[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71772-71813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22874]



[[Page 71771]]

Vol. 85

Tuesday,

No. 218

November 10, 2020

Part IV





Commodity Futures Trading Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





17 CFR Part 4





Compliance Requirements for Commodity Pool Operators on Form CPO-PQR; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 218 / Tuesday, November 10, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 71772]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 4

RIN 3038-AE98


Compliance Requirements for Commodity Pool Operators on Form CPO-
PQR

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) 
is adopting amendments (the Final Rule) to Commission regulations on 
additional reporting by commodity pool operators (CPOs) and commodity 
trading advisors and to Form CPO-PQR (also, the form). The Commission 
is: Eliminating existing Schedules B and C of Form CPO-PQR, except for 
the Pool Schedule of Investments; amending the information requirements 
and instructions to request Legal Entity Identifiers (LEIs) for CPOs 
and their operated pools that have them, and to delete questions 
regarding pool auditors and marketers; and making certain other changes 
due to the rescission of Schedules B and C, including the elimination 
of all existing reporting thresholds. Pursuant to the Final Rule, all 
reporting CPOs will be required to file the revised Form CPO-PQR 
(Revised Form CPO-PQR, or the Revised Form) quarterly. The Final Rule 
also amends Commission regulations to permit reporting CPOs to file NFA 
Form PQR, a comparable form required by the National Futures 
Association (NFA), in lieu of filing the Commission's Revised Form. 
Conversely, Form PF will no longer be accepted in lieu of the Revised 
Form, though it will remain a Commission form.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date for the Final Rule, including 
the adoption of the Revised Form, is December 10, 2020.
    Compliance Date: All reporting CPOs will be required to file the 
Revised Form with respect to their operated pools for the first 
calendar quarter of 2021, which ends on March 31, 2021. The deadline 
for filing the Revised Form for that reporting period is sixty days 
after the quarter-end, or May 30, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua B. Sterling, Director, at 202-
418-6700 or [email protected]; Amanda Lesher Olear, Deputy Director, 
at 202-418-5283 or [email protected]; Pamela M. Geraghty, Associate 
Director, at 202-418-5634 or [email protected]; Elizabeth Groover, 
Special Counsel, at (202) 418-5985 or [email protected]; or Christopher 
Cummings, Special Counsel, at (202) 418-5445 or [email protected], 
Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1151 21st Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Background
    A. Overview of Form CPO-PQR, as Originally Adopted
    B. The Proposal
II. Final Rule
    A. General Comments and Adopting the Revised Form
    B. The Elimination of Schedules B and C From the Revised Form
    C. Adoption of the Proposed Schedule of Investments in the 
Revised Form
    D. Retaining the Five Percent Threshold for Reportable Assets
    E. Adding LEI Fields to the Revised Form
    F. The Revised Form's Definitions, Instructions, and Questions
    i. Quarterly Filing Schedule for All CPOs Completing the Revised 
Form
    ii. Instructions 3 and 5
    iii. Instruction 4
    iv. Definition of ``Broker''
    v. Elimination of Questions Regarding Auditors and Marketers
    vi. FAQs and Glossary
    G. Substituted Compliance
    i. NFA Form PQR
    ii. Joint Form PF
    iii. Substituted Compliance for CPOs of Registered Investment 
Companies
    H. Compliance Date
III. Related Matters
    A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    i. Overview
    ii. Revisions to the Collection of Information: OMB Control 
Number 3038-0005
    C. Cost-Benefit Considerations
    i. The Elimination of Pool-Specific Reporting Requirements in 
Schedules B and C
    ii. The Revised Form
    iii. Alternatives
    iv. Section 15(a) Factors
    D. Antitrust Laws

I. Introduction and Background

    Section 1a(11) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA or the Act) \1\ 
defines the term ``commodity pool operator,'' as any person \2\ engaged 
in a business that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment 
trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise, and who, with respect 
to that commodity pool, solicits, accepts, or receives from others, 
funds, securities, or property, either directly or through capital 
contributions, the sale of stock or other forms of securities, or 
otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity interests.\3\ CEA 
section 4m(1) generally requires each person who satisfies the CPO 
definition to register as such with the Commission.\4\ CEA section 
4n(3)(A) requires registered CPOs to maintain books and records and 
file such reports in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the 
Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(11). The Act is found at 7 U.S.C. 1, et seq. 
(2018), and is accessible through the Commission's website, https://www.cftc.gov.
    \2\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(38); 17 CFR 1.3, ``person'' (defining ``person'' 
to include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, 
and trusts). The Commission's regulations are found at 17 CFR ch. I 
(2020), and are accessible through the Commission's website, https://www.cftc.gov.
    \3\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(11); see also 17 CFR 1.3, ``commodity pool 
operator.''
    \4\ 7 U.S.C. 6m(1).
    \5\ 7 U.S.C. 6n(3)(A). Registered CPOs have regulatory reporting 
obligations with respect to their operated pools. See, e.g., 17 CFR 
4.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the enactment in 2010 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) \6\ and subsequent 
joint adoption with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of 
Form PF (Joint Form PF) for advisers to large private funds,\7\ the 
CFTC adopted a new reporting requirement for CPOs through Commission 
regulation at Sec.  4.27, which, among other things, requires certain 
CPOs to report periodically on Form CPO-PQR.\8\ The Commission proposed 
this new reporting requirement after reevaluating its regulatory 
approach to CPOs due to the 2008 financial crisis and the purposes and 
goals of the Dodd-Frank Act in light of the then-current economic 
environment. Amendments to the CPO regulatory program adopted at that 
time, including Form CPO-PQR and Sec.  4.27, were intended to: (1) 
Align the Commission's regulatory structure for CPOs with the purposes 
of the Dodd-Frank Act; (2) encourage more congruent and consistent 
regulation by Federal financial regulatory agencies of similarly-
situated entities, such as dually registered CPOs required to file 
Joint Form PF; (3) improve accountability and increase transparency of 
the activities of CPOs and the commodity pools that they operate or 
advise; and (4) facilitate a data collection that would potentially 
assist the Financial Stability Oversight

[[Page 71773]]

Counsel (FSOC).\9\ To that end, the requirements of Form CPO-PQR were 
modeled closely after those of Joint Form PF.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \7\ Section 202(a)(29) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 
(Advisers Act) defines the term ``private fund'' as ``an issuer that 
would be an investment company, as defined in section 3 of the 
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3), but for section 
3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of that Act.'' Advisers Act Section 202(a)(29), 
15 U.S.C. 80ab-2(a)(29).
    \8\ Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors: 
Compliance Obligations, 77 FR 11252 (Feb. 24, 2012) (Form CPO-PQR 
Final Rule); 17 CFR part 4, app. A; 17 CFR 4.27.
    \9\ Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors: 
Compliance Obligations, 76 FR 7976, 7978 (Feb. 11, 2011) (Form CPO-
PQR Proposal).
    \10\ Id. (``The Commission proposes [Form CPO-PQR] to solicit 
information that is generally identical to that sought through Form 
PF''). Commission regulation at Sec.  4.27 further permits the 
filing of Joint Form PF in lieu of Commission filing requirements 
(i.e., Form CPO-PQR) for CPOs that are dually registered with the 
SEC as investment advisers. 17 CFR 4.27(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Form CPO-PQR, the Commission indicated that the 
collected data would be used for several broad purposes, including: (1) 
Increasing the Commission's understanding of its registrant population; 
(2) assessing the market risk associated with pooled investment 
vehicles under its jurisdiction; and (3) monitoring for systemic 
risk.\11\ Specifically, the Commission was interested in receiving 
information regarding the operations of CPOs and their pools, including 
their participation in commodity interest markets, their relationships 
with intermediaries, and their interconnectedness with the financial 
system at large.\12\ In proposing the majority of the more pool-
specific questions in the form, in particular, the Commission believed 
the incoming data would assist it in monitoring commodity pools in such 
a way as to allow the Commission to identify trends over time, 
including a pool's exposure to asset classes, the composition and 
liquidity of a commodity pool's portfolio, and a pool's susceptibility 
to failure in times of stress.\13\ Although the Commission recognized 
that the requested data may have some limitations, it believed that, in 
light of the 2008 financial crisis and the sources of risk delineated 
in the Dodd-Frank Act with respect to private funds, the detailed, 
pool-specific information to be collected by Form CPO-PQR was both 
necessary and appropriately balanced to assess the risks posed by a 
single pool, or a CPO's operations as a whole.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Form CPO-PQR Final Rule, 77 FR 11253-54 (Feb. 24, 2012).
    \12\ Id. at 77 FR 11266-67 (Feb. 24, 2012).
    \13\ Form CPO-PQR Proposal, 76 FR at 7981 (Feb. 11, 2011).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 16, 2020, the Commission unanimously approved, and, on May 
4, 2020, subsequently published in the Federal Register, a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (Proposal or NPRM) that proposed to amend both 
Commission Sec.  4.27 and Form CPO-PQR.\15\ In the Proposal, the 
Commission stated that, after seven years of experience with the form, 
the Commission was reassessing the form's scope and alignment with the 
Commission's current regulatory priorities.\16\ The Commission 
explained that its ability to make full use of the more detailed 
information collected under the form has not met the Commission's 
initial expectations.\17\ The Commission emphasized that, since the 
form's adoption, it has devoted substantial resources to developing 
other data streams and regulatory initiatives, which are designed to 
enhance the Commission's ability to broadly surveil financial markets 
for risk posed by all manner of market participants, including CPOs and 
their operated pools.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Amendments to Compliance Requirements for Commodity Pool 
Operators on Form CPO-PQR, 85 FR 26378 (May 4, 2020) (2020 CPO-PQR 
NPRM).
    \16\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26380 (May 4, 2020).
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, as further explained in the discussion that follows, the 
Commission has concluded that the form should be revised to better 
facilitate the Commission's oversight of CPOs and their operated pools, 
as well as its coordination of other Commission data streams and 
regulatory initiatives, while reducing the overall reporting burdens 
for CPOs required to file the Revised Form.

A. Overview of Form CPO-PQR, as Originally Adopted

    Pursuant to Sec.  4.27, any CPO registered or required to be 
registered with the Commission is a ``reporting person,'' except for a 
CPO that operates only pools for which it maintains an exclusion from 
the CPO definition available under Sec.  4.5, and/or an exemption from 
CPO registration available under Sec.  4.13.\19\ The amount of 
information that a reporting CPO has been required to disclose on the 
form varies depending on the size of the operator and the quantity and 
size of the operated pools.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 4.27(b)(1)(i); see also 17 CFR 4.27(b)(2)(i) 
(establishing that CPOs operating only pools for which they claim 
relief under 17 CFR 4.5 or 4.13 are not considered ``reporting 
persons'' for purposes of the Form CPO-PQR filing requirement).
    \20\ See generally 17 CFR part 4 app. A, ``Reporting 
Instructions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The form, as adopted in 2012, identifies three classes of filers: 
Large CPOs, Mid-Sized CPOs, and Small CPOs. The thresholds for 
determining Large and Mid-Sized CPO status, and thus their reporting 
obligations, generally align with those in Joint Form PF.\21\ A Large 
CPO is a CPO that had at least $1.5 billion in aggregated pool assets 
under management (AUM) \22\ as of the close of business on any day 
during the reporting period; a Mid-Sized CPO is a CPO that had at least 
$150 million, but less than $1.5 billion, in aggregated pool AUM as of 
the close of business on any day during the reporting period.\23\ 
Although not defined in the form, ``Small CPO,'' as used herein, refers 
to a CPO that had less than $150 million in aggregated pool AUM during 
the reporting period. The reporting period for Large CPOs is any of the 
individual calendar quarters (ending March 31, June 30, September 30, 
and December 31), whereas, for Small and Mid-Sized CPOs, the reporting 
period is the calendar year.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See generally Instructions to Form PF, available at http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formpf.pdf. Private fund investment advisers 
with ``regulatory AUM,'' as that term is defined in Joint Form PF, 
of at least $150 million are required to file Section 1 of Joint 
Form PF; private fund investment advisers with regulatory AUM equal 
to or exceeding $1.5 billion are required to file Sections 1 and 2 
of Joint Form PF. Id.
    \22\ As used in the form, AUM refers to the amount of all assets 
that are under the control of the CPO. 17 CFR part 4, app. A, 
``Definitions of Terms'' (providing specific definitions for 
terminology used in the form, including AUM). The ``Definitions of 
Terms'' section of the form is renamed by this Final Rule ``Defined 
Terms'' in the Revised Form.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id. (defining ``Reporting Period''). The form additionally 
defines, ``Reporting Date,'' as the last calendar day of the 
Reporting Period for which this Form CPO-PQR is required to be 
completed and filed,'' e.g., ``the Reporting Date for the first 
calendar quarter of a year is March 31. Id. For Mid-Sized and Small 
CPOs, their Reporting Date would therefore be December 31. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the Final Rule amendments adopted herein, Form CPO-PQR 
consisted of three schedules: Schedules A, B, and C.\25\ Schedule A 
requires reporting CPOs to disclose basic identifying information about 
the CPO (Part 1) and about each of the CPO's pools and the service 
providers they use (Part 2).\26\ Consistent with the ``Reporting 
Period'' definitions described above, Large CPOs submit Schedule A on a 
quarterly basis, whereas all other reporting CPOs submit it 
annually.\27\ Schedule B requires additional detailed information for 
each pool operated by Mid-Sized and Large CPOs, in particular regarding 
each operated pool's investment strategy, borrowings and types of 
creditors, counterparty credit exposure, trading and clearing 
mechanisms, value of aggregated derivative positions, and

[[Page 71774]]

schedule of investments.\28\ Large CPOs also submit Schedule B on a 
quarterly basis; Mid-Sized CPOs are required to complete and submit 
Schedule B annually.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR part 4, app. A, ``Reporting Instructions.''
    \26\ Id. at ``Reporting Instructions,'' no. 2.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ 17 CFR part 4, app. A, Sched. B, ``Detailed Information 
About the Pools Operated by Mid-Sized CPOs and Large CPOs.''
    \29\ 17 CFR part 4, app. A, ``Reporting Instructions,'' no. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Schedule C requires further detailed information about the pools 
operated by Large CPOs on an aggregate and pool-by-pool basis. Part 1 
of Schedule C requires aggregate information for all pools operated by 
a Large CPO, including (1) a geographical breakdown of the pools' 
investment on an aggregated basis, and (2) the turnover rate of the 
aggregate portfolio of pools.\30\ Part 2 of Schedule C requires certain 
detailed information for each ``Large Pool'' the Large CPO 
operates,\31\ where a ``Large Pool'' is a commodity pool that has a net 
asset value (NAV) \32\ individually, or in combination with any 
parallel pool structure,\33\ of at least $500 million as of the close 
of business on any day during the reporting period.\34\ Specifically, 
Part 2 requires information with respect to each Large Pool the Large 
CPO operates during the given reporting period; this section of the 
form elicits information regarding the Large Pool's: (1) Identity; (2) 
liquidity; (3) counterparty credit exposure; (4) risk metrics; (5) 
borrowing; (6) derivative positions and posted collateral; (7) 
financing liquidity; (8) participant information; and (9) the duration 
of its fixed income assets.\35\ Large CPOs complete and file Schedule C 
on a quarterly basis: This filing includes Part 1 of Schedule C, as 
well as a separate Part 2 for each Large Pool that a Large CPO operates 
during the reporting period.\36\ If a CPO is also registered with the 
SEC as an investment adviser, and is therefore required to file Joint 
Form PF regarding its advisory services to private funds,\37\ the CPO 
is deemed to have satisfied its Schedule B and C filing requirements, 
provided that the CPO completes and files the referenced sections of 
Joint Form PF with respect to the pool(s) operated during the reporting 
period.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR part 4, app. A, Sched. C, pt. 1.
    \31\ 17 CFR part 4, app. A, Sched. C, pt. 2, ``Information About 
the Large Pools of Large CPOs.''
    \32\ As used in Form CPO-PQR, the term ``net asset value'' has 
the same meaning as in Sec.  4.10(b). See 17 CFR 4.10(b) (defining 
``net asset value'' as total assets minus total liabilities, 
determined in accord with generally accepted accounting principles, 
with each position in a commodity interest transaction accounted for 
at a fair market value).
    \33\ As used in the form, the term ``parallel pool structure'' 
means any structure in which one or more Pools pursues substantially 
the same investment objective and strategy and invests side by side 
in substantially the same assets as another Pool. 17 CFR part 4, 
app. A, ``Definitions of Terms.''
    \34\ 17 CFR part 4, app. A, Sched. C, pt. 2, ``Information About 
the Large Pools of Large CPOs.''
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ 17 CFR part 4, app. A, ``Reporting Instructions,'' no. 2.
    \37\ As used in the form, the term ``private fund'' has the same 
meaning as the definition of ``private fund'' in Joint Form PF. 17 
CFR part 4, app. A, ``Definitions of Terms.''
    \38\ 17 CFR part 4, app. A, ``Reporting Instructions,'' no. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to Joint Form PF and Form CPO-PQR, in 2010, NFA adopted 
and implemented its own NFA Form PQR to elicit data in support of NFA's 
risk-based examination program for its CPO membership.\39\ Pursuant to 
NFA Compliance Rule 2-46, all CPO NFA members, which includes all CPOs 
registered with the Commission, must file NFA Form PQR on a quarterly 
basis with respect to all of their operated pools.\40\ NFA accepts the 
filing of Form CPO-PQR (but not Joint Form PF) in lieu of filing NFA 
Form PQR for any quarter in which a Form CPO-PQR filing is required 
under Sec.  4.27.\41\ Consequently, dually registered CPO-investment 
advisers that file Joint Form PF in lieu of a Form CPO-PQR filing, 
consistent with Sec.  4.27(d), as it reads prior to these Final Rule 
amendments, are also required to file NFA Form PQR with NFA quarterly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ NFA Compliance Rule 2-46 (2017), available at https://www.nfa.futures.org/rulebook/rules.aspx?RuleID=RULE%202-46&Section=4 
(noting this rule was initially adopted effective March 31, 2010, 
and subsequently amended in 2013, 2016, and most recently, 2017). 
Commission regulations require each person registered as a CPO to 
become and remain a member of at least one registered futures 
association, of which there is currently one, i.e., NFA. 17 CFR 
170.17.
    \40\ NFA Compliance Rule 2-46(a). CFTC staff has previously 
advised that reporting CPOs should exclude all pools operated 
subject to relief provided in either 17 CFR 4.5 or 4.13 from their 
Form CPO-PQR filings, including with respect to any applicable 
reporting threshold calculations. CFTC Division of Swap Dealer and 
Intermediary Oversight Responds to Frequently Asked Questions 
Regarding Commission Form CPO-PQR (Nov. 5, 2015), available at 
http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/faq_cpocta.pdf (2015 CPO-PQR FAQs). NFA Form PQR similarly focuses 
its data collection efforts on the listed pools of registered CPO 
Members. NFA may, however, use NFA Form PQR to collect information 
beyond that collected by the Commission's Revised Form. See, e.g., 
NFA Compliance Rule 2-46(b). Nothing in the Commission's Proposal or 
the Final Rule restricts NFA's ability to require reporting beyond 
that required by the Commission, provided that such NFA requirements 
are consistent with the CEA and Commission regulations promulgated 
thereunder. See 7 U.S.C. 17(j).
    \41\ NFA Compliance Rule 2-46(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Proposal

