General in United States

Key dates

2026-11-06

The final rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 69955.

2027-02-04

Amendments to Investment Company Act rule 0-10 and Advisers Act rule 0-7 become effective.

2027-02-04 Deadline

The amendments to Advisers Act rule 203-3(b) and Form ADV become effective and compliance is required.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the adviser or any relevant control group will qualify as a small entity under the revised less-than-$1 billion RAUM test once the amendments become effective.
• Advisers may wish to review Form ADV Item 12 procedures, reporting logic, and filing controls so that the revised definition is applied from the February 4, 2027 compliance date.
• Advisers and fund groups may wish to map control relationships and family-of-investment-companies aggregation methodology against the amended thresholds rather than treating each legal entity independently.
• Firms may wish to confirm that internal policies do not incorrectly treat the revised RFA thresholds as changes to SEC registration, exemption, fiduciary, reporting, custody, or other substantive obligations.
• Advisers relying on or considering a continuing hardship exemption may wish to review the conforming amendments to Advisers Act rule 203-3(b) and update related filing documentation.
• Regulatory-change inventories and future rulemaking impact assessments may benefit from recording the inflation-adjustment mechanism and monitoring subsequent Commission adjustment orders.

What changed

Effective February 4, 2027, rule 0-10 will increase the threshold for a registered investment company or business development company to qualify as a small entity from $50 million to $10 billion of net assets. Asset aggregation will use the Form N-CEN concept of a family of investment companies rather than the former group of related investment companies terminology.

Key dates

2026-11-04

The SEC adopted the amendments to Rules 0-10, 0-7, 203-3 and related Form ADV provisions.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to reassess the firm's status under Advisers Act Rule 0-7 and Investment Company Act Rule 0-10 using current Form ADV regulatory assets under management, fund-family relationships, net assets, and control relationships.
• Advisers and fund groups should distinguish the revised Regulatory Flexibility Act small-entity classification from SEC registration thresholds, eligibility for regulatory exemptions, and other substantive compliance obligations; the amendments do not alter those requirements.
• Fund administrators and regulatory reporting teams should review family-of-investment-companies aggregation data against Form N-CEN Item B.5 and prepare to apply the revised aggregation methodology when the amendments become effective.
• Advisers that rely on or may need a continuing hardship exemption from electronic filing should review the related Rule 203-3 and Form ADV amendments and confirm procedures, systems, and filing calendars before the compliance date.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the Federal Register for the publication date and calculate the 90-day effective and compliance date, since the SEC release does not yet provide a calendar date for that event.
• Regulatory policy teams should consider whether the broader small-entity population changes how the SEC's future rulemakings and Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses may affect the firm's cost and burden profile, without assuming that the classification creates immediate operational relief.

What changed

Rule 0-10 increases the net-asset threshold for an investment company, including a business development company, to $10 billion from $50 million and replaces the existing related-fund aggregation approach with a reference to a family of investment companies as used in Form N-CEN Item B.5. Rule 0-7 increases the investment-adviser small-entity threshold to less than $1 billion of regulatory assets under management from $25 million, eliminates the separate investment-adviser total-assets threshold, and makes conforming changes to the control-relationship tests.

Key dates

2020-04-27

NCUA published the interim final rule establishing the PPP risk-weighting, PPP Loan Facility total-asset exclusion, and commercial-loan treatment.

2022-01-01

NCUA’s 2015 risk-based capital final rule became effective; the December 2021 final rule had already carried forward the relevant PPP treatment into the then-current capital adequacy framework.

2026-11-04

The final rule adopting the April 27, 2020 IFR without change becomes effective and is published at 91 FR 69493.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that risk-based capital reporting continues to assign a 0 percent risk weight only to loans meeting the applicable SBA PPP eligibility and coverage criteria.
• Credit unions that pledged PPP loans to the Federal Reserve PPP Loan Facility may wish to verify that the loans remain appropriately identified and excluded from total assets solely for the net worth ratio calculation under 12 CFR 702.2.
• Regulatory reporting and finance teams may wish to reconcile PPP-loan classifications across the general ledger, capital calculations, Call Report processes, and supporting documentation.
• Lending compliance teams may wish to confirm that qualifying PPP loans are not included as commercial loans for purposes of 12 CFR part 723, while other applicable lending, documentation, servicing, SBA-guarantee, and record-retention requirements remain separately addressed.
• Credit unions may wish to retain evidence supporting SBA guarantees, facility pledges, non-recourse funding, and the basis for any regulatory capital exclusions, particularly where legacy PPP balances remain on the balance sheet.
• Policy owners may wish to update regulatory inventories to identify the 2026 rule as a finalization of the 2020 IFR rather than as a new operational requirement.

