Notice2026-02218
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 11.10(d) (“EdgeRisk Self Trade Prevention (“ERSTP”) Modifiers”) To Revise the Definition of Unique Identifier
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 4, 2026
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5134-5138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-02218]
[[Page 5134]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-104756; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2026-002]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Exchange Rule 11.10(d) (``EdgeRisk Self Trade Prevention
(``ERSTP'') Modifiers'') To Revise the Definition of Unique Identifier
January 30, 2026.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 28, 2026, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
\4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'') proposes to
amend Exchange Rule 11.10(d) (``EdgeRisk Self Trade Prevention
(``ERSTP'') Modifiers'') to revise the definition of Unique Identifier.
The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial pursuant
to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\5\ The text of the proposed
rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Commission's website (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>), the
Exchange's website (<a href="https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/">https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/</a>), and at the principal office of the Exchange.
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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such
statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.10(d) (``EdgeRisk Self Trade
Prevention (``ERSTP'') Modifiers) by revising the definition of Unique
Identifier. This proposed change is a result of User feedback and
implementation difficulties that the Exchange has encountered while
trying to apply ERSTP based on current Rule 11.10(d), which requires
Users \6\ to have the same Unique Identifier on each order. As
discussed infra, the current rule text provides that a Unique
Identifier may originate from a specific set of User characteristics.
The Exchange now seeks to revise the definition of Unique Identifier
and instead provide for three situations in which a Unique Identifier
may be generated. The Exchange believes this change would allow for
more flexibility in determining which Users are issued a Unique
Identifier without compromising the purpose of Rule 11.10(d) and match
trade prevention generally. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to
include rule text that provides that a User requesting a Unique
Identifier pursuant to item (iii) of Rule 11.10(d) must complete an
Exchange-provided attestation. The Exchange emphasizes that ERSTP is
entirely optional and is not required. As is the case with the existing
risk tools, Users, and not the Exchange, have full responsibility for
ensuring that their orders comply with applicable securities rules,
laws, and regulations. Furthermore, as is the case with the existing
risk settings, the Exchange does not believe that the use of the
proposed ERSTP functionality can replace User-managed risk management
solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee). ``User'' is defined as ``any
Member or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access
to the System pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' The ``System'' is ``the
electronic communications and trading facility designated by the
Board through which securities orders of Users are consolidated for
ranking, execution and, when applicable, routing away.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(cc). The term ``Member'' means any registered
broker or dealer that has been admitted to membership in the
Exchange. See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, any incoming order designated with an ERSTP modifier
will be prevented from executing against a resting opposite side order
also designated with an ERSTP modifier and originating from the same
market participant identifier (``MPID''),\7\ Exchange Member
identifier, ERSTP Group identifier, affiliate identifier, or Multiple
Access identifier (any such identifier, a ``Unique Identifier'').\8\
Both the buy and the sell order must include the same Unique Identifier
in order to prevent an execution from occurring and to effect a cancel
instruction based on the ERSTP modifier appended to each order. In
order to describe how ERSTP functionality may be applied by Users
today, the Exchange has provided a brief description of how each Unique
Identifier enables ERSTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ An MPID is a four-character unique identifier that is
approved by the Exchange and assigned to a Member for use on the
Exchange to identify the Member firm on the orders sent to the
Exchange and resulting executions.
\8\ See Exchange Rule 11.10(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A User who enables ERSTP functionality using the MPID Unique
Identifier will prevent contra side executions between the same MPID
from occurring. A User who enables ERSTP using the Exchange Member
Unique Identifier would prevent contra side executions between any MPID
associated with that User and not just a single MPID. The ERSTP Group
Unique Identifier permits Users to prevent matched trades amongst
traders or desks within a certain firm but allows orders from outside
such group or desk to interact with other firm orders. The affiliate
identifier is a Unique Identifier that permits ERSTP to be enabled by
firms with a control relationship. The affiliate identifier is only
available to Users where: (i) greater than 50% ownership is identified
in a User's Form BD; and (ii) the Users execute an affidavit stating
that a control relationship exists between the two Users. The Multiple
Access identifier is available to Users that submit orders to the
Exchange both through a direct connection as well as through Sponsored
Access. In each instance where an order is appended with a Unique
Identifier, the Exchange is utilizing an already existing identifier
(e.g., MPID or Exchange Member identifier) or creating an identifier in
order to enable ERSTP between two separate Users where there would
otherwise not be a common identifier (e.g., affiliate identifier or
Multiple Access identifier).
