SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Agency decision

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

[Release No. 34-105925; File No. SR-FINRA-2026-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.;

Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend FINRA Rule 4515.01

(Allocations of Orders Made by Investment Advisers)

July 16, 2026.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)1 and

Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on July 9, 2026, the Financial

Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I,

II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested

persons.

Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the

Proposed Rule Change

FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 4515.01 (Allocations of Orders Made

by Investment Advisers) to expand the current exception from the rule’s principal

approval requirements to apply to all allocations of bulk investment adviser orders,

irrespective of when allocation instructions are received.

The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA’s website at

http://www.finra.org and at the principal office of FINRA.

15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

17 CFR 240.19b-4.

II.

Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis

for, the Proposed Rule Change

In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in

sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory

Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

Purpose

Background

FINRA Rule 4515 (Approval and Documentation of Changes in Account Name

or Designation) requires members to place the account name(s) or designation(s) on the

customer order form or other similar record before an order is executed. No change in

such account name(s) (including related accounts) or designation(s) (including error

accounts) shall be made unless the change has been authorized by a qualified and

registered principal designated by the member. The essential facts relied upon by the

principal approving the change must be documented in writing and preserved in

accordance with Exchange Act Rule 17a-4(b). With respect to any change that takes

place prior to the execution of the trade, the required principal approval and

documentation must occur prior to execution. FINRA originally adopted Rule 4515 in

2002 to address concerns about abuses such as cherry-picking, where advantageous

trades are allocated to preferred customer accounts.3

Rule 4515.01 provides a limited exception to the requirements of Rule 4515 for

orders from investment advisers (“IAs”) for which there is more than one customer

(herein referred to as “IA bulk orders”). 4 Specifically, members are not required to

obtain principal approval for any account name or designation changes relating to IA

bulk orders provided that the member receives allocation instructions from the IA no later

NASD Rule 3110(d), the predecessor to FINRA Rule 4515, was adopted in

response to a case that involved the misappropriation of customer funds. The case

brought attention to operational and sales practice abuses at firms and the

importance of ensuring that firms effectively monitor the activities of their

employees. See SEC v. Gruttadauria, No. 1:02 CV 324, *2–*3 (N.D. Ohio

January 13, 2009). In its filing, FINRA (then NASD) noted its belief that because

changes in account names or designations in connection with order executions can

be subject to abuse, such changes should be approved by a qualified person and

the basis for the change should be adequately documented. Such abuse can

include, among others, cherry-picking. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.

46859 (November 20, 2002), 67 FR 70990, 70991–993 (November 27, 2002)

(Notice of Filing of File No. SR-NASD-2002-162).

In 2010, as the NASD and NYSE rulebooks were consolidated (the “Rulebook

Consolidation”), NASD Rule 3110(d) was redesignated as FINRA Rule 4515 and

modified to include an exception for IA bulk orders, which was modeled after a

corresponding exception in the NYSE rule. Specifically, as part of the Rulebook

Consolidation, NYSE Rule Interpretation 410/02 was adopted, with certain

changes, as FINRA Rule 4515.01. Rule 4515.01 expanded the NYSE rule to

provide members additional time (until noon of the next business day following

the trading session) to obtain specific account designations or customer names

from IAs for order records, limited the exception to IA bulk orders and clarified

that members must allocate orders in compliance with the IA’s intent and

fiduciary duty. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63181 (October 26,

2010), 75 FR 67155, 67158 (November 1, 2010) (Notice of Filing of File No. SRFINRA 2010-052); see also NYSE Information Memo 00-19, Timely Designation

and Allocation of Account Information -- Records of Orders (July 21, 2000);

Retired Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretation 410/02 (Records of Orders).

than the end of the trade date. 5 This exception applies to outside IAs and associated

persons of a member who provide investment advisory services on behalf of a member

acting as an IA.

Further, Rule 4515.01 prohibits members from knowingly facilitating the

allocation of orders from IAs in a manner other than in compliance with both (1) the IA’s

intent at the time of trade execution to allocate shares on a percentage basis to the

participating accounts; and (2) the IA’s fiduciary duty with respect to allocations for such

participating accounts, including but not limited to allocations based on the performance

of a transaction between the time of execution and the time of allocation. 6

Today, the allocation process is more automated than when the rule was first

adopted due to advances in trade processing technology. Among other things, advances

in technology over the years have generally reduced the need for manual intervention in

trade processing and enabled the transaction settlement cycle to be compressed to T+1. 7

In connection with the transition to one business day after the trade date (“T+1”)

settlement, FINRA amended Rule 4515.01 to shorten the time frame by which

members have to receive allocation instructions from noon of the next business

day following the trading session to no later than the end of the trade date. See

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 99075 (December 4, 2023), 88 FR 85678,

85679 (December 8, 2023) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File

No. SR-FINRA-2023-017).

