EMIR 3 Clearing Thresholds: The New Uncleared and Aggregate Test

The number that decides whether a firm falls inside the EU clearing obligation is about to be measured differently. Under EMIR 3, Regulation (EU) 2024/2987, the EMIR 3 clearing thresholds stop asking how much a counterparty trades over the counter and start asking how much it leaves uncleared. On 25 February 2026 ESMA published its Final Report and the draft regulatory technical standards that put numbers on that idea, and in July 2026 the European Commission adopted them as a delegated regulation amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 149/2013.

For a reporting or collateral team, this is the moment to check the assumptions baked into the annual clearing threshold calculation. Compared with the thresholds currently in force, the adopted but not yet in-force uncleared thresholds are lower for credit, equity and interest rate derivatives and unchanged for foreign exchange and commodity derivatives; financial counterparties will also apply a separate aggregate backstop test. A firm that sat comfortably below the old thresholds can cross into the clearing obligation, or into mandatory variation margin, on the strength of a recalibration alone.

The regime is not yet in force. Until the amending regulation is published in the Official Journal, the current thresholds in Delegated Regulation (EU) No 149/2013 keep applying. What follows is what the new EMIR 3 clearing thresholds actually change, the exact values, and the calendar that governs when the change bites.

Related reading: EMIR 3 Clearing Obligation: New Thresholds and the Active Account Requirement

The clearing threshold calendar under EMIR 3

The topic is deadline-driven, so start with the dates that matter for planning. Each one is anchored in a primary source listed at the end.

• 4 December 2024: EMIR 3 (Regulation (EU) 2024/2987) was published in the Official Journal and generally applied from 24 December 2024. However, the amendments to Articles 4a(1) to (3) and 10(1) to (3) governing the new clearing-threshold calculations apply only from the date on which the clearing-threshold RTS enters into force.
• 8 April 2025 to 16 June 2025: ESMA consulted on the draft technical standards for the new clearing thresholds regime (Consultation Paper ESMA74-1049116225-632).
• 25 February 2026: ESMA published its Final Report (ESMA74-1049116226-944) and submitted the draft RTS to the European Commission.
• July 2026: the Commission adopted the amending delegated regulation (Commission document C(2026) 4861) and transmitted it to the European Parliament and the Council for scrutiny.
• Entry into force: the twentieth day after the amending regulation is published in the Official Journal, provided neither the Parliament nor the Council objects during the scrutiny period.
• First calculation on the new basis: for counterparties that assess their positions in June, the first calculation under the new thresholds is likely to fall in June 2027, depending on the Official Journal publication date. ESMA has said counterparties may keep to their usual annual timing.

The recalibration is done at the EU level, so there is no national transposition step and no separate CSSF, BaFin or AMF threshold to reconcile. The delegated regulation is directly applicable in every Member State on the same day.

From OTC versus exchange traded to cleared versus uncleared

Under the pre-EMIR 3 framework, a counterparty compared its aggregate month-end average position in OTC derivatives, taken over 12 months, against a threshold set for each asset class in Delegated Regulation (EU) No 149/2013. Exchange traded derivatives were left out of that sum. Only over-the-counter contracts counted.

EMIR 3 changes the axis of the test toward uncleared OTC positions. For this purpose, an OTC derivative is removed from the uncleared-position calculation only where it is cleared through a CCP authorised under Article 14 of EMIR or recognised under Article 25. Clearing through another CCP does not remove the contract from the uncleared-position calculation. The aggregate calculation for financial counterparties separately includes all OTC derivative contracts.

Three provisions carry this in the regulation. EMIR 3 gives ESMA a twofold mandate under Articles 4a(4) and 10(4)(b) to set the values of the thresholds for aggregate positions and for uncleared positions respectively, and Article 10(4)(c) covers the mechanism for reviewing those values. The amending RTS delivers all three: it replaces Article 11 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 149/2013 with the aggregate thresholds, inserts a new Article 11a for the uncleared thresholds, and inserts Article 11b for the review trigger. If your internal documentation cites the old Article 11 as the single home of the clearing thresholds, that reference needs to split into three.

None of this touches the reporting obligation itself. A counterparty still reports its derivatives to a trade repository under the EMIR reporting rules whether or not it is above a threshold. For the mechanics of that separate obligation, see our EMIR reporting guide. The thresholds decide clearing and risk-mitigation status; whether a trade is reported is a separate question.