[[Page 5135]]
Based on User feedback and implementation difficulties that the
Exchange has encountered while seeking to apply ERSTP based its current
definition of Unique Identifier, the Exchange now proposes to amend
Rule 11.10(d) by revising the definition of Unique Identifier to
eliminate the specific Unique Identifier types and instead providing
for three situations in which a Unique Identifier may be generated. As
proposed, Rule 11.10(d) would provide that a Unique Identifier may be
created at: (i) the MPID level; (ii) the firm level (e.g., Exchange
Member identifier, ERSTP Group identifier); or (iii) where the User
indicates that ERSTP is necessary in order to prevent transactions in
securities in which there is no change in beneficial ownership.
The Exchange believes this change is necessary as Users with
legitimate reasons for seeking to enable ERSTP are choosing to submit
order flow to the Exchange through various constructs that do not align
with the current definitions applicable to Unique Identifiers available
under current Rule 11.10(d). The proposed changes do not change how
ERSTP will function from an operational perspective. Both the incoming
order and the resting opposite side order must continue to be
designated with an ERSTP modifier \9\ (in addition to a Unique
Identifier) in order for ERSTP to apply. The ERSTP modifier on the
incoming order will control the interaction between two orders marked
with ERSTP modifiers. This proposal is only intended to amend when the
Exchange may create a Unique Identifier for a User (or multiple Users)
to enable ERSTP when there is otherwise no common identifier available.
As is the case under existing Rule 11.10(d), a Unique Identifier will
continue to include an MPID, an Exchange Member identifier, or an ERSTP
Group identifier--each of which can be categorized under either the (i)
MPID level or (ii) the firm level in the proposed rule text. These
Unique Identifiers are based on existing identifiers that the Exchange
does not specially create for Users and are already being utilized in
other formats by the Exchange when a User requests to use ERSTP.
However, when a User requests to utilize ERSTP and is doing so based on
the current affiliate identifier or current Multiple Access identifier,
the Exchange manually creates the applicable Unique Identifier for the
User and must ensure that the User satisfies the requirements to obtain
an affiliate identifier or Multiple Access identifier prescribed in
Rule 11.10(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Rule 11.10(d)(1)-(5). Generally, Users may elect to
cancel the incoming order, cancel the resting order, cancel both
orders, cancel the smallest order, or reduce the size of the larger
order by the size of the smaller order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange has received feedback from firms who would like to
employ ERSTP utilizing the current affiliate identifier or the current
Multiple Access identifier that it is unclear whether particular use
cases would qualify for ERSTP utilizing those particular identifiers
based on the definition of those terms currently found in Rule
11.10(d). As such, the Exchange is proposing to remove the terms
affiliate identifier and Multiple Access identifier from the definition
of Unique Identifier in Rule 11.10 and replace those terms with a
concept that more accurately captures a User's basis for wanting to
utilize ERSTP as a basis for creating a Unique Identifier. The proposed
rule text in Rule 11.10(d) that provides for the creation of a Unique
Identifier ``. . . (iii) where the User indicates that ERSTP is
necessary in order to prevent transactions in securities in which there
is no change in beneficial ownership[.]'' is based in the concept of
the federal securities laws' prohibition on wash sales \10\ and FINRA
Rule 5210 concerning self-trades.<SUP>11 12</SUP> Importantly, the
proposed revised definition of Unique Identifier, particularly item
(iii), would continue to capture the concepts of the affiliate
identifier and Multiple Access identifier and as such, existing Users
of those Unique Identifiers would not be harmed by the change in
definition. The Exchange notes that any User seeking to utilize
proposed item (iii) of Rule 11.10(d) will be required to complete an
Exchange-provided attestation before the Unique Identifier is
created.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A ``wash sale'' is generally defined as a trade involving
no change in beneficial ownership that is intended to produce the
false appearance of trading and is strictly prohibited under both
the federal securities laws and FINRA rules. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C.