See supra note 4.

See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80295 (March 22, 2017), 82 FR 15564,

15575 (March 29, 2017) (File No. S7-22-16) (“SEC T+2 Adopting Release”)

(stating, “significant advancements in technology and the changes in market

infrastructures and operations that have occurred since 1993, which are widely

assimilated into market practices, provide a basis to accommodate shortening the

standard settlement cycle to T+2.”) and Securities Exchange Act Release No.

96930 (February 15, 2023), 88 FR 13872, 13873 (March 6, 2023) (File No. S705-22) (“SEC T+1 Adopting Release”) (citing Securities Exchange Act Release

Many members use straight-through processing (“STP”), which refers generally to

processes that allow for the automation of the entire trade lifecycle from trade execution

through settlement without manual intervention. 8 Developments in STP technology have

enabled members to better manage asset allocation and have generally reduced risk in the

settlement process by, for example, automating allocation matching. 9 As the SEC

observed in proposing T+1 settlement, “[i]mproved automation in the settlement process

has enabled better straight-through processing and contributed to increases in affirmation

rates on trade date and increases in settlement rates, with an attendant decrease in

exceptions and fails.”10

Available data suggests that for the vast majority of allocation transactions,

members receive allocation instructions by the end of the trade date. 11 As a result, these

transactions are not subject to the principal review and approval requirements under Rule

4515. In the small percentage of instances where allocation instructions are not received

on trade date, principal review and approval are required under Rule 4515.

No. 94196 (February 9, 2022), 87 FR 10436 (February 24, 2022) (“T+1

Proposing Release”). See also supra note 5.

See SEC T+1 Adopting Release, supra note 7, at 13873 n.9.

See SEC T+2 Adopting Release, supra note 7, at 15572.

See T+1 Proposing Release, supra note 7, at 10471.

See Item II.B., infra. See also Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, Our

Year of Execution: Annual Report 37 (2024),

https://www.dtcc.com/annuals/2024/files/DTCC-Annual-Report-2024-Print.pdf

(“DTCC Annual Report”) (describing the general impact of T+1 on the industry

and reporting “same-day affirmation rates on transactions surged to 95%”

following the adoption of T+1).

Proposed Amendments to Rule 4515.01

FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 4515.01 to expand the current exception from

the rule’s principal approval requirements to apply to all IA bulk orders, notwithstanding

when the allocation instructions are received. Specifically, FINRA is proposing to amend

Rule 4515.01 to remove the phrase “provided that members receive specific account

designations or customer names from such investment advisers by no later than the end of

the day on the trade date” and replace it with the phrase “without the principal approval

required by this Rule.”12

FINRA believes the proposed rule change is appropriate given the technological

advances and increased use of STP in trade processing since the adoption of Rule 4515.

As discussed below, the proposed rule change would address the operational challenges

and risks of pausing allocation processing imposed by the current rule requirement,

which is of limited value in identifying the concerns it was adopted to address and does

not justify the burdens it imposes. In addition, FINRA believes that the proposed rule

change is reasonable in light of regulatory changes designed to facilitate the timely

completion of transactions.13

Moreover, FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change would give rise

to investor protection concerns considering existing regulatory safeguards that would

continue to apply to members and IAs.

For the avoidance of doubt, FINRA notes that the proposed rule change would

apply to delivery versus payment (“DVP”) and receive versus payment (“RVP”)

arrangements and to prime brokers that receive allocation instructions directly

from the IA.

See SEC T+1 Adopting Release, supra note 7, at 13872.

Operational Challenges and Limitations of the Current Rule

The current requirement that members obtain principal approval where allocation

instructions are received after trade date may present operational challenges and risks.

While available data suggests that the overall percentage of trades with late allocation

instructions is relatively small,14 the actual number of trades requiring daily principal

review could be substantial, particularly for firms with high trade volume. Further,

obtaining the required principal approval would require pausing the transaction process,

which may be particularly challenging for members using STP. If a member processes

allocation instructions manually, obtaining the required approval could cause further

processing delays. Delays could be particularly significant where members have limited

time to process the allocations, for example, if instructions are received late in the day

from the IA.

