[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47439-47460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-11798]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 17

RIN 3038-AF27


Large Trader Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``Commission'' or 
``CFTC'') is amending certain regulations setting forth large trader 
position reporting requirements for futures and options. The 
amendments, among other things, remove the 80-character submission 
standard and delegate authority to the Director of the Office of Data 
and Technology to designate a modern submission standard for reports 
required to be submitted, and replace certain data fields previously 
with an appendix specifying and adding certain applicable data 
elements.

DATES: 
    Effective date: The effective date for this final rule is August 2, 
2024.
    Compliance date: Futures commission merchants (``FCMs''), clearing 
members, foreign brokers, and designated contract markets (``DCMs'') 
required to submit reports under Sec.  17.00(a) (collectively, 
``reporting firms''), must comply with the amendments to the rules by 
June 3, 2026.

[[Page 47440]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Owen Kopon, Associate Chief Counsel, 
at (202) 418-5360 or [email protected], Paul Chaffin, Assistant Chief 
Counsel, at (202) 418-5185 or [email protected], Chase Lindsey, 
Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 740-4833 or [email protected], Jason 
Smith, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 418-5698 or [email protected], 
each of the Division of Market Oversight, James Fay, IT Specialist, at 
(202) 418-5293 or [email protected], Division of Data, or Daniel Prager, 
Research Economist, (202) 418-5801 or [email protected], Office of the 
Chief Economist, in each case at the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Introduction
    B. Statutory and Regulatory Framework for Large Trader Position 
Reporting
II. Amendments to Part 17
    A. Submission Standard--Sec. Sec.  17.00(g), 17.00(h), 17.03(d)
    B. Data Elements--Appendix C to Part 17 and Sec.  17.03(d)
III. Compliance Period
IV. Frequency of Publication of COT Report
V. Related Matters
    A. Cost-Benefit Considerations
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Antitrust Considerations

I. Background

A. Introduction

    Part 17 of the Commission's regulations governs large trader 
position reporting for futures and options. Section 17.00(a) requires 
reporting firms to report daily position information for ``special 
accounts'' \1\--accounts that represent the largest futures and options 
traders--to the Commission.\2\ Since the 1980s, Commission regulations 
have required reporting firms to submit Sec.  17.00(a) large trader 
position reports in the highly-specified 80-character record format set 
out in Sec.  17.00(g).\3\ Data reporting technology has evolved since 
that time, and it is no longer efficient for the Commission or market 
participants to report and maintain large trader position data in the 
traditional Sec.  17.00(g) record format. For example, the Sec.  
17.00(g) data submission format is unique to Sec.  17.00(a) reports and 
not easily integrated with other datasets submitted to the Commission. 
Additionally, because the current Sec.  17.00(g) record format does not 
support automated data quality checks from Commission staff to 
reporting firms, the current error correction process puts the 
timeliness of publication of the Commitments of Traders (``COT'') 
report, which is built using Sec.  17.00(a) data, in jeopardy. And, the 
current Sec.  17.00(g) record format cannot accommodate reporting 
positions in various newer contracts, such as bounded options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 15.00(r).
    \2\ 17 CFR 17.00(a).
    \3\ 17 CFR 17.00(g); see Final Rule, Reports Filed by Contract 
Markets, Futures Commission Merchants, Clearing Members, Foreign 
Brokers, and Large Traders, 51 FR 4712 (Feb. 7, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, on June 27, 2023, the Commission published in the 
Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (herein, the 
``Proposal'') \4\ that set out revisions to part 17 to modernize that 
record format and update the data elements required to be reported in 
Sec.  17.00(a) reports.\5\ Specifically, the Commission proposed to 
remove the Sec.  17.00(g) record format, which contains both a data 
submission standard and data elements to be reported. To implement a 
modern data submission standard, the Commission proposed to revise 
Sec.  17.03(d) to delegate authority to the Director of the Office of 
Data and Technology to permit or require one or more particular data 
submission standards. Contemporaneously with publication of the 
Proposal, the Commission also published a proposed Part 17 Guidebook 
(the ``Proposed Part 17 Guidebook''),\6\ which would designate 
Financial Information eXchange Markup Language (``FIXML'') as the data 
submission standard for Sec.  17.00(a) reports. To replace the data 
elements previously contained in the Sec.  17.00(g) record format, the 
Commission proposed to add an appendix C to part 17 (``proposed 
appendix C'') enumerating and adding certain data elements to be 
reported in Sec.  17.00(a) reports. Revised Sec.  17.03(d) proposed to 
delegate authority to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology 
to determine the form and manner for reporting the data elements 
contained in the new appendix C to part 17. Combined, these proposed 
amendments to part 17 would modernize the data submission standard for 
Sec.  17.00(a) reports, bringing that data submission standard in line 
with the extensible-markup-language-based data submission standards 
used for virtually all other Commission data reporting regimes, and 
would enable reporting of positions in certain futures and options 
contracts that cannot be represented in the current Sec.  17.00(g) 
record format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Large Trader Reporting 
Requirements, 88 FR 41522 (June 27, 2023).
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ See Proposed Part 17 Guidebook (May 30, 2023), available at 
https://www.cftc.gov/media/8701/GuidebookPart17_053123/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The public comment period for the Proposal ended August 28, 
2023,\7\ and the Commission received 12 substantive public comment 
letters.\8\ After considering the comments, the Commission has 
determined to largely adopt the amendments as proposed, with certain 
non-substantive revisions for clarity. Additionally, in response to 
certain comments, the Proposed Part 17 Guidebook has been revised to 
enable reporting firms to submit certain of the product-related data 
elements enumerated in appendix C using a ``Unique Instrument Code.'' 
The Commission believes the amendments it is adopting herein will 
improve data quality and modernize the Commission's large trader 
position data reporting scheme for futures and options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 88 FR at 41522.
    \8\ The following entities and persons submitted substantive 
comment letters: Better Markets (``Better Markets''); Bloomberg L.P. 
(``Bloomberg''); CBOE Global Markets, Inc. (``CBOE''); CME Group 
(``CME''); Martha Denkevitz (``Denkevitz''); Futures Industry 
Association (``FIA''); Global LEI Foundation (``GLEIF''); ICE 
Futures U.S. (``ICE''); International Standards Organization, 
Standards Advisory Group (``ISO''); National Grain and Feed 
Association (``NGFA''); The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC''); 
and William Wood (``Wood'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Statutory and Regulatory Framework for Large Trader Position 
Reporting

    Sections 4a, 4c(b), 4g, and 4i of the Commodity Exchange Act 
(``CEA'') provide the Commission with authority to promulgate large 
trader position reporting regulations. Section 4a of the CEA permits 
the Commission to set and approve exchange-set limits and enforce 
speculative position limits.\9\ Section 4c(b) of the CEA gives the 
Commission plenary authority to regulate transactions that involve 
commodity options.\10\ Section 4g of the CEA imposes reporting and 
recordkeeping obligations on registered entities, and requires each 
registered entity to file such reports as the Commission may require on 
proprietary and customer transactions and positions in commodities for 
future delivery executed on any board of trade.\11\ Additionally, 
section 4g of the CEA requires registered entities to maintain daily 
trading records as required by the Commission and permits the 
Commission to require that such daily trading records be made available 
to the Commission.\12\ Section 4i of the CEA requires the filing of 
such reports as the

[[Page 47441]]

Commission may require when positions made or obtained on DCMs equal or 
exceed Commission-set levels.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 7 U.S.C. 6a.
    \10\ 7 U.S.C. 6c(b).
    \11\ 7 U.S.C. 6g.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ 7 U.S.C. 6i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has set out reporting requirements for futures and 
options in Parts 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 21 of the Commission's 
regulations. Part 16 requires contract markets to submit certain 
information to the Commission; Parts 17 and 21 require reporting firms 
to submit certain information to the Commission; and Parts 18 and 19 
require individual traders to submit certain data to the Commission.
    Within this framework, part 17 requires the submission of large 
trader position reports and certain account identifying information for 
accounts of large traders. Section 17.00(a) requires reporting firms to 
submit daily reports to the Commission providing positions in open 
contracts for ``special accounts''--that is, futures and options trader 
accounts that exceed Commission-set reporting levels.\14\ More 
specifically, Sec.  17.00(a) requires reporting firms to submit a Sec.  
17.00(a) large trader position report--historically referred to as a 
``series '01 report''--that itemizes by special account certain 
positions, deliveries of futures, and exchanges of futures for related 
positions associated with each account that carries a reportable 
position.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 17.00(a); 17 CFR 15.00(r).
    \15\ Section 17.01 requires, separately, that reporting firms 
submit information, via Form 102, identifying the traders behind 
special accounts by name, address, and occupation, once an account 
accrues a reportable position. 17 CFR 17.01. Reporting firms, as 
appropriate, submit Form 102 to the Commission for each account when 
that account becomes reportable as a special account. By aggregating 
information from Sec.  17.00(a) large trader reports and Form 102, 
the Commission can determine the size of each reportable trader's 
overall positions across special accounts held with multiple FCMs, 
clearing members, or foreign brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17.00(g) provides the data submission standard and data 
elements for the reportable positions by special accounts in the form 
of an 80-character record format.\16\ Section 17.02(a) provides the 
time of filing of Sec.  17.00(a) reports.\17\ Section 17.03(a) 
delegates the authority to the Director of the Office of Data and 
Technology to determine whether reporting firms may submit Sec.  
17.00(a) reports using some other format than the required format, upon 
a determination that such person is unable to report the information 
using the format, coding structure, or electronic data transmission 
procedures otherwise required.\18\ Section 17.03(d) delegates authority 
to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology to approve a 
format and coding structure other than that set forth in Sec.  
17.00(g).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 17.00(g).
    \17\ 17 CFR 17.02(a).
    \18\ 17 CFR 17.03(a).
    \19\ 17 CFR 17.03(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Amendments to Part 17