    As noted above, the Commission published the NPRM on May 4, 2020, 
proposing substantial revisions to Form CPO-PQR, as well as several 
amendments to Sec.  4.27.\42\ Specifically, the Commission proposed to 
eliminate the requirement to complete and submit Schedules B or C of 
the form, with the exception of the Pool Schedule of Investments (PSOI) 
(currently, question 6 of Schedule B). The Commission proposed to 
retain the questions set forth in current Schedule A with certain 
amendments, notably the addition of questions regarding LEIs, and the 
deletion of questions regarding pool marketers and auditors.\43\ Thus, 
the Commission proposed the Revised Form consisting of a revised 
Schedule A, plus the PSOI and the instructions and definitions in the 
current form that remain relevant.\44\ The Proposal required all 
reporting CPOs to file the Revised Form on a quarterly basis, 
regardless of AUM or size of operations, and such reporting CPOs would 
be permitted to file NFA Form PQR in lieu of the Revised Form.\45\ The 
Proposal included an amendment to Sec.  4.27(d) that would eliminate 
the substituted compliance currently available for dually registered 
CPO-investment advisers required to file Joint Form PF with respect to 
their operated private funds, while retaining Joint Form PF as a 
Commission form. The comment period for the Proposal expired on June 
15, 2020, and the Commission received ten relevant \46\ comment 
letters: Two from individuals; one from a registered futures 
association; and seven from industry professional and trade 
associations.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM.
    \43\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26381, 26383 (May 4, 2020).
    \44\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26381 (May 4, 2020).
    \45\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26381 and 26389 (May 4, 2020) 
(proposing to amend Sec.  4.27(c)(1) by adding substituted 
compliance for this filing requirement with respect to NFA Form 
PQR).
    \46\ The Commission received a total of 14 comment letters, four 
of which were either spam or otherwise not substantively relevant to 
the Proposal in any respect.
    \47\ Comments were submitted by Mr. Chris Barnard (Barnard) (May 
8, 2020); NFA (June 10, 2020); the Alternative Investment Management 
Association (AIMA) (June 11, 2020); the Depository Trust and 
Clearing Corporation (DTCC) (June 15, 2020); the Global Legal Entity 
Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) (June 15, 2020); the Managed Funds 
Association (MFA) (June 15, 2020); the Investment Adviser 
Association (IAA) (June 15, 2020); the Securities Industry and 
Financial Market Association Asset Management Group (SIFMA AMG) 
(June 15, 2020); Ms. Talece Y. Hunter (Hunter) (June 15, 2020); and 
the Investment Company Institute (ICI) (June 15, 2020). The complete 
comment file for the 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM can be found on the 
Commission's website. Comments for Proposed Rule 85 FR 26378 (May 4, 
2020), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?3098.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 71775]]

II. Final Rule

A. General Comments and Adopting the Revised Form

    The comments that the Commission received were, in general, 
strongly supportive of the Proposal.\48\ Commenters largely agreed with 
the proposed amendments and viewed the proposal of the Revised Form as 
a ``helpful improvement to the current system.'' \49\ Multiple 
commenters stated that the Proposal, if adopted, would simplify CPO 
reporting requirements, significantly reduce filers' reporting burdens, 
increase the regulatory integrity and utility of the data collected by 
the Revised Form, and serve as a critical step in the development of a 
``holistic market surveillance program,'' with respect to registered 
CPOs and the pools they operate.\50\ Similarly, NFA stated its support 
of ``the Commission's efforts to streamline and simplify the reporting 
requirements for CPOs,'' and its belief that ``the [P]roposal will 
satisfy the Commission's goal of reducing reporting requirements in a 
manner that continues to facilitate effective oversight of CPOs and the 
pools they operate.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See, e.g., DTCC, at 2.
    \49\ ICI, at 4 (noting that ``the Proposal would significantly 
reduce the reporting burdens to which registered fund CPOs are 
currently subject'').
    \50\ Hunter, at 1; AIMA, at 2; SIFMA AMG, at 2; Barnard, at 1.
    \51\ NFA, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although MFA stated its preference for a consolidated form for both 
SEC and CFTC filings with respect to pooled investment vehicles and 
their operators or advisers, MFA nonetheless expressed its strong 
support for the Proposal's Revised Form.\52\ Similarly, SIFMA AMG 
stated that the Proposal is well-aligned with the Commission's intended 
purpose for it, and subject to recommended revisions, strongly 
recommended it be adopted.\53\ Encouraged by the Commission's proposed 
amendments eliminating significant pool-specific sections of the form, 
AIMA requested that the Commission consider further reducing the scope 
of the Revised Form, if at all possible.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ MFA, at 1-2.
    \53\ SIFMA AMG, at 2.
    \54\ AIMA, at 2-3 (stating also that AIMA welcomed the Proposal, 
instead of ``incremental and non-transformative change,'' and was 
``in favour of making better use of data obtained through other 
reporting obligations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the public comments received, the Commission has 
determined to adopt the Revised Form and the amendments to Sec.  4.27, 
largely as proposed, in furtherance of its regulatory goals with 
respect to registered CPOs and their operated pools,\55\ for the 
reasons it explained in the Proposal.\56\ Today's Final Rule 
constitutes the first of several steps in the Commission's ongoing 
reassessment of Form CPO-PQR, the substantive information it seeks to 
collect, and the form and manner in which the Commission collects and 
uses that information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Consistent with past Commission staff guidance, ``operated 
pools,'' as used in this document, means those pools for which a CPO 
is required to be registered with the Commission.
    \56\ 2020 CPO-PQR Proposal, 85 FR at 26381-84 (May 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Elimination of Schedules B and C From the Revised Form

    In proposing to eliminate a majority of the pool-specific reporting 
requirements in Schedules B and C of Form CPO-PQR, the Commission 
observed that, challenges with the data collected in Schedules B and C, 
combined with the resource constraints of broader Commission 
priorities, have frustrated the Commission's ability to fully realize 
its vision for this data collection.\57\ As described above, the 
eliminated data elements in Schedules B and C include detailed pool-
specific information, asset liquidity and concentration of positions, 
clearing relationships, risk metrics, financing, and investor 
composition.\58\ In explaining the proposed rescission of Schedules B 
and C, the Commission stated that its ability to identify trends across 
CPOs or pools using Form CPO-PQR data has been substantially 
challenged, due to the post hoc nature of the previous filings and the 
substantial amount of flexibility the Commission permitted for CPOs 
completing the form.\59\ In the Proposal, the Commission noted that 
certain of its alternate data streams provide a more timely, 
standardized, and reliable view into relevant market activity than that 
provided under Form CPO-PQR, which make them much easier to combine 
into a holistic surveillance program.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26381 (May 4, 2020).
    \58\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26380 (May 4, 2020).
    \59\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26381 (May 4, 2020).
    \60\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26382 (May 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed removal of Schedules B and C was broadly supported by 
commenters.\61\ For instance, IAA supported the Commission's efforts to 
streamline the process, stating, ``We appreciate the CFTC tailoring the 
regulatory reporting requirements for CPOs to limit data collection 
that the Commission will make use of[,] and eliminating the more 
detailed information in Form CPO-PQR that has not been helpful for the 
CFTC's oversight purposes.'' \62\ Furthermore, ICI concurred with the 
Commission that the agency's limited resources should not be spent on 
trying to make use of the ``voluminous and very specific pool-level 
data sought in Schedules B and C.'' \63\ Expressing support for the 
elimination of Schedules B and C, as well as the retention of a revised 
PSOI for each pool, SIFMA AMG praised the Commission for recognizing 
``lessons learned'' from seven years of experience with the form and 
the data it has elicited.\64\ SIFMA AMG described the Proposal as a 
demonstration of the CFTC's consideration of the utility of the data 
currently collected by the form, and balancing that against the 
successful use of other Commission data streams, which were developed 
after the form was initially adopted.\65\ In addition, SIFMA AMG 
strongly supported the adoption of a streamlined Revised Form for all 
CPOs and their pools, thereby eliminating the CPO and pool threshold 
calculations that dictated the scope and burden of each CPO's Form CPO-
PQR filing.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ E.g., IAA, at 3-4; NFA, at 1-2.
    \62\ IAA, at 4.
    \63\ ICI, at 6.
    \64\ SIFMA AMG, at 4.
    \65\ SIFMA AMG, at 4-5.
    \66\ SIFMA AMG, at 6 (noting that these threshold calculations 
for CPO and pool size have proved difficult to practically apply and 
calculate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the logistical and timing difficulties the Commission 
explained in detail in the NPRM,\67\ the Commission has determined to 
forego the collection of the detailed information requested by 
Schedules B and C of Form CPO-PQR, in part, because the Commission was 
not able to fully incorporate the resulting data set into its oversight 
program for registered CPOs and their operated pools. The Commission 
acknowledges the strong support from commenters with respect to this 
particular amendment, and believes that, in conjunction with other 
amendments explained below, the Commission will receive more complete 
and usable data regarding reporting CPOs' pool operations due to the 
more targeted data collected in the Revised Form. Accordingly, 
Schedules B and C, along with all references to the thresholds 
associated therewith, have been removed in their entirety from the 
Revised Form adopted by the Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26381 (May 4, 2020).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 71776]]

C. Adoption of the Proposed Schedule of Investments in the Revised Form

    One of the specific questions posed by the Commission in the 
Proposal was: Should the Commission consider amending the Schedule of 
Investments to align with the simpler schedule that appeared in NFA 
Form PQR in 2010? \68\ The Commission received several comments on the 
content of the proposed PSOI, including multiple recommendations that 
the Commission adopt a schedule in the Revised Form that aligned with 
the former Schedule of Investments originally adopted by NFA in 2010 
for its NFA Form PQR (2010 Schedule of Investments).\69\ The 2010 
Schedule of Investments is less detailed than the PSOI currently in use 
by both Form CPO-PQR and NFA Form PQR.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26384 (May 4, 2020).
    \69\ IAA, at 4; ICI, at 6; NFA, at 1-2; MFA, at 3.
    \70\ See infra pt. II.G.i for additional discussion on 
permissible substituted compliance for Sec.  4.27 with respect to 
NFA Form PQR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several of the commenters argued that the detailed information 
required by the proposed PSOI is no longer necessary in the broader 
context of the Revised Form. For instance, NFA, in a comment that was 
supported by both MFA and ICI, supported aligning with the 2010 
Schedule of Investments because a ``more streamlined schedule will 
significantly alleviate filing burdens on CPOs without negatively 
impacting the usefulness of the information that is collected.'' \71\ 
NFA explained that it does not need the more granular information in 
the PSOI, and that this granularity has not, in NFA's experience, 
improved their analysis, in part, because ``very few CPOs include 
balances on a significant number of line items set forth in the current 
schedule.'' \72\ IAA also expressed its support, stating that the 
specific data fields in the PSOI should be aligned with that of NFA 
Form PQR.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ NFA, at 2 (discussing how the 2010 Schedule of Investments 
elicits the information necessary for NFA's risk assessment 
purposes). See also ICI, at 4; MFA, at 4. ICI further emphasized 
that the overall success of the Proposal's revisions to Form CPO-PQR 
will depend on whether the resulting dataset is appropriately 
calibrated to the Commission's regulatory interests and limited to 
data the Commission will employ in regulating CPOs and their 
commodity pools. ICI, at 4.
    \72\ NFA, at 2 (concluding that its 2010 Schedule of Investments 
``elicits the information necessary for both the CFTC's and NFA's 
needs'').
    \73\ IAA, at 5. MFA also supported this alignment and strongly 
advocates for consistency between the Schedules of Investment in the 
Revised Form and NFA Form PQR. MFA, at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission acknowledges and understands commenters' arguments 
supporting a more narrowly focused PSOI in the Revised Form. 
Nevertheless, the Commission has determined not to make material 
revisions at this time. Events in the bond and energy markets, both 
recently and in its past experience, have reinforced the Commission's 
understanding of the interconnectedness of financial markets, and 
emphasized the importance of understanding how CPOs are positioned vis-
[agrave]-vis their counterparties and the economy as a whole.\74\ 
Moreover, incorporating a PSOI that is aligned with the 2010 Schedule 
of Investments, particularly the 10% asset threshold discussed below, 
in the Revised Form results in a material loss of information from 
reporting CPOs on their operated pools' alternative investment or 
derivatives positions, which are the primary focus of the Commission's 
jurisdiction. For instance, the Commission notes that the 2010 Schedule 
of Investments lacks specific line items for crude oil, natural gas, 
and some precious metals like gold, all of which have been subject to 
significant volatility.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ ``Options trading firm blows up amid natural gas 
volatility,'' Financial Times (Nov. 19, 2018), available at https://ft.com/content/b7c525f6-ec44/11e8/89c8/d36339d835c0; ``The Shine Is 
Off,'' Slate (June 9, 2013), available at https://www.slate.com/business/2013/06/gold-bubble-paranoid-investors-pushed-gold-to-1900-an-ounce-in-2011-but-the-bubble-has-burst; ``Bond investors say some 
energy companies `will not survive' oil rout slamming markets,'' 
Market Watch (Mar. 10, 2020), available at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bond-investors-say-some-energy-companies-will-not-survive-oil-rout-slamming-markets-2020-03-09; ``Global 
stocks, oil prices, and government bonds tumble,'' Financial Times 
(Mar. 18, 2020), available at https://www.ft.com/content/1b1b47d4-68bd-11ea-a3c9/1fe6fedcca75; ``Oil plunges into negative territory 
for the first time ever as demand evaporates,'' Business Insider 
(Apr. 20, 2020), available at https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/news/us-crude-oil-wti-falls-to-21-year-low-1029106364#.
    \75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Commission believes that reducing the amount of 
information collected with respect to multiple asset classes, 
particularly those that are under the Commission's primary 
jurisdictional mandate,\76\ is premature. The resulting diminished 
dataset would provide the Commission an insufficient view into the 
actual holdings of operated commodity pools in markets subject to the 
Commission's oversight, which, in turn, potentially undermines the 
Commission's assessment of the risk posed by CPOs and their operated 
pools within the commodity interest markets and their vulnerabilities 
when faced with challenging market conditions. This information is 
currently essential to the Commission's ability to identify CPOs and 
pools with whom the Commission should engage more deeply depending on 
market events, especially in times of unpredictable market volatility. 
Therefore, the Commission has decided to collect the more detailed 
PSOI, as it continues to reassess its data needs in this space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ ``Gold prices settle at 1-week low as U.S. stock market 
tumbles,'' MarketWatch (Sept. 3, 2020), available at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gold-heads-for-back-to-back-loss-amid-vaccine-hope-us-dollar-strength-2020-09-03; ``Oil sinks with 
equities on wavering hopes for demand pickup,'' Bloomberg (Sept. 3, 
2020, updated Sept. 4, 2020), available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-03/oil-extends-biggest-weekly-drop-since-june-as-demand-woes-return; ``U.S. oil prices 
settle at lowest in nearly a month as supplies, output log sharp but 
temporary hurricane-related drop,'' Market Watch (Sept. 2, 2020), 
available at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-prices-lifted-by-lackluster-bounce-in-opec-crude-output-inventory-fall-2020/09/02; 
``Oil prices continue to slide as U.S. data feeds fuel demand 
worry,'' Reuters (Sept. 2, 2020), available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil/oil-prices-continue-to-slide-as-us-data-feeds-fuel-demand-worry-idUSKBN25U04D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Commission's experience, commodity interest markets change 
over time, as do the Commission's own technological applications, 
surveillance capabilities, and access to real-time data streams, and 
thus, require the ongoing, careful review of the appropriateness of 
existing regulatory approaches. Accordingly, the Commission hereby 
instructs its staff to evaluate the ongoing utility of the PSOI 
information in the Revised Form, including comparing it to the 2010 
Schedule of Investments, within 18-24 months following the Final Rule's 
Compliance Date. As part of its review, Commission staff should 
consider whether or not it is appropriate to adopt the 2010 Schedule of 
Investments, in light of such utility. After completing this review, 
and taking into consideration the Commission's current regulatory 
needs, the Commission expects its staff to develop recommendations or a 
proposed rulemaking for the Commission's further review to effectuate 
staff's findings.
    In addition, as part of this review, Commission staff should 
continue to explore the use of data available from designated contract 
markets, swap execution facilities, and swap data repositories--i.e., 
existing sources of transaction and position data--and its application 
to effecting robust oversight of CPOs and commodity pools, as compared 
to the information received from Revised Form CPO-PQR. In addition, the 
Commission expects its staff to continue engaging with their 
counterparts at the SEC during this 18-24 month period regarding 
potential modifications to Joint Form PF, which should inform further 
revisions to Revised Form CPO-PQR.
    Consistent with the views expressed by other commenters, NFA stated 
its belief that the more limited dataset collected on the 2010 Schedule 
of

