Notice2026-11806
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 7, Section 3
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 12, 2026
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 113 (Friday, June 12, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35735-35739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-11806]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-105631; File No. SR-GEMX-2026-22]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 7,
Section 3
June 9, 2026.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 27, 2026, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend GEMX's Pricing Schedule at Options
7, Section 3 related to Index Options.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On April 30, 2026, the Exchange filed SR-GEMX-2026-19. On
May 12, 2026, the Exchange withdrew SR-GEMX-2026-19 and filed this
proposal. On May 27, 2026, the Exchange withdrew SR-GEMX-2026-20 and
filed this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at <a href="https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/gemx/rulefilings">https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/gemx/rulefilings</a>,
and at the principal office of the Exchange.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.
[[Page 35736]]
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
GEMX proposes to amend the current surcharge applicable to Nasdaq-
100[supreg] Index (``NDX'') options at Options 7, Section 3, Regular
Order Fees and Rebates.
Currently, note 20 of Options 7, Section 3 imposes a surcharge of
$1.50 per contract for NDX electronic simple Non-Priority Customer \4\
orders that remove liquidity. This surcharge is in addition to the
Options Transaction Charges in NDX for Non-Priority Customer orders of
$0.75 per contract. Today, Priority Customer \5\ orders pay a fee of
$0.50 per contract in NDX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The term ``Non-Priority Customer'' includes Market Makers,
Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMMs), Firm Proprietary/Broker-
Dealers, and Professional Customers. See Options 7, Section 1(c).
\5\ A ``Priority Customer'' '' is a person or entity that is not
a broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390
orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month
for its own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq GEMX Options
1, Section 1(a)(36). Unless otherwise noted, when used in this
Pricing Schedule the term ``Priority Customer'' includes ``Retail''
as defined below. See Options 7, Section 1(c).
\6\ Additionally, for transactions in NDX, a license surcharge
of $0.25 is assessed to Non-Priority Customers at note 9 of Options
7, Section 3. The license surcharge applies to all NDX executions,
including executions of NDX orders that are routed to one or more
exchanges in connection with the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan. Further, pursuant to note 14 of Options
7, Section 3, a surcharge of $0.25 per contract is assessed to all
market participants for executions in NDX with a premium price of
$25.00 or greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal
At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend the surcharge at note
20 of Options 7, Section 3 to instead assess a surcharge on NDX
electronic simple Non-Priority Customer orders that remove liquidity
according to the following premium schedule:
Less than $3.00............................................. $1.00
Greater than or equal to $3.00 and less than $10.00......... 1.50
Greater than or equal to $10.00 and less than $25.00........ 2.00
Greater than or equal to $25.00 and less than $50.00........ 2.50
Greater than or equal to $50.00............................. 3.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes its proposed scaled surcharge reflects
meaningful differences in risk and market impact across premium levels.
Higher-premium options signal greater implied volatility, carry larger
notional exposure, exhibit heightened sensitivity to index movements,
embed more consequential leverage, and approximate or exceed the
economic exposure of comparable futures contracts. Each of these
factors independently supports imposing a higher surcharge on higher-
premium transactions.