Processing delays also create the risk that customer accounts do not accurately

reflect cash and securities positions. As the SEC highlighted in the SEC T+2 Adopting

Release, delays in settlement may cause routine rebalancing or asset allocation changes in

an investor’s portfolio to become “lengthy and complicated multi-step processes.”15

FINRA believes that, in light of modern allocation processing, these operational

challenges and risks outweigh the regulatory benefits of the rule. As noted above, only a

small percentage of allocation instructions are received after trade date, 16 and in turn only

a small percentage of IA bulk orders are reviewed and approved by principals today. In

See Item II.B., infra.

SEC T+2 Adopting Release, supra note 7, at 15572.

See Item II.B., infra.

addition, there may be legitimate operational or technical reasons why allocation

instructions are received after trade date. For example, the IA may need to obtain

customer approval or set up a new customer account in connection with the allocations.

Accordingly, the current rule does not necessarily target those allocations that may be at

risk of abuses like cherry-picking.

FINRA believes the proposed rule change will address these operational

challenges and risks and support industry efforts to enhance processing efficiency and

member compliance with T+1 settlement timelines, without diminishing investor

protection.

Regulatory Changes Since Adoption of the Rule

Since the adoption of Rule 4515, there have been significant changes in the

regulatory landscape that support the timely completion of transactions. In February

2023, the SEC amended Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1 to shorten the standard settlement

cycle for most broker-dealer transactions from T+2 to T+1.17 T+1 settlement, which

became effective on May 28, 2024, was adopted to reduce credit, market and liquidity

risks in securities transactions and reflects technological developments in STP. 18

To facilitate compliance with T+1 settlement, the SEC also adopted Exchange Act

Rule 15c6-2, which addresses same-day confirmation, allocation and affirmation

requirements.19 Exchange Act Rule 15c6-2(a) requires that members, “[e]nter into a

See SEC T+1 Adopting Release, supra note 7, at 13872.

See SEC T+1 Adopting Release, supra note 7, at 13926, 13936.

See SEC T+1 Adopting Release, supra note 7, at 13872; see also 17 CFR

240.15c6-2.

written agreement with the relevant parties to ensure completion of the allocation,

confirmation, affirmation, or any combination thereof, for the transaction as soon as

technologically practicable and no later than the end of the day on trade date in such form

as necessary to achieve settlement of the transaction” or “[e]stablish, maintain, and

enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure completion of the

allocation, confirmation, affirmation, or any combination thereof, for the transaction as

soon as technologically practicable and no later than the end of the day on trade date in

such form as necessary to achieve settlement of the transaction.” 20 Among other things,

such policies and procedures must measure and monitor allocation rates and investigate

any discrepancies in trade information. 21

The SEC has also emphasized the importance of automated processes by adopting

Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-27, which requires clearing agencies providing central

matching services to develop written policies and procedures that facilitate STP of

securities transactions.22 In adopting this rule, the SEC noted that “eliminating the use of

tools that encourage or require manual processing, alongside the continued development

and implementation of more efficient automated systems in the institutional trade

processing environment, is essential to reducing risk and costs to ensure the prompt and

17 CFR 240.15c6-2(a)(1)–(2).

17 CFR 240.15c6-2(b).

See SEC T+1 Adopting Release, supra note 7, at 13892; see also 17 CFR

240.17Ad-27.

accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, particularly in a T+1

environment.”23

FINRA believes that the current principal approval requirement in Rule 4515.01,

which could introduce delays in the allocation process, does not align with recent

industry efforts to enhance the efficiency of transaction processing to meet T+1

settlement standards. The proposed rule change would align Rule 4515 with the current

regulatory landscape and objectives of Exchange Act Rules 15c6-2 and 17Ad-27.

Investor Protection

FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change would raise investor

protection concerns given that allocations would continue to be subject to existing

regulatory standards and review by both the SEC with respect to IAs and FINRA with

respect to member broker-dealers.

For example, under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), IAs

owe their customers a fiduciary duty, comprising a duty of loyalty and duty of care. 24

IAs are also subject to SEC examinations, which can include reviews of allocation

practices.25

See SEC T+1 Adopting Release, supra note 7, at 13899.

15 U.S.C. 80b-6. See Investment Advisers Act Release No. 5248 (June 5, 2019),

84 FR 33669, 33669 (July 12, 2019) (Commission Interpretation Regarding

Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers).