[[Page 71777]]

Investments would be sufficient for both NFA's and the Commission's 
purposes.\77\ The Commission notes, however, that direct oversight of 
reporting CPOs and their operated pools is only one of the uses of the 
data collected by the Revised Form's PSOI. This information is also 
useful to the Commission in developing its understanding of the 
commodity interest markets more broadly, including how various asset 
classes are being utilized by reporting CPOs and their operated pools. 
Although there may be certain subcategories of asset classes that have 
not had many, if any, responses over the past six reporting periods, 
that does not mean that such subcategories of asset classes may not 
become more widely used in the future, or that a pool's exposure to 
asset classes that are currently less widely utilized would not be 
useful in overseeing the operations of reporting CPOs and their pools 
going forward. Eliminating questions due solely to a lack of past 
responses seems to presume that the operations and pool trading 
activity of reporting CPOs will remain static going forward. The 
Commission knows from its direct regulatory experience in overseeing 
CPOs that such a presumption is false because these registrants and 
their pools exhibit high levels of variability and dynamism in their 
investment strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ NFA, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Retaining the Five Percent Threshold for Reportable Assets

    Aligning the Revised Form's PSOI with the 2010 Schedule of 
Investments would include increasing the threshold for reportable 
assets of a pool from 5% of a pool's NAV to 10%, which multiple 
commenters specifically addressed and supported.\78\ As discussed 
above, MFA also requested the Commission align its PSOI with NFA's 2010 
Schedule of Investments, and increase the reportable asset threshold 
from 5% to 10%.\79\ SIFMA AMG stated that revising the PSOI in this 
manner would greatly reduce or eliminate the burden on CPOs to provide 
information on pool assets or investments that are, ``either nominal or 
so minimal they do not affect the daily risk of a CPO.'' \80\ As an 
alternative to adopting the 2010 Schedule of Investments, SIFMA AMG 
also would support a more holistic analysis by the Commission of the 
proposed PSOI: rather than simply doubling the percentage threshold for 
reportable assets, SIFMA AMG argued that the Commission should 
carefully review the proposed PSOI, weigh the utility of the asset sub-
categories, and eliminate those deemed to be unnecessary or not 
implicating the Commission's regulatory interests.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ IAA, at 5; MFA, at 4; SIFMA, at 14.
    \79\ MFA, at 4.
    \80\ SIFMA AMG, at 14.
    \81\ SIFMA AMG, at 14 (describing such an analysis as ``weighing 
the difficulty of certain CPOs to provide data for the more granular 
sub-categories compared with the usefulness of such data for the 
Commission, with a focus on categories of assets where the 
Commission does not have a specific regulatory interest or otherwise 
would have limited use for such detail''). See also IAA, at 5 
(questioning the relevance and necessity of certain line items in 
the proposed PSOI); MFA, at 6-14 (providing line edits to the 
proposed PSOI, and recommending the deletion of multiple asset 
classes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon consideration of the comments, and consistent with the overall 
PSOI analysis above, the Commission is declining to increase the 
threshold for a pool's reportable assets from 5% to 10% at this time. 
The Commission has reviewed data from past Form CPO-PQR filings, and 
concludes that, if it were to raise the threshold from 5% to 10%, the 
Commission would lose a material portion of the data that it has been 
receiving regarding pool positions in derivatives and alternative 
investments. Specifically, the Commission reviewed the first level of 
subcategory data within the seven headings of asset classes from the 
2019 year-end Form CPO-PQR filings. There was a total of 5,574 PSOIs 
filed, with 1,240 of those filings reporting at least one balance that 
was between 5% and 10% of NAV, which means that 22% of the total filed 
PSOIs reported an asset balance that would be lost to the Commission, 
if the Commission increased the reporting threshold to 10%.
    Looking at the data further, the Commission found that, of those 
1,240 PSOIs reporting at least one asset between 5 and 10% of a pool's 
NAV, 660 of them reported balances in either alternative investments or 
derivatives--asset classes in which the Commission retains a 
significant regulatory interest. Those 660 PSOIs constitute 53% of all 
PSOIs reporting an asset as 5-10% of the pool's NAV, and amount to 
approximately 12% of the total PSOI population. Losing data on 12% of 
its total PSOI filings by reporting CPOs regarding alternative 
investment or derivatives positions, which are the primary focus of the 
Commission's jurisdiction, is a material loss, because it would provide 
the Commission with an incomplete picture of the actual holdings of a 
pool in markets subject to the Commission's oversight, which could 
undermine the Commission's assessment of the market risk posed by CPOs 
and their operated pools.\82\ This is of particular importance to the 
Commission given the recent unprecedented market conditions discussed 
above. Accordingly, the Revised Form adopted herein retains the 5% 
asset reporting threshold, and the Commission reiterates its direction 
to Commission staff to evaluate the ongoing utility of the PSOI 
information in the Revised Form, within 18-24 months of the Compliance 
Date for the Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ In concluding that losing Form CPO-PQR data for 22% of its 
total filing population was material, staff was guided by the SEC's 
Staff Accounting Bulletin 99, which addresses accounting materiality 
thresholds. Materiality, SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99, 64 FR 
45150 (Aug. 19, 1999), available at https://www.sec.gov/interps/account/sab99.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Adding LEI Fields to the Revised Form

    The Commission also proposed adding fields to the Revised Form 
requesting LEIs for reporting CPOs and their operated pools that are 
otherwise required to have them, due to their activity in the swaps 
market.\83\ The Commission emphasized in the Proposal that the 
inclusion of existing LEIs within the smaller dataset on Revised Form 
CPO-PQR should enable the Commission to more efficiently and accurately 
synthesize the various Commission data streams on an entity-by-entity 
basis and may permit better use of other data to illuminate the risk 
inherent in pools and pool families.\84\ Specifically, the NPRM 
queried, Should the Commission include LEIs on Revised Form CPO-PQR? 
Why or why not? \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26378 (May 4, 2020).
    \84\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26383 (May 4, 2020) 
(anticipating that the inclusion of LEIs would greatly facilitate 
the aggregation of data from commodity pools under different levels 
of common control).
    \85\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26384 (May 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters supported the inclusion of LEIs because of their low 
cost, ability to facilitate standardization across multiple data 
streams and generally enhance reporting, and ``their risk management 
capabilities.'' \86\ SIFMA AMG also supported the addition of questions 
on LEIs, stating that it understood that ``[requiring LEIs in the 
Revised Form CPO-PQR] is the key to integrating the information 
collected in multiple data streams,'' and would make information 
collected by the

[[Page 71778]]

Revised Form ``much easier to combine into a holistic surveillance 
program'' for registered CPOs and their operated pools.\87\ Citing a 
list of benefits associated with LEIs, GLEIF and DTCC advocated for 
further expanding the LEI requirement to all reporting CPOs and pools, 
instead of only requiring them from entities that currently have 
them.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ DTCC, at 2; SIFMA AMG, at 6; GLEIF, at 1. See also Hunter, 
at 1, and Barnard, at 1. GLEIF noted further that standardizing the 
LEI requirement would also contribute to the harmonization of rules 
and standards across regulatory regimes. GLEIF, at 2.
    \87\ SIFMA AMG, at 2.
    \88\ GLEIF, at 1 (stating that the Proposal's current LEI 
requirement would not allow the Commission to aggregate all 
derivatives transactions by pools under common control); DTCC, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GLEIF also requested the Commission consider two specific 
recommendations regarding LEIs: (1) Adopting a requirement that only 
LEIs that are maintained and duly renewed would satisfy this reporting 
obligation in the Revised Form; and (2) requiring LEIs for all 
reporting entities submitting the Revised Form, as well as for a 
reporting CPO's miscellaneous service providers, like a third-party 
administrator, broker, trading manager, and/or custodian.\89\ DTCC 
argued that expanding the LEI requirement to cover all reporting CPOs 
and all of their operated pools would allow the Commission to obtain a 
more complete picture of pool activity across all derivatives 
transactions, rather than just with respect to swaps.\90\ DTCC also 
provided specific cost estimates for LEI acquisition, renewal, and 
maintenance, positing that these costs would not be a significant 
burden on CPOs. Moreover, DTCC argued that expanding the requirement 
could instead ease CPOs' reporting burden, ``through the 
standardization of a common identifier,'' i.e., an LEI for each 
reporting entity and each operated pool, and further facilitate the 
synthesis of CPO and pool data.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ GLEIF, at 1.
    \90\ DTCC, at 2.
    \91\ DTCC, at 2-3 (discussing the average costs associated with 
obtaining and maintaining an LEI: average cost for an LEI is $111, 
and the renewal fee is $91; the annual one-time cost for all CPOs 
without an LEI would total $64,828; the annual renewal fee combined 
for all 1326 registered CPOs would total $120,666). Neither DTCC nor 
GLEIF provided any cost estimates with respect to expanding the LEI 
requirement to all operated pools or to all of a reporting CPO's 
service providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MFA suggested that the Commission collect LEI data separately from 
the Revised Form for purposes of protecting highly confidential 
information in these filings from potential cyber breaches.\92\ 
Specifically, MFA recommended that the Commission incorporate 
alphanumeric identifiers to conceal the identities of reporting CPOs in 
the Revised Form, and that the Commission separate this data to 
mitigate potential breaches and enhance protections for collected 
registrant data.\93\ According to MFA, registered CPOs should be 
permitted to file their LEIs for the Revised Form in a separate 
submission, such that the LEIs and identifying information of the CPO 
and its pools are separated from the confidential information the 
Revised Form otherwise collects.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ MFA, at 3.
    \93\ MFA, at 3.
    \94\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is adopting this provision as proposed. The LEI 
fields included in the Revised Form should provide significant 
regulatory benefits, particularly with respect to the Commission's 
stated goal of developing a holistic surveillance program for 
registered CPOs and their operated pools.\95\ At this time, the 
Commission will not require CPOs that do not currently have LEIs to 
obtain them solely for the purposes of reporting on the Revised 
Form.\96\ The Commission's regulations currently only require entities 
to obtain LEIs if they are engaged in swaps transactions. Specifically, 
the Commission's regulations regarding swap data reporting, which were 
amended in September 2020, require CPOs or commodity pools that are 
counterparties to swaps to use LEIs in all swap data recordkeeping and 
reporting.\97\ The Commission would therefore expect that any CPO or 
commodity pool entering into swap transactions would have an LEI. 
Conversely, if a reporting CPO and its pools do not engage in swap 
transactions, they would not be required to have LEIs. Moreover, 
futures market participants are not required to have LEIs generally, 
and as such, LEIs are not collected by the designated contract markets 
or derivatives clearing organizations with respect to futures 
transactions. Therefore, imposing such a requirement on reporting CPOs 
and their pools that do not engage in swaps would not assist the 
Commission in utilizing the other data streams available to it 
regarding futures trading activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, at 85 FR 26382 (May 4, 2020).
    \96\ See infra Form CPO-PQR, ``Reporting Instructions,'' no. 9.
    \97\ Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 
approved by the Commission on September 17, 2020. Publication in the 
Federal Register is pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, allowing only those LEIs that are maintained and duly 
renewed to satisfy the reporting requirement in the Revised Form runs 
counter to the Commission's stated purpose of the Revised Form. 
Currently, swap dealers and other registered entities \98\ are the only 
Commission registrants required to maintain and renew their LEIs.\99\ 
Notably, CPOs and their operated pools are not among those entities. 
Additionally, because CPOs and their operated pools are not required to 
obtain, maintain, or renew LEIs to participate in the futures market, 
the Commission believes that imposing such a requirement solely for 
Form CPO-PQR reporting purposes would not, at this time, advance the 
Commission's goal of monitoring CPOs and their operated pools for 
market and systemic risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 17 CFR 1.3, ``registered entity'' (including, inter alia, 
designated contract markets, swap execution facilities, derivatives 
clearing organizations, and swap data repositories, in the 
``registered entity'' definition).
    \99\ Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 
approved by the Commission on September 17, 2020. Publication in the 
Federal Register is pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that this approach to LEIs in the Final Rule 
does not preclude expanding the LEI requirement in the Revised Form in 
the future. As noted herein, and in the Proposal, the Final Rule is 
intended to leverage the other data developed by the Commission as they 
currently exist. The Commission currently does not require LEIs to 
participate in the commodity interest markets beyond the swaps market; 
however, in the future, the LEI requirement could be expanded to other 
commodity interest asset classes. If that should happen, reporting CPOs 
and their pools would be required to report those LEIs on the Revised 
Form as well. As LEIs become more ubiquitous in the market, and as more 
CPOs obtain and use them in operating their pools, the Commission 
anticipates that there will be a corresponding increase of reported 
LEIs on the Revised Form.
    With respect to commenters' concerns about cybersecurity, 
determining the feasibility of filing LEI information separately from 
the Revised Form would hinder the Commission's ability to adopt the 
Final Rule in a timely manner. The Commission believes that such delay 
serves neither its own regulatory interests nor the interests of 
Commission registrants required to file Form CPO-PQR. In arriving at 
this conclusion, the Commission weighed the benefits of adopting 
Revised Form CPO-PQR sooner, including the opportunity to begin fully 
incorporating the Revised Form's dataset into the Commission's 
oversight program for registered CPOs and their operated pools, as well 
as operational efficiencies for the Revised Form's filers, against 
whether the Commission should modify how data on the Revised Form is

[[Page 71779]]

collected. That analysis also included an assessment of the state of 
the Commission's current data security protocols.
    With respect to the Commission's data security protocols, it is 
currently in full compliance with all of the relevant statutes relating 
to information security and protection.\100\ The Commission's Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) audits the agency's security program annually, 
and as of the 2019 audit, OIG identified no material weaknesses and 
made no significant findings. Moreover, the OIG rated the Commission's 
security program as ``effective.'' \101\ In addition to the OIG review, 
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also assesses the 
Commission on a semiannual basis, and DHS' most recent assessment of 
the CFTC's security program for compliance with the Cybersecurity 
Framework (CSF), as required by the Office of Management and Budget, 
resulted in ratings of ``managed and measurable'' in all five functions 
of the CSF.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See, e.g., the Federal Information Security Modernization 
Act of 2014, 44 U.S.C 3551, et seq. (Dec. 18, 2014).
    \101\ ``Office of the Inspector General Semiannual Report to 
Congress: October 1, 2019-March 31, 2020,'' CFTC Office of the 
Inspector General, p. 8 (Mar. 31, 2020), available at https://www.cftc.gov/media/3946/oig_reporttocongress033120/download.
    \102\ ``Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 
Annual Report to Congress: Fiscal Year 2019,'' Office of Management 
and Budget. Although DHS has not yet published the Fiscal Year 2019 
report to its website, the Commission notes that it received similar 
ratings in fiscal year 2018. See ``Federal Information Security 
Modernization Act of 2014 Annual Report to Congress: Fiscal Year 
2018,'' Office of Management and Budget, p. 49 (Aug. 23, 2019), 
available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FISMA/2018/Report-FINAL-to-post.pdf. The CSF, developed by the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, includes five 
function areas: ``Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover.'' 
Id. at 17. A finding of ``managed and measurable,'' is the fourth 
highest of five levels and means, ``[q]uantitative and qualitative 
measures on the effectiveness of policies, procedures, and 
strategies are collected across the organization and used to assess 
them and make necessary changes.'' Id. at 31. Per the IG Reporting 
Metrics, a finding of ``managed and measurable'' ``is considered to 
be effective at the domain, function, and overall level[s].'' Id. at 
32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Commission's opinion, delaying the adoption of the Final 
Rule and of Revised Form CPO-PQR, specifically in order to separately 
collect a filing CPO's LEIs, would lead to an undesirable regulatory 
outcome. This approach would delay the adoption of Revised Form CPO-PQR 
significantly, if not indefinitely, thereby depriving filing CPOs of 
much-anticipated compliance relief, for the purpose of addressing 
arguably unwarranted (given the recent objective and favorable 
evaluations of this agency's information security and data protection 
protocols cited above) data security concerns only applicable to a 
limited portion of the Form CPO-PQR filing population. The Commission 
finds that the outcome of this approach would undermine and run counter 
to the Commission's stated purposes in the Proposal, i.e., revising 
Form CPO-PQR in a way that supports the Commission's ability to 
exercise its oversight of CPOs and their operated pools, while reducing 
reporting burdens for market participants.\103\ Taking all of this into 
account, the Commission concludes that adopting Revised Form CPO-PQR at 
this time, absent any significant modification as to how the 
information, including LEIs, is submitted, is appropriate. In 
conjunction with Commission staff's review of the Revised Form's PSOI 
within 18-24 months of this Final Rule's Compliance Date, the 
Commission further directs its staff to determine the feasibility, 
necessity, and advisability of separating a CPO's LEIs from the rest of 
Revised Form CPO-PQR in that same time frame. Lastly, the Commission 
remains committed to devoting significant resources to ensure its 
internal data security procedures are aligned with, or surpass, 
industry best practices, as they develop over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26380 (May 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. The Revised Form's Definitions, Instructions, and Questions

