UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Agency decision

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS:

Andrew N. Ferguson, Chairman

Mark R. Meador

ORDER APPROVING THE ENFORCEMENT RULE MODIFICATION PROPOSED BY

THE HORSERACING INTEGRITY AND SAFETY AUTHORITY

December 19, 2025

Decision of the Commission: HISA’s Proposed Modification of the Enforcement

Rule is Approved

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 1 (“the Act”) recognizes a self-

regulatory nonprofit organization, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (“HISA” or

“the Authority”), which is charged with developing proposed rules on a variety of subjects

relating to horseracing. 2 Those proposed rules and subsequent proposed rule modifications take

effect only if approved by the Federal Trade Commission (“the Commission”). 3

On March 25, 2022, the Commission approved 4 an Enforcement Rule proposed by the

Authority 5 that established, among other things, a list of practices that constitute violations of the

Act, a schedule of sanctions for violations of the Authority’s rules, and the Authority’s

disciplinary hearings process by which substantive violations are adjudicated, appealed, and

remedied, and (where appropriate) penalties are imposed. The schedule of sanctions and

disciplinary procedures did not apply to violations of a subsequent rule addressing anti-doping

15 U.S.C. §§ 3051–3060.

See id. § 3053(a).

See id. § 3053(b)(2).

Fed. Trade Comm’n, Order Approving the Enforcement Rule Proposed by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety

Authority (the “Original Enforcement Rule Order”) (Mar. 25, 2022),

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P222100HISAOrderRacetrackSafety.pdf.

Fed. Trade Comm’n, Notice of HISA Enforcement Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. 4,023 (Jan. 26, 2022),

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/26/2022-01663/hisa-enforcement-rule.

PUBLIC

and medication control (the “ADMC Rule”), which was approved by the Commission on March

27, 2023, 6 and which has its own list of sanctions and adjudicatory procedures. The

Enforcement Rule also addressed the Authority’s investigatory powers under the Act. The

original Enforcement Rule was subsequently amended following a proposed modification by the

Authority, 7 approved by Commission Order on September 23, 2022. 8 The Commission

approved a second proposed modification 9 on September 26, 2023. 10

When the Commission approved the ADMC Rule proposed by the Authority, which was

the last of the initial rules required by the Act, the Commission recognized “that there may be

some benefit for all of the horseracing rules to be reviewed simultaneously once they have been

in effect for enough time to provide all stakeholders with an opportunity to evaluate them.” 11

Accordingly, the Commission directed the Authority “to review all of its existing rules

(Racetrack Safety, Assessment Methodology, Enforcement, Registration, and ADMC) and

submit any proposed rule modifications to the Commission by September 27, 2023.” 12 The

Commission further ordered the Authority to:

[D]iscuss each of the suggestions made by commenters that the Authority

committed to further consider and the reasons that the Authority did or did not

adopt the suggestion within the text of the proposed rule modification…. In this

way, by considering updates to all the rules at once, the Authority, the public, and

See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Order Approving the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Rule Proposed by the

Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (the “ADMC Rule Order”) (Mar. 27, 2023),

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P222100CommissionOrderAntiDopingMedication.pdf.

Fed. Trade Comm’n, Notice of HISA Enforcement Rule Modification, 87 Fed. Reg. 44,393 (July 26, 2022),

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/07/26/2022-15972/hisa-enforcement-rule-modification.

Fed. Trade Comm’n, Order Approving the Enforcement Rule Modification Proposed by the Horseracing Integrity

and Safety Authority (Sept. 23, 2022),

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Order%20re%20HISA%20Enforcement%20Rule%20Modification.pdf

Fed. Trade Comm’n, Notice of Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority Enforcement Rule Modification, 88 Fed.

Reg. 48,849 (July 28, 2023), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/28/2023-16000/horseracingintegrity-and-safety-authority-enforcement-rule-modification.

Fed. Trade Comm’n, Order Approving the Enforcement Rule Modification Proposed by the Horseracing Integrity

and Safety Authority (Sept. 26, 2023),

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/p222100_commission_order_re_enforcement_rule_modification.pdf.

See ADMC Rule Order at 6.

Id.