The five thresholds, before and after

The regime keeps five asset classes and does not add more granular buckets. ESMA considered sub-thresholds for commodities based on sector, ESG factors or crypto features and decided against them, and it declined to carve out a separate category for crypto-based derivatives. What changed is the values and, more importantly, which counterparties compare against which set.

The current thresholds in Delegated Regulation (EU) No 149/2013, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2310 and still applicable pending entry into force of the new RTS, are EUR 1 billion for credit derivatives, EUR 1 billion for equity derivatives, EUR 3 billion for interest rate derivatives, EUR 3 billion for foreign exchange derivatives, and EUR 4 billion for commodity and other derivatives.

The new uncleared clearing thresholds, in the inserted Article 11a and applying to both financial and non-financial counterparties, are:

• EUR 0.8 billion in gross notional value for uncleared OTC credit derivatives (down from EUR 1 billion).
• EUR 0.7 billion for uncleared OTC equity derivatives (down from EUR 1 billion).
• EUR 2.2 billion for uncleared OTC interest rate derivatives (down from EUR 3 billion).
• EUR 3 billion for uncleared OTC foreign exchange derivatives (unchanged).
• EUR 4 billion for uncleared OTC commodity and emission allowance derivatives (unchanged in value from the current EUR 4 billion commodity-and-other threshold, but with a revised asset-class label).

The new aggregate clearing thresholds, in the replaced Article 11 and applying only to financial counterparties, are EUR 1 billion for credit derivatives and EUR 3 billion for interest rate derivatives. Those two figures match the old thresholds, which is deliberate: the aggregate test is a backstop, not a tightening.

A common misreading is that every threshold fell. Foreign exchange remains at EUR 3 billion, while the commodity and emission allowance threshold remains EUR 4 billion compared with the current commodity-and-other threshold. ESMA selected EUR 4 billion rather than the EUR 3 billion proposed in its consultation, taking account of price changes and inflation. The interest rate uncleared threshold was set at EUR 2.2 billion, above credit’s EUR 0.8 billion, partly to account for the overlap with financial counterparties that also face the aggregate interest rate test.

One more change hides in that fifth bucket. It no longer reads commodity and other derivatives. It now covers commodity derivative and emission allowance derivative contracts, aligning the label with the EMIR reporting taxonomy. A contract that was swept into the fifth bucket as an unclassified other derivative under the old wording needs to be checked against the asset-class definitions again.

Two tests for financial counterparties, one for NFCs

The single most consequential operational point is that the two counterparty types now calculate differently.

A financial counterparty applies two calculations at group level. Its uncleared position includes all OTC derivatives entered into by the financial counterparty or other group entities that are not cleared through an authorised or recognised CCP, while its aggregate position includes all OTC derivatives entered into by the financial counterparty or other group entities. For UCITS and AIFs, both calculations are instead performed at fund level. A non-financial counterparty applies only the uncleared calculation at entity level, excluding contracts objectively measurable as reducing the commercial or treasury-financing risks of that NFC or its group. Aggregate thresholds do not apply to NFCs.

The consequence of a breach also differs by counterparty type, and EMIR itself sets it. A financial counterparty that exceeds either the uncleared or the aggregate threshold in any asset class must immediately notify ESMA and its competent authority and establish clearing arrangements within four months. The clearing obligation then applies, across all classes subject to clearing, to contracts entered into or novated more than four months after the notification. A non-financial counterparty follows the same notification and four-month implementation sequence, but the clearing obligation applies only to contracts in the breached asset class that are entered into or novated more than four months after notification.

When a counterparty’s status flips, the first thing I look at is which threshold it breached, because an uncleared breach and an aggregate breach send it down different remediation paths. An uncleared breach points at bilateral book size and can sometimes be addressed by clearing more of it. An aggregate breach tells a financial counterparty that its total cleared plus uncleared interest rate or credit book has crossed the line, and no amount of additional clearing changes that number.

There is a further NFC nuance. Equity, foreign exchange and commodity derivatives are not currently subject to the clearing obligation, so exceeding a threshold in one of those classes can trigger the enhanced risk-mitigation regime without creating a clearing obligation for that class. Bilateral margin applies only where the relevant counterparty, product and other conditions in EMIR and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 are met; for an overview of those conditions, see our EMIR margin requirements guide. A treasury team should therefore assess the applicable margin conditions rather than treat the EUR 0.7 billion equity threshold as either a clearing trigger or an unconditional variation-margin requirement.