What changed

Under 12 CFR part 702, covered loans issued under the SBA Paycheck Protection Program continue to receive a 0 percent risk weight for risk-based capital purposes. PPP loans pledged as collateral for a non-recourse borrowing through the Federal Reserve’s PPP Loan Facility continue to be excluded from total assets when calculating the net worth ratio under 12 CFR 702.2. Under 12 CFR part 723, PPP loans remain excluded from the definition of commercial loans.

Key dates

2026-10-28

FOMC statement released; target federal funds range maintained at 3.75% to 4.00% and ample-reserves policy continued.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and risk teams may wish to record the October 28, 2026 target range of 3.75% to 4.00% and the 10-2 vote in regulatory change-management and market-risk records.
• Firms should consider reviewing interest-rate, basis, liquidity and funding-risk limits against scenarios involving a further 25-basis-point increase, including a possible December 2026 hike suggested by independent market commentary.
• Banks and other lenders may wish to assess the effect of persistently elevated rates on borrower affordability, refinancing risk, delinquency assumptions, fair-lending monitoring and customer communications.
• Treasury and finance teams should consider validating the treatment of the unchanged policy rate in transfer-pricing, liquidity-stress, valuation, hedge-accounting and capital-planning models.
• Broker-dealers, asset managers and leveraged funds may wish to reassess margin, collateral, redemption-liquidity and counterparty exposures under higher-for-longer rate scenarios.
• Compliance teams should consider monitoring the forthcoming FOMC implementation note and subsequent Federal Reserve communications for any operational details affecting reserve management or money-market conditions.
• Firms should consider documenting the distinction between this policy decision and a new regulatory rule: the statement contains no new prudential ratio, disclosure, reporting or customer-protection requirement.

What changed

The FOMC made no change to the federal funds target range, which remains 3.75% to 4.00%, and did not announce a change to its policy of maintaining ample reserves in the banking system. The statement upgraded its description of economic activity to expanding at a strong pace and characterized productivity growth and capital investment as strong or robust, while stating that inflation remains elevated. The Committee emphasized that it will assess additional information in determining the policy stance needed to return inflation to its 2% goal. Lisa D. Cook and Beth M.

Key dates

2026-10-20

Utah filed a state-court action against Kalshi entities and two Susquehanna trading firms, alleging violations of Utah gambling laws and seeking injunctive relief and recovery of profits.

2026-10-27

The CFTC announced its federal lawsuit against Utah and its commitment to block state enforcement affecting CFTC-registered prediction markets.

Suggested considerations

• Firms operating or supporting CFTC-registered event-contract markets should consider mapping their products, legal entities, affiliates, liquidity providers and customer-access arrangements against the Utah enforcement action and the CFTC’s requested injunction.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the federal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the related Kalshi appeal, and the other state proceedings because the litigation may determine whether state gambling laws can be applied to federally regulated event contracts.
• Firms should consider preserving records supporting CFTC registration, designated-contract-market compliance, product listings, trade surveillance, customer eligibility, geolocation controls and communications concerning Utah residents.
• Market operators and intermediaries may wish to assess whether their current Utah access controls and disclosures remain appropriate in light of the conflicting federal and state positions, without assuming that the CFTC’s lawsuit presently provides a final safe harbor.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to distinguish CFTC-regulated transactions from unregulated or differently structured products, since the Commission’s position is directed at covered transactions on CFTC-regulated markets rather than all prediction, gaming or wagering activity.

What changed

The publication announces litigation rather than a new rule, supervisory requirement, or compliance deadline. The CFTC is asking a federal court to block Utah from investigating or enforcing state laws against transactions conducted on CFTC-regulated designated contract markets, including actions involving regulated entities’ affiliates and partners. The Commission’s stated legal position is that the Commodity Exchange Act gives it exclusive federal jurisdiction over these event contracts and preempts conflicting state restrictions.

Key dates

2026-10-19

The proposed rule is published in the Federal Register as 91 FR 66022 and the public comment period begins.

