[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40647-40651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-13423]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 33-11426; 34-105808; IC-36228; File No. S7-2026-24]
RIN 3235-AN81
Request for Comment on Novel ETFs
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.
ACTION: Request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'' or
the ``SEC'') requests public comment on exchange-traded funds
(``ETFs'') seeking to invest in innovative asset classes or engage in
novel investment strategies. We seek comment on ways to facilitate
innovation in the ETF space while protecting investors, maintaining
fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital
formation.
DATES: This request for comment was published in the Federal Register
on July 2, 2026. Comments must be received on or before [60 days after
publication in the Federal Register].
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number S7-2026-24 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number S7-2026-24. 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 of submission. The Commission will post all
comments on the SEC's website (https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/public-comments/s7-2026-24). Do not include personally identifiable
information in submissions; you should submit only information that you
wish to make available publicly. The Commission may redact in part or
withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene
or subject to copyright protection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Evenson, Senior Counsel; Marc
Mehrespand, Branch Chief; Kay M. Vobis and Michael Kosoff, Senior
Special Counsels; Kaitlin C. Bottock and Andrea Ottomanelli Magovern,
Assistant Directors, at (202) 551-6720, Division of Investment
Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is seeking public comment
from funds, their advisers, investors, and other market participants on
ETFs seeking to invest in innovative asset classes or engage in
innovative investment strategies and to help assess whether further
action would better protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and
efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.
I. Introduction
ETFs are a type of exchange-traded product (``ETP'') that possess
characteristics of both open-end funds (e.g., mutual funds), which
issue redeemable securities, and closed-end funds, which may issue
shares that trade at market-determined prices on a national securities
exchange and are not redeemable.\1\ Because ETFs were not contemplated
by the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Investment Company Act''),
they required, and the Commission granted, exemptions from certain
provisions of the Investment Company Act in order for them to
operate.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See generally Exchange-Traded Funds, Investment Company Act
Release No. 33646 (Sept. 25, 2019) [84 FR 57162 (Oct. 24, 2019)]
(``6c-11 Adopting Release''). As used in this Request for Comment,
the term ``ETF'' refers to exchange-traded funds organized as open-
end investment companies registered under the Investment Company
Act. Other types of ETPs include exchanged-traded commodity trusts
and exchange-traded notes that register their offerings only under
the Securities Act (as defined below). For a description of
different types of ETPs, see, e.g., Request for Comment on Exchange-
Traded Products, Exchange Act Release No. 75165 (June 12, 2015) [80
FR 34729 (June 17, 2015)], available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2018/33-10515.pdf, at 6-8.
\2\ The Commission issued the first exemptive order allowing the
operation of an ETF in 1992. These exemptive orders were subject to
several conditions designed to address the concerns underlying the
relevant provisions of the Investment Company Act. See, e.g., SPDR
Trust, Series 1, Investment Company Act Release Nos. 18959 (Sept.
17, 1992) [57 FR 43996 (Sept. 23, 1992)] (notice) and 19055 (Oct.
26, 1992) (order) and related application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2019, the Commission adopted rule 6c-11 under the Investment
Company Act to permit ETFs that satisfy certain conditions to operate
without the expense and delay of obtaining an exemptive order. The rule
includes conditions designed to support an efficient arbitrage
mechanism to maintain a close tie between the market price of an ETF
share and its net asset value (``NAV'') per share. The rule sets forth
a consistent, transparent, and efficient regulatory framework for ETFs,
which has led to greater competition and innovation among ETFs as well
as increased investor choice. Since the adoption of rule 6c-11, the ETF
market has grown significantly. Between the end of 2019 and end of
2025, total net assets under management have grown from over $4
trillion to over $12 trillion and the number of ETFs from almost 1,900
to over 4,600.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Registered Fund Statistics, Staff of the Division of
Investment Management Analytics Office, Securities and Exchange
Commission, available at https://www.sec.gov/data-research/investment-management-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40648]]
Exchange listing is one of the fundamental characteristics that
distinguishes ETFs from other types of open-end funds. Before an ETF
can trade on a national securities exchange, an exchange must make a
determination to list the ETF for trading on its market, and it must
have initial and continued listing standards that permit listing of
that type or ``class'' of ETF. These listing standards are rules of the
listing exchange and are therefore subject to filing with the
Commission and public notice and comment under Section 19 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Exchanges have received approval of
``generic'' listing standards for ETFs that rely on rule 6c-11, which
permit an exchange to list and trade these ETFs without the need to
file a product-specific proposed rule change with the Commission for
each ETF.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(8); Nasdaq Rule 5704;
Cboe BZX Rule 14.11(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETFs issue publicly offered securities and thus file a registration
statement with the Commission to register the offering of their
securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (the ``Securities Act'').
