# UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3A51d9d0292a1cb19c

## Record

- **Collection:** Agency decision
- **Document type:** Agency decision

## Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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
I.

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).
3
See id. § 3053(b)(2).
4
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.
5
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.
1
2

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.
7
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.
8
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
9
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.
10
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.
11
See ADMC Rule Order at 6.
12
Id.
6

2

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.
15
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.
16
Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,433.
17
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).
18
Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,436-38
13
14

3

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.
21
15 U.S.C. § 3053(c)(2).
22
Id. § 3057(c)(1).
23
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”).
19
20

4

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.
26
See Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,432.
24
25

5

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

27

Id.
15 U.S.C. § 3053(c)(2).
29
See 16 C.F.R. §§ 1.140–1.144.
30
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.”).
31
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.
32
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.
28

6

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.
34
Two other comments that were not related to this proposal were not posted on the docket at regulations.gov.
35
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.
36
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).
37
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”).
38
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”).
33

7

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).
41
Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. 43,433.
42
Id. at n. 15.
39
40

8

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.
45
15 U.S.C. §§ 3053(a)(9), 3057(d)(1).
43
44

9

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.
48
Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0006.
46
47

10

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.
51
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.
52
Original Enforcement Rule Order, supra n. 4, at 15 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 3057(c)(3)).
49
50

11

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.
55
Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. 43,434.
53
54

12

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

56

Id.
Id. at 43,435.
58
Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0006.
57

13

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.
61
See 15 U.S.C. §§ 3058(b)(3)(A)(ii), 3058(c)(3)(A)(i).
62
Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0006.
63
Authority’s Response, supra n. 33, at 4.
59
60

14

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

64

Id.
Cmt. of Anonymous, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0495-0006.
66
Authority’s Response, supra n. 33, at 4.
67
See 16 C.F.R. § 1.153(b).
68
Authority’s Response, supra n. 33, at 5.
65

15

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”).
70
Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. 43,435-36.
69

16

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.
73
Id.
74
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”).
71
72

17

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.
77
Authority’s Response, supra n. 33, at 3.
75
76

18

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

78

Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 43,436.
19

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

20

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3A51d9d0292a1cb19c. Public record. Not legal advice.