PUBLIC

the Commission [would] be able to evaluate how the rules interact in practice and

to examine both sides of the “cost” and “benefit” ledger at the same time. 13

On September 27, 2023, the Authority submitted to the Commission a proposed

modification of the Enforcement Rule, by which the Authority aimed to “enhance the Rule 8000

Series Enforcement Rules in a manner that is consistent with 15 U.S.C. § 3057(d).” 14 On August

28, 2023, the Authority had shared a draft of the proposed rule modification with interested

stakeholders and published the draft on the HISA website for public comment. 15 The Authority

explained that, in some instances, commenters proposed revisions or alternatives that the

Authority adopted in the proposed rule modification filed with the Commission. 16

In its submission, the Authority noted that, during the original Commission review of the

Enforcement Rule, the Authority had committed to further consider a number of suggestions for

modifications to the rule from public comments filed in response to the Federal Register notice

that published the original proposed Enforcement Rule. 17 In accordance with the Commission’s

ADMC Order, the Authority’s submission set forth the relevant comments and stated the reasons

why the Authority did or did not adopt the suggestions within the text of the proposed rule

modification. 18

Id. at 7.

See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Notice of Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority Enforcement Rule Proposed

Modification (“Notice”), 90 Fed. Reg. 43,431, 43,432 (Sept. 9, 2025),

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/09/2025-17296/horseracing-integrity-and-safety-authorityenforcement-rule-proposed-modification. The Authority filed a revised submission on July 7, 2025, to reflect

updated proposed modifications to the rules since September 27, 2023. It was this revised submission that the

Commission published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2025.

Id. at 43,432-33. See also HISA, Proposed Redline Changes to Rule 8000 Series (Enforcement) (Aug. 28, 2023),

available at https://hisaus.org/news/proposed-redline-changes-to-rule-8000-series-enforcement. Exhibit A to the

Notice includes copies of all comments received concerning the rule modification proposal and is available at

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2025-0495-0002.

Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,433.

Id. at 43,436 (citing HISA’s February 21, 2022 Letter to the Commission, available at

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2022-0009-0015).

Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,436-38

PUBLIC

As required by the Act, 19 the Commission published the Authority’s proposed

modification of the Enforcement Rule in the Federal Register on September 9, 2025. 20 Under

the Act, “the Commission shall approve a proposed rule or modification if the Commission finds

that the proposed rule or modification is consistent with” the Act and applicable rules approved

by the Commission.21 By this Order, for the reasons that follow, the Commission finds that the

Authority’s proposed modification of the Enforcement Rule is consistent with the Act and the

Commission’s rules and therefore approves the proposed rule modification, which will take

effect on January 19, 2026.

II.

Discussion of Public Comments and the Commission’s Findings

The Act directs the Authority to establish “(A) rules for safety, performance, and anti-

doping and medication control results management; and (B) the disciplinary process for safety,

performance, and anti-doping and medication control rule violations.” 22 The Act further directs

the Authority to establish uniform rules “imposing civil sanctions against covered persons or

covered horses for safety, performance, and anti-doping and medication control rule

violations.” 23 Finally, the Act directs the Authority to “develop uniform procedures and rules

authorizing—(i) access to offices, racetrack facilities, other places of business, books, records,

and personal property of covered persons that are used in the care, treatment, training, and racing

of covered horses; (ii) issuance and enforcement of subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum; and

15 U.S.C. § 3053(b)(1).

See Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,431.

15 U.S.C. § 3053(c)(2).

Id. § 3057(c)(1).

Id. § 3057(d)(1). See also id. § 3053(a)(8)-(10) (directing the Authority to submit to the Commission proposed

rules or rule modifications relating to “(8) a description of safety, performance, and anti-doping and medication

control rule violations applicable to covered horses and covered persons; (9) a schedule of civil sanctions for

violations; [and] (10) a process or procedures for disciplinary hearings”).

PUBLIC

(iii) other investigatory powers of the nature and scope exercised by State racing commissions

before the program effective date.” 24

The Notice describes and explains the Authority’s proposed modification to the

Enforcement Rule, which includes the following changes: (1) clarifying that it is a violation of

Rule 8100 to enter a Covered Horse or cause a Covered Horse to compete in a Covered

Horserace prior to registering the Covered Horse with the Authority, pursuant to the Registration

Rule, and it is also a violation to cause a Covered Horse to compete in a Covered Horserace with

the knowledge that the Covered Horse is ineligible to compete pursuant to the rules of the

Authority; (2) amending Rule 8200 to clarify the penalties that apply to various violations of the