As is the case with mutual funds, new ETFs typically are offered as a
new series of an existing investment company that, along with its
shares, are registered by preparing and filing a post-effective
amendment to a previously effective registration statement under rule
485(a) of the Securities Act.\5\ Registering new ETFs via post-
effective amendment allows these ETFs to avoid the costs associated
with a new registration statement, which is filed on Form N-1A.
Additionally, rule 485(a) permits post-effective amendments making
material changes to registration statements to become effective
automatically after a prescribed period of time, thus allowing such
ETFs to launch efficiently and respond to market opportunities without
Commission or staff action. Non-material changes and other enumerated
routine changes are permitted to be filed under rule 485(b) and such
post-effective amendments may become automatically effective
immediately upon filing. ETFs may also reflect certain changes by
filing a ``sticker'' pursuant to rule 497 under the Securities Act.
Rule 497 filings enable a fund and its adviser to respond to market
conditions without the significant delay inherent in a rule 485(a)
filing.\6\ However, a post-effective amendment filed under rule 485(a)
is required ``to reflect any facts or events arising after the
effective date of the registration statement (or the most recent post-
effective amendment thereto) which, individually or in the aggregate,
represent a fundamental change in the information set forth in the
registration statement.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 17 CFR 230.485(a). An investment company's
(``registrant's'') initial registration statement under the
Securities Act is filed with the Commission and, unless a delaying
amendment is included, becomes effective automatically after 20
days. Most registrants, however, include a delaying amendment and
then request that the Commission accelerate the effective date. See
Section 8(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77h(a)] and rule 473
[17 CFR 230.473] thereunder.
\6\ See 17 CFR 230.497. When making material changes by rule 497
filing, ETFs must follow the rule 497 filing with a rule 485(a)
filing before becoming eligible to file under rule 485(b).
\7\ Adoption of Integrated Disclosure System, Securities Act
Release No. 6383 (Mar. 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380 at 11395 (Mar. 16,
1982)]. This release clarifies the meaning of ``fundamental'' by
explaining that post-effective amendments are required when major
and substantial changes are made to information in the registration
statement, and that even numerous smaller changes can, in the
aggregate, become fundamental. Further, the release states the
Commission's view that ``the filing of a post-effective amendment is
appropriate in certain instances in order to ensure full statutory
liability for the information disclosed and to afford the
Commission's staff an opportunity to review the disclosure in
appropriate cases.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past several years, sponsors of ETFs have expressed
interest in providing exposure to innovative asset classes or using
novel investment strategies (``Novel ETFs''). To date, these include:
crypto assets; commodity-focused instruments; single-stock strategies;
heightened leverage; blockchain-enabled opportunities; private assets;
event contracts; and/or a combination of any of the above.
Market participants, including sponsors, registrants, exchanges,
and intermediaries, among others, have raised questions regarding
certain issues associated with Novel ETFs. For example, questions have
arisen about whether a Novel ETF qualifies as an ``investment company''
or will operate consistent with rule 6c-11 and its conditions.
Moreover, questions have arisen about whether the Commission's Division
of Investment Management (``IM'') staff has sufficient time to
effectively review and address legal issues that may arise with these
Novel ETFs due to the fact that many Novel ETF filings seek automatic
effectiveness within prescribed time periods.
II. Investment Company Status
Market participants have raised questions regarding whether Novel
ETFs with a principal investment strategy to invest in assets that are
not securities under the Investment Company Act are investment
companies as defined under the Investment Company Act. This, in turn,
raises questions regarding whether such a Novel ETF may register as an
investment company and whether the Novel ETF should be regulated as
such under the Investment Company Act.
As relevant here, Section 3 of the Investment Company Act defines
the term ``investment company'' as an issuer that:
Is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily, or
proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing,
reinvesting, or trading in securities (the ``Subjective Test''),\8\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C.
80a-3(a)(1)(A)]. See also Section 2(a)(36) of the Investment Company
Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(36)] (which defines ``securities'' for the
purposes of the Investment Company Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of
investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities, and
owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value
exceeding 40 percent or more of such issuer's total assets (exclusive
of Government securities \9\ and cash items), on an unconsolidated
basis (the ``Objective Test'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Section 2(a)(16) of the Investment Company Act [15
U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(16)] (which defines ``Government security'' for the
purposes of the Investment Company Act).
\10\ Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C.