2026-11-18 Deadline

Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory sports-, political-, cultural-, and weather-related event contracts offered, intermediated, traded, or supported by the organization and document the current legal classification of each product.
• Firms may wish to assess whether affected activities could require CFTC registration, designated contract market or swap execution facility arrangements, swap data reporting, recordkeeping, customer-protection controls, business-conduct procedures, clearing or margin analysis, and applicable anti-manipulation and surveillance controls if the proposal is finalized.
• Platforms and intermediaries may wish to map product design, settlement terms, pricing, transferability, trading venue, customer type, and liquidity arrangements against the proposed swap definition and identify products whose classification is uncertain.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the separate CFTC treatment of casino-style gambling products and distinguish state- or tribally licensed sportsbook and casino wagers from market-traded event contracts; the companion treatment should not be assumed to apply to prediction-market products.
• Affected firms may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of “event contract,” treatment of secondary-market trading, jurisdictional overlap with state gambling authorities, implementation timing, and any operational or cost impacts before the November 18, 2026 deadline.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams may wish to track litigation and appeals concerning CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets, because court developments could affect the interpretation or implementation of any final rule.

What changed

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, RIN 3038-AF82, would further define “swap” to explicitly include specified event contracts, including contracts tied to sports, politics, cultural events, and weather. The CFTC describes these instruments as financial products commonly understood in the trade to be swaps and seeks to resolve perceived ambiguity over their classification and regulatory jurisdiction.

Key dates

2026-10-19

The interim final rule becomes effective and 17 CFR 1.3 is amended to exclude qualifying casino-style gambling products from the CEA swap definition.

2026-11-18 Deadline

Comments on the interim final rule must be received by the CFTC through the specified submission channels.

Suggested considerations

• Firms offering sportsbook, casino, lottery, raffle, bingo, or other gaming products should consider documenting how each product satisfies both the Provider Test and Product Test, including the relevant state or tribal authorization and applicable gaming-law classification.
• Gaming operators should consider verifying that the provider is acting within the scope of its license or authorization and retaining evidence that the transaction is offered on house or other standardized terms rather than traded through a multilateral or individually negotiated market.
• Prediction-market operators, designated contract markets, swap execution facilities, swap dealers, and banks should consider reviewing event-linked products separately from traditional sportsbook wagers, with particular attention to venue, price formation, trading structure, and whether participants interact through competing bids and offers.
• Firms should consider reassessing products that combine sportsbook or casino-style features with exchange trading, bilateral dealer negotiation, or other market mechanisms, because the rule’s exclusion may not apply even where the underlying event resembles a conventional wager.
• Compliance teams may wish to update product inventories, legal opinions, customer disclosures, jurisdictional analyses, and surveillance or onboarding controls to reflect the distinction between authorized house wagers and exchange-traded event contracts.
• Interested parties should consider submitting comments to the CFTC on the Provider Test, the definition of transactions regulated as gaming or gambling, and alternative ways to distinguish swaps from traditional gambling products by November 18, 2026.
• Firms should consider separately assessing state gaming, tribal gaming, consumer-protection, tax, anti-money-laundering, and licensing requirements because exclusion from the CEA swap definition does not remove those obligations.

What changed

New 17 CFR 1.3(7) creates a two-part exclusion from the swap definition. Under the Provider Test, the product must be offered or entered into by a person licensed or otherwise authorized under state law or by a federally recognized Indian tribe under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the provider must act within the scope of that authorization, and the transaction must be regulated as gaming or gambling under applicable state or tribal law.

Key dates

2026-10-09

CFTC announced publication of the NPRM concerning inclusion of certain event contracts in the definition of swap and identified a 30-day comment period beginning on Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory event contracts by underlying event, settlement structure, customer type, and current legal classification, including whether each product is a binary option, another swap, a future, a security-based swap, or a casino-style gambling product.
• Potential operators, DCMs, SEFs, registrants, trade associations, and affected customers should consider submitting written comments through Regulations.gov within 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register; the Federal Register publication date and resulting calendar deadline should be monitored because the CFTC release does not specify either date.
• Firms may wish to assess whether current exchange, venue, customer-eligibility, market-surveillance, anti-manipulation, product-certification, disclosure, margin, reporting, and recordkeeping controls would support treatment of relevant contracts as swaps under existing CFTC requirements.
• Operators currently relying on state licenses may wish to evaluate the potential need for DCM or SEF arrangements, CFTC registration, federal compliance infrastructure, and transitional management of overlapping state and federal obligations if the rule is finalized.
• DCMs and SEFs may wish to review product-listing governance against CEA section 5c(c)(5)(C), applicable core principles, and 17 CFR 40.2(c), including whether particular contracts are readily susceptible to manipulation or involve gaming or other activity contrary to the public interest.
• Legal and tax teams may wish to keep CEA classification separate from federal tax and information-reporting analysis, which the NPRM states will continue to depend on the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury regulations, and IRS guidance.
• Firms may wish to monitor the separate CFTC action concerning casino-style gambling products and assess how the two rulemakings interact for products near the boundary between event contracts and gambling wagers.

