The amended portion of the Fee
Schedules would read as follows
(proposed additions italicized):
Type of service
Description
Amount of charge
Partial Cabinet Solution bundles Note:
A User and its Affiliates are limited
to one Partial Cabinet Solution bundle at a time. A User and its Affiliates must have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of 2 kW or less to
qualify for a Partial Cabinet Solution
bundle. See Note 2 under ‘‘General
Notes.’’
Option E: 1 kW partial cabinet, 1 LCN connection
(40 Gb), 1 IP network connection (40 Gb), 2
NMS Network connections (40 Gb each), 2 fiber
cross connections and either the Network Time
Protocol Feed or Precision Timing Protocol.
$10,000 initial charge per bundle plus monthly
charge per bundle as follows:
• For Users that order on or before December 31,
2021: $9,000 monthly for first 12 months of
service, and $18,000 monthly thereafter.
• For Users that order after December 31, 2021:
$18,000 monthly.
Option F: 2 kW partial cabinet, 1 LCN connection
(40 Gb), 1 IP network connection (40 Gb), 2
NMS Network connections (40 Gb each), 2 fiber
cross connections and either the Network Time
Protocol Feed or Precision Timing Protocol.
$10,000 initial charge per bundle plus monthly
charge per bundle as follows:
• For Users that order on or before December 31,
2021: $9,500 monthly for first 12 months of
service, and $19,000 monthly thereafter.
• For Users that order after December 31, 2021:
$19,000 monthly.
The Exchange proposes that General
Note 2 of the Fee Schedules—which
currently applies to PCS bundle Options
A through D—would also apply to
proposed Option E and F bundles,
without alteration. Specifically, a User
and its Affiliates would be limited to
one PCS bundle at a time, and a User
and its Affiliates must have an
Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of 2 kW or
less to qualify for a PCS bundle.
The Exchange is not proposing any
changes to PCS bundle Options A
through D.
Application and Impact of the Proposed
Changes
The proposed changes would not
apply differently to distinct types or
sizes of market participants. Rather,
they would apply to all Users equally.
Users that require other sizes or
combinations of cabinets, network
connections, and cross connects could
still request them. As is currently the
case, the purchase of any co-location
service, including PCS bundles, is
completely voluntary and the Fee
Schedules are applied uniformly to all
Users.
A User may host another entity in its
space within the data center. Such Users
are called ‘‘Hosting Users,’’ and their
customers are ‘‘Hosted Customers.’’ 10
Based on conversations with Users
and potential customers, the Exchange
believes that Hosting Users offer
bundles (‘‘Hosting User Bundles’’) that
include cabinet space and space on
shared LCN, IP, and NMS network
connections, and that the Hosting User
Bundles provide their end users with a
service similar to that of the PCS
bundles.11
6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77070
(February 5, 2016), 81 FR 7401 (February 11, 2016)
(SR–NYSEArca–2015–102).
7 See id. at 7402.
8 See id. The definitions of ‘‘Affiliate’’ and
‘‘Aggregate Cabinet Footprint’’ were added to the
Fee Schedules at the same time.
9 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 88837
(May 7, 2020), 85 FR 28671 (May 13, 2020) (SR–
NYSE–2019–46, SR–NYSEAMER–2019–34, SR–
NYSEArca–2019–61, SR–NYSENAT–2019–19)
(‘‘NMS Network Approval Order’’) and 88972 (May
29, 2020), 85 FR 34472 (June 4, 2020) (‘‘NYSE
Chicago NMS Network Approval Order’’).
10 A Hosting User is required to be a User, but
because only Users can be Hosting Users, a Hosted
Customer is not able to provide hosting services to
any other entities in the space in which it is hosted.
The Exchange allows Users to act as Hosting Users
for a monthly fee. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 76010 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR
60197 (October 5, 2015) (SR–NYSEArca–2015–82).
11 Because Hosting Users’ services are not
regulated, they may offer differentiated pricing and
are not required to make their pricing public or
disclose it to the Exchange. The Exchange therefore
does not have direct visibility into the specific
range of options, or cost thereof, offered by Hosting
Users, and relies on third parties for information.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Feb 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Competitive Environment
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
8664
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Notices
The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which exchanges
and other vendors (e.g., Hosting Users)
offer co-location services as a means to
facilitate the trading and other market
activities of those market participants
who believe that co-location enhances
the efficiency of their operations. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the
securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO
revenues and, also, recognized that
current regulation of the market system
‘‘has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.’’ 12
The proposed changes are not
otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services
and/or related fees, and the Exchange is
not aware of any problems that Users
would have in complying with the
proposed change.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,13 in general, and
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.