80a-3(a)(1)(C)]. See also Section 3(a)(2) of the Investment Company
Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-3(a)(2)] (which defines ``investment securities''
for the purposes of the Objective Test, as relevant here, to include
all securities except (a) Government securities and (b) securities
issued by majority-owned subsidiaries of the issuer which are (i)
not investment companies, and (ii) not relying on the exclusion from
the definition of investment company in Section 3(c)(1) or (7)
(i.e., private funds)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of the Subjective Test, the Commission developed a
five-factor test.\11\ The five factors are the issuer's:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See In the Matter of Tonopah Mining Co., 26 SEC. 426 (July
21, 1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical development;
Public representations of policy;
Activities of its officers and directors; \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Commission has also considered the activities of an
issuer's employees, in addition to its officers and directors, in
determining its primary business. See, e.g., rule 3a-8 under the
Investment Company Act [17 CFR 270.3a-8].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature of its present assets; and
Sources of its present income (collectively, the ``Tonopah
Factors'').
The Commission is interested in feedback on the following
questions:
1. Would a Novel ETF meet the Subjective Test by ``hold[ing] itself
out'' as an ``investment company,'' and/or as ``engaged primarily, or
propos[ing] to engage primarily, in the business of investing,
reinvesting, or trading in securities,'' notwithstanding that its
principal investment strategy is to
[[Page 40649]]
invest in assets that may not be securities? Is there a need for
greater clarity about this aspect of the Subjective Test? Why or why
not?
2. Why would a Novel ETF with a principal investment strategy to
invest in assets that are not securities seek to register as an
investment company and be regulated as such (rather than as, for
example, an exchanged-traded commodity trust or some other type of
ETP)?
3. When evaluating whether a Novel ETF meets the Subjective Test,
should the Commission continue to apply the Tonopah Factors? Are there
different or additional factors the Commission should consider or
emphasize in its analysis of a Novel ETF? Why or why not?
4. Would a Novel ETF that holds on an unconsolidated basis
``securities'' (i.e., shares or other equity interests) issued by one
or more wholly-owned subsidiaries that are not themselves primarily
invested in securities meet the Subjective Test, notwithstanding that
its principal investment strategy is to invest in assets that are not
securities? Why or why not? Under what circumstances, if any, should
the Commission consider investments in securities issued by wholly-
owned subsidiaries (or by other subsidiaries generally consolidated
with the issuer) to comprise part of a securities investment business
under the Subjective Test? Should the analysis differ for holding
companies that are engaged in various operating businesses through
wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries? Why or why not?
III. Novel ETFS and Rule 6C-11
While rule 6c-11 defines the fundamental structural characteristics
of ETFs to support effective arbitrage, it does not restrict which
investment strategies or asset classes an ETF may pursue.\13\ ETFs that
meet rule 6c-11's conditions are eligible for exchange listing under
generic listing standards and thus can generally be sold directly to
investors soon after their registration statement goes effective.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ But see rule 6c-11(c)(4) [17 CFR 270.6c-11(c)(4)] (an ETF
``that seeks, directly or indirectly, to provide investment returns
that correspond to the performance of a market index by a specified
multiple, or to provide investment returns that have an inverse
relationship to the performance of a market index, over a
predetermined period of time, must comply with all applicable
provisions of [rule 18f-4 under the Investment Company Act]'').
\14\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is interested in feedback on the following
questions:
A. Portfolio-Related Conditions
5. Do the assets and strategies of Novel ETFs present any questions
regarding: (a) the functioning of the ETF arbitrage mechanism and
related secondary trading activity that supports it; (b) investor
protection; (c) the maintenance of fair, orderly, and efficient
markets, as well as any unique challenges to market surveillance
necessary to support the ETF's listing; or (d) other structural or
operational issues? Why or why not?
6. Should rule 6c-11 be amended to address these or other questions
with respect to Novel ETFs? For instance, should the Commission
consider amendments addressing new portfolio requirements, such as
minimum holdings in securities, restrictions from using certain
strategies or investing in certain asset classes, or criteria such as
specific diversification requirements, concentration limits, or issuer-
specific limits? Why or why not? Or should the rule be amended to
exclude certain assets or investment strategies? \15\ Why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See rule 6c-11(a) [17 CFR 270.6c-11(a)] (defining
``exchange-traded fund'' as ``a registered open-end management
company: (A) That issues (and redeems) creation units to (and from)
authorized participants in exchange for a basket and a cash
balancing amount if any; and (B) Whose shares are listed on a
national securities exchange and traded at market-determined
prices'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Other Questions
7. Should the Commission consider any steps to help investors
better understand the features of Novel ETFs? Are there steps the
Commission could consider to help investors understand what
distinguishes Novel ETFs from other ETFs? \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For example, industry observers have noted recommendations
to aid investors in understanding the differences among Novel ETFs
and other ETFs. See Investor Advisory Committee, Securities and
Exchange Commission, Recommendation of the Advisory Committee on
Single Stock ETFs and Leveraged ETFs,'' (June 22, 2023), available
at https://www.sec.gov/files/spotlight/iac/20230622-recommendation-single-stock-etfs-and-leveraged-etfs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Some ETPs that are not investment companies (e.g., exchange-
traded commodity trusts) may use the term ``ETF'' (or ``fund'') in
their name or label themselves as ETFs. How do investors interpret
this, and are there any implications for investor clarity?