An option's premium is driven in substantial part by the market's
expectation of future movement in the underlying index (implied
volatility).\7\ Accordingly, a higher premium generally signals that
the market perceives the Nasdaq-100 Index as presenting greater risk at
that point in time. Trades executed in higher-volatility environments
carry a greater potential to disrupt orderly market functioning: each
transaction can exert more pronounced price pressure, and liquidity
providers face commensurately higher hedging costs. A surcharge tied to
premium price functions as a self-correcting mechanism--when market
conditions are riskier and premiums rise, the surcharge rises
proportionally; when conditions normalize and premiums decline, the
surcharge declines accordingly. This design ensures the pricing remains
aligned with prevailing market risk without requiring constant manual
recalibration. The Nasdaq-100 Index is particularly susceptible to
these dynamics given its heavy concentration in large-capitalization
technology companies, which can experience sharp and sudden price
dislocations that cause option premiums to escalate rapidly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ When market participants expect larger swings in the Nasdaq-
100 Index, option premiums rise; when they expect less volatility,
premiums fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The notional value \8\ of NDX options further supports the proposed
tiered surcharge. With a contract multiplier of $100, a $1.00 premium
option represents $100 of premium value per contract, while a $50.00
premium option represents $5,000 per contract--fifty times the economic
stake. A trade in a higher-premium option transfers more capital and
more risk between counterparties, requires Market Makers to commit
greater resources to hedge the resulting position, and consumes a
larger share of available liquidity on the order book. A flat
surcharge--identical regardless of premium price--would treat a $100
trade and a $5,000 trade as though they imposed equivalent market
impact. The tiered schedule, by contrast, scales the fee with the
magnitude of economic exposure, ensuring that participants trading
higher-value options bear a modestly higher surcharge commensurate with
the greater significance of their transactions. The proposed pricing is
reasonable because the scaled surcharge reflects these differences in
the economic characteristics of the underlying transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Notional value refers to the total dollar amount of economic
exposure that an option contract represents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transactions in the Nasdaq-100 Index involving greater effective
leverage warrant proportionally higher fees. Leverage permits a trader
to gain exposure to a large notional amount in the underlying index for
a relatively small upfront payment; however, the significance of that
leverage varies materially with the premium price. A $1.00 premium NDX
option offers the potential for control of a large notional position
but is typically far out-of-the-money, meaning the probability that it
will deliver meaningful economic value at expiration is low. By
contrast, a $50.00 premium NDX option is likely in-the-money or near-
the-money, carrying a high probability of delivering a real economic
payoff. In this case, the market participant pays a fraction of the
cost of an equivalent direct position in the Nasdaq-100 Index while
retaining a strong likelihood of participating in the index's movement.
This combination of leverage and high probability of economic delivery
makes higher-premium options powerful instruments capable of shifting
substantial risk. The proposed tiered surcharge recognizes that higher-
premium options carry more consequential leverage and should therefore
bear a commensurately higher fee.
Finally, as the premium of NDX options increases, the option's
economic behavior converges with that of a futures contract. A CME-
listed Nasdaq-100 future provides direct, linear one-for-one exposure
to the Nasdaq-100 Index. When an NDX option carries a high premium and
a delta approaching 1.0, it behaves substantially like a futures
contract: with a $100 multiplier and a delta near 1.0, each one-point
move in the index produces approximately $100 of profit or loss per
contract--the economic equivalent of roughly five E-mini Nasdaq-100
futures contracts. Moreover, options introduce risk dimensions absent
from futures, including sensitivity to changes in volatility (vega
risk) and accelerating sensitivity to index movements (gamma risk).
These additional risk dimensions give high-premium options a risk
profile that can exceed that of a comparable futures position, further
supporting a higher surcharge at elevated premium levels.
With this proposal, the lowest tier ($1.00) reduces the existing
surcharge for low-premium contracts, conferring a benefit on
participants trading less expensive series. The middle tier ($1.50)
preserves the status quo for the band that historically reflects a
substantial
[[Page 35737]]
portion of activity in NDX. The upper tiers ($2.00, $2.50, and $3.00)
modestly increase the surcharge for high-premium contracts, where the
participant's economic exposure--and the Exchange's correlative cost
burden--is materially greater. The graduated structure thereby ties the
magnitude of the fee to an objective, transaction-specific measure of
value, which the Commission has long recognized as a reasonable basis
for differentiated pricing in the listed options markets.