78i(a)(1); FINRA Rule 6140(b) (``Other Trading Practices'').
\11\ Self-trades are ``transactions in a security resulting from
the unintentional interaction of orders originating from the same
firm that involve no change in beneficial ownership of the
security.'' FINRA requires members to have policies and procedures
in place that are reasonably designed to review trading activity
for, and prevent, a pattern or practice of self-trades resulting
from orders originating from a single algorithm or trading desk, or
related algorithms or trading desks. See FINRA Rule 5210,
Supplementary Material .02.
\12\ The Exchange does not guarantee that ERSTP is sufficiently
comprehensive to be the exclusive means by which a User can satisfy
its obligations under the Exchange's rules regarding a User's
supervisory obligations. ERSTP is designed to serve as a
supplemental tool that may be utilized by Users and the Exchange
generally does not believe that its use can replace User-based
managed risk solutions and notes that ERSTP was not designed as a
sole means of risk control. The User, and not the Exchange, retains
full responsibility for complying with such regulatory requirements
and must perform its own appropriate due diligence to ensure that
ERSTP is reasonably designed to be effective, and otherwise
consistent with the User's supervisory obligations. The Commission
has stated that broker-dealers may not rely merely on
representations of the technology provider, even if an exchange or
other regulated entity, to meet this due diligence standard. See,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63241 (November 15, 2010), 75 FR
69792 at 69798. See also, Reponses to Frequently Asked Questions
Concerning Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with
Market Access, Division of Trading and Markets, Question No. 5,
April 15, 2014. Available at: <a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/staff-guidance/trading-markets-frequently-asked-questions/divisionsmarketregfaq-0">https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/staff-guidance/trading-markets-frequently-asked-questions/divisionsmarketregfaq-0</a>.
\13\ The Exchange will not require an attestation from Users who
are able to utilize the MPID level or firm level Unique Identifiers
as those Users have existing documentation in place that allows for
the utilization of a Unique Identifier (e.g., MPID, Exchange Member
identifier, Sponsored Participant identifier, or trading group
identifier) that is not manually created by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes to introduce subsection (iii) of Rule
11.10(d) to account for situations where a firm seeks to enable ERSTP
in order to prevent transactions in securities in which there is no
change in beneficial ownership but where the User does not have an
existing Unique Identifier at the MPID or firm level that may be
utilized to enable ERSTP. For instance, a firm may employ different
trading strategies across different trading desks and choose to send
orders for one strategy to the Exchange through one Sponsored
Participant \14\ while the other strategy is sent through a third party
who also accesses the Exchange as a Sponsored Participant.\15\ While
each trading desk is sending its order flow as a Sponsored Participant,
the Sponsored Participants are using different Sponsoring Members \16\
to connect to the Exchange and thus the Exchange cannot apply the same
Unique Identifier to each respective trading desk even though the
trading desks are from the same firm. Additionally, a firm may utilize
[[Page 5136]]
multiple broker-dealers in multiple jurisdictions to implement its
trading strategy at different hours of the day. For example, a firm's
US-based broker-dealer may be primarily responsible for entering orders
during Regular Trading Hours,\17\ while the firm's European-based
broker-dealer may be primarily responsible for entering orders during
the Early Trading Session.\18\ Various other considerations (e.g.,
business needs, cost, technology limitations, etc.) also factor in to a
firm's decision into how it submits order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Rule 1.5(z). The term ``Sponsored Participant'' shall
mean a person which has entered into a sponsorship arrangement with
a Sponsoring Member pursuant to Rule 11.3.
\15\ The Exchange notes that there may be instances where
transactions between two trading desks from the same firm would be
considered bona fide transactions (e.g., sufficient information
barriers exist), but if the firm is requesting to utilize ERSTP then
there is a presumption that the firm believes that transactions
between the subject trading desk would result in a self-trade.
\16\ See Rule 1.5(aa). The term ``Sponsoring Member'' shall mean
a broker-dealer that has been issued a membership by the Exchange
who has been designated by a Sponsored Participant to execute, clear
and settle transactions resulting from the System. The Sponsoring
Member shall be either (i) a clearing firm with membership in a
clearing agency registered with the Commission that maintains
facilities through which transactions may be cleared or (ii) a
correspondent firm with a clearing arrangement with any such
clearing firm.