Rule 2000 Series, to direct the purse be redistributed after a Covered Horse is disqualified from a

Covered Horserace, and to authorize an automatic suspension for failure to pay a fine or to repay

a purse; (3) modifying the Rule 8300 Series to state with precision the rule violations that are

subject to adjudication under the Rule 8000 series, and the procedures under which the

adjudications shall be conducted (including modifying the procedural rules for appeals in the

Rule 8300 Series to provide consistency with modifications of the Rule 2000 Series that went

into effect on July 8, 2024 25); and (4) amending Rule 8400 to require the Authority to request

and obtain Commission approval before issuing a subpoena under 15 U.S.C. § 3054(j) and to

include standards to guide the Authority in the issuance of subpoenas. 26 The Authority also

proposed adding a new Rule 8410 to “allow[] the Authority to review and act upon information

or evidence submitted to the Authority from any source concerning possible rule violations,” and

Id. § 3054(c)(1)(A).

See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Order Approving the Racetrack Safety Rule Modification Proposed by the Horseracing

Integrity and Safety Authority (“Racetrack Safety Rule Order”) (June 7, 2024),

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P222100CommOrderHISARacetrackSafetyRule20240607.pdf.

See Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,432.

PUBLIC

a new Rule 8420 to “require the Authority to seek and obtain the approval of the Commission

before initiating civil actions under 15 U.S.C. 3054(j).” 27 Finally, the Authority proposed

clarifying the language of several provisions for greater precision.

As noted above, the Commission must approve a proposed rule modification if the

Commission finds that the proposed rule modification is consistent with the Act and the

Commission’s rules. 28 As a threshold matter, the Commission finds that the Authority’s

proposed modification of the Enforcement Rule is consistent with the Commission’s rules. 29

This finding formally confirms the previous determination made by the Office of the Secretary

that the Authority’s submission of its proposal was consistent with the Commission’s rules

governing such submissions. 30

The remainder of this Order discusses whether the proposed modification to the

Enforcement Rule is “consistent with” the Act. In deciding whether to approve or disapprove the

Authority’s proposed rule modification, the Commission has reviewed the Act’s text, the Notice

containing the proposed rule modification’s text and the Authority’s explanation, the Authority’s

supporting documentation, 31 public comments, 32 and the Authority’s response to those

Id.

15 U.S.C. § 3053(c)(2).

See 16 C.F.R. §§ 1.140–1.144.

See Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,432 & n. 5. The Secretary’s determination that a submission complies with the

Commission’s rules is required before its publication. See 16 C.F.R. § 1.143(e) (“The Secretary of the Commission

may reject a document for filing that fails to comply with the Commission’s rules.”).

These materials, which were posted on regulations.gov on September 9, 2025, include informal comments that the

Authority solicited from stakeholders before submitting a proposed rule to the Commission, and they are available at

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2025-0495/document. The Authority also incorporated by reference the

supporting materials it provided with its original Enforcement Rule proposal and with the Authority’s proposed

modification to the Enforcement Rule that was published in the Federal Register in July 2022. See Notice, 90 Fed.

Reg. at 43,433 & nn. 13, 14.

Public comments in response to the Notice, which were accepted until September 23, 2025, are available at

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2025-0495/comments.

PUBLIC

comments. 33 Five public comments were filed in response to the Notice. 34 The Commission

stated in the Notice that it would focus on those comments that discuss the statutory decisional

criteria: whether the proposed rule or modification was consistent with “the specific

requirements, factors, standards, or considerations in the text of the Act as well as the

Commission’s rules.” 35 In the discussion that follows, the Commission takes into consideration

only the comments that address these decisional criteria. Two comments did not address the

decisional criteria and will therefore not be addressed in this Order. 36 Two other comments did

not address any specific rule changes proposed by the Authority, but generally advocated for rule

modifications to enhance the safety of horse racing 37 and supported approval of the proposed

rule modification, 38 respectively. Because those comments do not address the statutory criteria

that the Commission must use to determine whether to approve or to disapprove the proposed

rule modification, they have little bearing on the Commission’s determination. Only one

comment directly addressed whether the provisions of the Enforcement Rule, including the

The Authority’s response, dated September 29, 2025 (the “Authority’s Response”), which addressed comments

filed in response to the Notice, is available on regulations.gov as a related document on Docket FTC-2025-0495.

See https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2025-0495-0009.