The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing will continue to
attract NDX order flow to the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\12\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\13\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
\13\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
\14\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \15\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange's proposal to replace the current flat surcharge of
$1.50 per contract for regular Non-Priority Customer orders that remove
liquidity with a tiered structure \16\ scaled to the premium value of
each contract is reasonable because scaling the surcharge to the
premium value of the contract more accurately calibrates the fee to the
economic value that the liquidity-removing participant derives from the
transaction and to the corresponding costs and risks borne by the
Exchange and by the liquidity providers whose quotations support the
market in NDX.\17\ These index options are proprietary products for
which the Exchange incurs licensing, market-data, and other costs that
scale, in significant part, with the notional and premium value
executed on the Exchange. A premium-based tier therefore allocates a
larger share of those costs to transactions that consume a
proportionally greater amount of Exchange resources and confer a
proportionally greater economic benefit on the participant, while
reducing the relative burden on lower-premium transactions, which are
often associated with lower-delta or hedging-oriented strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Exchange proposes a premium schedule as follows: $1.00
per contract for premiums less than $3.00; $1.50 per contract for
premiums greater than or equal to $3.00 and less than $10.00; $2.00
per contract for premiums greater than or equal to $10.00 and less
than $25.00; $2.50 per contract for premiums greater than or equal
to $25.00 and less than $50.00; and $3.00 per contract for premiums
greater than or equal to $50.00.
\17\ With respect to NDX, the two lowest tiers ($1.00 for
premiums less than $3.00 and $1.50 for premiums of $3.00 to less
than $10.00) introduce a modest surcharge on lower-premium
executions that today bear no surcharge, in amounts commensurate
with the limited economic value of those contracts. The middle tier
($2.00 for premiums of $10.00 to less than $25.00) likewise applies
a measured surcharge to a band that is currently exempt. The upper
tiers ($2.50 for premiums of $25.00 to less than $50.00 and $3.00
for premiums of $50.00 or greater) replace the existing $0.25
surcharge with charges that more accurately reflect the materially
greater economic exposure of high-premium contracts and the
correspondingly greater cost burden borne by the Exchange and its
liquidity providers. The graduated structure thereby ties the
magnitude of the fee to an objective, transaction-specific measure
of value across the entire premium spectrum, which the Commission
has long recognized as a reasonable basis for differentiated pricing
in the listed options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes its proposed scaled surcharge reflects
meaningful differences in risk and market impact across premium levels.
Higher option premiums reflect elevated implied volatility in the
Nasdaq-100 Index, signaling greater market risk. A premium-based
surcharge operates as a self-correcting mechanism that scales fees with
prevailing volatility, ensuring alignment with actual market
conditions--particularly given the Nasdaq-100's concentration in
technology stocks prone to sharp price dislocations. Differences in
premium translate into significant differences in notional value and
market impact. A tiered surcharge ensures that participants whose
trades transfer greater capital and consume more liquidity bear fees
proportionate to the economic magnitude of their transactions, whereas
a flat surcharge would ignore these disparities. The economic
significance of an option's embedded leverage depends on whether the
option is likely to deliver a real payoff. Low-premium, far out-of-the-
money options carry leverage largely in theory, while higher-premium
options near or in the money combine meaningful leverage with a high
probability of economic delivery, justifying a commensurately higher
surcharge. As NDX option premiums rise and delta approaches 1.0, the
option's risk profile converges with--and can exceed--that of a
comparable Nasdaq-100 futures contract, because options also carry vega
and gamma risk. This functional equivalence (and additional complexity)
at higher premium levels further supports a scaled surcharge.
Today, market participants are offered different ways to gain
exposure to the Nasdaq-100 Index, whether through the Exchange's
proprietary products like options overlying NDX or separately through
multi-listed options overlying Invesco QQQ Trust (``QQQ''). Offering
NDX Options provides market participants with a variety of choices in
selecting the product they desire to utilize in order to gain exposure
to the Nasdaq-100 Index. Both NDX index options and QQQ options derive
their value from the same underlying
[[Page 35738]]
economic exposure: the Nasdaq-100 index constituents. A participant
seeking to hedge or speculate on the performance of the Nasdaq-100 can
achieve comparable economic outcomes through either product. While the
two products differ in settlement mechanics (NDX settles in cash; QQQ
settles in shares of the ETF) and multiplier conventions, they serve as
functional substitutes for the same core market exposure. In terms of
price comparisons, Non-Priority Customers are assessed a $0.45 or $0.46
per contract Penny Symbol Taker Fees \18\ to execute (remove liquidity)
in an option on QQQ. To measure the notional equivalent of an option on
QQQ as compared to NDX options, the fees should be multiplied by the
ratio of the settlement price of NDX divided by QQQ. For example, on
May 8, 2026, the ratio of settlement prices was 41.10 (29235.00 (NDXP
settlement price)/711.23 (QQQ settlement price)). To create an
equivalence in fees, a Taker Fee of $0.45 per contract for QQQ would
equal $18.50 for NDX. The proposed NDX fees are significantly lower
than QQQ options by comparison. A single NDX options contract carries a
notional value approximately 41 times greater than a single QQQ options
contract. A market participant would need to execute roughly 41 QQQ
options to replicate the economic exposure of a single NDX contract.