What changed

The NPRM, RIN 3038-AF82, would add proposed 17 CFR 1.3(Swap)(2)(i)(G): “Event contracts, including those based on sports-, politics-, cultural, and weather-related events.” The CFTC relies on several existing swap-definition provisions, including CEA section 1a(47)(A)(i), (ii), (iv), and (vi), covering options, transactions dependent on events with potential financial, economic, or commercial consequences, instruments commonly known as swaps, and combinations or permutations of covered instruments.

Key dates

2026-10-09

The CFTC announced the interim final rule.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify sportsbook, casino, lottery, bingo, raffle, and other wagering products in their portfolios and map each product against the provider, licensing, State or Tribal regulatory, and trading-venue conditions in 17 CFR 1.3(7).
• Licensed gaming operators should retain evidence that each relevant product is offered within the scope of the applicable State or Tribal authorization and is regulated as gaming or gambling under applicable law.
• Operators and market intermediaries should assess whether any product is traded on an exchange, board of trade, swap execution facility, or other multilateral or individually negotiated market, because that structure prevents reliance on the specific exclusion.
• Prediction-market and derivatives businesses should maintain a separate legal analysis for products that fail the exclusion; failure to qualify does not by itself establish that a product is a swap.
• CFTC-regulated market participants should compare the rule's house-versus-customer and price-formation distinctions with their event-contract inventories, exchange rules, clearing arrangements, and product approvals.
• Interested parties should consider submitting comments through Regulations.gov within 30 days after Federal Register publication, referencing RIN 3038-AF81 and the title "Further Definition of Swap to Exclude Casino-Style Gambling Products."
• Compliance teams should continue evaluating applicable State gaming, Tribal gaming, tax, consumer-protection, licensing, and other federal requirements because the rule addresses CEA classification only and does not displace those regimes.

What changed

The rule adds 17 CFR 1.3(7) to the definition of "Swap" and excludes an agreement, contract, or transaction offered or entered into by a person licensed or otherwise authorized under State law or by a federally recognized Indian tribe under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., acting within the scope of that authorization and subject to State or Tribal gaming regulation. The product must not be traded on a board of trade, organized exchange, swap execution facility, or any other market where trades are executed multilaterally or are subject to individual negotiation.

Key dates

2026-08-06

FDIC published the underlying proposed rule on extensions of credit to insiders in 91 FR 50730.

2026-10-05

Original comment-period closing date superseded by the extension.

2026-11-04 Deadline

Extended deadline for comments on the FDIC proposal under RIN 3064-AG26.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the August 6, 2026 proposal in 91 FR 50730 alongside the parallel Federal Reserve Regulation O proposal and identify differences affecting the institution's governance and lending processes.
• Affected institutions should consider submitting comments under RIN 3064-AG26 by November 4, 2026, particularly on the proposed $400,000 and $2 million thresholds, the interaction with the 5 percent statutory limitation, and the proposed five-year indexing methodology.
• Banks may wish to inventory current insider extensions of credit, board-approval events, exception controls, and related-party monitoring data to assess how the proposed thresholds would change approval volumes and control design.
• Compliance teams may wish to evaluate whether loan-origination, core-banking, employee-lending, board-reporting, and insider-identification systems can support revised thresholds and periodic indexed adjustments if the proposal is finalized.
• Institutions should continue applying the currently effective Federal Reserve Act requirements and existing 12 CFR 337 provisions until any final rule becomes effective; the comment-period extension does not change current compliance obligations.

What changed

The FDIC changed only the procedural deadline: the comment period originally scheduled to close October 5, 2026, now closes November 4, 2026. The underlying August 6, 2026 proposal remains unchanged and would increase the threshold for extensions of credit to executive officers not otherwise specifically authorized by section 22(g) of the Federal Reserve Act from $100,000 to $400,000.

Key dates

2026-09-14

EDGAR Release 26.3 was deployed. LIVE and TEST submissions became available for ANE Exception Notices, withdrawals, Form 1, and specified Form 1 variants; the revised EDGAR functionality and interfaces became operational.

2026-10-06

The final rule became effective, and incorporation by reference of the revised EDGAR Filer Manual Volume II, Version 78, into the Code of Federal Regulations was approved.

2026-12-31 Deadline

Last day on which ANE Exception Notices and withdrawals may be submitted by email.