What the aggregate threshold is really guarding against

The aggregate threshold looks redundant at first glance. If a firm is already clearing most of its book, why measure the cleared part at all? ESMA’s answer is that the uncleared test on its own leaves a gap. A financial counterparty could hold a very large cleared portfolio, keep its uncleared positions under the uncleared thresholds, and stay outside the clearing obligation despite being systemically significant. The aggregate test closes that gap by adding the cleared OTC positions back in for financial counterparties.

Two design choices keep it proportionate. First, the aggregate thresholds apply only to the asset classes that are actually subject to the clearing obligation, which today means interest rate and credit derivatives. That is why there is no aggregate threshold for equity, foreign exchange or commodity derivatives; ESMA removed those. Second, the aggregate values were held at the old EUR 1 billion and EUR 3 billion levels instead of being lowered, so the backstop catches large cleared portfolios without recalibrating the whole population.

It helps to be precise about what the aggregate calculation adds back. It adds cleared OTC derivatives back in, while exchange traded derivatives stay outside. The move away from the OTC-versus-ETD distinction does not mean listed futures now count toward a threshold. Exchange traded derivatives remain outside the calculation. The aggregate test is about cleared versus uncleared OTC exposure for financial counterparties, and nothing in the RTS pulls ETDs into scope.

Commodity and energy firms: the threshold that held

Energy and commodity groups were the most active respondents to the consultation, and the outcome reflects it. Recital 21 of EMIR 3 invited ESMA to consider more granular thresholds for commodity derivatives. ESMA looked at splitting the bucket by sector and type, by ESG factors, and by crypto features, and kept it as a single class. Its reasoning was that the new calculation methodology is already a change for market participants, and adding sub-asset-class complexity would cut against the simplification objective.

The uncleared commodity and emission allowance threshold is EUR 4 billion. That is higher than ESMA’s EUR 3 billion consultation proposal but unchanged from the EUR 4 billion commodity-and-other threshold currently in force. For a firm running long-dated hedges, that headroom matters because a threshold set too low can force it into NFC+ status mid-contract on the back of a price spike rather than a genuine change in exposure. Several respondents made exactly that point, arguing that a review of the thresholds should only ever raise them as markets grow, to avoid cliff-edge effects on arrangements such as virtual power purchase agreements. For firms whose commodity exposure also touches gas and power markets under overlapping regimes, the interaction with EMIR and REMIT reporting for gas derivatives is worth mapping alongside the threshold calculation.

Crypto-based derivatives sit outside the fifth bucket for now. ESMA looked at the notional traded under the EMIR Refit crypto-asset flag, found liquidity developing but volume still small next to the five traditional classes, and decided a separate category would be premature. It will keep watching the segment instead of treating crypto derivatives as a commodity sub-class.

The hedging exemption stayed where it was

A point that generated a lot of consultation traffic, and that teams should not overread, is the hedging exemption. Article 10(4)(a) of EMIR asks ESMA to specify the criteria for when an OTC derivative is objectively measurable as reducing risks directly relating to a non-financial counterparty’s commercial or treasury financing activity. ESMA proposed no change to the existing criteria in Article 10 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 149/2013, and the Final Report kept that position.

The pressure came from virtual power purchase agreements. Many respondents wanted vPPAs and similar structured hedging arrangements explicitly recognised as risk-reducing for both parties. ESMA’s view is that broadening what counts as hedging would go beyond its mandate, because a full exemption is a question of scope, and scope is set in the EMIR Level 1 text that sits above the RTS. So the hedging carve-out for NFCs is unchanged by this RTS. A firm expecting the new standards to sweep its vPPA book out of the threshold calculation is expecting something the RTS does not do.

The hedging exemption continues to cover contracts that reduce risks directly relating to the commercial or treasury-financing activity of the NFC or its group, even though the threshold calculation is performed at each NFC entity. However, Article 10(3) requires each NFC to include all of its uncleared OTC derivatives unless they qualify as risk-reducing. An intragroup clearing exemption under Article 4(2) does not by itself exclude a transaction from the clearing-threshold calculation.

When counterparties actually recalculate

The question every operations team asks is when the new numbers apply to them. ESMA built the answer around continuity with existing practice.