    As discussed above, the Commission also proposed several amendments 
to the Instructions of the Revised Form.\104\ For instance, the 
Commission proposed to require all reporting CPOs to file the Revised 
Form quarterly by redefining ``Reporting Period,'' to mean a calendar 
quarter.\105\ Additionally, the Commission proposed significant changes 
to Instructions 2 and 3, in connection with deleting Form CPO-PQR's 
Schedules B and C, as well as the elimination of terms related to the 
various thresholds used for those schedules, i.e., Mid-Sized CPO, Large 
CPO, and Large Pool.\106\ The Commission further queried in the 
Proposal: Are there ways the Commission could further clarify and 
refine the reporting instructions for completing Revised Form CPO-PQR 
in order to provide CPOs with greater certainty that they are 
completing the form correctly? \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26378 (May 4, 2020).
    \105\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26396 (May 4, 2020).
    \106\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26391 (May 4, 2020).
    \107\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26384 (May 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Quarterly Filing Schedule for All CPOs Completing the Revised Form
    The simplified, uniform, quarterly filing schedule proposed for the 
Revised Form with respect to all reporting CPOs and their operated 
pools received broad support from commenters. NFA generally expressed 
strong support for the Commission's efforts to streamline and simplify 
the reporting regime for reporting CPOs, including the quarterly filing 
schedule, and stated its belief that, ``the proposal will satisfy the 
Commission's goal of reducing reporting requirements in a manner that 
continues to facilitate effective oversight of CPOs and the pools that 
they operate.'' \108\ SIFMA AMG also expressed its support to increase 
the filing frequency of the Revised Form for all reporting CPOs because 
of the simplified filing schedule across all CPOs, regardless of size, 
and the consistency in filing schedules between the Revised Form and 
NFA Form PQR.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ NFA, at 1.
    \109\ SIFMA AMG, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting the changes as proposed, the Commission still favors 
employing a simpler, more uniform filing requirement for all reporting 
CPOs. This straightforward filing structure and schedule should 
facilitate compliance and reporting under Sec.  4.27, thereby enhancing 
the efficacy of the Commission's oversight of reporting CPOs and their 
operated pools.
ii. Instructions 3 and 5
    Instruction 3 on Form CPO-PQR was carried over, in relevant part, 
to the Proposal's Revised Form and states: The CPO May Be Required to 
Aggregate Information Concerning Certain Types of Pools. For the parts 
of Form CPO-PQR that request information about individual Pools, you 
must report aggregate information for Parallel Managed Accounts and 
Master Feeder Arrangements as if each were an individual Pool, but not 
Parallel Pools. Assets held in Parallel Managed Accounts should be 
treated as assets of the Pools with which they are aggregated.\110\ 
Paragraphs in Instruction 3 of the existing form describing how to 
determine if a CPO is a Mid-Sized or Large CPO required to complete 
Schedules B or C, or if a pool is a Large Pool for purposes of 
completing Schedule C, were proposed to be deleted from the Revised 
Form.\111\ In the Proposal, the Commission also retained

[[Page 71780]]

Instruction 5, which read as follows: I am required to aggregate funds 
or accounts to determine whether I meet a reporting threshold, or I am 
electing to aggregate funds for reporting purposes. How do I 
``aggregate'' funds or accounts for these purposes? \112\ Instruction 5 
then provided substantive examples on how to aggregate funds as if they 
were one pool with respect to parallel managed accounts (PMAs) and/or 
Master-Feeder Arrangements.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26391 (May 4, 2020) (proposing 
Instruction 3 of the Revised Form).
    \111\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26391 (May 4, 2020).
    \112\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26392 (May 4, 2020) (proposing 
Instruction 5 of the Revised Form).
    \113\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NFA responded to the Commission's question on additional 
clarifications to the Revised Form's instructions, stating that, if the 
Revised Form is adopted as proposed, the reporting requirements for 
CPOs will no longer be dependent on reporting thresholds, and 
therefore, a detailed instruction on PMAs is not necessary.\114\ NFA 
recommended accordingly that the Commission ``consider whether these 
instructions and the related definitional terms should be eliminated.'' 
\115\ SIFMA AMG also stated that the purpose of aggregating pool assets 
would no longer be relevant under the Revised Form, and it would be 
unclear what these instructions mean under the Revised Form, absent 
those reporting thresholds.\116\ Therefore, SIFMA AMG also requested 
the Commission remove Instructions 3 and 5 related to PMAs, given the 
proposed deletion of Schedules B and C and the associated thresholds 
for CPOs and pools. SIFMA AMG, like NFA, believed that the concept of 
PMAs and pool asset aggregation, as a whole, is no longer relevant to 
completing the Revised Form.\117\ SIFMA AMG also recommended the 
Commission revise the Revised Form further to permit the filing of 
Master-Feeder Arrangements as one pool, rather than requiring each fund 
to report separately.\118\ Finally, SIFMA AMG suggested the Commission 
adopt the approach taken in Joint Form PF with respect to Master-Feeder 
Arrangements, specifically in Joint Form PF Instruction 5.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ NFA, at 3.
    \115\ Id.
    \116\ SIFMA AMG, at 8-9 (stating its belief that these 
instructions were borrowed from Joint Form PF and the main function 
of this instruction is to aggregate pool assets of a CPO, for the 
purpose of determining whether a firm is a Large, Mid-Sized, or 
Small CPO, and whether a pool is a Large Pool).
    \117\ Id.
    \118\ Id. at 9.
    \119\ SIFMA AMG, at 11-13 (explaining further that, ``[t]o align 
with the Commission's proposal to require pool LEIs on the CPO-PQR, 
we are suggesting that should a single filing be permitted for 
Master-Feeder Arrangements, a CPO should provide the LEI of a Master 
Fund'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission generally agrees with commenters with respect to 
PMAs and the remaining references to reporting thresholds in the 
proposed Revised Form. Consequently, the Commission believes that much 
of the language in these instructions should be deleted for internal 
consistency in the Revised Form. Therefore, the Commission is revising 
Instruction 3 to remove all references to PMAs and Parallel Pools, 
focusing solely on reporting information concerning pools in a Master-
Feeder Arrangement. Thus, Instruction 3 in the Revised Form only 
addresses how Master-Feeder Arrangements should be reported.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See infra Revised Form CPO-PQR, ``Reporting 
Instructions,'' no. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the treatment of Master-Feeder Arrangements under 
the Revised Form, commenters raise an interesting question as to the 
proper requirements to impose on structures meeting the form's 
definition of a Master-Feeder Arrangement. Specifically, the form 
provides that a Master-Feeder Arrangement is ``an arrangement in which 
one or more funds (``Feeder Funds'') invest all or substantially all of 
their assets in a single fund (``Master Fund'').'' \121\ This 
definition encompasses many variations of fund complexes from funds 
with wholly-owned subsidiaries, to funds with multiple levels of 
intermediary funds between the feeder and master funds, to the more 
traditional structures where two or more feeder funds invest 
substantially all of their assets into a commonly owned master fund. 
The Commission believes that, to adequately consider the propriety of 
permitting all such fund structures to consolidate their filings on the 
Revised Form, additional analysis is required to determine the 
appropriate parameters to impose on such relief. Therefore, the 
Commission declines to change the reporting approach for Master-Feeder 
Arrangements at this time and instead, instructs staff to engage in 
such an analysis to determine what modifications may be needed to 
provide for consolidated reporting where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ 17 CFR part 4, app. A, ``Definitions of Terms,'' ``Master-
Feeder Arrangement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon consideration of the comments, the Commission is deleting 
Instruction 5 in its entirety because this instruction was originally 
included to explain how a reporting CPO should determine if it is a 
Large, Mid-Sized, or Small CPO, and what the resulting scope of its 
filing should be, i.e., whether Schedules B or C (or both) were 
required. Accordingly, because Instruction 5 is no longer applicable, 
the Commission has removed it from the Revised Form.
iii. Instruction 4
    The Proposal also retained Instruction 4, which provided the 
following: I advise a Pool that invests in other Pools or funds (e.g., 
a ``fund of funds''). How should I treat these investments for purposes 
of Form CPO-PQR? \122\ The Instruction states, in pertinent part, that 
for purposes of this Form CPO-PQR, you may disregard any Pool's equity 
investments in other Pools.\123\ NFA requested that the Commission 
``consider eliminating the guidance in Instruction 4 regarding the 
`investments in other Pools generally' heading'' because that guidance 
allows a CPO to disregard a pool's equity investments in other pools, 
and NFA would like these assets included.\124\ This reporting helps NFA 
``identify pool assets that may also be reported by another pool or 
fund.'' \125\ However, IAA disagreed ``with any recommendation to 
eliminate Instruction 4,'' because IAA would consider that ``a 
significant change in how CPOs currently report on the form.'' \126\ 
Consequently, IAA stated that this particular change should be 
considered, if at all, ``as part of a formal rulemaking, with notice 
and comment.'' \127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26391-92 (May 4, 2020) 
(proposing to retain Instruction 4 in the Revised Form).
    \123\ Id.
    \124\ NFA, at 3.
    \125\ Id. (emphasizing that NFA would like to see these ``other 
pool investments'' reflected in multiple answers in the Revised 
Form, in particular to Questions 2 and 8 on assets under management, 
Question 9 for the calculation of monthly rates of return, and the 
PSOI in Question 11 on investments in other funds).
    \126\ IAA, at 6, n.28.
    \127\ IAA, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instruction 4, in the original form, was generally intended to 
provide clear instruction that investments in other pools should not be 
included in a specific reporting CPO's or operated pool's applicable 
reporting threshold. For example, a pool's fund-of-funds investments, 
in which the reporting CPO may have little to no control over the 
management or performance of those assets, should not cause a pool to 
be considered a ``Large Pool,'' which would require additional, highly 
detailed reporting with respect to that pool. Similarly, a reporting 
CPO should not also have been categorized as a Large or Mid-Sized CPO, 
with consequences to the scope and breadth of their filings, solely due 
to the fact that its aggregated pool AUM included

[[Page 71781]]

investments in other pools that it does not operate.
    Although NFA presents a compelling argument regarding its 
anticipated use of information regarding pools' investments in other 
pools, the Commission has determined to continue to provide CPOs with 
the discretion to include or exclude such investments, provided that 
their treatment is consistent throughout the Revised Form. The 
Commission understands from IAA that this would be a significant change 
in how CPOs of pools that invest in other pools engage with the form 
and could be quite burdensome for CPOs that may be reporting such 
information for the first time. Moreover, the Commission believes that 
retaining the obligation to include such investments in the reported 
pool's AUM and NAV (Question 8 of the Revised Form), as well as 
requiring the investments to be enumerated in the PSOI, as discussed 
below, provides adequate information about a pool's investments in 
other pools for the Commission to oversee their activities, while the 
Commission continues to develop its abilities to integrate its data 
regarding reporting CPOs and their operated pools. Therefore, 
consistent with Instruction 4 as originally adopted, the Commission 
will continue to require that such investments be included in a 
reporting CPO's response to Question 10 in the current form, which 
solicits information regarding the pool's statement of changes 
concerning AUM, and which has been redesignated as Question 8 in the 
Revised Form, as well as in the PSOI in the Revised Form, but will not 
otherwise require such CPO to include a pool's investments in other 
pools in its responses to the Revised Form.
    The Final Rule's revisions to Instruction 4 also require the 
reporting CPO to include such investments in other pools in the PSOI. 
In the Proposal, the Commission amended the form by removing detailed 
pool information set out in Schedules B and C, but retained the PSOI, 
which has now become the only section on Revised Form CPO-PQR that 
provides detailed pool investment information. In the original form, 
the PSOI supplemented the rest of the information provided; going 
forward, with the amendments removing Schedules B and C, the PSOI's 
value and status has changed, as it is now the key collection of 
information through which the Commission can analyze the market 
activities and risks of CPOs and their operated pools. Therefore, due 
to the change of importance and status of the PSOI, along with its 
plain language, which includes line items for various classes of funds, 
such as mutual funds, private funds, and money market funds, reporting 
CPOs must disclose their pools' investments in other funds as part of 
the PSOI. The Commission further believes that requiring these 
investments to be listed in the PSOI is necessary for it to make full 
use of the information provided on Question 8 in the Revised Form, for 
which such investments must also be included. Without this detail in 
the PSOI, it would be very difficult to determine the asset classes 
influencing the movement in a pool's AUM and NAV from one reporting 
period to the next. Therefore, the Revised Form retains the current 
general treatment of investments in other pools currently set forth in 
Instruction 4, with the additional clarification that they are included 
in the PSOI.
    With respect to pools that invest substantially all of their assets 
in other pools, their investments in other pools were required to be 
included in the reporting CPO's responses to Schedule A of Form CPO-
PQR. Because under the Revised Form, Schedule A comprises the entirety 
of the Revised Form, with the exception of the addition of the PSOI, 
the Commission is revising Instruction 4 to provide that such other 
pool investments must be reported on in the Revised Form.
iv. Definition of ``Broker''
    Like the original iteration of the form, the Proposal defined 
``broker'' as any entity that provides clearing, prime brokerage, or 
similar services to the Pool.\128\ IAA recommended that the Commission 
clarify whether a ``broker'' in the Revised Form refers to only 
commodity-related brokers, or includes non-commodity brokers.\129\ IAA 
further explained that CPOs may have many relationships with executing 
brokers for non-commodity interest transactions, and absent a 
clarification of this definition, this prompt would constitute a 
substantial burden for CPOs to include all brokers in the Revised 
Form.\130\ Finally, IAA queried what regulatory interest or benefit the 
Commission would gain from a broad definition of ``broker,'' and 
concluded that, ``we do not believe this information is necessary to 
implement [Revised] Form CPO-PQR or to assist the CFTC in its oversight 
of the commodities markets.'' \131\ ICI also supported clarifying the 
``broker'' definition in this manner, and limiting the responses to the 
Revised Form ``to brokers that a CPO uses with respect to commodity 
interest transactions,'' because, ICI explained, such an approach would 
be consistent with the Proposal's stated purpose of refining reporting, 
``in order to better monitor the commodity interest markets.'' \132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26394 (May 4, 2020).
    \129\ IAA, at 5.
    \130\ Id. (stating that large numbers of non-commodity interest 
transactions and differences in brokerage firm names could make 
answering this question completely particularly difficult for CPOs 
that have hundreds of relationships with approved brokers for their 
non-commodity interest trading).
    \131\ IAA, at 6. IAA further stated its expectation that, should 
the Commission clarify the ``broker'' definition to refer only to 
brokers involved in commodity interest transactions, then NFA would 
likewise adopt an identical interpretation for NFA Form PQR. Id.
    \132\ ICI, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has consistently understood the term ``broker,'' in 
the context of Form CPO-PQR, to include more than just those service 
providers engaging in the commodity interest markets,\133\ and has not 
limited the definition of the term ``broker,'' as used either in the 
current form or the Revised Form, in any manner. Moreover, Form CPO-
PQR, as a general matter, has consistently requested information on all 
enumerated service providers used by a reporting CPO for its operated 
pool(s), regardless of the asset class or markets involved.\134\ 
Consistent with this position, which is supported by the plain meaning 
of the Form CPO-PQR's definition of ``broker,'' reporting CPOs 
currently filing the form should identify any broker used in any 
transactions for any pool not operated pursuant to an exemption or 
exclusion during the reporting period. This is also consistent with 
other aspects of the form and the Revised Form, e.g., the PSOI, which 
are not limited to collecting data solely on the commodity interest 
transactions of a reporting CPO and its operated pools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See 17 CFR part 4, app. A, ``Definitions of Terms,'' 
``broker'' (defining ``broker'' as ``an entity that provides 
clearing, prime brokerage or similar services to the Pool'').
    \134\ See, e.g., 2015 CPO-PQR FAQs, in which Commission staff 
further echoed this broad understanding of ``broker'' in its 
discussion of pool custodians, marketers, and underwriters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes elsewhere in this release that the trading 
activity or investments of pools in asset classes other than commodity 
interests may impact the viability of that pool and/or the overall 
operations of its CPO.\135\ This fact has been highlighted by the 
recent unprecedented market movements and difficulties resulting from 
the Covid-19 pandemic and its broad negative effects on the U.S. and 
global economies. Therefore, the Commission finds that collecting data 
on CPO and pool activity outside of commodity interests is also of 
general