2027-01-01 Deadline

ANE Exception Notices and withdrawals must be submitted electronically through the EDGAR online interface or by filer-constructed EDGAR submission; email submissions will no longer be accepted.

2027-03-01 Deadline

Last day on which Form 1 and specified Form 1 variants may be filed in paper.

2027-03-02 Deadline

Form 1 and specified variants must be submitted electronically through the EDGAR online interface or by filer-constructed EDGAR submission; paper filings will no longer be accepted.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify all ANE Exception Notices and withdrawals that could be submitted between January 1, 2027 and December 31, 2026, and establish procedures using the EDGAR online interface or filer-constructed submissions before the mandatory transition.
• Affected Form 1 filers may wish to obtain or validate EDGAR access, submit Form ID where required, and migrate filing procedures from paper to the EDGAR interface or filer-constructed submissions before March 2, 2027.
• Firms may wish to use the EDGAR test environment and, where applicable, the EDGAR Beta environment to test user access, filer-constructed submissions, validation, acknowledgments, and correction workflows.
• Filing teams may wish to update internal checklists and software templates for the corrected Forms 13F and 13F-CTR reference to Special Instruction 4.
• XBRL filers and filing agents may wish to replace references to the former Volume II XBRL instructions with the EDGAR XBRL Guide and confirm that current taxonomies and technical specifications are being used.
• Firms may wish to retain evidence of successful testing, accepted submissions, filing acknowledgments, and fallback procedures during the transition periods.
• Compliance teams may wish to review EDGAR access credentials, CIK status, delegated filing permissions, and responsible-person coverage for any filer converting from paper to electronic filing.

What changed

EDGAR Release 26.3 was deployed on September 14, 2026, and the SEC adopted the corresponding Filer Manual amendments as Version 78. Technical instructions for submitting XBRL documents were removed from Filer Manual Volume II and relocated to the EDGAR XBRL Guide. EDGAR submission templates for Forms 13F and 13F-CTR were corrected so that the cover-page reference points to Special Instruction 4 rather than Special Instruction 5.

Key dates

2020-12-23

FinCEN published the NPRM at 85 FR 83840 proposing additional reporting, recordkeeping, and identity-verification requirements for certain transactions involving unhosted or otherwise covered wallets.

2026-10-06

FinCEN withdrew the NPRM and stated that it would take no further action on that rulemaking.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to remove implementation workstreams, testing scenarios, and policy language that were created solely for the withdrawn NPRM's proposed $3,000 recordkeeping or $10,000 reporting thresholds.
• Firms should consider documenting that the NPRM was never effective and that its withdrawal does not eliminate existing obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act or applicable implementing regulations in 31 CFR parts 1010, 1020, and 1022.
• Banks and MSBs may wish to reassess whether current controls for transfers involving unhosted wallets remain risk-based and supported by documented AML risk assessments, rather than treating the withdrawn proposal's thresholds as mandatory rules.
• Crypto businesses should continue reviewing applicable customer-identification, customer-due-diligence, suspicious-activity-reporting, recordkeeping, transaction-monitoring, and OFAC sanctions requirements independently of this withdrawal.
• Regulatory-monitoring teams may wish to track whether FinCEN or Treasury develops a replacement digital-asset framework, particularly in light of the stated policy objective that digital-asset regulation be fit for purpose.

What changed

FinCEN withdrew the NPRM published at 85 FR 83840 and stated that it will take no further action on that rulemaking. The withdrawn proposal would have required banks and money services businesses to file reports when a transaction involving an unhosted or otherwise covered wallet exceeded $10,000, or multiple such transactions exceeded $10,000 in 24 hours. It also would have required records, counterparty information, and customer identity verification for covered transactions exceeding $3,000.

Key dates

2023-10-23

FinCEN published the proposed section 311 finding and special measure concerning international CVC mixing at 88 FR 72701.

2026-10-06

FinCEN's withdrawal of the finding and proposed rulemaking became effective upon Federal Register publication at 91 FR 63513.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should discontinue implementation work that was undertaken solely for the withdrawn section 311 CVC-mixing proposal, including plans for the proposal-specific data fields, reporting workflows, and enhanced customer records.
• Firms should not interpret the withdrawal as authorization to process illicit mixer activity without controls; they should continue applying existing risk-based AML, sanctions, transaction-monitoring, escalation, and suspicious activity reporting procedures.
• Crypto exchanges and other covered institutions should review whether current transaction-monitoring scenarios appropriately identify mixer exposure and other indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing under existing requirements, without treating all privacy-preserving activity as inherently suspicious.
• Firms may wish to document the withdrawal in their regulatory inventory, rulemaking-impact assessments, and model or procedure change logs, while preserving controls that address independently applicable BSA or sanctions requirements.
• Compliance teams should monitor future FinCEN notices, section 311 actions, enforcement activity, and interpretive guidance because FinCEN expressly reserved the possibility of future measures concerning mixers.
• Legal and compliance functions should reassess any customer, product, or transaction restrictions adopted specifically in anticipation of the proposed rule and determine whether they remain justified by the firm's risk assessment, other legal requirements, or contractual obligations.