A. Submission Standard--Sec. Sec.  17.00(g), 17.00(h), 17.03(d)

1. Background and Summary of the Final Rule
    Currently, the Sec.  17.00(g) record format contains an 80-
character, Cobol-based \20\ data submission standard.\21\ The Proposal 
discussed several disadvantages of that data submission standard.\22\ 
First, the data submission standard contained in the current Sec.  
17.00(g) record format is outdated and inconsistent with data 
submission standards required by other Commission reporting 
regulations.\23\ Second, the current Sec.  17.00(g) record format is 
also error-prone, and the manual error correction process currently 
employed puts the timeliness of the weekly COT report in jeopardy. 
Third, data received in the current Sec.  17.00(g) record format is 
difficult to query outside of the Integrated Surveillance System 
(``ISS'') \24\ and therefore difficult to integrate with other 
Commission datasets. Fourth, certain contract features, such as 
multiple strike prices, cannot be represented in the current Sec.  
17.00(g) record format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``Cobol'' refers to Common Business Oriented Language, a 
programming language.
    \21\ See 17 CFR 17.00(g); 88 FR at 41532.
    \22\ See 88 FR at 41524-25.
    \23\ See, e.g., Final Rule, Ownership and Control Reports, Forms 
102/102S, 40/40S, and 71, 78 FR 69178, 69188 (Nov. 18, 2013) 
(establishing a ``web-based portal'' and ``an XML-based, secure FTP 
data feed'' for reporting ownership and control information under 
Sec.  17.01); Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Account 
Ownership and Control Report, 74 FR 31642, 31644 (July 2, 2009) 
(section 16.02 data to be reported in FIXML); Large Trader Reporting 
for Physical Commodity Swaps: Division of Market Oversight Guidebook 
for Part 20 Reports (June 22, 2015), available at https://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/ltrguidebook062215.pdf (incorporating FpML and FIXML data standards 
for Part 20 reporting); CFTC Technical Specification, Parts 43 and 
45 swap data reporting and public dissemination requirements, 
Version 3.2 (March 1, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/media/8261/Part43_45TechnicalSpecification03012023CLEAN/download 
(incorporating FIXML data standard for parts 43 and 45 reporting).
    \24\ The Commission's Integrated Surveillance System receives 
and stores end-of-day position reports submitted to the Commission, 
and allows the Commission's divisions and offices to monitor daily 
activities of large traders. See, e.g., 78 FR at 69180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address these shortcomings, the Commission proposed amendments 
to Sec. Sec.  17.00(g), 17.00(h), and 17.03(d). The Commission proposed 
to remove the 80-character record format from Sec.  17.00(g), and to 
instead provide in that regulation that Sec.  17.00(a) reports be 
submitted in the form and manner published by the Commission or its 
designee pursuant to Sec.  17.03. Section 17.03 addresses, among other 
things, the delegation of certain authority to the Director of the 
Office of Data and Technology. The Commission proposed to revise Sec.  
17.03(d), which currently delegates the authority to the Director of 
the Office of Data and Technology to approve a format and coding 
structure other than that set forth in Sec.  17.00(g), to provide 
instead that authority be delegated to the Director of the Office of 
Data and Technology to determine the form, manner, coding structure, 
and electronic data transmission procedures for reporting the data 
elements in appendix C to part 17 and to determine whether to permit or 
require one or more particular data standards. These amendments would 
delegate authority to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology 
to designate a data submission standard for Sec.  17.00(a) reports in a 
Guidebook.
    Contemporaneously with the publication of the Proposal, the 
Commission published the Proposed Part 17 Guidebook, which designated 
FIXML as the data submission standard for Sec.  17.00(a) reports. The 
Proposed Part 17 Guidebook would permit reporting firms to either 
submit Sec.  17.00(a) reports in FIXML through a secure file transfer 
protocol (``FTP'') data feed, or through the CFTC Portal, which would 
in turn convert those reports into FIXML. The Commission believes that 
providing those two methods for submitting Sec.  17.00(a) reports will 
accommodate varied technological capabilities of reporting firms.\25\ 
Whereas it may be more efficient for a more sophisticated reporting 
firm with a large volume of reports to submit such reports in FIXML by 
secure FTP, it may be more efficient for a less sophisticated firm or a 
firm with a smaller volume of reports to manually submit such reports 
through the CFTC Portal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 88 FR at 41532 (addressing reporting firms that would 
automate submitting Sec.  17.00(a) reports and firms that would 
manually submit Sec.  17.00(a) reports through the CFTC Portal); see 
also 78 FR at 69188 (Nov. 18, 2013) (``The Commission is offering 
two filing methods [for ownership and control reports] for each form 
because it anticipates a wide range of technological capabilities 
among reporting parties (varying based on the relative size and 
experience of a given reporting party).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also proposed non-substantive edits to Sec.  
17.00(h), concerning correction of errors and omissions. Current Sec.  
17.00(h) provides that corrections of errors or omissions in Sec.  
17.00(a) reports be filed ``on series '01 forms'' or ``in the format, 
coding structure and data transmission

[[Page 47442]]

procedures approved in writing by the Commission or its designee.'' 
\26\ The Commission proposed to delete the reference to ``series '01 
forms'' and to specify that the form and manner for submitting 
corrections of errors and omissions shall be published by the 
Commission or its designee pursuant to the delegation of authority in 
Sec.  17.03. Pursuant to this provision, the form and manner for 
submitting corrections of errors and omissions would be set out in the 
Part 17 Guidebook published by the Office of Data and Technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 17.00(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, the Commission is adopting the amendments to 
Sec. Sec.  17.00(g), 17.00(h), and 17.03(d) as proposed.
2. Comments on the Proposed Rule
    The Commission solicited comment concerning the advantages and 
disadvantages of designating a FIXML data submission standard for Sec.  
17.00(a) reports, the proposal to permit reporting firms to submit 
Sec.  17.00(a) reports through the CFTC Portal in addition to 
submission by secure FTP, and the advantages and disadvantages of 
correcting errors in Sec.  17.00(a) reports in the manner set forth in 
the Part 17 Guidebook. The Commission also requested comments on all 
aspects of the changes to the data submission standard described in the 
Proposal.
    The Commission received ten comments that related to changes to the 
data submission standard for Sec.  17.00(a) reports. Those comments 
generally concerned the appropriateness of a FIXML data submission 
standard, the scope of the delegation of authority in Sec.  17.03(d), 
the process for updating the Part 17 Guidebook, and the process for 
correcting errors in Sec.  17.00(a) data.
a. Comments Concerning the Part 17 Guidebook Designating a FIXML Data 
Submission Standard for Sec.  17.00(a) Reports
    The Proposal sought comment on whether the Part 17 Guidebook should 
designate FIXML as the data submission standard for Sec.  17.00(a) 
large trader position reports. Commenters were generally supportive of, 
and did not oppose, a FIXML data submission standard, with the option 
to submit Sec.  17.00(a) reports manually through the CFTC Portal. FIA 
stated that it supported the Commission's efforts to modernize the 
large trader reporting process and transition from the current Sec.  
17.00(g) record format to a FIXML data submission standard.\27\ CME 
stated that it ``wholeheartedly'' supported the Commission's efforts to 
modernize and enhance large trader position reporting and that ``the 
conversion from an 80-byte file to FIXML is warranted.'' \28\ 
Similarly, ICE was ``generally supportive'' of the Commission's efforts 
to modernize large trader reporting requirements, although ICE did not 
specifically reference the proposed transition to an XML-based data 
submission standard.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ FIA Letter at 1.
    \28\ CME Letter at 1-2.
    \29\ ICE Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also received several comments concerning the 
proposed revisions to Sec.  17.03(d) to delegate authority to the 
Director of the Office of Data and Technology to designate a data 
submission standard and the process by which Commission staff might 
update the designated data submission standard in the Part 17 Guidebook 
in the future. FIA stated that it supported delegating authority to the 
Director of the Office of Data and Technology to set out data 
submission standards in the Part 17 Guidebook,\30\ and ICE stated that 
it appreciated the rationale for delegating authority to designate a 
data submission standard and that it generally supported FIA's comments 
related to the proposed delegation of authority.\31\ No commenters 
opposed delegating authority to designate a data submission standard 
for Sec.  17.00(a) reports to the Director of the Office of Data and 
Technology. However, some commenters requested clarification as to the 
scope of the delegation and proposed modifications related to the 
implementation of that delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ FIA Letter at 7.
    \31\ ICE Letter at 2.
    \32\ See FIA Letter at 7; ICE Letter at 2; OCC Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain commenters suggested revisions to the Proposal providing 
that if, in the future, the Director of the Office of Data and 
Technology changed the designated data submission standard in some way, 
reporting firms be consulted or given advance notice.\33\ For example, 
FIA suggested the Commission modify the Proposal or the Proposed Part 
17 Guidebook to provide that, before changing the designated data 
submission standard, Commission staff consult with reporting firms, 
provide reasonable notice of changes, and provide a reasonable 
implementation period.\34\ ICE suggested that the Commission modify the 
Proposal and Proposed Part 17 Guidebook to require that the Commission 
consult with reporting firms regarding any changes to the designated 
data submission standard.\35\ OCC suggested the Commission modify the 
Proposal to provide that reasonable notice and implementation time be 
provided if at some point the Director of the Office of Data and 
Technology changes the designated data submission standard.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The same commenters also expressed concerns about potential 
costs associated with hypothetical future changes in the designated 
data submission standard for Sec.  17.00(a) reports. Specifically, 
FIA, ICE, and OCC each stated that future changes to the data 
submission standard set out in the Part 17 Guidebook could require 
costly technology and infrastructure changes for reporting firms. 
See, e.g., FIA Letter at 7; ICE Letter at 2; OCC Letter at 4.
    \34\ FIA Letter at 7.
    \35\ ICE Letter at 2.
    \36\ OCC Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has determined to adopt the changes to Sec.  
17.03(d) as proposed. The Commission believes the revisions described 
in the comments may unduly constrain the Commission's ability to adjust 
the process by which it receives information. The Commission has 
considered similar comments in other reporting contexts and declined to 
specify in regulations particular implementation timelines applicable 
to possible future changes in exercises of delegated authority.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See, e.g., Final Rule, Certain Swap Data Repository and 
Data Reporting Requirements, 85 FR 75601, 75625 (Nov. 25, 2020) 
(declining to revise proposed regulation to include provision that 
would state that compliance with changes in technical specifications 
need only be achieved ``as soon as practicable'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission intends for staff to consult with reporting firms 
with respect to appropriate data submission standards in order to 
ensure that any changes in the designated data submission standards or 
standards for Sec.  17.00(a) reports will be effective and suitable. As 
explained in the Proposal, the purpose of delegating the authority to 
designate a data submission standard or standards is to enable the 
Commission and Commission staff to quickly respond to changing market 
and technological conditions and to remain consistent with industry 
best practices.\38\ Typically, updates to technical specifications and 
guidebooks issued pursuant to delegated authority are accompanied by 
implementation periods.\39\ The Commission expects that