\17\ See Rule 1.5(y). The term ``Regular Trading Hours'' shall
mean the time between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
\18\ See Rule 1.5(jj). The term ``Early Trading Session'' shall
mean the time between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, consider the following scenario where a firm has
multiple Users submitting orders to the Exchange. User 1 seeks to
enable ERSTP against User 2, which is a related entity of the same
firm. User 1 is a US-based broker-dealer that submits orders to the
Exchange as a Sponsored Participant through Sponsoring Member 1. User 2
is a European-based broker-dealer that submits orders to the Exchange
as a Sponsored Participant through Sponsoring Member 2. User 1 and User
2 may not utilize the Sponsored Participant identifier because the
Users submit orders through two different Sponsoring Members that have
different Sponsored Participant identifiers. Additionally, User 1 and
User 2 may not utilize the affiliate identifier because Form BD does
not indicate at least a 50% ownership as proof that a control
relationship exists. However, both User 1 and User 2 are controlled by
the same parent company and believe that no change in beneficial
ownership of the security will occur should User 1 and User 2 execute a
transaction against one another.
Also consider the following scenario where a firm has multiple
Users submitting orders to the Exchange. User 1 is attempting to enable
ERSTP against both User 2 and User 3, all of which are related entities
of the same firm. User 1 is a US-based broker-dealer that submits
orders directly to the Exchange and has its own MPID and Exchange
Member identifier. User 2 is a US-based broker-dealer that submits
orders to the Exchange as a Sponsored Participant through Sponsoring
Member 1. User 3 is a foreign broker-dealer that submits orders to the
Exchange through a US-based broker-dealer (Firm 1). Firm 1 submits
orders to the Exchange as a Sponsored Participant through Sponsoring
Member 2. In this particular example, User 1 would be eligible to
enable ERSTP against User 2 using the multiple access Unique
Identifier, as the firm has attested to being (i) a Member of the
Exchange that submits orders directly to the System, and (ii)
submitting orders to the System through a Sponsored Access arrangement.
User 1 would also be eligible to enable ERSTP against User 3 using the
multiple access Unique Identifier. While ultimately ERSTP can be
enabled by User 1 against both User 2 and User 3, User 1 would need to
complete multiple attestations in order to receive a multiple access
identifier because User 2 and User 3 are submitting orders to the
Exchange through different Sponsoring Members.
The Exchange plans to implement the proposed rule change during the
first quarter of 2026 and will announce the implementation date via
Trade Desk Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\19\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \20\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be 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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \21\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed revised
definition of Unique Identifier promotes just and equitable principles
of trade by allowing individual firms to better manage order flow and
prevent undesirable trading activity such as wash sales \22\ or self-
trades \23\ that may occur as a result of the velocity of trading in
today's high-speed marketplace. The proposed revised definition of
Unique Identifier does not introduce any new or novel functionality, as
the proposed amendment does not change the underlying ERSTP
functionality, but rather will provide Users with the ability to
request ERSTP in situations that do not fit under the Exchange's
current definition of Unique Identifier but for which the User has a
valid reason to believe that no change in beneficial ownership will
occur as a result of a transaction. For instance, a User may operate
trading desk 1 that accesses the Exchange as a Sponsored Participant
through one Sponsoring Member, as well as trading desk 2 that access
the Exchange as a Sponsored Participant through a different Sponsoring
Member. While these desks may operate different trading strategies, a
User may desire to prevent these desks from trading versus each other
in the marketplace because the orders are originating from the same
entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Supra note 10.
\23\ Supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the above example, Users may desire ERSTP
functionality in order to help them achieve compliance \24\ with
regulatory rules regarding wash sales and self-trades in a very similar
manner to the way that current ERSTP functionality applies on the
existing Sponsored Participant identifier level, but that the Exchange
currently cannot enable because the Users are submitting order flow as
Sponsored Participant through different Sponsoring Members. In this
regard, the proposed revised definition of Unique Identifier will allow
Users to enable ERSTP in situations where it is necessary in order to
prevent transactions in securities in which there is no change in
beneficial ownership but that the Exchange's current rule does not
contemplate. This proposed change does not change the operation or
purpose of ERSTP, but rather provides Users with three situations \25\
in which a Unique Identifier may be created to enable ERSTP. The
Exchange notes that the proposed revised definition of Unique
Identifier would continue to capture the concepts of the affiliate
identifier and Multiple Access identifier and as such, existing Users
of those Unique Identifiers would not be harmed by the change in
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Supra note 12. The Exchange reminds Users that while they
may utilize ERSTP to help prevent potential transactions such as
wash sales or self-trades, Users, not the Exchange, are ultimately
responsible for ensuring that their orders comply with applicable
rules, laws, and regulations.