What changed

FinCEN withdrew the proposed rule published at 88 FR 72701 and the underlying section 311 finding concerning international CVC mixing. The proposed special measure one regime would have required covered financial institutions to report specified information for transactions they knew, suspected, or had reason to suspect involved international CVC mixing, including CVC type and amount, mixer and wallet information, transaction hashes, transaction dates, IP addresses, customer-identifying information, and a narrative description.

Key dates

2026-08-27

The OCC issued Bulletin 2026-42 announcing the notice of proposed rulemaking.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory open and recently closed MRAs arising from alleged legal or regulatory violations and assess whether each matter would satisfy one or more of the proposed substantive-violation criteria.
• Firms should consider strengthening documentation linking examination findings to duration, frequency, systemic characteristics, financial-condition effects, books-and-records impacts, customer harm, restitution, or insider misconduct.
• Banks may wish to separate remediation plans for legal or regulatory violations from broader supervisory enhancements, because the proposal would limit examiner authority over technical violations to directing correction of the violation itself.
• Compliance and examination-management teams should consider preparing comments or internal positions on the undefined terms more than minimal, systemic, pattern, and meaningfully impact, including how those terms should be applied to isolated but high-severity events.
• Management may wish to review escalation thresholds so that technical-violation treatment does not result in under-escalation of recurring findings that could become systemic or satisfy the proposed substantive criteria.
• Banks should monitor the Federal Register publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking and calculate the 30-day comment period from that publication date rather than from the OCC bulletin date.
• Legal and regulatory-change teams may wish to assess this proposal alongside the OCC-FDIC final rule and related supervisory reforms concerning unsafe or unsound practices, MRAs, and material financial risk, while treating the proposal as nonfinal until adopted.

What changed

The proposed rule would provide that the OCC may issue an MRA for a violation of a banking or banking-related law or regulation only when the violation is substantive. A violation would be substantive when its nature, duration, frequency, or severity could meaningfully impact the bank or its customers, and at least one of five criteria would need to be met: the violation is systemic or constitutes a pattern; it has had or could reasonably be expected to have a direct, clear, predictable, and more than minimal impact on the bank's financial condition; it has had or could reasonably be expected...

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC issued revised PPM 5310-3 and PPM 5400-11; PPM 5310-3 replaces the May 25, 2023 manual, PPM 5400-11 replaces the February 27, 2026 version, and OCC Bulletin 2023-16 is rescinded.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map open MRAs, enforcement orders, capital directives, and supervisory findings against the new material-harm, Deposit Insurance Fund risk, and substantive-violation thresholds.
• Banks should consider reviewing issue-management taxonomies and governance procedures so that MRAs, other violations, and supervisory observations are recorded and escalated according to their distinct consequences.
• Board and committee reporting processes may warrant review because supervisory observations do not automatically require board presentation or a corrective-action plan, whereas MRAs and enforcement actions remain subject to formal remediation and validation expectations.
• Large and complex banks should consider reassessing whether deficiencies that might previously have produced a community-bank-level supervisory response could receive faster escalation under the revised tailoring framework.
• Banks with existing enforcement actions may wish to assess whether their remediation evidence demonstrates substantial compliance with the essential requirements of each order and whether remaining issues are minor and isolated.
• Capital management teams may wish to review procedures for the institution of and termination of individual minimum capital ratios under the revised enforcement manual.
• Legal and regulatory change teams should monitor Federal Register publication of the joint OCC-FDIC final rule and calculate the actual effective date rather than relying on the bulletin date.
• Internal audit and compliance functions may wish to preserve objective factual support for responses to MRAs and other supervisory communications, particularly where the bank believes an issue does not meet the new risk-based threshold.