12 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808
(June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005)
(‘‘Regulation NMS Adopting Release’’).
13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Feb 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is reasonable and
would perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market
system and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest, for the following
reasons.
The Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to expand its PCS bundle
options by offering the proposed Option
E and F bundles. Currently, the
Exchange offers Users the ability to
purchase connectivity to the LCN/NMS
and IP/NMS networks in 10 Gb and 40
Gb bandwidths, but within the
Exchange’s existing PCS bundle options,
40 Gb connections are not available.
This means that at present, Users
interested in the PCS bundled
services—either because they have
minimal power and cabinet space
demands or because the costs attendant
with having a dedicated cabinet are too
burdensome—cannot access 40 Gb
connections and are limited to the 10 Gb
connections offered as part of the
Option C and D bundles. Users and
potential customers have requested that
the Exchange provide them the
opportunity to purchase PCS bundles
that include 40 Gb connections, which
would enable them to connect to more
of the Included Data Products and Third
Party Data Feeds or have the same size
connection in co-location that they have
everywhere. The Exchange believes that
it is reasonable to offer the proposed
Option E and F bundles to satisfy this
customer demand, while continuing to
offer the existing bundle offerings, in
order to provide potential Users of the
PCS bundled services an additional 40
Gb option for their network connection
requirements.
Additionally, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change may make PCS
bundles more competitive with the
services that Hosting Users offer.
Without this proposed rule change,
potential Users choosing between a PCS
bundle and a Hosting User Bundle
would have fewer options.
The Exchange believes that the
proposed charges for the Option E and
F bundles are reasonable. The Exchange
proposes that Users choosing the Option
E or F bundles would pay the same
$10,000 initial charge that Users
currently pay when choosing the Option
C or D bundles, which reflects the fact
that setting up each of these four cabinet
options involves a similar amount of
work for the Exchange. It is also
reasonable for the Exchange to set MRC
charges of $18,000 for an Option E
bundle (a $4,000 increase over Option
C) and $19,000 for an Option F bundle
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(a $4,000 increase over Option D) which
reflects the fact that the Exchange will
have to supply multiple 40 Gb
connections in the Option E and F
bundles, as opposed to the 10 Gb
connections included in the Option C
and D bundles.
The Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to provide a period of
eligibility for a 50% MRC reduction as
an incentive to Users to utilize the
Option E and F bundles. Similar 50%
MRC reductions were proposed and
approved for Options A through D when
those product offerings were added to
the Fee Schedules.
The Proposed Change Is Not Unfairly
Discriminatory
The Exchange believes its proposal is
not unfairly discriminatory. The
proposed change would not apply
differently to distinct types or sizes of
market participants. Rather, it would
apply to all Users equally. The
Exchange would continue to offer the
four existing PCS bundles (Options A
through D) with different cabinet
footprints and network connection
options, in addition to the proposed
Option E and F bundles. Users that
require other sizes or combinations of
cabinets, network connections, and
cross connects could still request them.
As is currently the case, the purchase of
any co-location service, including PCS
bundles, would be completely
voluntary.
The Exchange believes that the
proposed charges for Option E and F
bundles are not unfairly discriminatory.
The proposed initial charges and MRCs
for Options E and F would apply
equally to all Users that purchase an
Option E or F bundle, and the proposed
50% reduction of MRC for the first 12
months would apply to any User that
orders an Option E or F bundle on or
before December 31, 2021.
The Proposed Change Is an Equitable
Allocation of Fees and Credits
The Exchange believes that its
proposal equitably allocates its fees
among its market participants.
The proposed change would not
apply differently to distinct types or
sizes of market participants. Rather, it
would apply to all Users equally.
Specifically, the proposed initial
charges and MRCs for Options E and F
would apply equally to all Users that
purchase an Option E or F bundle, and
the proposed 50% reduction of MRC for
the first 12 months would apply to any
User that orders an Option E or F
bundle on or before December 31, 2021.