The Exchange therefore believes that a higher per-contract surcharge on
NDX is reasonable on a cost-per-unit-of-notional-value basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Options 7, Section 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, competing in a regulated capital markets environment
imposes several incremental costs on a less mature product. NDX compete
against other broad-based indexes such as the S&P 500 Index (``SPX''),
which is a mature index in comparison to NDX. As a result, NDX incur
significant marketing expenditures aimed at funding educational content
for NDX indexes to build awareness.
The Exchange's proposal to replace the current flat surcharge of
$1.50 per contract for regular Non-Priority Customer orders that remove
liquidity with a tiered structure scaled to the premium value of each
contract is not unfairly discriminatory because the surcharge applies
uniformly to all electronic simple Non-Priority Customer orders that
remove liquidity in NDX. Every Non-Priority Customer (Professionals,
Broker-Dealers, Firms, and Market Makers) will be subject to the same
tier table, and the applicable tier for any given execution will be
determined solely by the objective premium value of the contract
executed. While the proposed surcharge does not apply to Customer
orders, the Exchange notes that Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
market makers. An increase in the activity of market makers--
particularly in response to pricing--facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Such developments would benefit all market
participants.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Inter-Market Competition
The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market
competition. NDX are proprietary options contracts while options on QQQ
are multi-listed. Other options exchanges may price options on QQQ in a
manner so as to compete directly with options on NDX. Further, options
exchanges may offer competing broad-based indexes such as Cboe
Exchange, Inc.'s SPX Options to compete with NDX. The manner in which
options exchanges elect to price substitute or competing products may
cause order flow to be diverted to another exchange.
Intra-Market Competition
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal to replace the current
flat surcharge of $1.50 per contract for regular Non-Priority Customer
orders that remove liquidity with a tiered structure scaled to the
premium value of each contract does not impose an undue burden on
competition because the surcharge applies uniformly to all electronic
simple Non-Priority Customer orders that remove liquidity in NDX. Every
Non-Priority Customer (Professionals, Broker-Dealers, Firms, and Market
Makers) will be subject to the same tier table, and the applicable tier
for any given execution will be determined solely by the objective
premium value of the contract executed. While the proposed surcharge
does not apply to Priority Customer orders, the Exchange notes that
Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An
increase in the activity of market makers--particularly in response to
pricing--facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Such developments would benefit all market participants.
Further, today, market participants have the opportunity to
transact in NDX options, or separately execute options overlying QQQ.
The NDX products provide market participants with an additional means
to gain exposure to the Nasdaq-100 Index. NDX products compete with
options on QQQ directly, and SPX products indirectly and that
competition is driven in part through the pricing of these products.
Finally, the proposed pricing differentiates among transactions--not
among market participants--and does so on the basis of an objective,
market-determined variable (premium price) that directly correlates
with the costs imposed on the Exchange. For these reasons noted above,
the Exchange believes that the proposed pricing is pro-competitive.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were either solicited or received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\19\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public
interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
[[Page 35739]]
Electronic Comments
<bullet> Use the Commission's internet comment form (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>); or
<bullet> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed9f988188c08e8280808883999ead9e888ec38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e795928b82ca84888a8a82899394a7948284c9808891">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
file number SR-GEMX-2026-22 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
<bullet> Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-GEMX-2026-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>). Copies of the filing will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to file number SR-GEMX-2026-22 and should be submitted on
or before July 6, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-11806 Filed 6-11-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 12, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.