Two other comments that were not related to this proposal were not posted on the docket at regulations.gov.

Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,438. As the Commission has previously noted, other comments may still be “helpful or

productive in the broader effort to improve the safety and integrity of horseracing. In many instances, comments

advance specific suggestions for improving the Authority’s rules, and the Commission expects that, in appropriate

cases, the Authority will consider those comments in proposing rule modifications in the future, and the

Commission will also consider them in deciding whether to exercise its discretionary authority to modify the

Authority’s rules.” ADMC Rule Order, supra n. 6, at 5 n. 12. The Notice gave guidance to would-be public

commenters whose comments would not address the statutory decisional criteria but instead would more generally

bear on protecting the “health and safety of horses and jockeys, the integrity of horseraces and wagering on

horseraces, and the administration of the Authority itself,” by advising on the process for providing comments to the

Commission about the use of its rulemaking power under Section 3053(e). Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,438.

See Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0005 (opining that horse racing

is “the epitaph [sic] of opportunistic exploitation and animal cruelty” and pleading for efforts to end the sport); Cmt.

of Joe Kelly, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0008 (suggesting that the Authority's proposed

rule modification is inconsistent with a deregulatory agenda and should therefore be disapproved).

Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0004 (opining, “I do believe there

should be modifications set and implemented for the safety of the horses during horse racing games”).

Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0007 (stating that the “proposed

modification should be applied, as needed for adjudication of alleged violations stemming from HISA Rule 2000

and Rule 8000 Series accordingly”).

PUBLIC

Authority’s proposed modifications to the Rule, were consistent with the Act or with best

practices. 39 The Commission accordingly discusses that comment below, along with the

Authority’s response to the comment.

A. Changes to Rule 8100: Violations

The Act directs the Authority to submit to the Commission proposed rules or rule

modifications relating to “a description of safety, performance, and anti-doping and medication

control rule violations applicable to covered horses and covered persons,” and describes a

number of elements that may be included in such rules. 40 Rule 8100 contains a list of violations

that are subject to disciplinary action under the Rule 8000 Series (the Enforcement Rule). The

Notice addresses two proposed additions to this list of violations: first, a new paragraph (k)

would be added to establish a new violation for “Entering a Covered Horse or causing a Covered

Horse to compete in a Covered Horserace prior to registering the Covered Horse with the

Authority in accordance with the Rule 9000 Series,” while a new paragraph (l) would be added

to clarify that it is a violation to cause “a Covered Horse to compete in a Covered Horserace with

the knowledge that, at the time of the Covered Horserace, the Covered Horse is ineligible to

compete pursuant to the rules of the Authority.” 41 Covered Horses may be ineligible to compete

if they are, for example, placed on the Veterinarian’s List or serving a period of ineligibility for

an ADMC Rule violation.

No comments addressed the proposed changes to Rule 8100, although the Authority

stated that it included a “knowledge” standard in proposed Rule 8100(l) in response to a

comment it received in response to its publication of the draft rule proposal. 42 The Authority

Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0006.

15 U.S.C. §§ 3053(a)(8), 3057(a)(1).

Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. 43,433.

Id. at n. 15.

PUBLIC

stated that the changes would ensure that horses are subject to veterinary supervisions and other

forms of oversight by the Authority, and would bolster the integrity and safety of the sport. New

paragraph (k) would allow the Authority to enforce HISA Rule 9000(h), which requires

Responsible Persons to register Covered Horses before running them in Covered Horseraces.

The Commission concludes that the proposed changes to Rule 8100 are consistent with

the Act. Section 3054(d) of the Act specifically provides that as “a condition of participating in

covered races and in the care, ownership, treatment, and training of covered horses, a covered

person shall register with the Authority in accordance with rules promulgated by the Authority

and approved by the Commission.” 43 The Commission has previously held that requiring the

registration of Covered Horses, in addition to Covered Persons, is consistent with the Act

because it advances the Act’s “substantive goals of improving horseracing integrity and safety by

facilitating education about and enforcement of the other approved rules.” 44 The Commission

similarly finds that the new paragraphs proposed to be added to Rule 8100 would improve the

integrity and safety of horse racing by providing the Authority with a mechanism to enforce

existing safety and registration rules previously approved by the Commission.