[[Page 47443]]

when publishing any updates to the Part 17 Guidebook, staff will 
provide reasonable notice and an adequate implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 88 FR at 41526.
    \39\ See, e.g., CFTC Press Release, CFTC Staff Announces 
Modifications to the Technical Specification for Parts 43 and 45, 
Release No. 8673-23 (Mar. 10, 2023), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8673-23 (announcing in March 2023 modifications to the 
Technical Specifications for Parts 43 and 45 to be implemented in 
January 2024); CFTC Press Release, CFTC's Division of Market 
Oversight Issues Updated Guidebook and Appendices for Part 20 
Reports, Release No. 7189-15 (June 22, 2015), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/7189-15 (``Commission staff will implement 
the improved validation rules in a test environment on July 6, 2015. 
Commission staff expects that the improved validation rules will go 
live in the production environment on August 31, 2015.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments Concerning Submitting Sec.  17.00(a) Reports Through the 
CFTC Portal
    As discussed, the Proposal requested comments on allowing reporting 
firms to submit Sec.  17.00(a) reports either in the FIXML data 
submission standard designated in the Part 17 Guidebook, or through the 
CFTC Portal.\40\ In its comment letter, FIA stated that it supported 
the continued operation of the CFTC Portal as a means of reporting. FIA 
also stated that it believed the Commission should (1) implement 
changes to the CFTC Portal simultaneously with the implementation of 
the final rule; (2) consult with industry concerning changes to the 
CFTC Portal; (3) provide a three-month testing period for the revised 
CFTC Portal; and (4) include certain specific features in the CFTC 
Portal, including automatic creation of a Report ID, search 
functionality for prior submissions by Report ID, a correction process, 
and a process to export filed reports from the CFTC Portal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The CFTC Portal is also referred to as the ``PERT Portal,'' 
which abbreviates ``Position Entry for Reportable Traders.'' See 
Large Trader Reporting Program, https://www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/MarketSurveillance/LargeTraderReportingProgram/index.htm (last visited April 23, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed below, in the final rule, the Commission is extending 
the compliance date to a date two years following publication of a 
final rule in the Federal Register. The Commission expects the updated 
CFTC Portal to become available for testing approximately six months 
after publication of the final rule. The Commission believes this 
should provide reporting firms with adequate time to test the new CFTC 
Portal prior to the final rule's compliance date.
    With respect to the features FIA has described, the Commission 
expects that some of these features will be available in the CFTC 
Portal. For example, the Commission expects the CFTC Portal will 
include functionality for identifying specific reports,\41\ a process 
for submitting changes or corrections to previously filed reports, and 
a process for exporting reports in FIXML format. The updated CFTC 
Portal may in the future include time-limited search functionality to 
query previously-filed reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See, e.g., Part 17 Guidebook section 3.10.1 (discussing 
Reference IDs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Comments Concerning Error Corrections
    Currently, Sec.  17.00(h) provides that, unless otherwise approved 
by the Commission or its designee, corrections of errors and omissions 
in data required to be reported under Sec.  17.00(a) shall be filed on 
series '01 forms or in the format, coding structure and data 
transmission procedures approved in writing by the Commission or its 
designee.\42\ Given alterations to the Sec.  17.00(g) record format--
which provides the format for the ``series '01 form'' \43\--the 
Commission proposed to revise the data submission standard and form and 
manner for error corrections to be consistent with the new data 
submission standard and the form and manner for submitting Sec.  
17.00(a) reports. Significantly, the Proposal explained that 
implementing a modern data submission standard will allow Commission 
staff to use an automated process for notifying reporting firms of 
errors identified in reports during the ingest process on the same day 
those reports are submitted.\44\ Currently, staff manually notifies 
reporting firms when it identifies errors in Sec.  17.00(a) reports 
submitted by those firms. The Commission expects automating the process 
for sending notice of errors will facilitate more rapid corrections to 
reported data, which will improve the quality of the Commission's data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 17.00(h).
    \43\ As noted previously, these final rules remove this 
reference to the ``series '01 form'' as well.
    \44\ See 88 FR at 41526.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received several comments concerning error 
corrections. First, NGFA voiced support for automating the process for 
notifying reporting firms of errors.\45\ Second, Wood and Denkevitz 
speculated that reporting firms could ``game'' the error correction 
process \46\ by submitting intentionally inaccurate reports and 
subsequently correcting those reports, and expressed a concern that the 
Commission might ``delete records'' following submission of error 
corrections, thereby making it difficult to detect such ``gaming.'' 
\47\ Both respectively suggested that ``[n]o deletions should ever be 
allowed'' and ``[d]eletions should not be allowed.'' \48\ The Proposal 
did not discuss ``deleting records'' and did not propose to delete any 
records. As discussed in the Proposal, the ``Record Type'' data 
element--both in the current Sec.  17.00(g) record format and appendix 
C--identifies submissions that correct errors or omissions.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See, e.g., NGFA Letter at 1.
    \46\ Wood speculates about several other forms of ``gaming'' 
related to part 17 large trader position reporting, including the 
prospect that a trader might conceal ownership of accounts and 
submit optional Sec.  17.00(a) reports that are anonymous and at the 
same time contain ``misleading'' data. See Wood Letter. These 
concerns speak more to the reporting of information pertaining to 
ownership and control under Sec.  17.01 than to reporting of 
positions of special accounts under Sec.  17.00(a). In any event, 
Wood does not propose any changes to the Proposal on the basis of 
these concerns.
    \47\ See Wood Letter, Denkevitz Letter.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ See 88 FR at 41526 n.60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Comments Concerning Certain Late Claimed Give-ups and Transfers
    The Commission also received comments from FIA concerning the 
filing of change updates to account for ``certain late claimed give-ups 
and transfers.'' \50\ CBOE echoed these comments.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ FIA Letter at 6. To the extent CME and ICE's comment 
letters should be read to support or reiterate FIA's comment letter, 
those letters can be construed to raise this issue as well. See CME 
Letter at 2; ICE Letter at 1.
    \51\ CBOE Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, FIA requested the Commission provide ``guidance'' 
that ``change updates, corrections, or amendments to reports would not 
be required to account for certain ``late claimed give-up'' or certain 
transfer activity.\52\ FIA states that filing change updates to account 
for ``certain late claimed give-ups and transfers'' would increase 
reporting firms' filings and increase complexity, and states that 
``recreating positions from a prior day in order to accurately file the 
change update'' would be challenging for reporting firms.\53\ FIA also 
included an appendix to its comment letter containing reporting 
hypotheticals drafted by FIA members.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ FIA Letter at 6.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ See id. at 17-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission did not propose to revise regulations that govern 
the time by which a position must be reported under Sec.  17.00(a) or 
to revise the requirement that a reporting firm correct any errors in a 
position report. With respect to the activity to which FIA refers, the 
Commission would not expect the Proposal to affect whether reporting of 
positions impacted by give-up and transfer activity complies with the 
Commission's regulations. Therefore, FIA's request for guidance 
concerning ``change updates, corrections, or amendments'' relating to 
``certain late claimed give-ups and transfers'' is outside the scope of 
this rulemaking.
    The hypotheticals in FIA's letter do address a scenario where 
trades have been executed on a given day, but ``have