The Exchange would continue to offer
the four existing PCS bundles (Options
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Notices
A through D) with different cabinet
footprints and network connection
options, in addition to the proposed
Option E and F bundles. Users that
require other sizes or combinations of
cabinets, network connections, and
cross connects could still request them.
As is currently the case, the purchase of
any co-location service, including PCS
bundles, would be completely
voluntary.
Without this proposed rule change,
potential Users choosing between a PCS
bundle and a Hosting User Bundle
would have fewer options. Potential
Users could benefit from having an
additional 40 Gb option for their
network connection requirements,
which would allow them to connect to
more of the Included Data Products and
Third Party Data Feeds or have the same
size connection in co-location that they
have elsewhere.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it
is subject to significant competitive
forces, as described below in the
Exchange’s statement regarding the
burden on competition.
For the reasons above, the proposed
changes do not unfairly discriminate
between or among market participants
that are otherwise capable of satisfying
any applicable co-location fees,
requirements, terms, and conditions
established from time to time by the
Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent
with the Act.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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.16
Intramarket Competition
The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes would not place any
burden on intramarket competition that
is not necessary or appropriate.
The Exchange’s offering of the
proposed Option E and F bundles
would provide potential Users of PCS
bundles a wider range of choices, which
would be especially beneficial for
potential Users with minimal power and
cabinet space demands, but which
could nevertheless benefit from an
additional 40 Gb option for their
network connection requirements. The
Exchange believes that the proposed
change may make PCS bundles more
attractive to potential Users who might
otherwise opt to become Hosted
16 15
U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Feb 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
Customers, and thus would enhance the
competitive environment for potential
Users, who would then have more
options from which to select. At the
same time, however, no potential User
would be obligated to purchase a PCS
bundle, and it would still have the
options offered by Hosting Users.
Intermarket Competition
The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes will not impose any
burden on intermarket competition that
is not necessary or appropriate. The
proposed change is not meant to affect
competition among national securities
exchanges. Rather, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change is a
reasonable attempt to maintain a more
level playing field between the
Exchange and the Hosting Users, who
compete for Hosted Customer business.
Because Hosting Users’ services are not
regulated, they may offer differentiated
pricing and are not required to make
their pricing public. The Exchange
believes that the proposed change may
make PCS bundles more attractive to
potential users who might otherwise opt
to become Hosted Customers.
The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which exchanges
and other vendors (i.e., Hosting Users)
offer co-location services as a means to
facilitate the trading and other market
activities of those market participants
who believe that co-location enhances
the efficiency of their operations.
Accordingly, fees charged for colocation services are constrained by the
active competition for the order flow of,
and other business from, such market
participants. If a particular exchange
charges excessive fees for co-location
services, affected market participants
will opt to terminate their co-location
arrangements with that exchange, and
adopt a possible range of alternative
strategies, including placing their
servers in a physically proximate
location outside the exchange’s data
center (which could be a competing
exchange), or pursuing strategies less
dependent upon the lower exchange-toparticipant latency associated with colocation. Accordingly, an exchange
charging excessive fees would stand to
lose not only co-location revenues but
also the liquidity of the formerly colocated trading firms, which could have
additional follow-on effects on the
market share and revenue of the affected
exchange. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually review, and
consider adjusting, its services and
related fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges.
The Commission has repeatedly
expressed its preference for competition
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8665
over regulatory intervention in
determining price, products, and
services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance
of market forces in determining prices
and SRO revenues and, also,
recognizing that current regulation of
the market system ‘‘has been remarkably
successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are
most important to investors and listed
companies.’’ 17
For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment
and does not impose any undue burden
on intermarket competition.
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 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 rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
NYSEARCA–2021–07 on the subject
line.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to: Securities and Exchange
17 See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra
note 12, at 37499.
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
8666
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Notices
Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–NYSEARCA–2021–07. 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
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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change.
Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from
comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish
to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File
Number SR–NYSEARCA–2021–07 and
should be submitted on or before March
1, 2021.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.18
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–02475 Filed 2–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[SEC File No. 270–208, OMB Control No.
3235–0213]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Upon Written Request, Copies Available
From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100
F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–2736.
Extension:
Rule 17g–1.