[[Page 71782]]

regulatory interest and concern to the Commission with respect to its 
effective oversight of reporting CPOs and their operated pools. The 
Commission has concluded that limiting the brokers reported solely to 
those used in connection with commodity interest transactions would not 
be conducive to its effective oversight, would be a significant 
departure from its clear past positions and interpretations of the 
form, and further, would result in internal inconsistency in the 
Revised Form, where some aspects of the data collection would be 
limited to commodity interests, whereas others would not. Therefore, 
after considering the comments, the Commission is not changing the 
scope of the definition of the term ``brokers,'' and confirms, in the 
context of the Revised Form as adopted, that the term is not limited to 
those brokers used in connection with commodity interest transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See supra II.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Elimination of Questions Regarding Auditors and Marketers
    The Proposal also would remove questions regarding a CPO's auditors 
and marketers employed for its operated pools because the Commission 
and NFA have access to this information through other regulatory 
sources, ``which the Commission preliminarily believes obviates the 
need for obtaining this information through Revised Form CPO-PQR.'' 
\136\ SIFMA AMG specifically supported the removal of these questions, 
stating this proposed deletion is especially appropriate where the 
information is already required elsewhere by other regulations or 
filings, and is therefore, easily accessible to the CFTC and NFA.\137\ 
With respect to questions regarding a CPO's auditors or marketers, the 
Commission is adopting the Revised Form as proposed, omitting those 
questions, for the reasons articulated in the Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26383 (May 4, 2020).
    \137\ SIFMA AMG, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. FAQs and Glossary
    The Revised Form includes a list of ``Defined Terms,'' which was 
entitled ``Definitions of Terms'' in its prior iteration. In 2015, 
Commission staff published responses to frequently asked questions (the 
2015 CPO-PQR FAQs, or FAQs) providing detailed answers to questions 
from CPOs attempting to complete Form CPO-PQR.\138\ SIFMA AMG requested 
that the Commission align the 2015 CPO-PQR FAQs with the Revised Form, 
such that these items can be clarified and updated for completeness and 
accuracy.\139\ IAA recommended that the Commission improve the clarity 
of the FAQs by removing language that would not apply to the Revised 
Form, specifically referencing PMAs, parallel pool structures, and 
aggregating funds for reporting threshold purposes.\140\ MFA suggested 
the Commission amend the instructions in the Revised Form to 
``incorporate relevant, substantive FAQs into the instructions of Form 
CPO-PQR.'' \141\ Furthermore, SIFMA AMG requested an additional change 
to the FAQs to create a complete Glossary of Terms for use by filers of 
the Revised Form.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ 2015 CPO-PQR FAQs.
    \139\ SIFMA AMG, at 17 (recommending further the creation of a 
centralized ``Glossary of Terms'' for use by filers of the Revised 
Form and/or NFA Form PQR). Currently, SIFMA AMG states that some 
definitions may be found in NFA Form PQR, while others are solely in 
the Revised Form, and still other definitions or information solely 
published in the FAQs. SIFMA AMG would like to see this information 
centralized and easily accessible for CPOs filing the Revised Form. 
Id.
    \140\ IAA, at 6.
    \141\ MFA, at 3. MFA stated that otherwise, Commission staff 
would need to separately issue FAQs with respect to the adopted 
Revised Form to replace the existing 2015 CPO-PQR FAQs, which MFA 
views as less effective than centralizing and incorporating FAQs and 
instruction examples in the Revised Form. Id. at 4.
    \142\ SIFMA AMG, at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission understands commenters' concerns that the form will 
be significantly revised by the Final Rule, resulting in large portions 
of the 2015 CPO-PQR FAQs becoming obsolete or inaccurate, absent 
commensurate revisions. Therefore, while reviewing comments and 
developing the Revised Form for the Commission's consideration, 
Commission staff has also reviewed the 2015 CPO-PQR FAQs in light of 
the revisions adopted herein. The Commission expects staff to complete 
this review and to publish updated FAQs regarding the Revised Form, as 
soon as practicable, following the adoption of the Final Rule.
    The Commission is also making some technical changes to regulatory 
citations and cross-references in the Revised Form, and further 
clarifying its definitions and instructions to facilitate completion of 
the Revised Form. The technical clarifications include revising the 
definition of ``GAAP'' in the Revised Form to reflect the ability of 
reporting CPOs to use certain ``alternative accounting principles, 
standards, or practices'' currently permitted under Sec.  4.27(c)(2), 
which is redesignated by the Final Rule as Sec.  4.27(c)(4). The 
Commission is also reorganizing the Revised Form, so that the Defined 
Terms precede its Instructions, which the Commission hopes will 
facilitate understanding of the Revised Form.

G. Substituted Compliance

    The Proposal also included amendments to Sec.  4.27 that would 
allow CPOs to file NFA Form PQR in lieu of filing the Revised Form with 
the Commission,\143\ and eliminate the ability of dually registered 
CPO-investment advisers filing Joint Form PF to file such form in lieu 
of the Revised Form.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26378 (May 4, 2020).
    \144\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26378 (May 4, 2020) (citing 
the lack of similarities between Joint Form PF and the Proposal's 
Revised Form).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. NFA Form PQR
    In general, commenters supported the proposed amendment permitting 
CPOs to file NFA Form PQR in lieu of the Revised Form for the purpose 
of improving filing efficiencies.\145\ IAA commended the Commission 
``for offering CPOs additional filing efficiencies without compromising 
the Commission's ability to obtain affected data.'' \146\ IAA further 
recommended that the Commission add a specific instruction to the 
Revised Form to reflect this allowing the filing of NFA Form PQR as 
substituted compliance.\147\ IAA stated that by explaining this 
substituted compliance for NFA Form PQR within the Revised Form's 
instructions, the Commission would ``assist CPOs that frequently review 
the instructions for the form in addition to or instead of the text of 
the rule to ensure the filing is accurate and complete.'' \148\ 
Additionally, as noted with respect to the proposed uniform, quarterly 
filing schedule above, SIFMA AMG expressed its strong support for a 
single filing schedule across the Revised Form and NFA Form PQR, as 
well as for the adoption of substituted compliance with respect to NFA 
Form PQR.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Barnard, at 1-2; Hunter, at 1; IAA, at 4.
    \146\ IAA, at 4.
    \147\ IAA, at 6 (requesting that ``the instruction state that a 
CPO `required to file NFA Form PQR with the NFA for the reporting 
period may make the NFA filing in lieu of the Form CPO-PQR report 
required under Rule 4.27(c)''').
    \148\ IAA, at 6.
    \149\ SIFMA AMG, at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has determined that, upon NFA's inclusion of 
questions eliciting LEIs, NFA Form PQR will be substantively consistent 
with Revised Form CPO-PQR. The Commission recognizes, however, that 
absent a condition requiring NFA Form PQR to be substantively 
consistent with Form CPO-PQR on an ongoing basis, it is possible for 
the two forms to diverge

[[Page 71783]]

over time while still being eligible for substituted compliance, and 
that this could undermine the Commission's collection of vital 
information regarding reporting CPOs and their operated pools. 
Therefore, the Commission will review any proposed changes to NFA Form 
PQR consistent with the procedure set forth in CEA section 17(j).\150\ 
This will ensure the continued alignment of the forms. Because any 
alterations to NFA Form PQR would be accomplished through amendments to 
NFA membership rules, which are subject to review by Commission staff 
and either notice to, or review by, the Commission, ongoing monitoring 
of the continued substantive consistency of the forms should be easily 
implemented through this existing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ 7 U.S.C. 21(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission is adopting, as proposed, the amendments 
to Sec.  4.27(c)(2) clearly establishing substituted compliance for the 
Revised Form with respect to NFA Form PQR. Finally, upon consideration 
of the comments, the Commission is adding a new Instruction 2 in the 
Revised Form that explicitly states that to the extent a CPO has timely 
filed the National Futures Association's Form PQR, such filing shall be 
deemed to satisfy this Form CPO-PQR.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ See infra Revised Form CPO-PQR, ``Reporting 
Instructions,'' no. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Joint Form PF
    The decision to rescind substituted compliance with respect to 
Joint Form PF elicited differing opinions from commenters. For 
instance, NFA did not support the alternative of filing all or part of 
Joint Form PF, in lieu of the Revised Form, because Joint Form PF is at 
least as burdensome as the Commission's form, and further, it includes 
``significantly more information than NFA needs.'' \152\ ICI also 
disagreed with replacing the form with all or part of Joint Form PF 
because that would impose additional burdens on dually registered CPOs, 
who are not currently required to file Joint Form PF for their 
registered funds, and therefore, would be required to adapt their 
current systems and processes to Joint Form PF.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ NFA, at 2 (stating there is no need to ensure similar 
reporting obligations between the SEC and CFTC, where ``the 
Commission believes it will have sufficient tools with [the Revised 
Form] and other data streams to effectively oversee registered CPOs 
and the commodity interest markets''). NFA noted further that, even 
if the CFTC were to rescind Form CPO-PQR in favor of Joint Form PF, 
NFA would still require its CPO Members to file NFA Form PQR, 
``which is tailored to NFA's needs and is not a significant burden 
on Members to complete.'' Id.
    \153\ ICI, at 5 (agreeing that ``the proposed changes to Form 
CPO-PQR, relative to the alternatives, would permit the Commission 
to discharge its regulatory duties with respect to CPOs and their 
operated pools that might have the greatest impact on market and 
systemic risk, while easing reporting obligations on a significant 
number of CPOs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, AIMA requested that the Commission and NFA allow dually 
registered CPOs to file Joint Form PF in satisfaction of the reporting 
obligations in Sec.  4.27 and NFA Compliance Rule 2-46, because this 
approach would reduce the reporting burden, ``while still assuring NFA 
has the necessary information from a supervisory perspective.'' \154\ 
Rather than eliminate Sec.  4.27(d) entirely, SIFMA AMG requested that 
the Commission preserve substituted compliance with respect to Joint 
Form PF on a voluntary basis because some of its members believe there 
would be efficiencies in allowing Joint Form PF to be filed for both 
private fund and non-private fund pools.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ AIMA, at 2.
    \155\ SIFMA AMG, at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission specifically asked in the Proposal, For CPOs dually-
registered with the CFTC and the SEC, if Form CPO-PQR is amended as 
proposed, would you cease reporting data for these pools on Joint Form 
PF?'' \156\ AIMA responded that these CPOs are likely to continue 
including them rather than incurring the costs of a separate filing 
obligation, if ``the inclusion of such non-private fund pools on Form 
PF can be treated as satisfaction of separate Form CPO-PQR and NFA Form 
PQR filing obligations, and those pools have been included in the Form 
PF previously.'' \157\ ICI argued that, although adopting the Proposal 
may mean less data with respect to commodity pools would be reported on 
Joint Form PF, that prospect, in general, should not be the driving 
factor in this policy decision--rather, the Commission should focus on 
whether the Revised Form elicits the information it needs and will use 
in pursuit of its regulatory mission with respect to CPOs and their 
pools.\158\ SIFMA AMG noted, however, that it generally supports the 
elimination of detailed reporting requirements for CPOs, and it does 
not believe there would be regulatory harm, if information is no longer 
being provided on Joint Form PF with respect to non-private fund 
pools.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26384 (May 4, 2020).
    \157\ AIMA, at 2 (noting that if the Commission decides against 
allowing Joint Form PF as substituted compliance for Sec.  4.27, 
``it is likely that non-private fund commodity pools will no longer 
be included in Form PF to reduce the filing burden as far as 
possible'').
    \158\ ICI, at 5-6.
    \159\ SIFMA AMG, at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments received, the Commission is adopting 
the amendments to Sec.  4.27, eliminating the substituted compliance 
for a dually registered CPO-investment adviser completing Joint Form PF 
in lieu of the Revised Form, as proposed for the reasons stated in the 
Proposal.\160\ The original Sec.  4.27(d), which provided that 
substituted compliance mechanism with respect to Joint Form PF, is no 
longer appropriate because: (1) The Revised Form will differ from Joint 
Form PF, both in substance and filing schedule; and (2) continuing to 
accept Joint Form PF in lieu of the Revised Form would frustrate an 
intended and clearly stated purpose of the Proposal, i.e., is to 
enhance and better coordinate the Commission's own internal data 
streams to more efficiently and effectively oversee its registered, 
reporting CPOs and their operated pools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26383 (May 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Substituted Compliance for CPOs of Registered Investment Companies
    ICI also commented particularly on the burdens imposed by the 
proposed amendments on CPOs of registered investment companies (RICs). 
Specifically, ICI requested that, to eliminate duplicative reporting 
between the SEC and CFTC regimes applicable to the operations of RICs, 
the Commission consider adopting a substituted compliance approach with 
respect to periodic reporting by CPOs of RICs, similar to its 2013 
rulemaking to harmonize RIC and CPO/pool regulatory requirements.\161\ 
Although the Commission noted in the Proposal that RICs are subject to 
comprehensive regulation by the SEC, it did not discuss the possibility 
of deferring to the SEC with respect to collecting information from 
CPOs of RICs. Under these circumstances, the Commission would be unable 
to address the issue of providing additional substituted compliance to 
CPOs of RICs without re-proposing and reopening the comment period for 
the NPRM.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ ICI, at 2-3, n.6. ICI suggested that the CFTC use the SEC 
filings and reports already filed by CPO/IAs of RICs, which require 
disclosure of LEIs, to glean data on the commodity interest 
activities of these operators and pools. Id. See also Harmonization 
of Compliance Obligations for Registered Investment Companies 
Required to Register as Commodity Pool Operators, 78 FR 52308 (Aug. 
22, 2013).
    \162\ 5 U.S.C. 553(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Commission believes that the suggested approach by 
ICI would simply not be practical. As explained by ICI, RICs file 
numerous

[[Page 71784]]

regulatory filings, \163\ each of which are designed for a particular 
purpose by the SEC. Incorporating those filings into the Commission's 
filing regime via substituted compliance would be difficult to 
accomplish and would require the devotion of significant time and 
resources by both the Commission and NFA. None of these filings, 
however, is a direct analog to the Revised Form, which adds to the 
complexity of any undertaking to create a substituted compliance regime 
with respect to those filings. Finally, the Commission has identified 
limited benefit in providing such relief, if it were possible, because 
such CPOs would remain subject to NFA's independent reporting 
requirement in NFA Form PQR. Therefore, the Commission declines to 
provide additional substituted compliance for CPOs of RICs in the 
amendments to Sec.  4.27 adopted by the Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ ICI, at 2, n.7. These reports include N-PORT and N-CEN and 
address information about the RIC's portfolio, investment policies 
and practices, and other information. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Compliance Date

    MFA requested that the Commission consider providing registered 
CPOs with six months from the adoption of a Final Rule with respect to 
Form CPO-PQR to permit reporting CPOs to make ``coding and software 
changes'' to accommodate Revised Form CPO-PQR's requirements.\164\ The 
Commission has determined not to require filing of reports on the 
Revised Form for the reporting period ending December 31, 2020. 
However, to the extent reporting CPOs are required to file NFA Form PQR 
for the reporting period ending December 31, 2020, that filing must 
still be submitted in accordance with applicable NFA membership rules. 
Therefore, reporting CPOs will be required to submit the Revised Form 
sixty days after the first 2021 reporting period ends on March 31, 
2021, making initial compliance with the Revised Form due on May 30, 
2021. The Commission has determined that this schedule allows for 
adequate time for CPOs and NFA to prepare their systems and procedures 
with respect to the Revised Form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ MFA, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Related Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies, in 
promulgating regulations, to consider whether the rules they propose 
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities and, if so, to provide a regulatory flexibility analysis 
regarding the economic impact on those entities. Each Federal agency is 
required to conduct an initial and final regulatory flexibility 
analysis for each rule of general applicability for which the agency 
issues a general notice of proposed rulemaking.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Final Rule adopted by the Commission will affect only persons 
registered or required to be registered as CPOs. The Commission has 
previously established certain definitions of ``small entities'' to be 
used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its rules on such 
entities in accordance with the requirements of the RFA.\166\ With 
respect to CPOs, the Commission previously has determined that a CPO is 
a small entity for purposes of the RFA, if it meets the criteria for an 
exemption from registration under Sec.  4.13(a)(2).\167\ Because the 
Final Rule generally applies to persons registered or required to be 
registered as CPOs with the Commission, the RFA is not applicable to 
the Final Rule.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ See, e.g., Policy Statement and Establishment of 
Definitions of ``Small Entities'' for Purposes of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 47 FR 18618, 18620 (Apr. 30, 1982).
    \167\ Id. at 47 FR 18619-20 (Apr. 30, 1982). Commission 
regulation at Sec.  4.13(a)(2) exempts a person from registration as 
a CPO when: (1) None of the pools operated by that person has more 
than 15 participants at any time, and (2) when excluding certain 
sources of funding, the total gross capital contributions the person 
receives for units of participation in all of the pools it operates 
or intends to operate do not, in the aggregate, exceed $400,000. 17 
CFR 4.13(a)(2).
    \168\ Moreover, Sec.  4.27(b)(2)(i) specifically excludes from 
the obligation to file Form CPO-PQR any CPO that operates only pools 
for which it maintains . . . an exemption from registration as a 
commodity pool operator as provided in Sec.  4.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby 
certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this Final Rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

i. Overview
    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) imposes certain requirements on 
Federal agencies in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any 
collection of information as defined by the PRA.\169\ Under the PRA, an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid control number from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 
The amendments set forth in the Proposal would result in a collection 
of information within the meaning of the PRA, as discussed below. The 
Commission therefore submitted the Proposal to OMB for review. The 
Proposal also invited the public and other Federal agencies to comment 
on any aspect of the proposed information collection requirements 
discussed therein; \170\ however, no such comments were received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
    \170\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26386 (May 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Final Rule affects a single collection of information for which 
the Commission has previously received a control number from OMB. This 
collection of information is, ``Rules Relating to the Operations and 
Activities of Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors 
and to Monthly Reporting by Futures Commission Merchants, OMB control 
number 3038-0005'' (Collection 3038-0005). Collection 3038-0005 
primarily accounts for the burden associated with part 4 of the 
Commission's regulations that concern compliance obligations generally 
applicable to CPOs and commodity trading advisors (CTAs), as well as 
certain enumerated exemptions from registration as such, exclusions 
from those definitions, and available relief from compliance with 
certain regulatory requirements.
    As discussed above, the Final Rule includes substantive changes to 
the current form, such as (1) amending Schedule A, (which, together 
with the PSOI that is currently part of Schedule B, will constitute the 
entirety of the Revised Form), to add a requirement to disclose the 
LEIs (if any) for each reporting CPO and operated pool; (2) moving 
Schedule B's ``Schedule of Investments'' section to Schedule A; and (3) 
rescinding the remainder of the current form's current Schedules B and 
C. Additionally, Sec.  4.27(c)(2) will now permit the filing of NFA 
Form PQR with NFA in lieu of reporting CPOs filing the Revised Form 
with the Commission. Therefore, the Commission is amending Collection 
3038-0005 to be consistent with the finalized restructuring of the 
Revised Form. Specifically, the Commission is amending the collection 
to reflect the expected adjustment in burden hours for registered CPOs 
filing the Revised Form for their operated pools, and also to include 
in the collection, a reporting CPO's ability to file NFA Form PQR in 
lieu of filing the Revised Form, provided that it is determined to be 
substantively consistent with the Revised Form.
    This Final Rule is not expected to impose any significant new 
burdens on CPOs, but rather will constitute a