[[Page 47444]]

not been claimed yet in clearing'' as of the close of market on that 
same day.\55\ For purposes of populating the ``Contracts Bought'' and 
``Contracts Sold'' data elements, which include contracts bought and 
sold via give-up transactions, a reporting firm should generally count 
contracts that have been claimed for clearing and therefore are in a 
special account as of the close of market on the day covered by the 
report. To clarify the definitions of ``Contracts Bought'' and 
``Contracts Sold,'' the Commission has removed the reference to ``give-
ups processed beyond T+1'' and replaced it with ``contracts claimed for 
clearing as a result of trade allocations such as give-ups.'' The 
``Contracts Bought'' and ``Contracts Sold'' data elements, 
respectively, capture the gross number of contracts bought by a special 
account as of the close of the market for a covered day and the gross 
number of contracts sold from a special account as of the close of the 
market for a covered day, excluding contracts bought or sold from a 
special account in connection with exchanges of derivatives for related 
positions (``EDRPs''), transfers, option exercises, or deliveries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Id. at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Final Rule
    As discussed, with respect to the Proposal's changes related to the 
data submission standard for Sec.  17.00(a) reports, the Commission is 
adopting the Proposal as proposed.

B. Data Elements--Appendix C to Part 17 and Sec.  17.03(d)

1. Background and Summary of the Proposed Rule
    Because the current Sec.  17.00(g) record format contained the data 
elements for Sec.  17.00(a) reports and provided the form and manner 
for reporting those data elements, removal of that record format 
necessitates replacing those data elements in the regulations. The 
Proposal relocated the data elements for Sec.  17.00(a) reports to 
appendix C to part 17, and delegated authority to the Director of the 
Office of Data and Technology to publish the form and manner for 
submitting those data elements in a Part 17 Guidebook. The Proposal 
also included several data elements not previously incorporated into 
the Sec.  17.00(g) record format.
    Organizing the data elements applicable to Sec.  17.00(a) reports 
in an appendix to part 17 is consistent with the treatment of data 
elements required to be reported in other Commission reporting 
regimes.\56\ Similarly, delegating authority to determine the form and 
manner for reporting a particular data element to the Director of the 
Office of Data and Technology should enable the Commission to address 
changing market and technological conditions, and to provide 
clarification on reporting of particular data elements as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See, e.g., 17 CFR part 45, appendix 1 (data elements for 
swap data required to be reported under part 45); 17 CFR part 43, 
appendix A (data elements for swap transaction and pricing data 
required to be reported under part 43); 17 CFR part 39, appendix C 
(``Daily Reporting Data Fields'' for reporting required under part 
39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposal organized the data elements in appendix C into four 
categories. First, proposed appendix C retained certain data elements 
that have been required to be reported under the current Sec.  17.00(g) 
record format--for example, under the Proposal, a Sec.  17.00(a) report 
would continue to require reporting long positions and short positions 
in options and futures contracts, delivery notices stopped and issued, 
and other information fundamental to a position report.\57\ Second, 
proposed appendix C called for certain new data elements used to 
facilitate processing of data, including data elements typically used 
in FIXML reporting \58\--for example, for files submitted in FIXML, 
reporting firms would include a message count, a ``Sender ID,'' and 
information identifying the time of submission.\59\ Third, proposed 
appendix C included new product-related data elements that, where 
applicable, would enable the Commission to identify and distinguish the 
futures or option contract pertaining to the reported position.\60\ In 
some instances these data elements would allow the Commission to draw 
more granular distinctions between certain contracts for reportable 
positions, and in other instances, these data elements will enable 
reporting firms to accurately represent terms of particular contracts, 
such as bounded or barrier contracts, contracts with non-price or non-
numeric strikes, and other innovative contracts, that are held in 
special accounts. Fourth, proposed appendix C included new data 
elements that concern the nature and quantity of day-to-day changes in 
positions.\61\ That information would provide Commission staff with 
additional information to support the Commission's Surveillance 
Program,\62\ and would assist Commission staff in linking position data 
reported at the special account level pursuant to Sec.  17.00(a) with 
transaction data reported at the trading account level under Sec.  
16.02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ These data elements include (1) Data Element #7 Record Type 
(Action), (2) Data Element #8 Report Date, (3) Data Element #9 
(Reporting Firm ID), (4) Data Element #11 Account ID, (5) Data 
Element #12 Exchange Indicator, (6) Data Element #15 Ticker Symbol, 
(7) Data Element #16 Maturity Month Year, (8) Data Element #20 
Strike Level, (9) Data Element #26 Put or Call Indicator, (10) Data 
Element #27 Exercise Style, (11) Data Element #30 Underlying 
Contract ID, (12) Data Element #31 Underlying Maturity Month Year, 
(13) Data Element #32 Long Position, (14) Data Element #33 Short 
Position, (15) Data Element #38 Delivery Notices Stopped, and (16) 
Data Element #39 Delivery Notices Issued. The Part 17 Guidebook 
provides a mapping of data elements in the current Sec.  17.00(g) 
record format to the data elements in appendix C.
    \58\ These data elements include (1) Data Element #1 Total 
Message Count, (2) Data Element #2 Message Type, (3) Data Element #3 
Sender ID, (4) Data Element #4 To ID, (5) Data Element #5 Message 
Transmit Datetime, (6) Data Element #6 Report ID, and (7) Data 
Element #10 Special Account Controller LEI.
    \59\ The Commission notes that for reporting firms submitting 
Sec.  17.00(a) reports through the CFTC Portal, certain of these 
data elements may be populated by the CFTC Portal software.
    \60\ These data elements include (1) Data Element #14 Product 
Type, (2) Data Element #13 Commodity Clearing Code, (3) Data Element 
#17 Maturity Time, (4) Data Element #18 Listing Date, (5) Data 
Element #19 First Exercise Date, (6) Data Element #20 Strike Level, 
(7) Data Element #21 Alpha Strike, (8) Data Element #22 Cap Level, 
(9) Data Element #23 Floor Level, (10) Data Element #24 Bound or 
Barrier Type, (11) Data Element #25 Bound or Barrier Level, (12) 
Data Element #28 Payout Amount, (13) Data Element #29 Payout Type, 
and (14) Data Element #50 Product-Specific Terms.
    \61\ These data elements include (1) Data Element #34 Contracts 
Bought, (2) Data Element #35 Contracts Sold, (3) Data Element #36 
EDRPs Bought, (4) Data Element #37 EDRPs Sold, (5) Data Element #38 
Delivery Notices Stopped, (6) Data Element #39 Delivery Notices 
Issued, (7) Data Element #40 Long Options Expired, (8) Data Element 
#41 Short Options Expired, (9) Data Element #42 Long Options 
Exercised, (10) Data Element #43 Short Options Exercised, (11) Data 
Element #44 Long Futures Assigned, (12) Data Element #45 Short 
Futures Assigned, (13) Data Element # 46 Long Transfers Sent, (14) 
Data Element #47 Long Transfers Received, (15) Data Element #48 
Short Transfers Sent, and (16) Data Element #49 Short Transfers 
Received.
    \62\ The Commission's Market Surveillance Program is responsible 
for collecting market data and position information from registrants 
and large traders, and for monitoring the daily activities of large 
traders, key price relationships, and relevant supply and demand 
factors in a continuous review for potential market problems. See 
Final Rule, Position Limits, 86 FR 3236, 3381 n.1134 (Jan. 14, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, the Commission is adopting the amendments to 
Sec. Sec.  17.00(g) and 17.03(d) as proposed. The Commission is also 
adopting appendix C to part 17 (the final appendix C to part 17 is 
referred to, herein, as ``appendix C''), largely as proposed, but with 
non-substantive changes to the descriptions of certain data elements 
for clarity. In addition, the Office of Data and Technology has made 
corresponding non-substantive changes to the Proposed Part 17 Guidebook 
for clarity, and corresponding changes to the Part 17 Guidebook to 
remove certain data