What changed

Revised PPM 5310-3 replaces the May 25, 2023 version and structures the OCC enforcement framework around escalation, tailoring, and focus. The OCC generally intends to provide banks an opportunity to remediate deficiencies through supervision before initiating a Section 8 enforcement action, although it retains authority to act at any time when legally supportable and warranted.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC revised PPM 5310-3 and PPM 5400-11, issued Bulletin 2026-41, and published the proposed rulemaking notice concerning substantive and technical violations. The proposed rule's 30-day comment period begins only upon Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map open and recently closed MRAs and enforcement actions against the revised material-financial-risk threshold and the stated tailoring factors of capital structure, complexity, activities, and asset size.
• Banks should consider documenting objective facts, legal violations, financial-risk consequences, customer impact, duration, frequency, severity, and remediation status supporting the classification and closure of examination findings.
• Large and complex banks may wish to reassess escalation risk because the OCC expressly permits enforcement action for practices that might not produce the same response at a community bank.
• Banks should consider reviewing corrective-action plans to confirm that each action is directly tied to a specific deficiency and is proportionate to the risk, while preserving evidence of substantial compliance with existing orders.
• Compliance teams may wish to distinguish substantive violations from potential technical violations in issue-management inventories, including systemic or repeated conduct, customer restitution, books-and-records impacts, financial-condition effects, and insider misconduct.
• Banks should consider monitoring the Federal Register for publication of the proposed rule and calculating the 30-day comment period from that publication date; affected institutions may wish to submit comments on the proposed substantive-versus-technical framework.
• Examiners may identify lower-level weaknesses as supervisory observations rather than MRAs; banks should consider maintaining internal governance and risk records for such observations without assuming that the OCC may require a board action plan or track remediation in the same manner as an MRA.

What changed

Revised PPM 5310-3, Bank Enforcement Action and Related Matters, replaces the May 25, 2023 version and emphasizes escalation, tailoring, and focused corrective action. The OCC generally expects to provide a bank an opportunity to remediate deficiencies through supervision before taking an enforcement action under section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, although it retains authority to act at any time when legally supportable.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC and FDIC issued the joint final rule through OCC Bulletin 2026-40. The bulletin applies to all OCC-supervised banks; it does not state the Federal Register publication date, effective date, or a firm compliance deadline.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify the final rule’s Federal Register publication and effective date, because the OCC bulletin itself does not state either date or a compliance deadline, and should monitor OCC and FDIC implementation guidance before relying on any transition treatment.
• Compliance teams may wish to inventory open MRAs, supervisory recommendations, enforcement matters, and examination findings and map each item to the final rule’s material-financial-risk, DIF-risk, actual-violation, or already-caused-harm criteria.
• Firms should consider separating board-level MRA remediation obligations from discretionary management responses to supervisory observations and documenting why a weakness is treated under one category rather than another.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to enhance evidence files supporting assessments of likelihood, materiality, current and reasonably foreseeable conditions, and impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and market-risk sensitivity.
• Banks should consider documenting how supervisory requirements and remediation plans are tailored to asset size, complexity, activities, capital structure, and other financial-risk factors, particularly where the institution has heightened systemic, concentration, liquidity, or operational complexity.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to distinguish actual violations of banking or banking-related laws and regulations from prudential weaknesses, because an actual violation can support an MRA without separately satisfying the prudent-operation and material-risk test.
• Boards and senior management should consider reviewing governance procedures so that MRAs receive required escalation and tracking while supervisory observations are clearly identified as non-binding potential enhancements.
• Firms should consider preparing a process for requesting and retaining the objective facts and reasoning underlying an MRA or unsafe-and-unsound-practice determination, as the rule requires examiners to share that basis.

What changed

An unsafe or unsound practice is now defined as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and either is likely, if continued, to materially harm the bank’s financial condition or present a material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund, or has already materially harmed the bank’s financial condition. “Likely” requires more than a merely possible risk; relevant financial-condition effects include impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC and FDIC issued the final rule and OCC published Bulletin 2026-40 describing its application to OCC-supervised banks.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map existing and anticipated MRAs, enforcement commitments, supervisory recommendations, and examination findings against the new material-financial-risk and actual-violation criteria.
• Firms should consider separating board-level corrective-action items from nonbinding supervisory observations and documenting why each issue does or does not meet the MRA threshold.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to update issue-taxonomy and escalation procedures to assess impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, and the Deposit Insurance Fund.
• Banks should consider retaining objective evidence and documented reasoning supporting materiality assessments, including institution-specific factors such as asset size, complexity, activities, and capital structure.
• Management and boards may wish to review outstanding policies, process, and documentation findings to determine whether they remain mandatory remediation matters, are better treated as supervisory observations, or independently constitute violations of banking or banking-related law.
• OCC-supervised banks should monitor the related examination guidance and assess whether planned lookbacks, independent-consultant requirements, or suspicious-activity review scopes are affected by the revised supervisory approach described in industry reporting.
• Firms should track Federal Register publication and calculate the 60-day effective date once publication occurs; the August 27, 2026 announcement date is not itself the effective date.