[[Page 71785]]

substantial reduction in reporting burden for most impacted 
registrants. Approximately half of all registered CPOs are currently 
considered Mid-Sized CPOs or Large CPOs under the existing form and 
filing regime. Due to the Final Rule and its significant revisions to 
the form, these reporting CPOs will be required to answer far fewer 
questions, when compared to the historical Form CPO-PQR's 
requirements.\171\ CPOs classified as Small CPOs may experience a 
slight increase in burden, due to an increase in the frequency of 
reporting to a quarterly basis rather than annually, and the addition 
of the PSOI to the Revised Form for all reporting CPOs. The Commission 
believes, however, that for many of these CPOs, this burden increase 
will practically be slight or very technical in nature, because all 
reporting CPOs currently complete NFA Form PQR, which also includes a 
schedule of investments identical to the Revised Form's PSOI, on a 
quarterly basis pursuant to NFA membership rules. The Commission 
anticipates that going forward, pursuant to amended Sec.  4.27(c)(2), 
reporting CPOs, regardless of their size or classification under the 
original form, will complete and file NFA Form PQR in lieu of the 
Revised Form, which will further allow them to maximize efficiency by 
fulfilling both NFA and CFTC reporting requirements with one 
filing.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ See, e.g., supra pt. II.B (discussing the elimination of 
Schedules B and C from the Revised Form).
    \172\ See infra Sec.  4.27(c)(2), as amended by this Final Rule 
(permitting the filing of NFA Form PQR in lieu of filing the Revised 
Form with the Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission infers that the Final Rule and the 
Revised Form will generally prove to be less burdensome for reporting 
CPOs, or at least, will not create any new net burdens for them. As a 
result, the Commission is amending Collection 3038-0005, as proposed, 
to reflect the elimination of reporting thresholds and classifications 
of CPO by size, as well as the multiple Schedules in the original form; 
to account for the uniform quarterly filing schedule adopted for all 
reporting CPOs for their operated pools; and to adopt an overall 
estimated burden for all filings that includes the retained questions 
from Schedule A, as well as the adopted PSOI (from original Schedule B) 
discussed above. Although the Final Rule results in an increase in the 
burden hours associated with completing the Revised Form, the 
Commission anticipates that, in practice, reporting CPOs will either 
experience no change in their burden, or some decrease in burden. As 
discussed above, the Commission has determined to accept the filing of 
NFA Form PQR in lieu of filing the Revised Form. Because any data on 
NFA Form PQR submitted as substituted compliance for required Sec.  
4.27 reporting would thereby become data collected by the Commission, 
the burden associated with NFA Form PQR must also be included in a 
collection of information with an OMB control number. Therefore, the 
Commission is amending the current burden associated with OMB Control 
Number 3038-0005 to also reflect the burden resulting from NFA Form 
PQR, which the Commission estimates to be substantively identical to 
that derived from the Revised Form.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ As stated in the Proposal, ``the PRA estimates . . . 
assume that all registered CPOs will either file Revised Form CPO-
PQR on a quarterly basis, or NFA Form PQR, but in no event will a 
CPO be required to file both.'' 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26386 
(May 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the fact that the Commission will accept the filing of NFA 
Form PQR in lieu of a filing on the Revised Form, the Commission has 
determined that it should retain its own form for data collection 
purposes and to ensure that it retains the ability to perform its 
regulatory duties and satisfy its data needs regarding CPOs in the 
future on a unilateral basis, if necessary. Moreover, the Commission 
anticipates that it will incorporate the information collected on the 
Revised Form more consistently with its other data streams. To that 
end, retaining its own form independent of NFA confirms and preserves 
the Commission's independent and primary role in developing its 
regulatory and compliance program with respect to registered CPOs and 
their pools generally, notwithstanding its history of delegating 
certain registration and compliance functions to NFA. Furthermore, 
retaining the Revised Form should ensure that the public is able to 
exercise its rights to receive notice and provide comment as to the 
content and structure of the Revised Form, as required by the 
Administrative Procedure Act, and consistent with prior practice for 
the original form.\174\ Therefore, the Commission concludes that the 
final Revised Form announced today in the Final Rule is not 
unnecessarily duplicative to information otherwise reasonably 
accessible to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Revisions to the Collection of Information: OMB Control Number 
3038-0005
    Collection 3038-0005 is currently in force with its control number 
having been provided by OMB, and it was renewed recently on January 30, 
2019.\175\ As stated above, Collection 3038-0005 governs responses made 
pursuant to part 4 of the Commission's regulations, pertaining to the 
operations of CPOs and CTAs, including the required responses of 
registered CPOs on Form CPO-PQR pursuant to Sec.  4.27. Generally, the 
Commission is adjusting, as discussed below, the information collection 
to reflect an increase in the burden hours associated with the 
collection of information in the Revised Form. The Commission 
anticipates, however, that (1) CPOs currently categorized as either 
Mid-Sized or Large CPOs are expected to experience a substantial 
reduction in burden relative to the current filing requirements under 
Sec.  4.27 and Form CPO-PQR; and (2) CPOs considered Small CPOs under 
the current filing requirements will experience no practical or 
substantial increase in burden because, like all other registered CPOs, 
they are currently required to file NFA Form PQR, which already 
includes a schedule of investments identical to the Revised Form's 
PSOI, on a quarterly basis, and such Small CPOs, as well as all other 
reporting CPOs, will be permitted to file NFA Form PQR in lieu of 
filing the Revised Form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ See Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action, OMB 
Control No. 3038-0005, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201701-3038-005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The currently approved total burden associated with Collection 
3038-0005, in the aggregate, is as follows:
    Estimated number of respondents: 45,097.
    Annual responses for all respondents: 118,824.
    Estimated average hours per response: 3.16.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ The Commission rounded the average hours per response to 
the second decimal place for ease of presentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual reporting burden: 375,484.
    The portion of the aggregate burden that is derived from the 
current Form CPO-PQR filing requirements is as follows:
    Schedule A (for non-Large CPOs and Large CPOs filing Joint Form 
PF):
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,450.
    Annual responses for all respondents: 1,450.
    Estimated average hours per response: 6.
    Annual reporting burden: 8,700.

    Schedule A (for Large CPOs not filing Joint Form PF):
    Estimated number of respondents: 250.

[[Page 71786]]

    Annual responses for all respondents: 1,000.
    Estimated average hours per response: 6.
    Annual reporting burden: 6,000.

    Schedule B (for Mid-Sized CPOs):
    Estimated number of respondents: 400.
    Annual responses for all respondents: 400.
    Estimated average hours per response: 4.
    Annual reporting burden: 1,600.

    Schedule B (for Large CPOs not filing Joint Form PF):
    Estimated number of respondents: 250.
    Annual responses for all respondents: 1,000.
    Estimated average hours per response: 4.
    Annual reporting burden: 4,000.

    Schedule C (for Large CPOs not filing Joint Form PF):
    Estimated number of respondents: 250.
    Annual responses for all respondents: 1,000.
    Estimated average hours per response: 18.
    Annual reporting burden: 18,000.

    The burden associated with NFA Form PQR was proposed as follows:
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,700.
    Annual responses by each respondent: 6,800.
    Estimated average hours per response: 8.
    Annual reporting burden: 54,400.
    Total annual reporting burden for all CPOs for current Form CPO-PQR 
and NFA
    Form PQR: 86,900.
    The Commission will no longer be estimating burden hours according 
to each individual Schedule of the form, because, pursuant to the Final 
Rule, the Revised Form will not have schedules. Therefore, the 
Commission is amending the collection for Form CPO-PQR compliance to be 
a single burden-hours estimate for each reporting CPO completing the 
Revised Form in its entirety.\177\ As noted above, the Commission is 
also requiring that the Revised Form be filed quarterly by each 
reporting CPO, regardless of the size of their operations, which would 
result in four (4) annual responses by each respondent. Further, in the 
Commission's experience, the PSOI comprised a considerable portion of 
the burden hours previously associated with completing Schedule B, 
depending on the complexity of a reporting CPO's operations and the 
number of pools it operated. Thus, the Commission is estimating average 
hours per response in such a way as to ensure that burden continues to 
be counted. As noted above, although the estimated hours per response 
is expected to increase due to the retention of the PSOI and the filing 
frequency increasing to quarterly for many reporting CPOs, CPOs should 
not practically experience an increase in burden. The Commission comes 
to this conclusion because all reporting CPOs are already required to 
provide a schedule of investments identical to the PSOI, as part of 
their existing NFA Form PQR filings, which NFA membership rules require 
on a quarterly basis, and because the Commission expects that those 
CPOs will continue to make such filings to take advantage of the 
substituted compliance for NFA Form PQR with respect to the Revised 
Form, as adopted by the Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ Additionally, the Commission will be accepting the filing 
of NFA Form PQR in lieu of the Revised Form, which the Commission 
has designed purposefully to be very similar. See supra pt. II.G.i. 
The Commission reiterates that these PRA estimates assume that all 
registered CPOs will either file the Revised Form on a quarterly 
basis, or NFA Form PQR, but in no event will a CPO be required to 
file both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission estimates the burden to registered CPOs 
for completing the Revised Form and NFA Form PQR, because of the option 
to file this form in lieu of the Revised Form, to be as follows:
    For the Revised Form and NFA Form PQR for All Registered CPOs:
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,700.
    Annual responses by each respondent: 6,800.
    Estimated average hours per response: 8.
    Annual reporting burden: 54,400.
    The new total burden associated with Collection 3038-0005, in the 
aggregate, reflecting the adjustment in burden associated with Sec.  
4.27 and the Revised Form, is as follows:
    Estimated number of respondents: 43,062.
    Annual responses for all respondents: 113,980.
    Estimated average hours per response: 3.25.
    Annual reporting burden: 370,467.

C. Cost-Benefit Considerations

    Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the 
costs and benefits of its discretionary actions before promulgating a 
regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders.\178\ Section 15(a) 
further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in 
light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection 
of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, 
and financial integrity of swaps markets; (3) price discovery; (4) 
sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest 
considerations. The Commission considers the costs and benefits 
resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the CEA 
section 15(a) considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ 7 U.S.C. 19(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Commission is finalizing amendments to Form 
CPO-PQR that would significantly reduce the amount of reporting 
required thereunder. Specifically, the Final Rule: (1) Eliminates the 
pool-specific reporting requirements in existing Schedules B and C of 
Form CPO-PQR, other than the PSOI (question 6 of Schedule B); (2) 
amends the information in existing Schedule A of the form to request 
LEIs for CPOs and their operated pools and to eliminate questions 
regarding the pool's auditors and marketers; (3) requires all reporting 
CPOs to submit all information retained in the Revised Form on a 
quarterly basis; and (4) allows CPOs to file NFA Form PQR in lieu of 
filing the Revised Form, provided that NFA amends NFA Form PQR to 
include LEIs. In the sections that follow, the Commission considers the 
various costs and benefits associated with each aspect of the Final 
Rule. The baseline against which these costs and benefits are compared 
is the regulatory status quo, represented by Form CPO-PQR as codified 
in appendix A to part 4 prior to these amendments.
    The consideration of costs and benefits below is based on the 
understanding that the markets function internationally, with many 
transactions involving U.S. firms taking place across international 
boundaries; with some Commission registrants being organized outside of 
the United States; with some leading industry members typically 
conducting operations both within and outside the United States; and 
with industry members commonly following substantially similar business 
practices wherever located. Where the Commission does not specifically 
refer to matters of location, the discussion of costs and benefits 
below refers to the effects of this proposal on all activity subject to 
the proposed and amended regulations, whether by virtue of the 
activity's physical location in the United States or by virtue of the 
activity's connection with or effect on U.S. commerce under CEA section 
2(i).\179\ Some CPOs are located outside of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ 7 U.S.C. 2(i).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 71787]]

i. The Elimination of Pool-Specific Reporting Requirements in Schedules 
B and C
    The Commission is adopting as final amendments that eliminate the 
pool-specific reporting requirements in existing Schedules B and C of 
Form CPO-PQR, other than the PSOI (question 6 of Schedule B). The 
Commission acknowledges that this change could result in less 
information available to the Commission and, potentially, to FSOC. The 
detailed and specific information requested in Schedules B and C of 
Form CPO-PQR is not available to the Commission through any of its 
other data streams and, if put to its full use, would allow for 
monitoring of CPOs and their operated pools in a way that could help 
identify trends and points of stress. The challenges associated with 
the Form CPO-PQR dataset are a primary reason for the Commission's 
decision to discontinue its collection of this information, including 
challenges posed by the degree of flexibility afforded CPOs in 
reporting this information, and the fact that this information is only 
reported to the Commission on a quarterly basis, at its most frequent. 
Given these limitations associated with the data collected, the 
Commission has determined to prioritize its limited resources to pursue 
other key regulatory initiatives.
    However, considering the alternate data streams currently available 
to the Commission, the Commission should nevertheless be able to 
effectively oversee registered CPOs and their operated pools, and 
potentially do so in a more efficient and effective manner, by adopting 
the Revised Form as proposed, with some additional clarifications to 
the Instructions and Defined Terms. Furthermore, due in part to the 
identified data quality issues, the Commission has not provided FSOC 
with any Form CPO-PQR data to date. The Commission acknowledges, 
though, that FSOC would now receive less data from the Commission, as a 
result of changes made by the Final Rule, as some CPOs that are filing 
CFTC-only pool information through Joint Form PF may stop. Nonetheless, 
the Commission does not believe that FSOC's monitoring abilities would 
be materially or negatively affected, compared to the status quo, by 
the Commission's rescission of most of Schedules B and C in Form CPO-
PQR, as the Commission has not provided FSOC with any data.
    The Commission anticipates that eliminating these pool-specific 
reporting requirements will also reduce the ongoing variable compliance 
costs for those CPOs considered Mid-Sized CPOs or Large CPOs, and which 
may move between those filing categories with some regularity, under 
the status quo. Consequently, those reporting CPOs would no longer need 
to devote their resources to compiling, analyzing, and reporting this 
data, which may have had limited utility with respect to their day-to-
day operations, to the Commission. Additionally, reporting CPOs in 
general will no longer be required to monitor their AUMs for the 
specific purpose of determining their filing obligations because, 
pursuant to the Final Rule, there is now a single filing requirement 
for all reporting CPOs. It is possible that the resulting cost savings 
may allow those CPOs to devote their resources to other compliance or 
operational initiatives, or to potentially pass those cost savings on 
to pool participants through reduced fees. These cost savings will 
likely be reduced, however, for any CPO that is dually registered with 
the SEC and required to file Joint Form PF because that form requires 
reporting of information substantially similar to that required in the 
eliminated Schedules B and C, and the Final Rule does not alter any 
such CPO's Joint Form PF filing obligations. Finally, the Commission 
recognizes that the Final Rule also does not alleviate any of the fixed 
or long-term costs reporting CPOs may have already incurred in 
developing systems and procedures designed to meet the reporting 
requirements of the original form, including Schedules B and C.
ii. The Revised Form
    This Final Rule adopts the Revised Form, which retains questions 
from existing Schedule A of Form CPO-PQR, and also adds questions to 
request LEIs for CPOs and their operated pools. The Commission 
anticipates that adding these LEI questions will allow it to integrate 
the data collected by the Revised Form with the Commission's other more 
current data streams. Leveraging these other data sources in 
combination with filings of the Revised Form will enable the Commission 
to continue its oversight and monitoring of counterparty and liquidity 
risk for some of the largest pools within the Commission's 
jurisdiction. The Commission thereby concludes that the Final Rule will 
allow it to focus on areas relevant for assessing and monitoring market 
and systemic risk, while eliminating the reporting burden associated 
with Schedules B and C, particularly with respect to pools that would 
be considered Large Pools.
    The addition of these LEI fields may minimally increase the cost 
for reporting CPOs and their operated pools that engage in swaps with 
respect to the initial filing of the Revised Form, as LEIs do not 
change over time, potentially allowing fields for those questions to be 
prepopulated in subsequent filings. The Commission observes further 
that neither the Revised Form nor Sec.  4.27 independently creates an 
affirmative requirement for CPOs to obtain LEIs for themselves and 
their operated pools, and that CPOs engaging in swaps already have LEIs 
for themselves and/or their pools. Additionally, the Commission has 
declined in the Final Rule to require the renewal or maintenance of 
LEIs for purposes of meeting this Revised Form requirement.\180\ 
Accordingly, the Commission finds that there is likely no additional 
cost to consider for a reporting CPO related to LEIs beyond the minimal 
one-time expenditure for the initial Revised Form filing that includes 
LEIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ See supra pt. II.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Final Rule also eliminates from the Revised Form questions 
regarding the pool's auditors and marketers. The Commission has 
determined that these amendments will result in reduced costs for 
reporting CPOs without affecting the scope of information available to 
the Commission, as the Commission already receives information 
regarding CPO's accountants and has alternate means of obtaining 
information about a pool's marketers. For example, persons soliciting 
for pool participation units are typically either associated persons of 
the CPO or registered representatives of a broker-dealer. Such persons 
are already subject to regulation by either the Commission and NFA, or 
the SEC and FINRA, and therefore readily identifiable by the Commission 
outside of Form CPO-PQR.
    Currently, all CPOs other than Large CPOs submit the information 
required by the existing form's Schedule A annually. Increasing the 
frequency with which this information is reported will assist the 
Commission in its efforts to integrate the Revised Form with the 
Commission's other timelier data sources, which the Commission believes 
will improve the overall efficacy of its monitoring and oversight of 
CPOs and their operated pools. Although this amendment will result in 
an increased regulatory cost for CPOs considered to be Small and Mid-
Sized CPOs under the existing form, when compared to the regulatory 
status quo, the Commission concludes that the costs actually realized 
by these CPOs will not be as significant, as they are already reporting