[[Page 47445]]

elements. And, the Part 17 Guidebook now has been revised to enable 
reporting firms to submit certain of the product-related data elements 
enumerated in appendix C using a ``Unique Instrument Code.'' A revised 
Part 17 Guidebook (the ``Part 17 Guidebook'') has been published 
contemporaneously with this final rule.
2. Comments Received
    The Commission solicited comment concerning any additional data 
elements not included in appendix C that may be necessary to obtain a 
complete and accurate picture of positions held by large traders, any 
transactions that would effect changes in positions that are not 
accounted for by the data elements in appendix C, and any data elements 
in appendix C that may not be necessary to obtain a complete and 
accurate picture of positions held by large traders. The Commission 
also requested comments on all aspects of the changes to data elements 
described in the Proposal.
    The Commission received nine comments concerning changes to the 
data elements for Sec.  17.00(a) reports. Those comments generally 
consisted of requests for clarification regarding certain data 
elements, comments stating that certain product-related data elements 
should be obtained from DCMs, comments concerning the special account 
legal entity identifier (``LEI'') data element, and comments concerning 
use of certain data submission standards for certain data elements. In 
particular, FIA provided an appendix to their comment letter containing 
comments on 23 of the data elements in appendix C.\63\ ICE stated that 
it generally supported FIA's comments; \64\ CME stated that 
``compliance . . . is dependent on how the CFTC defines some of the new 
data elements,'' citing the FIA appendix; \65\ CBOE stated that it was 
``supportive'' of FIA's comments; \66\ and OCC stated that it 
``associates itself with the contents of the FIA Comment Letter.'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ FIA Letter at 13-16.
    \64\ ICE Letter at 1.
    \65\ CME Letter at 2.
    \66\ CBOE Letter at 2.
    \67\ OCC at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Comments Concerning Currently Reported Data Elements (``Category 
1'') \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ These data elements include (1) Data Element #7 Record Type 
(Action), (2) Data Element #8 Report Date, (3) Data Element #9 
(Reporting Firm ID), (4) Data Element #11 Account ID, (5) Data 
Element #12 Exchange Indicator, (6) Data Element #15 Ticker Symbol, 
(7) Data Element #16 Maturity Month Year, (8) Data Element #20 
Strike Level, (9) Data Element #26 Put or Call Indicator, (10) Data 
Element #27 Exercise Style, (11) Data Element #30 Underlying 
Contract ID, (12) Data Element #31 Underlying Maturity Month Year, 
(13) Data Element #32 Long Position, (14) Data Element #33 Short 
Position, (15) Data Element #38 Delivery Notices Stopped, and (16) 
Data Element #39 Delivery Notices Issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, appendix C incorporates the data elements 
included in the current Sec.  17.00(g) record format. That 80-character 
record format contains data elements that capture information necessary 
to process data,\69\ information concerning the reporting firm and 
special account,\70\ product-identifying information,\71\ and 
information concerning the direction or nature of the trades underlying 
the position.\72\ In some instances, appendix C calls for this 
information in a different format than that set out in current Sec.  
17.00(g). For example, whereas the current Sec.  17.00(g) record format 
uses a single data element to identify whether a position is long or 
short,\73\ appendix C captures long and short positions using separate 
data elements.\74\ Similarly, whereas the current Sec.  17.00(g) record 
format identifies EDRPs using a single ``Report Type'' field, appendix 
C captures more granular information concerning such exchanges through 
multiple data elements.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ For example, the ``Record Type'' data element indicates 
whether a report contains a new record, corrects a previously 
provided record, or deletes a previously provided record. 17 CFR 
17.00(g)(2)(xiv).
    \70\ For example, the ``Reporting firm'' data element identifies 
the reporting firm using a three-character alphanumeric identifier 
assigned by a DCM or Derivatives Clearing Organization, 17 CFR 
17.00(g)(2)(ii), and the ``Account Number'' data element identifies 
the special account using a unique identifier assigned by the 
reporting firm, 17 CFR 17.00(g)(2)(iii).
    \71\ For example, the ``Commodity'' data element is populated 
with an exchange-assigned commodity code for the futures or options 
contract. 17 CFR 17.00(g)(2)(vii).
    \72\ For example, the ``Report Type'' data element indicates 
whether a report contains positions, delivery notices, or exchanges 
of futures for a commodity or for a derivatives position. 17 CFR 
17.00(g)(2)(i).
    \73\ Specifically, the ``Long-Buy-Stopped (Short-Sell-Issued)'' 
data element. See 17 CFR 17.00(g)(xi).
    \74\ Specifically, Data Element #32 Long Position and Data 
Element #33 Short Position.
    \75\ Specifically, Data Element #36 EDRPs Bought and Data 
Element #37 EDRPs Sold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No commenter objected to continuing to report the data elements 
contained in the current Sec.  17.00(g) record format. The appendix to 
FIA's comment letter does provide comment on several of these data 
elements. The Commission discusses those comments and data elements 
below in connection with new data elements to which those data elements 
correspond.
b. Comments Concerning Data Elements Related to FIXML Implementation 
and Data Processing (``Category 2'')
    Appendix C contains certain new data elements to facilitate 
processing of data.\76\ These include data elements concerning the 
submission of messages to the Commission, data elements identifying the 
sender and special account controller,\77\ and data elements 
identifying the date and time of the report. This information is 
necessary to enable the Commission to track and manage reports received 
using a FIXML data submission standard. No commenter objected to the 
inclusion of any of these data elements in appendix C. FIA, however, 
requested clarification concerning some of these data elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ These fields include (1) Data Element #1 Total Message 
Count, (2) Data Element #2 Message Type, (3) Data Element #3 Sender 
ID, (4) Data Element #4 To ID, (5) Data Element #5 Message Transmit 
Datetime, (6) Data Element #6 Report ID, and (7) Data Element #7 
Record Type (Action).
    \77\ The Commission separately discusses Data Element #10 
Special Account Controller LEI below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, FIA requested clarification concerning the ``Total Message 
Count,'' ``Report ID,'' and ``Record Type (Action)'' data elements.\78\ 
Specifically, FIA asked whether ``Report ID'' identifies ``a position 
report on a given day as opposed to lines within a position report.'' 
\79\ The source of FIA's confusion appears to be the meaning of the 
term ``position report'' in appendix C. As used in appendix C, the 
terms ``position report,'' ``record,'' or ``message'' refer to a daily 
record of a position in a particular contract on a particular reporting 
market. As used in appendix C, a ``file'' represents a compilation of 
one or more ``records'' or ``messages'' submitted for a given day. 
Thus, ``Total Message Count'' refers to a count of all records or 
messages in a given file, ``Report ID'' refers to a unique identifier 
assigned to each record or message in a given file, and ``Record Type 
(Action)'' refers to the action that triggered each record or message 
in a given file. The Commission has made non-substantive, clarifying 
revisions to Data Elements #1, #5, and #7 to use the term ``position 
report'' consistently. The Commission believes these changes will 
provide clarity to reporting firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ FIA Letter at 13.
    \79\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, FIA requested clarification concerning the ``Sender ID'' 
data element.\80\ Specifically, it asked the Commission to clarify the 
difference between ``Sender ID'' and ``Reporting Firm ID.'' \81\ As FIA 
suggests in their

[[Page 47446]]

