Notice2026-02219
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 11.9(f) (“Match Trade Prevention (“MTP”) 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 5113-5117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-02219]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-104758; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2026-002]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rule 11.9(f) (``Match Trade Prevention (``MTP'') 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 BYX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') 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 BYX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BYX'') proposes to
amend Exchange Rule 11.9(f) (``Match Trade Prevention (``MTP'')
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 11.9(f) (``Match Trade
Prevention (``MTP'') 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 MTP based on current Rule 11.9(f), 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 11.9(f) 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 11.9(f) must complete an Exchange-provided
attestation. The Exchange emphasizes that MTP 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 MTP
functionality can replace User-managed risk management solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc). ``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(aa). 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 MTP modifier will
[[Page 5114]]
be prevented from executing against a resting opposite side order also
designated with an MTP modifier and originating from the same market
participant identifier (``MPID''),\7\ Exchange Member identifier,
trading group identifier, Exchange Sponsored Participant 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 MTP modifier appended to each order. In order to describe how MTP
functionality may be applied by Users today, the Exchange has provided
a brief description of how each Unique Identifier enables MTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 11.9(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A User who enables MTP functionality using the MPID Unique
Identifier will prevent contra side executions between the same MPID
from occurring. A User who enables MTP 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 trading 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. Users who enable
MTP functionality using the Exchange Sponsored Participant Unique
Identifier will prevent matched trades between contra side orders with
an identical Sponsored Participant identifier. The affiliate identifier
is a Unique Identifier that permits MTP 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 MTP between two separate Users where there would otherwise not
be a common identifier (e.g., affiliate identifier or Multiple Access
identifier).
Based on User feedback and implementation difficulties that the
Exchange has encountered while seeking to apply MTP based its current
definition of Unique Identifier, the Exchange now proposes to amend
Rule 11.9(f) 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 11.9(f) would provide that a Unique Identifier may be
created at: (i) the MPID level; (ii) the firm level (e.g., Exchange
Member identifier, trading group identifier); or (iii) where the User
indicates that MTP 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 MTP 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 11.9(f). The proposed changes do not change how MTP
will function from an operational perspective. Both the incoming order
and the resting opposite side order must continue to be designated with
an MTP modifier \9\ (in addition to a Unique Identifier) in order for
MTP to apply. The MTP modifier on the incoming order will control the
interaction between two orders marked with MTP modifiers, subject to
the exception contained in Rule 11.9(f)(3). This proposal is only
intended to amend when the Exchange may create a Unique Identifier for
a User (or multiple Users) to enable MTP when there is otherwise no
common identifier available. As is the case under existing Rule
11.9(f), a Unique Identifier will continue to include an MPID, an
Exchange Member identifier, a trading group identifier, or a Sponsored
Participant 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
MTP. However, when a User requests to utilize MTP 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 11.9(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Rule 11.9(f)(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 MTP utilizing the current affiliate identifier or the current
Multiple Access identifier that it is unclear whether particular use
cases would qualify for MTP utilizing those particular identifiers
based on the definition of those terms currently found in Rule 11.9(f).
As such, the Exchange is proposing to remove the terms affiliate
identifier and Multiple Access identifier from the definition of Unique
Identifier in Rule 11.9 and replace those terms with a concept that
more accurately captures a User's basis for wanting to utilize MTP as a
basis for creating a Unique Identifier. The proposed rule text in Rule
11.9(f) that provides for the creation of a Unique Identifier ``. . .
(iii) where the User indicates that MTP 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</SUP> <SUP>12</SUP> Importantly,
[[Page 5115]]
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 11.9(f) 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 MTP 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. MTP 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 MTP 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 MTP 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 11.9(f)
to account for situations where a firm seeks to enable MTP 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 MTP. 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
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(x). 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 MTP 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(y). 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(w). 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(ff). The term ``Early Trading Session'' shall
mean the time between 4:00 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 MTP 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
MTP 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 MTP 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 MTP against User 3 using the multiple access Unique
Identifier. While ultimately MTP 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
[[Page 5116]]
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 MTP functionality, but rather will
provide Users with the ability to request MTP 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 MTP
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 MTP 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 MTP 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 MTP, but rather provides Users with three situations \25\ in
which a Unique Identifier may be created to enable MTP. 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 MTP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 11.9(f) 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 11.9(f) to complete an Exchange-provided
attestation will help ensure that a Unique Identifier created pursuant
to item (iii) of Rule 11.9(f) 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
MTP 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. MTP is an optional
functionality offered by the Exchange and Users are free to decide
whether to use MTP 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 MTP
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 MTP operates on the Exchange and MTP
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. MTP 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 MTP functionality operate.
The Exchange believes that the proposed revised definition of
Unique Identifier does not impose any undue burden on intermarket
competition. MTP is an optional functionality offered by the Exchange
and Users are not required to use MTP functionality when submitting
orders to the Exchange. Further, the Exchange is not required to offer
MTP and is choosing to do so as a benefit for Users who wish to enable
MTP 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
[[Page 5117]]
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 MTP functionality on the Exchange
works, (2) will allow additional Users to enable MTP 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 MTP
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#d9abacb5bcf4bab6b4b4bcb7adaa99aabcbaf7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9eecebf2fbb3fdf1f3f3fbf0eaeddeedfbfdb0f9f1e8">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
file number SR-CboeBYX-2026-002 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
<bullet> Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBYX-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-CboeBYX-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. 2026-02219 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.