B. Changes to Rule 8200: Schedule of Sanctions for Violations

The Act further directs the Authority to submit to the Commission proposed rules or rule

modifications relating to a schedule of civil sanctions for violations. 45 Rule 8200 establishes a

15 U.S.C. § 3054(d).

Fed. Trade Comm’n, Order Approving the Registration Rule Proposed by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety

Authority (June 29, 2022), at 5,

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P222100CommissionOrderRegistrationRuleFinal.pdf.

15 U.S.C. §§ 3053(a)(9), 3057(d)(1).

PUBLIC

schedule of sanctions that applies to the Authority’s rules as described in Rule 8200(a).

Proposed changes to Rule 8200(b)(1) would specify the sanctions that apply to certain rule

violations, and would clarify that penalties in Rule 8200(b)(1) are to be imposed in lieu of the

penalties listed under Rule 8200(b)(2) through (12). An amendment to Rule 8200(b)(9) would

require redistribution of a purse in accordance with the revised order of finish for any

disqualified Covered Horse. The Authority explained that this change was proposed to address

questions it has received from stewards regarding purse redistribution. 46

The Authority also proposed to add two new paragraphs to Rule 8200. New paragraph

(e) would state that “[f]ailure by a Covered Person to pay any fine by the prescribed deadline that

is imposed by the Authority, or by any official or body authorized to adjudicate violations under

the Rule 2000 or 8000 Series, shall subject the Covered Person to automatic suspension by the

Authority, absent a showing to the Authority by the Covered Person of exceptional

circumstances that resulted in the failure to pay the fine.” New paragraph (f) would similarly

impose an automatic suspension for failure to repay a purse. The Authority explained that these

proposed rules are similar to a common practice of various State racing commissions, in which

licensure is temporarily suspended as a penalty for overdue fines until the fines are repaid. 47

One comment addressed the schedule of sanctions included in the rule, opining that the

“proposed modification does not clearly define how sanctions will be calibrated in proportion to

the severity of violations across the Rule 2000 and Rule 8000 Series,” and advocating for more

explicit sanction tiers to “enhance predictability and fairness in enforcement.” 48 The Authority

responded to this comment by noting that the Rule 2000 Series and Rule 8000 Series establish

Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. 43,434.

Id.

Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0006.

PUBLIC

sanction tiers for many violations, while in other contexts, sanction tiers are not appropriate or

are impractical. 49 The Authority explained that, in some contexts, it is not possible to list all

circumstances or conduct that could constitute a violation and that, in such cases, it is appropriate

to leave some degree of discretion to the adjudicator, while setting forth a range of available

penalties. The commenter also opined that the proposed rule modification “omits provisions

ensuring that sanctioned parties are provided with full, timely disclosure of investigatory

findings prior to adjudication,” and suggested that “mandating disclosure requirements would

better support informed defense preparation.” 50 The Authority responded that, “[a]s required by

Rule 8200(d), HISA enforcement attorneys [] provide Notices of Violation and supporting

documents to Covered Persons well in advance of hearings,” and this “ensure[s] that Covered

Persons have access to relevant information and adequate time to prepare for hearings in a timely

manner.” 51

The Commission finds that the proposed changes to Rule 8200 are consistent with the

Act. As the Commission previously found in the Original Enforcement Rule Order, the

provisions of Rule 8200 are “flexible and designed to be tailored to the facts of each possible

violation,” but this is in keeping with the emphasis in Section 3057 of the Act on equitable

principles, using words such as “commensurate” to describe how the level of process should

correspond to the seriousness of the violation and sanction at issue. 52 The Authority’s proposed

changes support the Act’s requirement for a “a schedule of civil sanctions for violations” by

providing clear directions regarding the sanctions that should apply to specific violations and by

Authority’s Response, supra n. 33, at 2.

Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0006.

Authority’s Response, supra n. 33, at 4. The Authority further noted that the “[Internal Adjudication Panel] and

the Board routinely order disclosure of witness lists, exhibit lists, and pre-hearing briefs and statements that assist in

defense preparation by Covered Persons.” Id.

Original Enforcement Rule Order, supra n. 4, at 15 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 3057(c)(3)).

PUBLIC

providing an enforcement mechanism for non-payment of fines or failure to repay a purse. No

commenter identified any way in which the proposed rule modifications are inconsistent with the

Act.