comment, ``Sender ID'' is intended to identify the entity responsible 
for submitting a position report, whether or not that entity is also 
the ``reporting firm,'' as that term is used herein. ``Reporting Firm 
ID'' refers to the reporting firm, regardless of whether the reporting 
firm is also the submitter of the position report. The Commission has 
made non-substantive, clarifying revisions to Data Element #3 to 
specify that ``Sender ID'' should be populated with a unique identifier 
assigned to the ``firm submitting the position report.'' The Commission 
believes this change will provide clarity to reporting firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Id.
    \81\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Comments Concerning Data Elements Related to Product Identification 
(``Category 3'')
    Appendix C also contains certain new data elements to identify and 
characterize the product in which the special account holds a position. 
The current Sec.  17.00(g) record format requires reporting an 
``Exchange Code,'' an exchange-assigned ``Commodity Code'' for the 
contract, an exchange-assigned ``Commodity Code'' for the instrument 
that the contract exercises into, the ``Expiration Date'' for the 
contract and for the instrument that the contract exercises into, and a 
``Strike Price,'' where applicable.\82\ That narrowly-prescribed format 
cannot readily accommodate reporting of positions in contracts with 
bounds or barriers, contracts with non-price or non-numeric strikes, or 
other innovative contracts. Accordingly, appendix C includes data 
elements to capture such information, which will allow the Commission 
to distinguish among these positions in large trader data maintained in 
ISS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 17 CFR 17.00(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FIA's comments concerning data elements related to product 
identification fall into two categories. First, FIA seeks clarification 
regarding certain data elements. Second, FIA proposes that the 
Commission eliminate certain data elements from appendix C that it 
deems to contain ``static'' product information--that is, data elements 
that seek information for which the value of the data element will not 
vary across position reports submitted to the Commission--on the 
grounds that it would be more efficient for the Commission to obtain 
such information directly from the DCMs that list such products.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ FIA Letter at 4-6. CME and CBOE also stated that they, as 
DCMs listing contracts, would provide so-called ``static'' data 
elements to the Commission in lieu of requiring reporting firms to 
include this data in Sec.  17.00(a) reports. See CME Letter at 3; 
CBOE Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FIA seeks clarification concerning the ``Commodity Clearing Code,'' 
``Product Type,'' ``Ticker Symbol,'' and ``Underlying Contract ID'' 
data elements.
    With respect to ``Commodity Clearing Code,'' FIA requests that the 
Commission use different terminology--simply, ``Clearing Code''--as 
this is ``industry standard terminology.'' \84\ The ``Commodity 
Clearing Code'' data element captures a clearinghouse-assigned 
commodity code for the futures or options contract. Although certain 
clearinghouses use the ``Clearing Code'' terminology, some 
specifications use other terminology for this data, such as ``Clearing 
Symbol.'' The Commission believes that the definition of ``Commodity 
Clearing Code'' set out in appendix C, and the description in the Part 
17 Guidebook, provide sufficient clarity for the term ``Commodity 
Clearing Code'' to be understood by reporting firms regardless of the 
naming convention used by a particular clearinghouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ FIA Letter at 13. Alternatively, Denkevitz suggests instead 
that the Commission use ``Commodity Code'' on the basis that 
``Commodity Code'' is ``more clear.'' See Denkevitz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to ``Product Type,'' FIA seeks ``further specificity'' 
regarding the terms ``Commodity Swap'' and ``Options on Combos,'' which 
are included as valid values in the Part 17 Guidebook.\85\ The term 
``Commodity Swap'' refers to a contract, based on a commodity, that 
meets the swap definition.\86\ The term ``Options on Combos,'' or 
Options Combinations, refers to a multi-legged instrument made up of 
calls, puts, and/or futures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ FIA Letter at 14.
    \86\ See 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(A); 17 CFR 1.3; Final Rule, Further 
Definition of ``Swap Dealer,'' ``Security-Based Swap Dealer,'' 
``Major Swap Participant,'' ``Major Security-Based Swap 
Participant'' and ``Eligible Contract Participant,'' 77 FR 30596 
(May 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to ``Ticker Symbol,'' FIA stated that ``Ticker 
Symbol'' is ``not self-explanatory.'' \87\ The Part 17 Guidebook 
indicates that ``Ticker Symbol'' maps to the ``Commodity Code (1)'' 
data element in the current Sec.  17.00(g) record format. The 
Commission believes that because reporting firms currently report this 
data element, the description in the Part 17 Guidebook, including the 
mapping to the current data element, is sufficiently clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ FIA Letter at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to ``Underlying Contract ID,'' FIA commented a 20-
character limitation set out in the Part 17 Guidebook could limit the 
ability of this data element to accommodate options that exercise into 
multiple futures contracts, such as a ``crush option.'' \88\ FIA does 
not, however, indicate what alternative character limitation would be 
appropriate for the ``Underlying Contract ID'' data element or specify 
any crush option contract currently listed on a DCM that could not be 
reported due to the 20-character limitation for this data element in 
the Part 17 Guidebook. The Guidebook published contemporaneously with 
this final rule replaces the 20-character limitation with a 50-
character limitation. If, in the future, a 50-character limitation 
becomes insufficient to capture complete and accurate data for certain 
contracts, the Commission expects that the form and manner for 
reporting the ``Underlying Contract ID'' data element would be adjusted 
as necessary by the Office of Data and Technology pursuant to the 
delegation of authority in Sec.  17.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, in addition to comments requesting 
clarification with respect to specific data elements, FIA also 
commented concerning the reporting of product-related data elements for 
which the value of the data element generally does not vary across 
Sec.  17.00(a) reports.\89\ According to FIA, these so-called 
``static'' data elements include ``Product Type,'' ``Listing Date,'' 
``Exercise Style,'' ``Payout Amount,'' ``Payout Type,'' ``Underlying 
Contract ID,'' and ``Underlying Maturity Month Year.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Id. at 4-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FIA requests that the Commission not require reporting firms to 
submit these data elements, but instead obtain this information from 
the DCMs listing products to which the data elements are 
applicable.\90\ FIA argues that this static data should be obtained 
from one centralized source--the exchange that originates the data--and 
not multiple reporting firms because ``the data should not vary from 
firm-to-firm'' and ``[i]mposing an obligation on reporting firms to 
submit this data increases the risk of error.'' \91\ As an alternative, 
FIA suggests that the CFTC ``should impose an obligation on the 
exchanges to provide this information directly to each reporting firm 
in a readily digestible format.'' \92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ FIA Letter at 2.
    \91\ Id. at 4.
    \92\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain entities which operate DCMs, specifically, CME and CBOE, 
also commented that ``static'' data elements would be best obtained 
from the DCMs that are the original source of the data.\93\

[[Page 47447]]

CME stated that it publishes this information on its website and 
``provides this information in FIXML format to the CFTC pursuant to 
part 16 regulations.'' \94\ CME proposed the CFTC ``abandon'' seeking 
product reference information in Sec.  17.00(a) reports and instead 
seek that information directly from DCMs via a standardized product 
reference file submitted pursuant to part 16.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ CME Letter at 3; CBOE Letter at 2. CBOE categorized the 
following as ``static'' data elements: Data Element #14 Product 
Type, Data Element #18 Listing Date, Data Element #27 Exercise 
Style, Data Element #28 Payout Amount, Data Element #29 Payout Type, 
Data Element #30 Underlying Contract ID, and Data Element #31 
Underlying Maturity Month Year).
    \94\ CME Letter at 3.
    \95\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted by CME,\96\ Commission staff has developed a Product 
Reference File Guidebook (``PRF Guidebook''), which sets out a 
standardized format for DCMs to submit product reference information to 
the Commission pursuant to Sec.  16.02.\97\ The Commission believes 
that receiving product reference information from DCMs in a 
standardized format will improve data quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Id.
    \97\ 17 CFR 16.02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to improving the quality of futures and options 
transaction data reported by DCMs under Sec.  16.02, the Commission 
believes that the PRF Guidebook may also facilitate a simplified means 
of reporting product-related data in Sec.  17.00(a) reports. If the 
Commission receives product reference data from a DCM and such data can 
be adequately linked to a Sec.  17.00(a) report for a position in the 
relevant contract, then it would only be necessary for the reporting 
firm to include in that Sec.  17.00(a) report information sufficient to 
link that position report to the relevant product reference data.
    In order for the Commission to link product-related data in a 
product reference file to a Sec.  17.00(a) report for a particular 
contract, reporting firms will need to provide, as part of each Sec.  
17.00(a) report, a code identifying the relevant product entry in a 
DCM's product reference file. The PRF Guidebook allows for DCMs to 
identify product references files with such codes, called ``Unique 
Instrument Codes,'' to particular futures and options contracts.
    In light of the above, the Commission has revised the final Part 17 
Guidebook to provide flexibility in the form and manner for submitting 
product-specific data elements. As provided in the Proposed Part 17 
Guidebook, reporting firms may submit all of the data elements 
enumerated in appendix C. But, the Part 17 Guidebook also provides that 
reporting firms may submit certain product-specific data elements in 
appendix C by providing a ``Unique Instrument Code'' associated with a 
DCM's product reference file. Receiving a ``Unique Instrument Code'' 
will allow the Commission to obtain the related product-specific data 
from a DCM's product reference file. To effectuate this option, the 
Commission has revised the Part 17 Guidebook to indicate that certain 
data elements are not required to be populated in a Sec.  17.00(a) 
report if a ``Unique Instrument Code'' is provided.\98\ Conversely, if 
a reporting firm reports each of the product-related data elements 
enumerated in appendix C, they need not provide the relevant ``Unique 
Instrument Code'' from the DCM's product reference file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ The Part 17 Guidebook now includes a ``Unique Instrument 
Code'' data field, defined as ``[a]n exchange-assigned code [that] 
serves as a primary key for the product reference file and uniquely 
identifies the derivative contract at the instrument level.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comments received, the Commission expects that 
providing a ``Unique Instrument Code'' rather than certain product-
related data elements required by appendix C will reduce the burden on 
reporting firms, reduce the risk of error in reporting, and simplify 
the reconciliation or error correction process for reporting firms and 
the Commission.\99\ Providing this option to reporting firms will not 
increase the burden or complexity beyond that contemplated in the 
Proposal, as reporting firms retain the alternative to report the 
appendix C data elements as enumerated in the Proposal.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See FIA Letter at 4.
    \100\ FIA proposes that a ``less optimal alternative'' to 
wholesale deletion of their so-called ``static'' data elements would 
be ``to impose an obligation on the exchanges to provide this 
information directly to each reporting firm in a readily digestible 
format.'' FIA Letter at 6. The Commission believes that permitting 
reporting firms to submit a ``Unique Instrument Code'' to satisfy 
their obligation to provide the relevant data elements from appendix 
C is consistent with FIA's proposal. The Commission believes that 
submitting a single ``Unique Instrument Code'' rather than a set of 
data elements will be more efficient for reporting firms and for the 
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain commenters identified several specific data elements that 
they believe are ``static'' and best obtained directly from DCMs.\101\ 
The Part 17 Guidebook indicates these data elements need not be 
included in a Sec.  17.00(a) report if a ``Unique Instrument Code'' is 
provided--``Product Type,'' ``Listing Date,'' ``Exercise Style,'' 
``Payout Amount,'' ``Payout Type,'' ``Underlying Contract ID,'' and 
``Underlying Maturity Month Year.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See FIA Letter at 4-6 (``Data Element #14 Product Type,'' 
``Data Element #18 Listing Date,'' ``Data Element #27 Exercise 
Style,'' ``Data Element #28 Payout Amount,'' ``Data Element #29 
Payout Type,'' ``Data Element #30 Underlying Contract ID,'' and 
``Data Element #31 Underlying Maturity Month Year''); CBOE Letter at 
2 (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Comments Concerning the ``Special Account Controller LEI'' Data 
Element
    Appendix C includes a ``Special Account Controller'' data element. 
As discussed in the Proposal, an LEI is a unique code assigned to an 
entity in accordance with the standards set by the Global Legal 
Identifier System.\102\ Among other things, the ``Special Account 
Controller LEI'' data element will allow the Commission to link data 
reports submitted under Sec.  17.00(a) with other data reports 
concerning the same entity. The Commission notes that some special 
account controllers, such as natural persons, may be ineligible to 
receive an LEI.\103\ Accordingly, the Part 17 Guidebook, as initially 
proposed, labelled the ``Special Account Controller LEI'' as 
conditional, and the Proposal explained that the data element must be 
reported for special accounts for which the special account controller 
is eligible to receive an LEI, but an LEI need not be reported for 
special accounts for which the special account controller is ineligible 
for an LEI.\104\ For such accounts, the Commission will receive 
identifying information via Form 102A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ The Global Legal Identifier System was established by the 
finance ministers and the central bank governors of the Group of 
Twenty nations and the Financial Stability Board. See Charter of the 
Regulatory Oversight Committee For the Global Legal Entity 
Identifier System, available at https://www.leiroc.org/publications/gls/roc_20190130-1.pdf.
    \103\ The Commission has elsewhere discussed this issue in 
regulations concerning reporting of swap data. See, e.g., Final 
Rule, Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 85 FR 
75503, 75520 (Nov. 25, 2020).
    \104\ 88 FR at 41528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received comments from FIA, ICE, GLEIF, and ISO 
concerning the ``Special Account Controller LEI'' data element. No 
commenters opposed including ``Special Account Controller LEI'' as a 
data element, but some commenters opposed requiring LEI where a special 
account controller has not provided an LEI to the reporting firm, 
regardless of whether that special account controller is eligible to 
receive an LEI.
    GLEIF and ISO each support using LEI to identify Special Account 
Controllers. GLEIF notes that other regulators have recently discussed 
or proposed rules to include LEI for different reporting regimes, and 
LEI adoption creates ``a comprehensive and consistent identification 
scheme'' across regulators.\105\ ICE commented that it has ``found LEIs 
to be a valuable data point