See SEC Division of Examinations, Fiscal Year 2026: Examination Priorities 9

(November 17, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/files/2026-exam-priorities.pdf. The

report notes allocation practices as a priority examination item for 2026.

Further, members would continue to be prohibited under Rule 4515.01 from

“knowingly [facilitating] the allocation of orders from investment advisers in a manner

other than in compliance with both (i) the investment adviser’s intent at the time of trade

execution to allocate shares on a percentage basis to the participating accounts and (ii) the

investment adviser’s fiduciary duty with respect to allocations for such participating

accounts, including but not limited to allocations based on the performance of a

transaction between the time of execution and the time of allocation.” This provision

serves as an effective gatekeeping check against fraudulent allocation schemes by

requiring members to decline to process an allocation they know to be inconsistent with

the IA’s intent or fiduciary duty. FINRA Rule 2010, which requires members to

“observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade,”

provides additional protection against a member’s facilitation of such misconduct.

FINRA does not believe the proposed rule change would encourage members to

purposely delay the allocation process. Members must comply with T+1 settlement

requirements, including the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 15c6-2(b) to have

agreements or policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure timely completion

of allocations and to measure, monitor and address patterns of late allocations. For

example, under Exchange Act Rule 15c6-2(b)(5), a member’s written policies and

procedures must “measure, monitor, and document the rates of allocations, confirmations,

and affirmations completed as soon as technologically practicable and no later than the

end of the day on trade date.”26 In addition, as a general matter, delays run counter to

17 CFR 240.15c6-2(b)(5).

member and customer interests to promptly settle transactions and can cause settlement

risk and operational inefficiencies, among other things.27

Additionally, FINRA Rule 3110 requires members to maintain policies and

procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws

and regulations, including the requirements under FINRA Rule 4515.01 and Exchange

Act Rule 15c6-2 described above.

In sum, FINRA believes the proposed rule change recognizes modern

technologies, addresses operational challenges and is reasonable in light of changes to the

regulatory landscape, while maintaining investor protection and supporting timely and

efficient allocation processing.

If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will announce the

effective date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice.

Statutory Basis

FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section

15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, 28 which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules

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, and, in general, to protect investors and the public

interest.

See SEC T+1 Adopting Release, supra note 7, at 13929–13931.

15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).

The proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act because it

eliminates operational burdens that can delay timely allocation processing and the

attendant risks, while preserving investor protection safeguards. Specifically, the

proposed rule change would facilitate timely transaction processing and support T+1

settlement compliance by enabling members to complete IA bulk orders without principal

review and approval, regardless of when allocation instructions are received. The

proposed rule change also maintains investor protection by preserving existing

safeguards. For example, IAs are subject to fiduciary duties under the Advisers Act and

members will remain subject to Rule 4515.01’s prohibition on knowingly facilitating

improper allocations, as well as Rules 2010 and 3110.

Finally, the proposed rule change is consistent with FINRA’s ongoing efforts to

ensure its rules remain efficient and effective in light of technological advances and

regulatory changes. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change promotes just and

equitable principles of trade and protects investors and the public interest by eliminating

a requirement with limited regulatory benefits given current industry practices while

preserving sufficient investor protections.

Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition

FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden

on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the

Exchange Act.

Economic Impact Assessment

FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment to analyze the regulatory

need for the proposed rule change, its potential economic impacts, including anticipated

costs, benefits, and distributional and competitive effects, relative to the current baseline,

and the alternatives FINRA considered in assessing how best to meet FINRA’s regulatory

objectives.

Regulatory Need

Rule 4515 currently requires principal approval for all changes to account names

or designations, with a narrow exception for IA bulk orders when allocation instructions

are received by trade date. FINRA proposes to eliminate the principal approval

requirement for all IA bulk orders, regardless of when allocation instructions arrive. The

proposed rule change addresses operational challenges created by the current

requirement, which disrupts STP workflows and increases settlement delay risks under

the T+1 settlement cycle. The proposed rule change would enable members to maintain

automated STP workflows while supporting timely transaction processing.

Economic Baseline

Identifying the baseline for this analysis is constrained by data limitations.

During recent FINRA reviews of three members, the members reported same-day

allocation rates exceeding 98 percent, indicating that late allocations of IA bulk orders

represented less than two percent of their activity for the review period. A broader

review of Consolidated Audit Trail (“CAT”) equity allocation data covering November 1,

2024 through October 31, 2025 revealed that approximately 1.5 percent of allocations by

trade count (representing 3.5 percent by dollar volume) occur after the trade date.