9. Amendments to rule 6c-11 (such as new portfolio conditions)
could affect how the generic listing standards apply to a Novel ETF.
Should this interplay between rule 6c-11 and the generic listing
standards inform any analysis of potential changes to the rule? Are
there other ways in which rule 6c-11 could be amended or other
Commission action taken to better facilitate innovation while
protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets,
and facilitating capital formation?
IV. Registration and Rule 485
As discussed above, rule 485 under the Securities Act sets forth
the effective dates for post-effective amendments to registration
statements filed by certain investment companies, including ETFs.
Generally, Novel ETFs that are registering their shares use rule
485(a), which allows certain existing investment companies to add new
funds as series of the company or make material changes to existing
series of an investment company, by filing a post-effective amendment
to their existing registration statement. Under the rule, these filings
become automatically effective in as early as 75 and 60 days,
respectively, of the filing. IM staff uses this time to review filings
and to provide feedback to registrants.
The Commission is interested in feedback on the following
questions:
A. Timing of Effectiveness
10. Certain post-effective amendments filed under rule 485,
including those for certain Novel ETFs, may raise issues that may be
challenging to address within the rule's currently prescribed
timeframes. Should the 75-day and 60-day automatic effectiveness
periods be extended for Novel ETFs? If yes, for how long? If not, why
not?
11. Should effectiveness be automatically tolled for a Novel ETF if
a registrant fails to respond to staff comments within a specified
period (e.g., five business days) before effectiveness? Why or why not?
12. While registrants may voluntarily delay effectiveness under
rule 485, should the rule be amended to enable the Commission to delay
effectiveness of a Novel ETF on its own initiative? \17\ If yes, how
should the amended rule be structured, under what circumstances should
the Commission be able to delay effectiveness, and what if any limits
or notice requirements should apply?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See infra note 22 discussing potential actions that the
Commission may take to delay or suspend effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Some market participants have raised questions about Novel ETFs
seeking to become effective before an asset class or instrument is
available for investment. Is additional clarity needed regarding rule
485(a) with respect to a Novel ETF becoming effective before its
investment strategy can be implemented? Why or why not?
14. If the automatic effectiveness periods were extended, would
[[Page 40650]]
registrants experience unnecessary delays in responding to market
demand?
B. Early Engagement & Innovation
15. Should the Commission consider mechanisms for early engagement
for Novel ETFs (e.g., a pre-filing consultation process or confidential
draft registration statements) that would allow the staff and sponsors
of Novel ETFs to work together on potential issues before the sponsor
makes a public filing? \18\ If so, should we publicly report on these
consultations to provide for a measure of accountability in the
process? For example, should we report how many such consultations
occur, how long they take, and how many result in public filings?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The staff of the Division of Corporation Finance has made
accommodations available for non-public review for non-investment
company issuers since 2017. See Enhanced Accommodations for Issuers
Submitting Draft Registration Statements (Mar. 3, 2025), SEC
Division of Corporation Finance, available at https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-corporation-finance/draft-registration-statement-processing-procedures-expanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Are there other ways rule 485(a) could be modified to better
support innovation, while protecting investors, maintaining fair,
orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation?
C. Competitive Pressures and First-Mover Incentives
17. Do market participants have concerns about competitive
pressures that may incentivize sponsors to submit filings for Novel
ETFs quickly and in rapid succession? If so, could such competitive
pressures result in rushed or incomplete filings or the filing of many
ETFs that never launch? Could such competitive pressures cause sponsors
to attempt to repurpose unused series to take advantage of shorter
waiting periods resulting in an unfair treatment of funds? Should we
amend rule 485 to specifically address these concerns? Why or why not?
For example, should the Commission amend its rules to require upfront
payment of a minimum registration fee that may be subsequently offset
by redemptions under rule 24f-2?