C. Changes to Rule 8300 Series: Disciplinary Hearings and Accreditation Procedures

The Act directs the Authority to submit to the Commission proposed rules or rule

modifications relating to “a process or procedures for disciplinary hearings.” 53 The Rule 8300

Series comprises a set of provisions that detail the processes by which substantive rule violations

are adjudicated, appealed, and remedied, and (where appropriate) penalties are imposed. These

rule provisions address the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 3057(c)(2)(B)–(F), such as hearing

procedures, standards for burdens of proof, presumptions, evidentiary rules, appeals, and

confidentiality and public reporting of decisions, as well as the overarching requirement of §

3057(c)(3) that the rules provide for adequate due process. The Authority proposed changes to

clarify which procedures apply to the adjudication of specific rule violations. For example, Rule

8310 would be amended to include Rule 2116 (concerning the suspension or revocation of

accreditation) within the class of violations to be adjudicated under the Rule 8300 Series, which

would bring the Enforcement Rule into harmony with the amendments to Rule 2116 that took

effect on July 8, 2024. 54

In response to a commenter, the Authority proposed a change to Rule 8320 to distinguish

violations of the riding crop rules from rules concerning the use of Shock Wave Therapy and all

other electrical and mechanical devices, and to specify the appeals process available to

adjudications of riding crop rule violations. 55 Rules 8320 and 8330 would be amended to add

15 U.S.C. §§ 3053(a)(10), 3057(c)(1).

See Racetrack Safety Rule Order, supra n. 25, at 11.

Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. 43,434.

PUBLIC

Rule 2286 and/or the Rule 8000 Series to the body of procedures applicable to adjudications of

Rule 2200 and Rule 8100 violations, and would specify that the Rule 8000 Series’ procedures are

controlling in the case of any inconsistencies between the rules. The Authority explained that

these modifications are proposed to ensure the appropriate procedures are applied to the various

types of rule violation cases, and to conform the Enforcement Rule to Rule 2286 in the amended

Racetrack Safety Rule. 56

The Authority proposed a change to Rule 8340 to specify that procedures for initial

hearings under the rule apply to procedures under Rule 2116 concerning the suspension or

revocation of Racetrack accreditation. Changes to Rule 8350, addressing Appeals to the HISA

Board, would create certain exceptions for appeals of violations adjudicated under Rules 2116,

2117, 2285, and 2287, as those rules provide their own appellate (or intermediate appellate)

procedures or are otherwise addressed in the Enforcement Rule. These changes would conform

the Enforcement Rule to the Racetrack Safety Rule, as amended in 2024. 57 Rule 8360 would be

changed to clarify the procedures applicable to the appeal of the suspension or revocation of

Racetrack accreditation under Rule 2116.

One comment addressed several aspects of the Rule 8300 Series. First, the commenter

advocated for “maximum resolution periods for adjudication of violations,” opining that “adding

clear deadlines could prevent protracted proceedings that undermine both deterrence and due

process.” 58 The commenter also claimed that the “proposal does not indicate whether hearings

and disciplinary decisions will be subject to independent review outside the Authority.” The

Authority responded that members of the Internal Adjudication Panel (“IAP”) and the Board of

Id.

Id. at 43,435.

Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0006.

PUBLIC

the Authority routinely set deadlines under the Rule 7000 (ADMC) and 8000 Series that are

appropriate to the case at issue, and that these deadlines are “balanced to provide adequate time

for the parties to submit the required filings while also ensuring that the case proceeds in an

expeditious manner.” 59 The Authority further noted that the rules “also require the IAP

Members and the Board to issue decisions within specified periods after the close of hearings.”

Regarding review of HISA adjudications, the Authority noted that the rules include “an elaborate

and efficient appellate system that ensures fairness and meaningful review of adjudicatory

decisions,” including the availability of two layers of de novo review by the Commission.60 The

Commission confirms that, under the Act, the administrative law judge or the Commission may

“affirm, reverse, modify, set aside, or remand for further proceedings, in whole or in part,” the

final civil sanction of the Authority or the decision of the administrative law judge,

respectively. 61

The commenter further observed that “[r]ules on evidentiary admissibility appear general,

leaving uncertainty about the handling of scientific or laboratory data concerning prohibited

substances,” and opined that “aligning admissibility standards with recognized forensic protocols

would bolster evidentiary reliability.” 62 The Authority pointed out that the ADMC Rule, which

contains its own adjudicatory procedures, “include[s] elaborate provisions concerning scientific

or laboratory data and the use of forensic protocols in laboratory testing,” while cases

adjudicated under the Rule 8000 Series “do not typically involve extensive data and protocols of

this kind.” 63 The Authority further noted that the Enforcement Rule does include provisions

Authority’s Response, supra n. 33, at 3.