What changed

An unsafe or unsound practice is now defined as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and either, if continued, is likely to materially harm the bank’s financial condition or present a material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund, or has already materially harmed the bank’s financial condition. Relevant financial-condition impacts include capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk; reputation concerns unrelated to financial condition are excluded.

Key dates

2026-08-26

The CFTC proposed the amendment in 91 FR 55030, RIN 3038-AF79, and opened the public-comment period.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• SEF compliance teams should distinguish Required Transactions from Permitted Transactions under 17 CFR 37.9 and confirm that any planned platform changes preserve Order Book and RFQ functionality for Required Transactions.
• SEFs may wish to inventory Permitted Transaction products, execution protocols, customer usage, liquidity, pre-trade transparency, surveillance dependencies, and annual Order Book operating costs before deciding whether to retain, modify, or discontinue optional Order Book functionality.
• SEFs relying on CFTC No-Action Letter No. 25-24 should assess whether their current implementation remains consistent with the proposal and should monitor the eventual final rule rather than treating the NPRM as binding law.
• SEF applicants may wish to reassess platform design and launch costs because the proposal could remove the need to build an Order Book solely for Permitted Transactions.
• Swap dealers, major swap participants, and other active SEF users should assess whether removal of an optional Order Book could affect execution practices, liquidity access, pre-trade transparency, best-execution analysis, or internal trading procedures for Permitted Transactions.
• Interested firms should consider submitting comments to CFTC docket CFTC-2026-1882, including quantified technology, staffing, infrastructure, surveillance-integration, and market-impact data, by September 25, 2026.
• Compliance teams should continue applying CEA section 2(h)(8), 17 CFR 37.9, and applicable Part 43 reporting obligations unless and until a final rule changes them.

What changed

The proposed amendment would revise 17 CFR 37.3(a)(2) so that a SEF must, at a minimum, offer an Order Book as defined in 17 CFR 37.3(a)(3) for Required Transactions as defined in 17 CFR 37.9(a)(1). It would remove the obligation to offer an Order Book for Permitted Transactions, defined in 17 CFR 37.9(c)(1) as transactions that do not involve a swap subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement. SEFs could continue offering Order Books for Permitted Transactions voluntarily and could use any execution method permitted under 17 CFR 37.9(c)(2).

Key dates

2026-08-21

Request for Comment published in the Federal Register.

2026-10-20 Deadline

Comments are due, calculated as 60 days after Federal Register publication.

2026-10-05

Reported target date for CME Group and Silicon Data to list two compute or GPU-rental futures contracts, subject to regulatory review; this date is not established by the CFTC Request for Comment.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether the firm has relevant empirical data on compute prices, volumes, counterparties, supplier concentration, utilization, capacity commitments, or bilateral contract terms that could support a CFTC submission.
• Potential DCM and SEF applicants should consider mapping proposed contract specifications and settlement methodologies against CEA section 5(d), Core Principles 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11, 17 CFR 38.150-38.160, 38.200-38.201, 38.250-38.258, 38.500, and 38.603, and the guidance in 17 CFR part 38 appendices B and C.
• Firms developing or contributing data to a compute index should consider documenting data provenance, publication practices, governance, auditability, contributor concentration, observation-window controls, fallback mechanisms, and safeguards against manipulation by capacity providers.
• FCMs, introducing brokers, and other intermediaries may wish to assess whether existing BSA/AML, KYC, onboarding, suitability, disclosure, and market-conduct controls address the risks identified for compute derivatives, including opaque bilateral markets and geopolitically sensitive supply.
• Market participants may wish to submit comments by the applicable deadline, clearly referencing RIN 3038-AF77 and the Request for Comment on the Listing of Compute Derivatives Contracts, while avoiding unnecessary personal or confidential business information because submissions will be publicly posted.
• Firms tracking product development should consider monitoring any subsequent DCM self-certification or Commission-approval filing, as the consultation itself does not authorize trading or postpone a proposed listing.

What changed

No final rule, approval, prohibition, or new compliance obligation was introduced. The CFTC is requesting comment on compute cash-market size, liquidity, transparency, supplier concentration, fungibility, benchmark methodology, deliverable supply, manipulation risks, surveillance feasibility, customer protection, heightened BSA/AML and KYC issues, retail protections, and the design and risks of perpetual compute futures.