18. Should the Commission allow rule 485(a)(2) filings to remain
nonpublic for part of the 75-day period to promote innovation and
reduce imitative filings? \19\ Why or why not? If yes, for how long?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ IM Staff has observed several Novel ETF filings submitted
in rapid succession that are largely identical. Market participants
have suggested that the use of artificial intelligence may be
significantly accelerating the speed at which a filing can be
mimicked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. To encourage filing only fully developed new series, should
rule 485(a) require a fund's board or authorized signatories
specifically to identify each new series included in the filing? \20\
Why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Rule 483(b) under the Securities Act [17 CFR 230.483(b)]
includes a similar provision requiring that power of attorney must
relate to a specific registration statement filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Certain ETFs may be able to allocate assets to markets or
strategies before newly registering funds pursue similar exposures, due
to the discretion they have sought to retain over their investment
practices. How should the Commission balance permitting investment
flexibility with the need to preserve a fair and orderly registration
process and to ensure investors are protected?
21. Should the Commission take action with respect to funds that
become effective but never launch? For example, should the Commission
amend its rules to provide that such funds would be automatically
deregistered after a defined period (e.g., 6 months)? Why or why not?
D. Unresolved Staff Comments
22. Should the Commission develop additional mechanisms to address
unresolved staff comments? For instance, should funds be required to
disclose material unresolved staff comments, similar to the approach
used for certain closed-end funds and Form 10-K and Form 20-F filers?
\21\ Would such disclosure be useful to investors and other market
participants? Why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, e.g., Instruction 4.h.(4) to Item 24 of Form N-2; Item
1B of Form 10-K. The Commission recently proposed to require non-
accelerated filers to make this disclosure, as large accelerated and
accelerated filers do currently. See Enhancement of Emerging Growth
Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for
Reporting Companies, Securities Act Release No. 11419 (May 19, 2026)
[91 FR 30086 (May 21, 2026)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Material Changes During Review or Pre-Launch
23. Is there a need for greater clarity about how our rules apply
when a material investment strategy change is made for a Novel ETF
during the review process or before launch? Should rule 485 be amended
to explicitly require a new 75-day or 60-day rule 485(a) filing for
changes that are not made in response to staff comments?
24. Some registrants seek to make material changes to a Novel ETF's
investment strategy after the effectiveness of the registration
statement but before, at, or shortly after launch. For example,
questions have arisen about material pre-launch changes made to a Novel
ETF through a rule 497 filing rather than by a rule 485(a) amendment.
Is additional clarity needed about rules 485 or 497 in light of these
questions? Alternatively, should rule 485 be amended to automatically
suspend or delay the effectiveness of a registration statement for a
Novel ETF when a material pre- or at launch change occurs?
F. Suspensions
25. Rule 485 allows the Commission to suspend a registrant's
ability to file under rule 485(b) if it appears the registrant has not
complied with the applicable conditions of the rule or to suspend the
effective date of a rule 485(a) filing that is materially incomplete or
inaccurate.\22\ Should the Commission consider changes to this rule?
For example, should the circumstances under which the Commission may
suspend a post-effective amendment be expanded? Should the Commission
have the authority to suspend the effectiveness of a specific post-
effective amendment, or of a particular series within that amendment,
after it has become effective? Should the Commission condition the use
of rule 6c-11 on compliance with filing requirements, or reserve the
ability to suspend the use of rule 482 advertisements? \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See rule 485(c)(1) and (2) [17 CFR 230.485(c)(1) and (2)].
The Commission retains other options, such as a stop order under
Section 8(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77h(d)].
\23\ Rule 482 under the Securities Act [17 CFR 230.482] permits
investment company advertisements or sales materials that are used
to offer or promote securities so long as they comply with certain
content and disclosure standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Changes to ETF Disclosure
26. Should the Commission consider changes to the ETF disclosure
regime because of questions that Novel ETFs may raise? Should the
Commission consider heightened disclosure requirements for certain
Novel ETFs?
27. Are there additional reforms the Commission should consider to
help facilitate innovation, while protecting investors, maintaining
fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital
formation?
V. Regulatory Planning and Review
This request for comment is a significant regulatory action under
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget, consistent with Executive Order 14215.
VI. General Request for Comment
This request for comment is not intended to limit the scope of
[[Page 40651]]
comments, views, issues, or approaches to be considered. In addition to
comments from investors and funds, we welcome comments from other
market participants and particularly welcome statistical, empirical,
and other data and real-world examples from commenters that may support
their views or support or refute the views or issues raised by other
commenters.
By the Commission.
Dated: June 30, 2026.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-13423 Filed 7-1-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P