Since EMIR Refit, most counterparties calculate their positions once a year in June, using month-end positions from the previous June through May. ESMA chose to align the new calculation period with that existing rhythm instead of forcing a calculation on the day the amending regulation enters into force. So a counterparty that has always assessed in June can keep doing so; the new methodology applies from the calculation period that follows entry into force. If the regulation is published after a firm’s next June calculation, that firm can either recalculate immediately on the new basis or wait until the following June.

Assuming the calculation must run the instant the RTS enters into force is the wrong operational read. ESMA gives counterparties the flexibility to use their usual annual timing. There is also relief on notifications: a counterparty does not have to notify ESMA and its national competent authority again where the result of the calculation or its status does not change, and that stays true under the new methodology. Firms that want the new regime sooner can move early, because EMIR already lets a counterparty redo its calculation ahead of the standard 12-month cycle.

For financial counterparties, the practical build moves from one calculation run to two, sharing the same month-end data window. The uncleared run screens all five asset classes; the aggregate run covers only interest rate and credit and adds cleared OTC positions. Netting the two results into a single status flag, and storing which threshold drove any breach, is the piece most likely to need a system change.

How ESMA can move the thresholds again

The new Article 11b sets out how a review of the threshold values can be triggered between the scheduled reviews already built into EMIR. It lists the indicators ESMA will watch for a significant change: the prices of the underlyings across the five asset classes, the volatility of those prices, the proportion of OTC transactions that are cleared, the proportion of entities clearing their OTC derivatives, and the inflation rate together with global financial conditions and geopolitical and economic policy uncertainties. ESMA is to assess these at least once a year.

The trigger is deliberately flexible. Article 11b specifies the indicators ESMA must assess at least annually but does not prescribe numerical trigger levels or make a review automatic. EMIR also requires a periodic review at least every two years. ESMA expressly stated that restricting changes resulting from a review to threshold increases was outside its mandate, so the sources do not support an expectation that thresholds will necessarily drift upward or that reductions will be exceptional.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are the new EMIR 3 clearing thresholds in force yet?

No. The Commission adopted the amending delegated regulation in July 2026, but it is in the scrutiny period for the European Parliament and the Council. It enters into force on the twentieth day after publication in the Official Journal. Until then, the thresholds in Delegated Regulation (EU) No 149/2013 continue to apply.

Do non-financial counterparties have to calculate an aggregate position?

No. The aggregate thresholds in the replaced Article 11 apply only to financial counterparties. An NFC calculates only its uncleared OTC positions against the uncleared thresholds in the new Article 11a. Adding a cleared-plus-uncleared aggregate run for an NFC would be measuring against a threshold that does not exist for it.

Which uncleared thresholds went down and which stayed the same?

Compared with the thresholds currently in force, credit falls to EUR 0.8 billion from EUR 1 billion, equity to EUR 0.7 billion from EUR 1 billion, and interest rate to EUR 2.2 billion from EUR 3 billion. Foreign exchange remains at EUR 3 billion, and commodity and emission allowance derivatives remain at EUR 4 billion, although the fifth bucket no longer includes ‘other derivatives’.

What happens if a financial counterparty breaches only the aggregate threshold?

Exceeding either the uncleared or the aggregate threshold in any asset class requires a financial counterparty to notify ESMA and its competent authority immediately and establish clearing arrangements within four months. The clearing obligation then applies across all classes subject to clearing to contracts entered into or novated more than four months after notification. An aggregate-only breach means the firm’s combined cleared and uncleared interest rate or credit book has crossed EUR 3 billion or EUR 1 billion respectively, even where its uncleared book alone stayed under the uncleared thresholds.

Does the aggregate calculation include exchange traded derivatives?

No. The aggregate test adds cleared OTC derivatives back to the uncleared OTC positions for financial counterparties. Exchange traded derivatives remain outside the threshold calculation, as they were before EMIR 3.

Did EMIR 3 broaden the hedging exemption for virtual power purchase agreements?

No. ESMA kept the existing hedging criteria in Article 10 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 149/2013 unchanged. It concluded that broadening the definition of hedging to capture vPPAs explicitly would exceed its mandate, because the scope of the exemption is set in the EMIR Level 1 text.

When do we first calculate on the new basis?

The new methodology applies from the calculation period that follows entry into force. For counterparties that assess in June, that is expected to be June 2027, subject to the Official Journal publication date. A firm can also recalculate earlier if it wants the new regime to apply sooner.