[[Page 71788]]

this information on a quarterly basis via NFA Form PQR, as required by 
NFA.
    Under the current form, only Mid-Sized and Large CPOs are required 
to submit a PSOI, and Mid-Sized CPOs submit that information annually. 
The Revised Form, as adopted by the Final Rule, will require all CPOs 
to submit that information quarterly. The Commission believes that 
receiving this information from all reporting CPOs more frequently 
will, when combined with the new questions regarding LEIs, further 
enhance its ability to integrate the data collected by the Revised Form 
with other data streams and to identify trends on a timelier basis. As 
a result, the Commission concludes that adopting a quarterly filing 
schedule for all CPOs reporting on the Revised Form will ultimately 
support its goal of effectively monitoring CPOs and their operated 
pools for market and systemic risk, while also simplifying the 
reporting requirements applicable to registered CPOs.
    The Commission realizes that requiring all information on the 
Revised Form, including a PSOI for each operated pool, from all 
reporting CPOs on a quarterly basis will result in an increased 
regulatory cost, when compared to the regulatory status quo, 
particularly for CPOs that would be considered Small and Mid-Sized CPOs 
under the existing filing regime. For instance, CPOs previously 
considered Small CPOs may be required to develop the procedures and 
systems necessary to meet the additional reporting obligations for the 
Revised Form's PSOI, and CPOs previously considered either Small CPOs 
or Mid-Sized CPOs will be required by the Final Rule to report that 
information to the Commission on a quarterly basis. The Commission 
emphasizes, however, that all registered CPOs, regardless of the size 
of their operations or AUM, are currently required to report the PSOI 
on a quarterly basis via NFA Form PQR, as required by NFA membership 
rules, meaning the actual costs as realized by these CPOs as a result 
of the Final Rule should not be as significant, given the Commission's 
goal of aligning the Revised Form with NFA Form PQR.
    The Final Rule also amends Sec.  4.27(c) such that it allows 
reporting CPOs to file NFA Form PQR in lieu of filing the Revised Form, 
provided that NFA amends NFA Form PQR to include questions regarding 
LEIs. Under NFA's membership rules, all CPOs regardless of size are 
currently required to file NFA Form PQR on a quarterly basis. This 
provision will help CPOs maintain their current filing costs without 
affecting the scope of information available to the Commission under 
the Revised Form.
    As mentioned above, the Commission acknowledges that, through 
adopting this revision to Sec.  4.27(d), the Final Rule could result in 
less data being collected on Joint Form PF, as compared to the current 
status quo. Many dually registered CPOs currently include commodity 
pools that are not private funds in data that they report on Joint Form 
PF, in lieu of filing Form CPO-PQR for such pools, in reliance on Sec.  
4.27(d). As a result of the Final Rule's revisions to Sec.  4.27(d), 
these CPO-investment advisers could decide to stop including these 
pools in their Joint Form PF filings. The Commission concludes though 
that this loss of data to the SEC and FSOC will not meaningfully impact 
the efficacy and intent of Joint Form PF in furthering the oversight of 
the private fund industry, given that it would only result in the loss 
of data with respect to non-private fund pools; the Commission 
acknowledges, however, that FSOC may lose data for a specific type of 
private fund asset class, specifically, managed futures.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ ICI commented that it did not believe that the Commission 
should focus on any perceived data needs of the FSOC in determining 
the scope and focus of Form CPO-PQR, but rather the Commission 
should act in whatever manner best supports its own regulatory 
interests in revising the form. ICI, at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, all CPOs will be required to make a certain amount of 
alterations to their reporting systems to accommodate the changes 
adopted herein, even if it is just to deactivate certain data elements 
that are no longer required and to add the questions regarding LEIs. 
The Commission anticipates that any such costs will generally be one-
time expenditures, and moreover, should not be extensive, given the 
Commission's efforts in the Final Rule to align the Revised Form with 
NFA Form PQR, to the greatest extent possible.
iii. Alternatives
    In lieu of amending Form CPO-PQR as proposed, the Commission also 
considered two alternative approaches in the Proposal, and requested 
comments and data on how those potential alternatives might impact the 
estimated costs and benefits to market participants and the 
public.\182\ The first alternative considered by the Commission was 
requiring all CPOs, regardless of whether they are dually registered, 
to file Joint Form PF. ICI commented that this alternative would likely 
result in increased costs for registered fund CPOs, noting that, 
although CPOs of RICs are regulated by both the Commission and the SEC, 
such CPOs are not currently required to file Joint Form PF.\183\ The 
Commission agrees that this alternative would likely increase the 
reporting burdens and costs for CPOs not so dually registered, as well 
as for CPOs that are dually registered, yet do not currently file Joint 
Form PF; under this alternative, those CPOs would incur increased 
reporting burdens and costs without providing information directly to 
the Commission that will be integrated with its other data sources to 
develop its internal oversight initiatives over CPOs and their operated 
pools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26388 (May 4, 2020).
    \183\ ICI, at 5 (noting additionally that CPOs of RICs would 
thus incur costs related to adapting their current systems and 
processes for the purpose of filing Joint Form PF instead).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second alternative described in the Proposal that the 
Commission considered was to devote resources to rectifying the 
challenges with the data reported under the current form, and amend it 
to require greater consistency and frequency of reporting of the data 
fields eliminated by the Final Rule. However, the Commission stated in 
the Proposal its preliminarily belief that its limited resources could 
be better directed in line with its regulatory priorities, and that its 
objectives with respect to oversight of reporting CPOs and their 
operated pools could be effectively and potentially, more efficiently, 
achieved through integration with existing data streams.\184\ ICI 
supported this preliminary conclusion by the Commission and argued that 
a ``more targeted data set is most useful for initial monitoring 
purposes.'' \185\ After considering the alternatives and the responsive 
comments, the Commission concludes that the changes to the form and 
Sec.  4.27 adopted by the Final Rule, relative to the alternatives, 
will facilitate the Commission's effective discharging of its 
regulatory duties in a manner that simultaneously has the greatest 
impact on market and systemic risk and eases reporting obligations on a 
significant number of reporting CPOs with respect to their operated 
pools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ 2020 CPO-PQR NPRM, 85 FR at 26388 (May 4, 2020).
    \185\ ICI, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Section 15(a) Factors
a. Protection of Market Participants and the Public
    The Commission believes that the Final Rule will enhance the 
ability of the Commission to protect derivatives

[[Page 71789]]

markets, its participants, and the public by allowing it to integrate 
the data collected by the Revised Form with other existing, more up-to-
date data streams in a way that will allow the Commission to better 
exercise its oversight of registered CPOs and their operated pools. As 
discussed above, the Final Rule may result in a loss of data available 
to FSOC, which could limit FSOC's visibility into the activities of 
CPOs and their operated pools.
b. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity of Markets
    The Commission believes that the Final Rule will assist the 
Commission in its efforts to support market efficiency, 
competitiveness, and financial integrity. Under the Final Rule, 
reporting CPOs will continue to provide useful information about 
themselves and their operated pools to the Commission in a way that 
will permit the Commission to incorporate that data with its other data 
streams. The Commission believes that consolidating the data collected 
in this manner will improve its oversight of reporting CPOs, their 
operated pools, and how they affect the derivatives markets. 
Additionally, the Commission believes that the specific requirement 
that a reporting CPO prepare a PSOI on a quarterly basis for each of 
its operated pools may result in heightened diligence by such CPOs, 
with respect to their pools' ongoing operations, and may encourage 
particularly smaller CPOs to adopt more formalized controls for their 
businesses. The Commission believes that both of those results will 
generally enhance the confidence of other market participants in 
transacting with registered CPOs and their operated pools, and 
generally, support the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial 
integrity of the markets.
c. Price Discovery
    The Commission has not identified any impact that the Final Rule 
would have on price discovery.
d. Sound Risk Management Practices
    Although the Commission is no longer requiring reporting CPOs and 
their operated pools to report certain risk information on the Revised 
Form, the Commission recognizes that CPOs will likely, in general, 
continue to benefit from establishing and possessing systems that 
collect and review risk-related information, even if it is no longer 
reported. The Commission has not identified any other impact that the 
Final Rule would have on sound risk management practices.
e. Other Public Interest Considerations
    The Commission did not identify any other public interest 
considerations that the Final Rule would have.

D. Antitrust Laws

    Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the Commission to ``take into 
consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws 
and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the 
purposes of the CEA, in issuing any order or adopting any Commission 
rule or regulation (including any exemption under CEA section 4(c) or 
4c(b)), or in requiring or approving any bylaw, rule, or regulation of 
a contract market or registered futures association established 
pursuant to section 17 of this Act.'' \186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ 7 U.S.C. 19(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the public interest to be protected by 
the antitrust laws is generally to protect competition. The Commission 
requested comment on whether the Proposal implicates any other specific 
public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws, but did not 
receive any comments on whether the Proposal was anticompetitive.
    The Commission has considered the Final Rule to determine whether 
it is anticompetitive and has identified no anticompetitive effects. 
Because the Commission has determined the Final Rule is not 
anticompetitive and has no anticompetitive effects, the Commission has 
not identified any less anticompetitive means of achieving the purposes 
of the CEA.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 4

    Advertising, Brokers, Commodity futures, Commodity pool operators, 
Commodity trading advisors, Consumer protection, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission hereby amends 17 CFR part 4 as set forth below:

PART 4--COMMODITY POOL OPERATORS AND COMMODITY TRADING ADVISORS

0
1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6(c), 6b, 6c, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 12a, 
and 23.

0
2. In Sec.  4.27, revise paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  4.27  Additional reporting by commodity pool operators and 
commodity trading advisors.

* * * * *
    (c) Reporting. (1) Each reporting person shall file with the 
National Futures Association, a report with respect to the directed 
assets of each pool under the advisement of a commodity pool operator 
consistent with appendix A to this part, or a commodity trading advisor 
consistent with appendix C to this part.
    (2) A reporting person required to file NFA Form PQR with the 
National Futures Association for the reporting period may make such 
filing in lieu of the report required under paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section; provided that, the Commission has determined that NFA Form PQR 
is substantively consistent with appendix A to this part.
    (3) Nothing in this provision restricts the National Futures 
Association's ability to require reporting beyond that required by the 
Commission; provided that, such additional requirements are consistent 
with the Commodity Exchange Act and 17 CFR chapter I.
    (4) All financial information shall be reported in accordance with 
generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied. A 
reporting person operating a pool that meets the conditions specified 
in Sec.  4.22(d)(2)(i) to present and compute the commodity pool's 
financial statements contained in the Annual Report other than in 
accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles 
and has filed notice pursuant to Sec.  4.22(d)(2)(iii) may also use the 
alternative accounting principles, standards, or practices identified 
in that notice in reporting information required to be reported 
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (d) Investment advisers to private funds. Commodity pool operators 
and commodity trading advisors that are dually registered as investment 
advisers with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and that are 
required to file Form PF under the rules promulgated under the 
Investment Advisers Act of 1940, shall file Form PF with the Securities 
and Exchange Commission, in addition to filings made pursuant to 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Dually registered commodity pool 
operators and commodity trading advisors that file Form PF with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission will be deemed to have filed Form PF 
with the Commission, for purposes of any enforcement action regarding 
any false or misleading statement of material fact in Form PF.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise appendix A to part 4 to read as follows:

[[Page 71790]]

Appendix A to Part 4--Form CPO-PQR

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.002


[[Page 71791]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.003


[[Page 71792]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.004


[[Page 71793]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.005


[[Page 71794]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.006


[[Page 71795]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.007


[[Page 71796]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.008


[[Page 71797]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.009


[[Page 71798]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.010


[[Page 71799]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.011


[[Page 71800]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.012


[[Page 71801]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.013


[[Page 71802]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.014


[[Page 71803]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.015


[[Page 71804]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.016


[[Page 71805]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.017


[[Page 71806]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.018


[[Page 71807]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.019


[[Page 71808]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.020


[[Page 71809]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.021


[[Page 71810]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO20.022

BILLING CODE 6351-01-C

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 9, 2020, by the Commission.
Robert Sidman,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

    Note: The following appendices will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendices to Compliance Requirements for Commodity Pool Operators on 
Form CPO-PQR--Commission Voting Summary, Chairman's Statement, and 
Commissioners' Statements

Appendix 1--Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Tarbert and Commissioners Quintenz, 
Behnam, Stump, and Berkovitz voted in the affirmative. No 
Commissioner voted in the negative.

Appendix 2--Supporting Statement of Chairman Heath P. Tarbert

    When the Commission considered the proposed rule to amend the 
compliance requirements for commodity pool operators (CPOs) on Form 
CPO-PQR,\1\ I observed that the esteemed 19th century mathematician 
Charles Babbage had asked ``if you put into the machine the wrong 
figures, will the right answers come out?'' \2\ Baggage foresaw what 
would evolve in the 20th century as the ``garbage-in, garbage-out'' 
predicament--that is, the concept that flawed, or nonsense, input 
data produces nonsense output or ``garbage.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Amendments to Compliance Requirements for Commodity Pool 
Operators on Form CPO-PQR, 86 FR 26378 (May 4, 2020).
    \2\ Statement of Chairman Heath P. Tarbert in Support of 
Revising Form CPO-PQR (Apr. 14, 2020), available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/tarbertstatement041420b. 
See Charles Baggage, Passages from the Life of a Philosopher (London 
1864).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since becoming Chairman, I have prioritized improving the CFTC's 
approach to collecting data. As a federal agency, we must be 
selective about the data we collect, and then make sure we are 
actually making good use of the data for its intended purpose.\3\ 
For example, we recently adopted three final rules to revise CFTC 
regulations for swap data reporting, dissemination, and public 
reporting requirements for market participants.\4\ One purpose of 
those amendments was to simplify the swap data reporting process to 
ensure that market participants are not burdened with unclear or 
duplicative reporting obligations that do little to reduce market 
risk or facilitate price discovery.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Statement of Chairman Heath P. Tarbert in Support of 
Revising Form CPO-PQR, supra note 2.
    \4\ CFTC Finalizes Rules to Improve Swap Data Reporting, 
Approves Other Measures at September 17 Open Meeting, available at: 
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8247/20.
    \5\ See Statement of Chairman Heath P. Tarbert in Support of 
Final Rules on Swap Data Reporting (Sep. 17, 2020), available at: 
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/tarbertstatement091720c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today we are engaged in a similar exercise. The amendments to 
the compliance requirements for CPOs on Form CPO-PQR that we are 
considering reflect the CFTC's reassessment of the scope of the form 
and how it aligns with our current regulatory priorities. By 
refining our approach to data collection, the final rule--in 
conjunction with our current market surveillance efforts--will 
enhance the CFTC's ability to gain more timely insight into the 
activities of CPOs and their operated pools. At the same time, the 
final rule will reduce reporting burdens for market participants.

Background on Form CPO-PQR

    Form CPO-PQR requests information regarding the operations of a 
CPO, and each pool that it operates, in varying degrees of frequency 
and complexity, depending upon the assets under management of both 
the CPO and the operated pool(s). When it adopted Form CPO-PQR in 
2012, the Commission determined that form data would be used for 
several broad purposes, including:
     Increasing the CFTC's understanding of our registrant 
population;
     assessing the market risk associated with pooled 
investment vehicles under our jurisdiction; and
     monitoring for systemic risk.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors: 
Compliance Obligations, 77 FR 11252 (Feb. 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the majority of pool-specific questions on Form CPO-PQR, the 
Commission believed the incoming data would assist the CFTC in 
monitoring commodity pools to identify trends over time. For 
example, the CFTC would get information regarding a pool's exposure 
to asset classes, the composition and liquidity of a pool's 
portfolio, and a pool's susceptibility to failure in times of 
stress.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors: 
Amendments to Compliance Obligations, 76 FR 7976, 7981 (Form CPO-PQR 
Proposal) (Feb. 11, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shortcomings of Form CPO-PQR

    Seven years of experience with Form CPO-PQR, however, have not 
borne out that vision. To begin with, in an effort to take into 
account the different ways CPOs maintain information, the Commission 
has allowed CPOs flexibility in how they calculate and present 
certain of the data elements. As a result, it has been challenging, 
to say the least, for the CFTC to identify trends across CPOs or 
pools using Form CPO-PQR data. In

[[Page 71811]]

addition, taking into account the volume and complexity of the data 
it was requesting, the Commission decided not to require the data to 
be provided in real-time, but instead mandated only post hoc 
quarterly or annual filings.
    As the CFTC staff has reviewed the data over the years, it has 
become apparent that the disparate, infrequent, and delayed nature 
of CPO reporting has made it difficult to assess the impact of CPOs 
and their operated pools on markets. This is largely because 
conditions and relative CPO risk profiles may have changed, 
potentially significantly, by the time Form CPO-PQR is filed with 
the CFTC.