[[Page 47448]]

for use in tracking the accuracy of data reporting and encourages the 
Commission to implement additional requirements regarding this data 
element, including the requirement that LEI must be reported in large 
trader submissions wherever possible.'' \106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ GLEIF Letter at 2.
    \106\ ICE Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FIA, however, does not believe that special account controller 
``eligibility'' for an LEI is ``the appropriate standard.'' \107\ FIA 
asserts that no other Commission regulations explicitly require 
eligible special account controllers to obtain LEIs, and suggests that 
absent a separate, independent requirement to provide an LEI, the 
``Special Account Controller LEI'' data element should instead be 
conditioned on special account controllers ``providing'' an LEI to the 
reporting firm.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ FIA Letter at 8.
    \108\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has determined to adopt the ``Special Account 
Controller LEI'' data element and to clarify that reporting the 
``Special Account Controller LEI'' data element is conditional on the 
special account controller obtaining an LEI. Therefore, under the final 
rule, reporting firms must report an LEI if the special account 
controller is eligible to receive and has obtained an LEI. Reporting 
firms will not need to request that their LEI-eligible customers who 
have not obtained LEIs do so. But, reporting firms may need to request 
that customers who have obtained LEIs provide those LEIs, just as those 
customers provide various other identifying information that is 
required in regulatory reporting, such as their names and addresses. A 
reporting firm satisfies its obligation to report the Special Account 
Controller LEI data element by asking a customer if it has obtained an 
LEI and, if so, to provide that LEI to the reporting firm. If an LEI is 
provided by the customer, the reporting firm then reports the provided 
LEI.
    However, receiving Sec.  17.00(a) reports that do not identify 
eligible special account controllers with an LEI hinders the 
Commission's fulfillment of its regulatory mandates. The Commission 
understands FIA's concern that, in the absence of an express 
requirement that eligible special account controllers obtain an LEI, 
reporting firms might be faced with a choice between requiring their 
LEI-eligible customers to provide LEIs and declining to carry futures 
and options positions for such customers. The Commission will continue 
to evaluate whether to adopt an express requirement that certain 
special accounts eligible for an LEI be required to obtain an LEI. To 
the extent future Commission action introduces such a requirement, the 
Commission expects that reporting firms responsible for large trader 
reporting will report an LEI for all special account controllers.
e. Comments Concerning Data Elements Concerning Changes in Positions 
(``Category 4'')
    Appendix C includes data elements \109\ incorporating the current 
Sec.  17.00(g) record format's requirement that reporting firms 
identify EDRPs \110\ and identify delivery notices issued and 
stopped.\111\ In addition, appendix C introduces data elements to 
capture information concerning the nature of changes in positions that 
is not fully-captured by the current Sec.  17.00(g) record format.\112\ 
Specifically, appendix C requires identification of changes in position 
due to contracts bought and sold; \113\ due to option expirations, 
exercises, and assignments; and due to long and short transfers sent 
and received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Specifically, Data Element #36 EDRPs Bought, Data Element 
#37 EDRPs Sold, Data Element #38 Delivery Notices Stopped, and Data 
Element #39 Delivery Notices Issued.
    \110\ The Commission understands that, in practice, such 
transactions are often referred to as ``exchanges of futures for 
related positions'' or ``EFRPs,'' or sometimes simply ``exchanges 
for related positions.'' The Commission has used the terminology 
``exchanges of derivatives for related positions,'' or ``EDRPs,'' 
because it believes this is a more accurate and descriptive term 
given it ``include[s] transactions not limited to futures, such as 
swaps.'' Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Core Principles and Other 
Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, 75 FR 80572, 80593 
(Dec. 22, 2010).
    \111\ See 17 CFR 17.00(g)(i), (xi).
    \112\ These fields would include (1) Data Element #34 Contracts 
Bought, (2) Data Element #35 Contracts Sold, (3) Data Element #36 
EDRPs Bought, (4) Data Element #37 EDRPs Sold, (5) Data Element #38 
Delivery Notices Stopped, (6) Data Element #39 Delivery Notices 
Issued, (7) Data Element #40 Long Options Expired, (8) Data Element 
#41 Short Options Expired, (9) Data Element #42 Long Options 
Exercised, (10) Data Element #43 Short Options Exercised, (11) Data 
Element #44 Long Futures Assigned, (12) Data Element #45 Short 
Futures Assigned, (13) Data Element # 46 Long Transfers Sent, (14) 
Data Element #47 Long Transfers Received, (15) Data Element #48 
Short Transfers Sent, and (16) Data Element #49 Short Transfers 
Received.
    \113\ Appendix C indicates that changes in position resulting 
from give-up transactions and allocations will be included in the 
totals of ``Contracts Bought'' and ``Contracts Sold,'' as such 
contracts would be treated as positions in the carrying accounts 
through which they are ultimately cleared rather than positions in 
the accounts that execute the transactions, if such accounts differ 
from the accounts through which such transactions are cleared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Understanding the nature and quantity of transactions that resulted 
in day-to-day changes in positions of special accounts will provide 
Commission staff with additional information for surveillance purposes, 
and will allow Commission staff to link position data reported at the 
special account level pursuant to Sec.  17.00(a) with transaction data 
reported at the trading account level under Sec.  16.02.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ DCMs identify traders by account numbers, but certain DCMs 
do not routinely collect detailed trader-identifying data. See, 
e.g., Final Rule, Significant Price Discovery Contracts on Exempt 
Commercial Markets, 74 FR 12178, 12185 (Mar. 23, 2009). The 
Commission instead generally obtains such trader-identifying data 
from FCMs, clearing members, and foreign brokers through Sec.  
17.01. 17 CFR 17.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission did not receive any comments objecting to the 
addition of these data elements. FIA, however, sought clarification 
with respect to the ``Long Transfers Sent,'' ``Long Transfers 
Received,'' ``Short Transfers Sent,'' and ``Short Transfers Received'' 
data elements.\115\ FIA commented that the Part 17 Guidebook ``does not 
provide guidance for a reporting firm to distinguish between a transfer 
and a give-up.'' \116\ FIA states that this distinction may affect the 
accuracy of reporting the ``Transfers'' data elements, as well as 
``Contracts Bought'' and ``Contracts Sold,'' as those data elements 
include changes in positions resulting from give-up transactions but 
exclude changes in positions resulting from transfers.\117\ The 
Commission notes that the inclusion of changes in positions resulting 
from give-up transactions in ``Contracts Bought'' and ``Contracts 
Sold'' reflects an intent to distinguish this activity from changes in 
position that merely move an existing position from one account to 
another, which may occur via transfers.\118\ The Commission believes 
that the distinction between give-up transactions and transfers is 
sufficiently clear, and is adopting the regulations as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ For several data elements, FIA provided comments that 
appear to simply provide context to the Commission regarding certain 
industry practices that may affect reporting. See FIA Letter at 15.
    \116\ FIA Letter at 15.
    \117\ Id.
    \118\ Denkevitz also commented on the data elements concerning 
changes in positions. See Denkevitz. Denkevitz suggested that 
changes in position due to allocations and give-up transactions be 
reported in new, separate data elements rather than aggregated with 
changes in position due to other trading activity. The Commission 
takes Denkevitz's point to be definitional--that is, that a contract 
acquired due to an allocation may not literally be a contract 
``bought.'' The Commission's objective is to capture the information 
necessary for surveillance purposes in the least burdensome way, and 
views this change as unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Comments Concerning Use of Alternative Identifiers
    The Commission sought comment on all aspects of the proposed Part 
17