Id. at 3-4.

See 15 U.S.C. §§ 3058(b)(3)(A)(ii), 3058(c)(3)(A)(i).

Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0006.

Authority’s Response, supra n. 33, at 4.

PUBLIC

“relating to a number of evidentiary issues, including standards of admissibility, the use of

hearsay evidence, the weight and credibility of evidence, irrelevant and repetitive evidence, and

applicable rules of privilege… [which] promote evidentiary reliability in a manner that is

consistent with evidentiary rules commonly found in the context of administrative law.” 64

The commenter also contended that the Authority’s “[e]nforcement procedures do not

reference data transparency obligations, such as public reporting of aggregated violations and

sanctions,” and suggested that “incorporating periodic publication of anonymized enforcement

metrics could improve accountability and public trust in the Authority’s oversight.” 65 The

Authority responded that it is committed to transparency and pointed to Rule 8380, which

“mandates disclosure of alleged violations at the inception of each case, and disclosure of

specified information upon the resolution of the case.” 66 The Authority further noted that it

publishes an aggregated list of violations and sanctions on its website annually in the form of an

annual performance report, which the Commission’s rules require the Authority to submit by

March 31 each year. 67 The Authority stated that it also publishes its own quarterly and annual

metrics reports on its website, which include information related to the Authority’s enforcement

activities. 68

The Commission finds that the proposed changes to the Rule 8300 Series are consistent

with the Act. The comment offered policy recommendations but did not identify any

inconsistency between the proposed rule modifications and the Act, and the Commission is

satisfied that the Authority’s responses to the comment identify hearing and appellate

Id.

Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0006.

Authority’s Response, supra n. 33, at 4.

See 16 C.F.R. § 1.153(b).

Authority’s Response, supra n. 33, at 5.

PUBLIC

procedures, and reporting practices, that assure both adequate due process and transparency in

the disciplinary proceedings, consistent with the Act’s requirements.

D. Changes to Rule 8400 Series: Investigatory Powers

The Act directs the Authority to “develop uniform procedures and rules authorizing—(i)

access to offices, racetrack facilities, other places of business, books, records, and personal

property of covered persons that are used in the care, treatment, training, and racing of covered

horses; (ii) issuance and enforcement of subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum; and (iii) other

investigatory powers of the nature and scope exercised by State racing commissions before the

program effective date.” 69 The Rule 8400 Series addresses these investigatory powers by

specifying the Authority’s right to access the files and facilities of Covered Persons and those

who own or perform services on a Covered Horse as well as the right to seize evidence of

suspected violations. It requires Covered Persons to respond truthfully and cooperate with the

Authority, and forbids hindering an investigation. It also specifies that the Authority may issue

subpoenas, which must be complied with, for both things and people, who may be required to

testify under oath.

The Authority proposed a number of changes and additions to the Rule 8400 Series with

the aim of enhancing the Commission’s oversight of, and power to constrain, the Authority in its

exercise of its investigatory powers. 70 First, Rule 8400(e) would be modified to require the

Authority to request and obtain the approval of the Commission before issuing a subpoena under

15 U.S.C. § 3054(h), and would provide that if the Commission does not act upon such a request

within 20 days, it would be deemed approved. In addition, a new paragraph (f) would be added

Id. § 3054(c)(1)(A). See also id. § 3054(h) (specifying that the “Authority shall have subpoena and investigatory

authority with respect to civil violations committed under its jurisdiction”).

Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. 43,435-36.

PUBLIC

to Rule 8400, establishing a set of standards by which subpoenas are issued. This rule would

“guide the Authority’s discretion in considering whether to request Commission approval to

issue a subpoena,” 71 with the aim of ensuring that subpoenas would be used only when truly

necessary. The Authority noted that these standards are patterned after nearly identical

provisions in HISA Rule 5730(e) (in the ADMC Rule).