18 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Feb 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the
‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments
on the collection of information
summarized below. The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection
of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension
and approval.
Rule 17g–1 (17 CFR 270.17g–1) under
the Investment Company Act of 1940
(the ‘‘Act’’) (15 U.S.C. 80a–17(g))
governs the fidelity bonding of officers
and employees of registered
management investment companies
(‘‘funds’’) and their advisers. Rule 17g–
1 requires, in part, the following:
Independent Directors’ Approval
The form and amount of the fidelity
bond must be approved by a majority of
the fund’s independent directors at least
once annually, and the amount of any
premium paid by the fund for any ‘‘joint
insured bond,’’ covering multiple funds
or certain affiliates, must be approved
by a majority of the fund’s independent
directors.
Terms and Provisions of the Bond
The amount of the bond may not be
less than the minimum amounts of
coverage set forth in a schedule based
on the fund’s gross assets. The bond
must provide that it shall not be
cancelled, terminated, or modified
except upon 60-days written notice to
the affected party and to the
Commission. In the case of a joint
insured bond, 60-days written notice
must also be given to each fund covered
by the bond. A joint insured bond must
provide that the fidelity insurance
company will provide all funds covered
by the bond with a copy of the
agreement, a copy of any claim on the
bond, and notification of the terms of
the settlement of any claim prior to
execution of that settlement. Finally, a
fund that is insured by a joint bond
must enter into an agreement with all
other parties insured by the joint bond
regarding recovery under the bond.
Filings With the Commission
Upon the execution of a fidelity bond
or any amendment thereto, a fund must
file with the Commission within 10
days: (i) A copy of the executed bond or
any amendment to the bond, (ii) the
independent directors’ resolution
approving the bond, and (iii) a
statement as to the period for which
premiums have been paid on the bond.
In the case of a joint insured bond, a
fund must also file: (i) A statement
showing the amount the fund would
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
have been required to maintain under
the rule if it were insured under a single
insured bond; and (ii) the agreement
between the fund and all other insured
parties regarding recovery under the
bond. A fund must also notify the
Commission in writing within five days
of any claim or settlement on a claim
under the fidelity bond.
Notices to Directors
A fund must notify by registered mail
each member of its board of directors of:
(i) Any cancellation, termination, or
modification of the fidelity bond at least
45 days prior to the effective date; and
(ii) the filing or settlement of any claim
under the fidelity bond when
notification is filed with the
Commission.
Rule 17g–1’s independent directors’
annual review requirements, fidelity
bond content requirements, joint bond
agreement requirement, and the
required notices to directors are
designed to ensure the safety of fund
assets against losses due to the conduct
of persons who may obtain access to
those assets. These requirements also
seek to facilitate oversight of a fund’s
fidelity bond. The rule’s required filings
with the Commission are designed to
assist the Commission in monitoring
funds’ compliance with the fidelity
bond requirements.
Based on conversations with
representatives in the fund industry, the
Commission staff estimates that for each
of the estimated 2,200 active funds
(respondents),1 the average annual
paperwork burden associated with rule
17g–1’s requirements is two hours, one
hour each for a compliance attorney and
the board of directors as a whole. The
time spent by a compliance attorney
includes time spent filing reports with
the Commission for fidelity losses (if
any) as well as paperwork associated
with any notices to directors, and
managing any updates to the bond and
the joint agreement (if one exists). The
time spent by the board of directors as
a whole includes any time spent
initially establishing the bond, as well
as time spent on annual updates and
approvals. The Commission staff
therefore estimates the total ongoing
paperwork burden hours per year for all
funds required by rule 17g–1 to be 4,400
hours (2,200 funds × 2 hours = 4,400
hours). Commission staff continues to
1 Based on a review of fund filings for the threeyear period from 2018 to 2020, Commission staff
estimates there are approximately 2,200 funds
(registered open- and closed-end funds, and
business development companies) that must
comply with the collections of information under
rule 17g–1, and which collectively submit an
estimated 2,597 filings on Form 17G annually.