Sound Regulation Means Collecting Only Information We Intend to Use

    What we need is not over-regulation or even de-regulation, but 
rather sound regulation. In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, 
when we are facing the greatest economic challenge since the 2008 
financial crisis, and possibly since the Great Depression, the fact 
that we are asking market participants to put significant time and 
effort into providing us data that is difficult to integrate with 
the CFTC's other more timely and standardized data streams is not 
sound regulation. Frankly, it is wasteful and an example of 
ineffective government.
    My colleague Commissioner Dan Berkovitz made the following 
observation in connection with a different rulemaking: ``In addition 
to obtaining accurate data, the Commission must also develop the 
tools and resources to analyze that data.'' \8\ He is spot on. But I 
believe the converse is also true. We should not collect data we 
cannot use effectively. In the case of Form CPO-PQR, this means not 
requiring market participants to provide information that the CFTC 
has neither the resources nor the ability to analyze with our other 
data streams. Our credibility as a regulator is strengthened when we 
honestly admit that our regulations ask for data that we both have 
not used effectively and have no intention of using going forward. 
That is what we are doing today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Dan M. Berkovitz, Commissioner, CFTC, Statement on Proposed 
Amendments to Parts 45, 46, and 49: Swap Data Reporting Requirements 
(Feb. 20, 2020), available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/berkovitzstatement022020b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative, and Sometimes Better, Sources of Data Are Available to the 
Commission

    Form CPO-PQR is not our only source of data regarding commodity 
pools. The CFTC has devoted substantial resources to developing 
other data streams and regulatory initiatives designed to enhance 
our ability to surveil financial markets for risk posed by all 
manner of market participants, including CPOs and their operated 
pools.
    These alternative data streams, which include extensive 
information related to trading, reporting, and clearing of swaps, 
are in some cases more useful or robust than information from Form 
CPO-PQR. Importantly, most of the transaction and position 
information the CFTC uses for our surveillance activities is 
available on a more timely and frequent basis than the data received 
on the current iteration of Form CPO-PQR. Furthermore, CFTC programs 
to conduct surveillance of exchanges, clearinghouses, and futures 
commission merchants already include CPOs and do not rely on the 
information contained in Schedules B and C of Form CPO-PQR.
    Taken together, the CFTC's other existing data efforts have 
enhanced our ability to surveil financial markets, including with 
respect to the activities of CPOs and the pools they operate. In 
general, the CFTC's alternate data streams provide a more prompt, 
standardized, and reliable view into relevant market activity than 
that provided under Form CPO-PQR. As revised, data from Form CPO-PQR 
will more easily be integrated with these existing and more 
developed data streams. This will enable the CFTC to oversee and 
assess the impact of CPOs and their operated pools in a way that is 
both more effective for us and less burdensome for those we 
regulate.
    In keeping with these principles--particularly the principle 
that we should not collect data we cannot use effectively--I note 
that as part of this rulemaking the Commission is instructing the 
staff to evaluate the ongoing utility of the Pool Schedule of 
Investments information in revised Form CPO-PQR. This will include 
comparing it to the 2010 Schedule of Investments. The review will be 
completed within 18-24 months following the date upon which persons 
are required to comply with the final rule and may result in further 
recommended actions. During the review period, the staff also may 
identify and extend targeted relief for data fields that the CFTC 
receives from other sources.

Legal Entity Identifiers Are Something We Need

    The final rule does more than simply eliminate certain data 
collections. It also requires the collection of an additional piece 
of key information: Legal entity identifiers (LEIs) for CPOs and 
their operated pools. LEIs are critical to understanding the 
activities and interconnectedness within financial markets. Although 
LEIs have been around since 2012 and authorities in over 40 
jurisdictions have mandated the use of LEI codes to identify legal 
entities involved in a financial transaction,\9\ this is a new 
requirement for Form CPO-PQR. The lack of LEI information for CPOs 
and their operated pools has made it challenging to align the data 
collected on Form CPO-PQR with the data received from exchanges, 
clearinghouses, swap data repositories, and futures commission 
merchants. As a result, we cannot always get a full picture of what 
is happening in the markets we regulate. Adding an LEI requirement 
for CPOs and their operated pools will help give us a complete 
perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Financial Stability Board, Thematic Review on 
Implementation of the Legal Entity Identifier, Peer Review Report 
(May 28, 2019), available at: https://www.fsb.org/2019/05/thematic-review-on-implementation-of-the-legal-entity-identifier/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the final rule better aligns Form CPO-PQR with Form 
PQR of the NFA, which all CPOs must file quarterly and which the NFA 
may revise to include questions regarding LEIs. Under these 
circumstances, we could permit a CPO to file NFA Form PQR in lieu of 
our Form CPO-PQR as revised. In doing so, we would offer CPOs 
greater filing efficiencies without compromising our ability to 
obtain relevant data.

Form CPO-PQR, as Revised, has Other Regulatory Benefits

    The Dodd-Frank Act established the Office of Financial Research 
(OFR) nearly a decade ago to look across our financial system for 
risks and potential vulnerabilities.\10\ It was contemplated that, 
for the OFR to do its work, it would have access to data from other 
U.S. financial regulators. Yet to date, the CFTC has shared none of 
the Form CPO-PQR data with the OFR, largely because of the 
shortcomings outlined above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Sections 151-56 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 
(2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once Form CPO-PQR is revised, it has the potential to be useful 
not only to the CFTC. To this end, we have negotiated a memorandum 
of understanding (MOU) with the OFR, under which we will for the 
first time provide to the OFR the information we collect regarding 
CPOs. Under the MOU, the OFR will receive the Form CPO-PQR 
Information consistent with the provisions of Section 8(e) of the 
CEA, which establishes important protections for CFTC data 
sharing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In Section 8(e) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 12(e)), Congress 
authorized the CFTC to share nonpublic information it obtains under 
the CEA with other federal agencies acting within the scope of their 
jurisdiction. Although Congress prohibited the CFTC from publishing 
data and information that would separately disclose the business 
transactions or market positions of any person and trade secrets or 
names of customers, Section 8(a) allows the CFTC to publish research 
and analysis based on such data and information where it has been 
appropriately aggregated, anonymized, or otherwise masked to avoid 
such separate disclosure. In conjunction, these two provisions of 
Section 8 give the CFTC the power to review the work product of 
other federal agencies with which it shares data and information to 
ensure that they do not separately disclose confidential information 
obtained from the CFTC, and to authorize those agencies to publish 
research and analysis based on such confidential information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

    For these reasons, I am pleased to support the Commission's 
final rule to amend the compliance requirements for CPOs on Form 
CPO-PQR. As revised, Form CPO-PQR will focus on the collection of 
data elements that can be used with other CFTC data streams and 
regulatory initiatives to facilitate oversight of CPOs and their 
operated pools. This will primarily reduce current data collection 
requirements, but also mandate disclosure of LEIs by CPOs and their 
operated pools. Focusing on enhancing data collection by the agency 
is no doubt tedious. Nonetheless, I am convinced it leads to smarter 
regulation that helps promote the integrity, resilience, and 
vibrancy of U.S. derivatives markets.

[[Page 71812]]

Appendix 3--Supporting Statement of Commissioner Brian Quintenz

    I support today's final rule that would simplify and streamline 
the reporting obligations of commodity pool operators (CPOs) on Form 
CPO-PQR. The Commission first adopted Form CPO-PQR in 2012 and 
closely modeled the form on Form PF. The Commission adopted the Form 
of its own volition; unlike Form PF, which is specifically mandated 
by the Dodd-Frank Act, there is no similar statutory directive 
requiring the adoption of Form CPO-PQR.\1\ In my opinion, since its 
adoption, the detailed information requested on Form CPO-PQR has not 
significantly enhanced the Commission's oversight over CPOs and has 
never been fully utilized by staff. I have long questioned the 
Commission's need to know the litany of data requested on the Form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See section 404 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In my view, many of the questions on the existing form are more 
academic than pragmatic in nature--information that may be nice for 
the Commission to have, but data that is certainly not necessary for 
the Commission to effectively oversee commodity pools and the 
derivatives markets. This is why I am very pleased that the final 
rule eliminates the most burdensome sections on the current form--
Schedules B and C, which together contain roughly 72 distinct 
questions, if one includes all the separately identifiable subparts. 
Many of these questions are challenging for CPOs to calculate 
precisely and require numerous underlying assumptions that vary from 
firm to firm, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the 
Commission to perform an apples-to-apples comparison across the 
commodity pool industry.
    While today's final rule represents a marked improvement over 
the current CPO reporting regime, more work remains to be done. 
Importantly, the proposal requested comment about reverting back to 
the former Schedule of Investments originally adopted by the 
National Futures Association (NFA) in 2010 for its NFA Form PQR 
(2010 Schedule of Investments). In 2012, the Schedule of Investments 
adopted by the Commission went further than the 2010 Schedule of 
Investments, by lowering the itemized reporting thresholds and 
adding significantly more granular subcategories of investments. For 
example, the Commission sought information regarding the tranches of 
various types of securitizations and the types of bonds held by the 
pool. Historically, the information on the Schedule of Investments 
has mostly been used by the NFA for their CPO examination program. 
However, in its comment letter to the Commission, the NFA noted that 
it ``does not have a need for the more granular information 
currently in the Schedule'' and that it ``fully supports [aligning 
the current schedule with the 2010 Schedule of Investments] because 
[NFA] believe[s] a more streamlined schedule will significantly 
alleviate filing burdens on CPOs without negatively impacting the 
usefulness of the information that is collected.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NFA Comment Letter (June 20, 2020), https://comments.cftc.gov/Handlers/PdfHandler.ashx?id=29369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I am disappointed that this final rule does not amend the form 
to adopt the 2010 Schedule of Investments, but I am encouraged that 
the preamble instructs DSIO staff to evaluate the ongoing utility of 
the current Schedule of Investments, including comparing it to the 
2010 Schedule of Investments, within 18-24 months following the 
compliance date. As part of this review, staff is instructed to 
consider whether or not, in light of its utility, the Commission 
should revert back to the 2010 Schedule of Investments. After 
completing this review, in whole or in stages, staff will develop 
recommendations, provide relief, or propose a rulemaking for the 
Commission's further consideration to effectuate staff's findings. 
This review will allow staff to carefully consider which questions 
on the Schedule of Investments are necessary to effectively oversee 
CPOs and to propose eliminating any fields which are being received 
through other data channels or have no regulatory use case to the 
Commission's oversight function. I think this review is long overdue 
and is especially timely given the developments in other data 
streams, like part 45 swap data, that DSIO is actively working to 
combine with clearinghouse data to provide a complete picture of a 
CPO's derivatives activity. I believe that DSIO's ability to 
monitor, in real time, a fund's derivatives positions will be 
absolutely vital to the oversight and regulation of commodity pools 
in the future.
    In closing, I deeply appreciate DSIO staff's efforts to address 
my concerns on this point in the weeks leading up to today's vote. 
Thank you all very much for your engagement and dedication.

Appendix 4--Concurring Statement of Commissioner Rostin Behnam

    I respectfully concur with the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission's (the ``Commission'' or ``CFTC'') issuance of today's 
final rule (the ``Final Rule'') amending Regulation 4.27 and Form 
CPO-PQR. As a whole, the Final Rule provides a thoughtfully balanced 
and complete evaluation of the issues identified in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking \1\ and the responsive comments. Perhaps, just 
as importantly, the Final Rule clearly acknowledges that it is the 
first of several steps in the Commission's ongoing assessment of 
Form CPO-PQR not only for its utility as a regulatory tool, but as a 
yardstick to measure improvements to the Commission's data 
integration and analytical capabilities. The Final Rule makes smart, 
targeted corrections without forgoing the possibility of future 
adjustments should the Commission later determine that additional 
data would support evolving regulatory initiatives or Financial 
Stability Oversight Counsel (FSOC) requirements to fulfill 
statutorily mandated duties and initiatives aimed at identifying and 
monitoring risks to financial stability.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Amendments to Compliance Requirements for Commodity Pool 
Operators on Form CPO-PQR, 85 FR 26378 (proposed May 4, 2020) (the 
``NPRM'').
    \2\ See NPRM, 85 FR at 26379. Not only is the Commission among 
those agencies that could be asked to provide information necessary 
for the FSOC to perform its statutorily mandated duties, but the 
FSOC may issue recommendations to the Commission regarding more 
stringent regulation of financial activities that FSOC determines 
may create or increase systemic risk. See Dodd-Frank Act sections 
112(d)(1), 120; See also Reporting by Investment Advisers to Private 
Funds and Certain Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading 
Advisors on Form PF, 76 FR 71128, 71129 (Nov. 16, 2011); Commodity 
Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors: Compliance 
Obligations, 77 FR 11252, 11253 (Feb. 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining to reduce the frequency and scope of commodity 
pool operator (CPO) data reporting and collection, the Commission is 
pivoting away from what was an ambitious vision for ongoing 
oversight, monitoring, and trend analysis inspired by the events and 
fallout of the 2008 financial crisis.\3\ To be sure, keeping pace 
with regulatory change and shifting priorities while exercising 
appropriate discipline in collecting, handling, and managing data is 
an endless endeavor. Nevertheless, I am pleased with today's 
outcome, and I am confident that as we continue moving forward, the 
tremendous abilities of the dedicated staff whose direct insight and 
experience informed our decisions will ensure we continue to act 
decisively in furthering our goals and supporting our mission 
critical duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., NPRM, 85 FR at 26381.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFTC shares aspects of its regulatory initiatives, risk 
surveillance, and monitoring duties with respect to CPO and 
commodity pools with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 
the National Futures Association (NFA), and the FSOC. The Final Rule 
in its detailed preamble identifies areas of overlap in which 
commenters suggested that the Commission ought to retreat from its 
proposed baseline for data collection in Revised Form CPO-PQR. I am 
pleased that the Commission reasonably considered such comments and 
provides well-reasoned responses based on analysis of facts and data 
incorporated directly into the record. While the Commission and its 
staff must always be prudent and judicious in our allocation of 
data, resources, authority, and deference in working amicably 
towards common goals, we should exercise great care so as to avoid 
sacrificing primacy and independence when acting directly in support 
of Congressional mandates and statutory directives.
    I appreciate the Commission and its staff's ongoing engagement 
with the SEC and FSOC, as well as with NFA, throughout the drafting 
of the NPRM and the Final Rule, and I am encouraged that discussions 
are ongoing. As we move forward, it is my intention to ensure that 
the Commission provides staff the support and resources necessary to 
effectuate its current plans for Form CPO-PQR data and make future 
amendments and adjustments, as appropriate.

Appendix 5--Statement of Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz

    I am voting for the final rule to amend Regulation 4.27 and Form 
CPO-PQR (``Final Rule''). This Final Rule makes adjustments to the 
reporting requirements for Commodity Pool Operators (``CPOs'') and 
their pools based on lessons learned over several years since the 
requirements were first adopted.

[[Page 71813]]

    Eight years ago, the Commission began collecting information 
from CPOs on Form CPO-PQR. During that period, the Commission has 
come to learn that certain information in Form CPO-PQR has not 
materially improved the Commission's understanding of CPOs' 
participation in commodity interest markets, or its ability to 
assess the risks their pools may pose. The Final Rule eliminates 
information that has not proven to be of value to the Commission.
    Several commenters suggested that the Commission collect less 
information on the Pool Schedule of Investments (``PSOI'') about CPO 
investments in various asset classes. I support the Commission's 
decision in the Final Rule to continue to collect position data 
about pool investments. To evaluate the risks posed by CPOs and the 
pools they operate, it is necessary to understand the total 
portfolio of each pool and its trading strategy. Recent market 
volatility--including historic price movements in crude oil--
underscores the importance of the CFTC's ability to understand the 
nature of the participants in our markets and the scope of their 
activities in order to conduct timely oversight and spot emerging 
trends or risks.
    Since joining the Commission I have supported and encouraged 
efforts to improve our data and analytical capabilities, and believe 
they should be expanded in the coming years. Commission staff 
currently is taking steps to better synthesize swap data for large 
account controllers and develop a more holistic surveillance 
program. Once these analytical tools have been further developed, 
staff will then be in a position to advise the Commission regarding 
whether any changes to the PSOI are appropriate.
    To ensure that the Commission has a complete picture of pool 
activity across all derivatives markets, it should continue working 
to integrate swaps data with futures data. Some commenters have 
suggested that one way to do this would be to require all reporting 
CPOs and their pools--not just those that trade swaps--to obtain 
LEIs and submit them on Form CPO-PQR. I encourage the Commission and 
staff to continue to explore this approach, among others, so that 
the CFTC is able to aggregate all derivatives transactions by pools 
under common control.
    I would like to thank the Division of Swap Dealer and 
Intermediary Oversight for their efforts in finalizing this rule in 
a form that I can support.

[FR Doc. 2020-22874 Filed 11-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P