Moreover, FINRA’s analysis of CAT data suggests that same day allocation rates have

been increasing, both leading up to and since the implementation of T+1 settlement. 29

However, because CAT data does not distinguish between IA bulk orders and other

allocation types, these statistics may have limited applicability to this analysis.

Additionally, a Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”) report covering the

three-week period following the implementation of T+1 settlement suggests that

approximately 98–99 percent of all allocations are completed on the trade date. 30

However, since not all allocations are processed through DTCC, the value of these

statistics is similarly limited.

Economic Impacts

The proposed rule change would directly impact members that accept late

allocation instructions, IAs that issue late allocation instructions and investors who

execute trades through IAs.

Potential Benefits

The existing principal approval requirement for changes in IA bulk order

allocations that occur after the trade date may create significant operational disruptions

and delays by inserting a manual step into predominantly automated workflows.

The percentage of allocations occurring after the trade day declined from 2.3

percent two years before the T+1 implementation to 1.7 percent one year before,

and further to 1.6 percent in the year following the implementation.

See DTCC, Daily Reporting Metrics (June 2024), https://www.dtcc.com//media/Files/PDFs/T2/SIFMA-UST1-Daily-Reporting-Metrics-Template-GC.pdf.

Furthermore, the DTCC Annual Report states that industry affirmation rates

improved to nearly 96 percent following T+1 settlement compared to 84.5 percent

in the pre-T+1 period, consistent with improvements in same day allocation

statistics from CAT data. See DTCC Annual Report, supra note11, at 19.

Removing this requirement would enable members to maintain STP for IA allocations

and preserve associated operational efficiencies.

Disruptions in STP increase the risk of delayed settlement, particularly within the

timelines of the T+1 settlement cycle. By avoiding such disruptions, the proposed rule

change would help mitigate the risk of delayed settlement. This approach would enable

members to better meet IA client expectations regarding allocation trades and associated

operational timelines.

Potential Costs

One potential concern is increased opportunity for misconduct such as cherrypicking. The current rule’s principal approval requirement is intended to safeguard

against such practices. However, as discussed above, it appears the vast majority of IA

allocation instructions already receive no principal review because they arrive on the

trade date.31 Moreover, principals reviewing post-trade-date allocations would see subaccount allocations for the first time without a benchmark to identify potential abuses,

such as cherry-picking, and must evaluate each instruction in isolation without the ability

to assess long-term patterns.32 Therefore, FINRA believes the efficacy of the principal

approval approach as a safeguard against cherry-picking may be limited, and the

regulatory cost of its removal may be similarly limited.

See DTCC Annual Report, supra note 11.

Principals would likely need to analyze IA behavior over a longer period to

statistically identify consistent patterns indicative of cherry-picking.

Importantly, other regulatory safeguards remain in place, as discussed above.

FINRA believes that potential concerns about increased opportunity for misconduct will

be mitigated by these other remaining safeguards.

Competitive Effects

FINRA has considered the potential competitive effects the proposed rule change

may have on members. While members operate under different business models—some

requiring allocation instructions from IAs at the time of the block order and others

permitting later submission—FINRA does not believe that the current principal approval

requirement is likely to influence members’ choice of operational model. By removing

this requirement, the proposed rule change may enhance competitive flexibility, enabling

members to compete on operational efficiency and service quality. Because the proposed

rule change applies equally to all members, FINRA does not believe it would create

competitive disadvantages among members.

Alternatives Considered

FINRA considered an alternative approach in which the principal approval

process would remain in place but occur post-allocation if allocation instructions were

not received by the end of the trade day. Under this alternative, because principal

oversight would occur post-allocation, the trade may need to be reversed, creating

significant costs for members. Given the potential for substantial new costs and the lack

of economically significant benefits from the principal review process, FINRA believes

that eliminating the principal approval requirement represents the most efficient path to

addressing the operational challenges created by the current requirement while

maintaining investor protections through alternative safeguards.

Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed

Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others

Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III.

Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission

Action

Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or

within such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date

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 such 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 e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number

SR-FINRA-2026-016 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

•

Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2026-016. This file number

should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 filing will be available for

inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2026-016 and should be submitted

on or before [INSERT DATE 21 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to

delegated authority.33

Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.

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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.