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 24 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8662-8666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02475]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-91044; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2021-07]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges and the NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges Related to Co-
Location Services
February 2, 2021.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on January 19, 2021, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges and the NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges (together, the ``Fee
Schedules'') related to co-location services to add two Partial Cabinet
Solution bundles. 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
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 its Fee Schedules related to co-
location \4\ services to add two Partial Cabinet Solution (``PCS'')
bundles that would be offered to Users.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
63275 (November 8, 2010), 75 FR 70048 (November 16, 2010) (SR-
NYSEArca-2010-100).
\5\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76010 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60197
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-82). As specified in the Fee
Schedules, a User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-
location service pursuant thereto would not be subject to co-
location fees for the same co-location service charged by the
Exchange's affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American
LLC, NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (together, the
``Affiliate SROs''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70173
(August 13, 2013), 78 FR 50459 (August 19, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-
80). Each Affiliate SRO has submitted substantially the same
proposed rule change to propose the changes described herein. See
SR-NYSE-2021-05, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-04, SR-NYSECHX-2021-01, and SR-
NYSENAT-2021-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8663]]
Proposed Addition of Option E and Option F PCS Bundles
The Fee Schedules currently list four PCS bundles, Options A
through D. As originally formulated, each PCS bundle option included a
partial cabinet powered to a maximum of 2 kilowatts (``kW''); access to
the liquidity center network (``LCN'') and internet protocol (``IP'')
networks, the local area networks available in the data center; two
fiber cross connections; and connectivity to one of two time feeds.\6\
The PCS bundles are designed to attract smaller Users, including those
with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the
costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet are too burdensome.\7\
Users are only eligible to purchase PCS bundles if they meet specified
requirements, set forth in General Note 2 of Fee Schedules.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77070 (February 5,
2016), 81 FR 7401 (February 11, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-102).
\7\ See id. at 7402.
\8\ See id. The definitions of ``Affiliate'' and ``Aggregate
Cabinet Footprint'' were added to the Fee Schedules at the same
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2020, the Exchange amended PCS bundle Options C and D to
each include two 10 Gb connections to the NMS Network, an alternate
dedicated network connection that Users could use to access the NMS
feeds for which the Securities Industry Automation Corporation
(``SIAC'') is engaged as the securities information processor
(``SIP'').\9\ These two 10 Gb NMS Network connections were added to the
Option C and D bundles at no additional cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 88837 (May 7,
2020), 85 FR 28671 (May 13, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2019-46, SR-NYSEAMER-
2019-34, SR-NYSEArca-2019-61, SR-NYSENAT-2019-19) (``NMS Network
Approval Order'') and 88972 (May 29, 2020), 85 FR 34472 (June 4,
2020) (``NYSE Chicago NMS Network Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to customer interest, the Exchange now proposes to add
two new PCS bundles to the Fee Schedules. Proposed Options E and F
would be substantially similar to Options C and D, respectively, with
the difference that each connection included in the proposed bundles
would be upgraded to 40 Gb from 10 Gb: That is, proposed Options E and
F would include a 1 kw (Option E) or 2 kw (Option F) partial cabinet,
one 40 Gb LCN connection, one 40 Gb IP network connection, two 40 Gb
NMS Network connections, and either the Network Time Protocol Feed or
the Precision Timing Protocol. Users selecting an Option E or F bundle
would be charged the same initial charge of $10,000 that currently
applies to Options C and D. In addition, Users would be charged monthly
recurring charges (``MRC'') of $18,000 for an Option E bundle and
$19,000 for an Option F bundle. The Exchange proposes that Users that
purchase Option E or F bundles on or before December 31, 2021 would
receive a 50% reduction in the MRC for the first 12 months.
The amended portion of the Fee Schedules would read as follows
(proposed additions italicized):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of service Description Amount of charge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Cabinet Solution Option E: 1 kW $10,000 initial
bundles Note: A User and partial cabinet, 1 charge per bundle
its Affiliates are limited LCN connection (40 plus monthly charge
to one Partial Cabinet Gb), 1 IP network per bundle as
Solution bundle at a time. connection (40 Gb), follows:
A User and its Affiliates 2 NMS Network For Users
must have an Aggregate connections (40 Gb that order on or
Cabinet Footprint of 2 kW each), 2 fiber before December 31,
or less to qualify for a cross connections 2021: $9,000
Partial Cabinet Solution and either the monthly for first
bundle. See Note 2 under Network Time 12 months of
``General Notes.'' Protocol Feed or service, and
Precision Timing $18,000 monthly
Protocol. thereafter.