The Authority also proposed adding two new provisions to the Rule 8400 Series. A new

Rule 8410 would establish procedures by which the Authority may review matters concerning

alleged violations of one or more rules in the Rule 2200 Series or Rule 8100 Series. The

provision would authorize the Authority on its own initiative to review evidence or information

that is submitted from any source, but would not require the Authority to act on such evidence or

information if the Authority deems it lacking in credibility. 72 The Authority explained that this

new rule provision would “parallel[] rules pertaining to objections and protests that are common

to the regulations of many State racing commissions.” 73 A new Rule 8420 would require the

Authority to request and obtain the approval of the Commission before initiating any civil action

pursuant to Section 3054(j) of the Act, 74 and would provide that if the Commission does not act

upon such a request within 20 days, it would be deemed approved. This rule would ensure that

the Commission has the ability to review and approve any civil actions contemplated by the

Authority before they are filed.

Id. at 43,436.

Id.

15 U.S.C. § 3054(j) (authorizing the Authority to “commence a civil action against a covered person or racetrack

that has engaged, is engaged, or is about to engage, in acts or practices constituting a violation of [the Act] or any

rule established under [the Act] in the proper district court of the United States, the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia, or the United States courts of any territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States, to enjoin such acts or practices, to enforce any civil sanctions imposed under that section, and for all

other relief to which the Authority may be entitled”).

PUBLIC

Finally, the proposed rule modification would delete references to the Commission from

several provisions of the current rule that describe the investigatory powers the Authority may

exercise under the Act. The Authority noted that the Commission’s investigatory powers and

enforcement authority derive from other statutes and, therefore, it is not necessary to reference

the Commission in the Rule 8400 Series. 75

One commenter argued that the “scope of investigatory powers is addressed but lacks

detail on safeguards against overreach, particularly in relation to warrantless inspections or

compelled disclosures; codifying limits and evidentiary standards would strengthen legal

robustness.” 76 The Authority responded that the current Enforcement Rule and the proposed

modification both operate to limit potential overreach in the Authority’s use of its investigatory

powers. For example, the Authority noted that the current Rule 8400(a)(1) grants the Authority

access to various records and locations, but “only if they are used in the care, treatment, training,

or racing of Covered Horses.” 77 Rule 8400(a)(2) describes with particularity the items that may

be seized as evidence of the violation of Authority rules. In the proposed modification, the

Authority pointed to the new requirements that the Authority request and obtain approval of the

Commission before issuing a subpoena or initiating a civil action. In addition, the proposed Rule

8400(f) establishes considerations that the Authority must take into account before requesting

authorization to issue a subpoena.

The Commission finds that the proposed changes to the Rule 8400 Series are consistent

with the Act. The investigatory powers addressed by these changes are expressly granted by the

Act, and the Authority’s proposed modifications would provide additional Commission oversight

Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,435.

Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0006.

Authority’s Response, supra n. 33, at 3.

PUBLIC

prior to the Authority’s exercise of its power to issue subpoenas (under Section 3054(h)) or

initiate civil actions (under Section 3054(j)). The Commission agrees with the Authority that the

proposed changes will help safeguard against overreach and ensure that the Authority remains at

all times subordinate to the Commission, including in the use of investigatory powers.

E. Clarification of Rule Language and Other Changes

In addition to the modifications described above, the Authority has proposed changes to

clarify the rule language for greater precision. Specifically, in several provisions of the

Enforcement Rule, the term “National Stewards Panel” would be replaced by the term “Internal

Adjudication Panel,” as defined in the Rule 1000 Series and as referred to in the Rule 3000 and

Rule 7000 Series. The Authority explained that the IAP is “a body of adjudicators (many of

whom are current or former stewards) who are assigned to preside over cases involving

controlled medication violations.” 78 The Authority noted that the term “National Stewards

Panel” has sometimes been confused with references in the Authority’s rules to “the stewards,”

who preside over Covered Horseraces taking place at Racetracks. To avoid this potential

confusion, the Authority proposed modifying the Enforcement Rule language to remove any

reference to the word “stewards.” No comments addressed this proposed change, and the

Commission finds that it is consistent with the Act and will add to the Rule’s clarity and utility.

Conclusion

For the preceding reasons, the Commission finds that the Horseracing Integrity and

Safety Authority’s proposed modification to its Enforcement Rule is consistent with the

Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,436.

PUBLIC

Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 and the Commission’s rules. Accordingly, by

this Order, the Authority’s proposed modification to the Enforcement Rule is APPROVED.

By the Commission.

April J. Tabor

Secretary

SEAL

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.