Related Articles

• EMIR 3 Clearing Obligation: New Thresholds and the Active Account Requirement: How the clearing obligation and the active account requirement fit together under EMIR 3.
• EMIR Reporting Explained: Who reports OTC and exchange traded derivatives to a trade repository, and how the fields are populated.
• ESMA Active Account Requirement: Reporting Templates: The templates behind the EMIR 3 active account requirement for clearing members and clients.
• EMIR Initial Margin Reporting: The margin obligations that follow NFC+ and FC status once a threshold is crossed.
• Gas Derivatives Under EMIR and REMIT: How commodity and energy derivatives interact across the EMIR and REMIT reporting regimes.

Key Takeaways

• EMIR 3 replaces the OTC-versus-exchange-traded threshold test with an uncleared-OTC test, plus an aggregate cleared-and-uncleared backstop for financial counterparties only.
• The new uncleared thresholds are EUR 0.8 billion (credit), EUR 0.7 billion (equity), EUR 2.2 billion (interest rate), EUR 3 billion (FX), and EUR 4 billion (commodity and emission allowances).
• Compared with the thresholds currently in force, the credit, equity and interest rate uncleared thresholds fall; foreign exchange and the EUR 4 billion commodity threshold remain unchanged, while the fifth bucket is relabelled to cover commodity and emission allowance derivatives.
• Aggregate thresholds apply only to financial counterparties and only to interest rate (EUR 3 billion) and credit (EUR 1 billion), the classes subject to the clearing obligation.
• After immediate notification and a four-month period to establish clearing arrangements, a financial counterparty that breaches any threshold must clear contracts entered into or novated after that period across all classes subject to clearing; a non-financial counterparty must do so only in the breached asset class. Equity, FX and commodity classes are not currently subject to the clearing obligation, although an NFC threshold breach can bring the counterparty within the enhanced risk-mitigation and margin framework subject to the applicable product, counterparty and exemption conditions.
• The RTS did not change the hedging exemption or recognise vPPAs as hedging; that remains a Level 1 question.
• The values sit in a replaced Article 11 (aggregate), a new Article 11a (uncleared) and a new Article 11b (review trigger) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 149/2013.
• The regime is not yet in force; first calculation on the new basis is expected around June 2027, once the amending regulation is published in the Official Journal.

Sources and References

• ESMA, Final Report on the draft technical standards amending Regulation (EU) 149/2013 to further detail the new EMIR clearing thresholds regime (ESMA74-1049116226-944, 25 February 2026): esma.europa.eu
• ESMA, ESMA sets out clearing thresholds under EMIR 3 (news, 25 February 2026): esma.europa.eu
• ESMA, Consultation on the draft technical standards to further detail the new EMIR clearing thresholds regime (ESMA74-1049116225-632, 8 April to 16 June 2025): esma.europa.eu
• Regulation (EU) 2024/2987 (EMIR 3), amending Regulations (EU) No 648/2012, (EU) No 575/2013 and (EU) 2017/1131: eur-lex.europa.eu
• Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR): eur-lex.europa.eu
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 149/2013, including Article 11 clearing thresholds: eur-lex.europa.eu
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2310, amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 149/2013 as regards the clearing threshold for OTC commodity and other derivative contracts (raised to EUR 4 billion, in force 29 November 2022): eur-lex.europa.eu
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251, supplementing EMIR with regulatory technical standards for risk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivatives not cleared by a central counterparty: eur-lex.europa.eu

What to put on the reporting team’s list now

The recalibration requires a decision about timing and a change to the calculation build. Financial counterparties need separate group-level uncleared and aggregate calculations, subject to the fund-level rule for UCITS and AIFs, and a way to record which threshold drove any status change. Non-financial counterparties should re-run their positions against the lower credit, equity and interest rate figures and the unchanged EUR 4 billion commodity threshold, entity by entity. They may exclude contracts that qualify as risk-reducing by reference to the commercial or treasury-financing activity of the NFC or its group, but an intragroup clearing exemption does not on its own remove a trade from the calculation. For counterparties following the usual June cycle, ESMA’s implementation guidance points to June 2027, with earlier recalculation available after the RTS enters into force.

Disclaimer: The information on RegReportingDesk.com is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or compliance advice. Always consult your compliance officer, legal counsel, or the relevant supervisory authority for guidance specific to your institution.