For Users
that order after
December 31, 2021:
$18,000 monthly.
Option F: 2 kW $10,000 initial
partial cabinet, 1 charge per bundle
LCN connection (40 plus monthly charge
Gb), 1 IP network per bundle as
connection (40 Gb), follows:
2 NMS Network For Users
connections (40 Gb that order on or
each), 2 fiber before December 31,
cross connections 2021: $9,500
and either the monthly for first
Network Time 12 months of
Protocol Feed or service, and
Precision Timing $19,000 monthly
Protocol. thereafter.
For Users
that order after
December 31, 2021:
$19,000 monthly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes that General Note 2 of the Fee Schedules--
which currently applies to PCS bundle Options A through D--would also
apply to proposed Option E and F bundles, without alteration.
Specifically, a User and its Affiliates would be limited to one PCS
bundle at a time, and a User and its Affiliates must have an Aggregate
Cabinet Footprint of 2 kW or less to qualify for a PCS bundle.
The Exchange is not proposing any changes to PCS bundle Options A
through D.
Application and Impact of the Proposed Changes
The proposed changes would not apply differently to distinct types
or sizes of market participants. Rather, they would apply to all Users
equally.
Users that require other sizes or combinations of cabinets, network
connections, and cross connects could still request them. As is
currently the case, the purchase of any co-location service, including
PCS bundles, is completely voluntary and the Fee Schedules are applied
uniformly to all Users.
Competitive Environment
A User may host another entity in its space within the data center.
Such Users are called ``Hosting Users,'' and their customers are
``Hosted Customers.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A Hosting User is required to be a User, but because only
Users can be Hosting Users, a Hosted Customer is not able to provide
hosting services to any other entities in the space in which it is
hosted. The Exchange allows Users to act as Hosting Users for a
monthly fee. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76010
(September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60197 (October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-
2015-82).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on conversations with Users and potential customers, the
Exchange believes that Hosting Users offer bundles (``Hosting User
Bundles'') that include cabinet space and space on shared LCN, IP, and
NMS network connections, and that the Hosting User Bundles provide
their end users with a service similar to that of the PCS bundles.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Because Hosting Users' services are not regulated, they may
offer differentiated pricing and are not required to make their
pricing public or disclose it to the Exchange. The Exchange
therefore does not have direct visibility into the specific range of
options, or cost thereof, offered by Hosting Users, and relies on
third parties for information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8664]]
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges and other vendors (e.g., Hosting Users) offer co-location
services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market
activities of those market participants who believe that co-location
enhances the efficiency of their operations. The Commission has
repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory
intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the
securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and
the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users 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 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
and would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a
national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest, for the following reasons.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to expand its PCS
bundle options by offering the proposed Option E and F bundles.
Currently, the Exchange offers Users the ability to purchase
connectivity to the LCN/NMS and IP/NMS networks in 10 Gb and 40 Gb
bandwidths, but within the Exchange's existing PCS bundle options, 40
Gb connections are not available. This means that at present, Users
interested in the PCS bundled services--either because they have
minimal power and cabinet space demands or because the costs attendant
with having a dedicated cabinet are too burdensome--cannot access 40 Gb
connections and are limited to the 10 Gb connections offered as part of
the Option C and D bundles. Users and potential customers have
requested that the Exchange provide them the opportunity to purchase
PCS bundles that include 40 Gb connections, which would enable them to
connect to more of the Included Data Products and Third Party Data
Feeds or have the same size connection in co-location that they have
everywhere. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to offer the
proposed Option E and F bundles to satisfy this customer demand, while
continuing to offer the existing bundle offerings, in order to provide
potential Users of the PCS bundled services an additional 40 Gb option
for their network connection requirements.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change may
make PCS bundles more competitive with the services that Hosting Users
offer. Without this proposed rule change, potential Users choosing
between a PCS bundle and a Hosting User Bundle would have fewer
options.