\25\ The Exchange notes that two of the proposed instances (MPID
and firm level) are not changing from the current definition of
Unique Identifier. Only the proposed third instance is a change from
the current rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5137]]
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule text
promotes just and equitable principles of trade, is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and in general protects
investors and the public interest because it requires a User requesting
a Unique Identifier pursuant to item (iii) of Rule 11.10(d) to complete
an attestation prior to the creation of the Unique Identifier. The
Exchange believes that requiring Users requesting a Unique Identifier
pursuant to item (iii) of Rule 11.10(d) to complete an Exchange-
provided attestation will help ensure that a Unique Identifier created
pursuant to item (iii) of Rule 11.10(d) is not done for frivolous
reasons or to block executions between Users where a change of
beneficial ownership would otherwise occur.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is fair
and equitable and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination as
ERSTP is available to all Users, its functionality remains optional,
and its use is not a prerequisite for trading on the Exchange.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. ERSTP is an optional
functionality offered by the Exchange and Users are free to decide
whether to use ERSTP in their decision-making process when submitting
orders to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed revised definition of
Unique Identifier does not impose any intramarket competition as it
seeks to enhance an existing functionality available to all Users. The
Exchange is not proposing to introduce any new or novel functionality,
but rather is proposing to provide an extension of its existing ERSTP
functionality to Users who seek to prevent transactions in securities
in which there is no change of beneficial ownership. Importantly, the
proposed rule does not change how ERSTP operates on the Exchange and
ERSTP will continue to be available to any User who requests a Unique
Identifier and satisfies the required criteria. Additionally, the
proposed revised definition of Unique Identifier would continue to
capture the current concepts covered by the existing affiliate
identifier and Multiple Access identifier. ERSTP will continue to be an
optional functionality offered by the Exchange and the revised
definition of Unique Identifier will not change how the current Unique
Identifiers and ERSTP functionality operate.
The Exchange believes that the proposed revised definition of
Unique Identifier does not impose any undue burden on intermarket
competition. ERSTP is an optional functionality offered by the Exchange
and Users are not required to use ERSTP functionality when submitting
orders to the Exchange. Further, the Exchange is not required to offer
ERSTP and is choosing to do so as a benefit for Users who wish to
enable ERSTP functionality. Moreover, the proposed change is not being
submitted for competitive reasons, but rather to provide Users enhanced
order processing functionality that may prevent undesirable executions
by affiliated Users such as wash sales or self-trades when no change of
beneficial ownership occurs.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\27\
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \28\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
\27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
\28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
\29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \30\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\31\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
states that waiver of the operative delay is appropriate because the
proposed rule change: (1) does not change how the current ERSTP
functionality on the Exchange works, (2) will allow additional Users to
enable ERSTP pursuant to the revised definition of Unique Identifier on
an earlier timeline, and (3) revises the definition of Unique
Identifier to prevent transactions in securities where there is no
change in beneficial ownership in instances that an existing Unique
Identifier would not enable the ERSTP modifier. The Commission believes
that waiver of the operative delay would be consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because this proposed
rule change does not present any novel issues. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
\31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
\32\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
<bullet> Use the Commission's internet comment form (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>); or
<bullet> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfcdcad3da92dcd0d2d2dad1cbccffccdadc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9bbbca5ace4aaa6a4a4aca7bdba89baacaae7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
file number SR-CboeEDGA-2026-002 on the subject line.
[[Page 5138]]
Paper Comments
<bullet> Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeEDGA-2026-002. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>). Copies of the filing 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-CboeEDGA-2026-002 and should be
submitted on or before February 25, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-02218 Filed 2-3-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 4, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.