The Exchange believes that the proposed charges for the Option E
and F bundles are reasonable. The Exchange proposes that Users choosing
the Option E or F bundles would pay the same $10,000 initial charge
that Users currently pay when choosing the Option C or D bundles, which
reflects the fact that setting up each of these four cabinet options
involves a similar amount of work for the Exchange. It is also
reasonable for the Exchange to set MRC charges of $18,000 for an Option
E bundle (a $4,000 increase over Option C) and $19,000 for an Option F
bundle (a $4,000 increase over Option D) which reflects the fact that
the Exchange will have to supply multiple 40 Gb connections in the
Option E and F bundles, as opposed to the 10 Gb connections included in
the Option C and D bundles.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to provide a period of
eligibility for a 50% MRC reduction as an incentive to Users to utilize
the Option E and F bundles. Similar 50% MRC reductions were proposed
and approved for Options A through D when those product offerings were
added to the Fee Schedules.
The Proposed Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
The Exchange believes its proposal is not unfairly discriminatory.
The proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or
sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users
equally. The Exchange would continue to offer the four existing PCS
bundles (Options A through D) with different cabinet footprints and
network connection options, in addition to the proposed Option E and F
bundles. Users that require other sizes or combinations of cabinets,
network connections, and cross connects could still request them. As is
currently the case, the purchase of any co-location service, including
PCS bundles, would be completely voluntary.
The Exchange believes that the proposed charges for Option E and F
bundles are not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed initial charges
and MRCs for Options E and F would apply equally to all Users that
purchase an Option E or F bundle, and the proposed 50% reduction of MRC
for the first 12 months would apply to any User that orders an Option E
or F bundle on or before December 31, 2021.
The Proposed Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
The Exchange believes that its proposal equitably allocates its
fees among its market participants.
The proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types
or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users
equally. Specifically, the proposed initial charges and MRCs for
Options E and F would apply equally to all Users that purchase an
Option E or F bundle, and the proposed 50% reduction of MRC for the
first 12 months would apply to any User that orders an Option E or F
bundle on or before December 31, 2021. The Exchange would continue to
offer the four existing PCS bundles (Options
[[Page 8665]]
A through D) with different cabinet footprints and network connection
options, in addition to the proposed Option E and F bundles. Users that
require other sizes or combinations of cabinets, network connections,
and cross connects could still request them. As is currently the case,
the purchase of any co-location service, including PCS bundles, would
be completely voluntary.
Without this proposed rule change, potential Users choosing between
a PCS bundle and a Hosting User Bundle would have fewer options.
Potential Users could benefit from having an additional 40 Gb option
for their network connection requirements, which would allow them to
connect to more of the Included Data Products and Third Party Data
Feeds or have the same size connection in co-location that they have
elsewhere.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms, and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intramarket Competition
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would not place any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
The Exchange's offering of the proposed Option E and F bundles
would provide potential Users of PCS bundles a wider range of choices,
which would be especially beneficial for potential Users with minimal
power and cabinet space demands, but which could nevertheless benefit
from an additional 40 Gb option for their network connection
requirements. The Exchange believes that the proposed change may make
PCS bundles more attractive to potential Users who might otherwise opt
to become Hosted Customers, and thus would enhance the competitive
environment for potential Users, who would then have more options from
which to select. At the same time, however, no potential User would be
obligated to purchase a PCS bundle, and it would still have the options
offered by Hosting Users.
Intermarket Competition
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes will not impose any
burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
The proposed change is not meant to affect competition among national
securities exchanges. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change is a reasonable attempt to maintain a more level playing field
between the Exchange and the Hosting Users, who compete for Hosted
Customer business. Because Hosting Users' services are not regulated,
they may offer differentiated pricing and are not required to make
their pricing public. The Exchange believes that the proposed change
may make PCS bundles more attractive to potential users who might
otherwise opt to become Hosted Customers.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges and other vendors (i.e., Hosting Users) offer co-location
services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market
activities of those market participants who believe that co-location
enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged
for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for
the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants.
If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location
services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-
location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of
alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically
proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a
competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the
lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location.
Accordingly, an exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose
not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly
co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects
on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its services and related fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining price,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognizing
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra note 12, at
37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change reflects this competitive environment and does not impose any
undue burden on intermarket competition.
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 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-NYSEARCA-2021-07 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to: Securities and
Exchange
[[Page 8666]]
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2021-07. 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 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2021-07 and should be submitted
on or before March 1, 2021.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02475 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