[[Page 47449]]

Guidebook.\119\ Bloomberg requested that the Commission ``consider the 
use of alternate identifiers based on open data licenses, such as the 
Financial Instrument Global Identifier (``FIGI'') where appropriate, in 
large trader position reporting and in the submission standards 
outlined in the Part 17 Guidebook.'' \120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ 88 FR at 41527.
    \120\ Bloomberg Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission will adopt this proposal and ``FIGI'' has been added 
to the Part 17 Guidebook as an alternative identifier for underlying 
contracts, alongside CUSIP, SEDOL, QUIK, ISIN, and Bloomberg Symbol. 
FIGI is a free, open source identifier available to all market 
participants and accepted as a U.S. national standard by the Accredited 
Standards Committee X9 Inc.\121\ Allowing FIGI as an alternative 
underlier identifier is consistent with its adoption as an alternative 
identifier for other reporting schemes. For example, FIGI is allowed as 
an alternative identifier in Form 13F reporting required by the 
Securities and Exchange Commission.\122\ FIGI is also accepted by the 
Derivatives Services Bureau as an alternative underlier identifier for 
the creation of a Unique Product Identifier (``UPI'') for swap data 
repository reporting purposes.\123\ The Commission supports providing 
reporting firms the option to choose among financial identifiers and 
believes it appropriate to allow FIGI as a value to be reported for the 
underlying contract data in the Part 17 Guidebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Id. at 2-3.
    \122\ See Form 13F, Information Required of Institutional 
Investment Managers Pursuant to section 13(f) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules Thereunder, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/form13f.pdf.
    \123\ See Derivatives Services Bureau, Alternative Identifiers 
for the UPI Service, available at https://www.anna-dsb.com/alternative-identifiers-as-an-underlier-for-the-upi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Comments Concerning Data Elements Applicable to Certain Contracts
    As explained in the Proposal, certain of the product-related data 
elements in appendix C will only apply to reporting positions in 
certain types of contracts.\124\ For example, a reporting firm would 
not report an ``Alpha Strike'' for a contract with a strike level that 
was a monetary value. Consistent with this principle, the Part 17 
Guidebook identifies which data elements are ``mandatory'' and which 
data elements are ``conditional.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See, e.g., 88 FR at 41529 (discussing the fact reporting 
certain product-specific data elements would only be required to be 
reported for contracts to which those data elements pertain, such 
that reporting firms that are not involved in trading such products 
need not report those data elements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FIA requested that the Part 17 Guidebook contain ``written guidance 
. . . that certain fields only apply to specific markets.'' \125\ FIA 
stated that such guidance would ``prevent inconsistent interpretations 
across reporting firms'' and that ``the CFTC should assume that smaller 
reporting firms and foreign brokers will struggle interpreting the 
instructions'' in the Part 17 Guidebook.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ FIA Letter at 3.
    \126\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission declines to enumerate in the Part 17 Guidebook the 
applicability of data elements by ``specific market.'' Given FIA's 
reference to ``event markets,'' the Commission believes that FIA is 
using the term ``market'' to refer to a DCM, rather than to refer to 
the market for a particular contract. The Commission does not believe 
that it would be appropriate to categorically enumerate in the Part 17 
Guidebook those exchanges to which certain conditional data elements 
apply. DCMs may list a variety of contracts, and some DCMs may list 
some contracts to which conditional appendix C data elements apply and 
some contracts to which conditional appendix C data elements do not 
apply. Alternatively, if FIA's reference to ``market'' is a reference 
to particular contracts, it is not practical for Commission staff to 
enumerate in the Part 17 Guidebook every contract to which each 
conditional appendix C data element applies. Among other things, such a 
practice could require constant updates of the Part 17 Guidebook to 
reflect the listing of new contracts.
h. Comments Concerning Delegation of Authority to the Director of the 
Office of Data and Technology To Determine the Form and Manner for 
Reporting the Data Elements in Appendix C
    In connection with establishing appendix C, the Commission proposed 
revising Sec.  17.00(g) to state that Sec.  17.00(a) reports shall be 
submitted in the form and manner published by the Commission or its 
designee pursuant to Sec.  17.03 and revised Sec.  17.03(d) to state 
that authority shall be designated to the Director of the Office of 
Data and Technology to determine the form, manner, coding structure, 
and electronic data transmission procedures for reporting the data 
elements in appendix C. Thus, rather than specifying the form and 
manner for reporting the Sec.  17.00(a) data elements in the 
regulation, as done in current Sec.  17.00(g)(2), the form and manner 
for reporting a particular data element will be set out in the Part 17 
Guidebook.
    As discussed in the Proposal, specifying the form and manner for 
reporting through a Part 17 Guidebook will bring the Sec.  17.00(a) 
reports in line with various other Commission reporting streams, for 
which, rather than embedding technical reporting details into 
regulation text, the Commission has delegated authority to staff to set 
the form and manner for reporting through a published technical 
specification or guidebook.\127\ Implementing form and manner 
requirements through a Part 17 Guidebook will facilitate the 
Commission's ability to respond to changing market conventions and 
technological advances,\128\ to harmonize the form and manner for 
reporting data elements in Sec.  17.00(a) reports with other reporting 
streams as necessary,\129\ and to accommodate the introduction of 
innovative products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See, e.g., 17 CFR 16.07(c), (d) (delegating authority to 
staff to ``approve the format, coding structure and electronic data 
transmission procedures used by reporting markets'' and ``to 
determine the specific content of any daily trade and supporting 
data report''); 17 CFR 20.8(d) (delegating authority to staff ``for 
providing instructions or determining the format, coding structure, 
and electronic data transmission procedures for submitting data 
records and any other information required under this part''); 17 
CFR 43.7(a) (delegating authority to staff ``[t]o publish the 
technical specification providing the form and manner for reporting 
and publicly disseminating the swap transaction and pricing data 
elements in appendix A of [Part 43]''); 17 CFR 45.15(b)(1) 
(delegating authority to staff ``to publish the technical 
specifications providing the form and manner for reporting the swap 
data elements in appendix 1 to [Part 45] to swap data 
repositories'').
    \128\ See, e.g., Final Rule, Large Trader Reporting for Physical 
Commodity Swaps, 76 FR 43851, 43857 (Jul. 22, 2011) (the purpose of 
delegating authority to staff to provide ``instructions for 
determining the format, coding structure, and electronic data 
transmission procedures for submitting data records and any other 
information required under [Part 20] . . . is to facilitate the 
ability of the Commission to respond to changing market and 
technological conditions for the purpose of ensuring timely and 
accurate data reporting'').
    \129\ Final Rule, Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting 
Requirements, 85 FR 75503, 75535 (Nov. 25, 2020) (``The Commission . 
. . believes delegation to [the Division of Market Oversight] will 
benefit data element harmonization.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received two comments that relate to the delegation 
of authority to determine the form and manner for reporting data 
elements in appendix C.\130\ First, FIA requested ``confirm[ation]'' 
``that the delegation of authority does not permit the Office of Data 
and Technology to change the data elements to be reported, as listed in 
appendix C to the Proposed Rule, or to modify the definitions or 
descriptions of

[[Page 47450]]

the data elements to be reported as listed in the Proposed Rule or 
Proposed Guidebook.'' \131\ Second, ICE stated that ``this delegation 
may allow the imposition of substantive changes . . . to required data 
elements'' without an additional opportunity for notice and 
comment.\132\ ICE appears to be concerned about in scenario in which 
the Office of Data and Technology might make ``substantive changes'' to 
the data elements for Sec.  17.00(a) reports ``that are difficult and/
or costly for reporting firms to implement'' without sufficient notice 
or an opportunity to comment.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ Comments concerning the delegation of authority to 
designate a data submission standard or standards are discussed 
separately above. See supra section II(A)(2)(a).
    \131\ FIA Letter at 7.
    \132\ ICE Letter at 2.
    \133\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that Sec.  17.03(d) is clear as proposed. 
That provision delegates to the Office of Data and Technology the 
authority to determine the form, manner, coding structure, and 
electronic data transmission procedures for reporting the data elements 
in appendix C. Section 17.03(d) does not set forth substantive 
reporting requirements or delegate authority to the Director of the 
Office of Data and Technology to set forth substantive reporting 
requirements. Rather, Sec.  17.00(a) and appendix C set out the 
substantive reporting requirement, including specifying the data 
elements to be reported. The Part 17 Guidebook, in turn, sets out the 
form, manner, coding structure, and electronic data transmission 
procedures for reporting those data elements enumerated in appendix C. 
The basis for FIA and ICE's concern that the Office of Data and 
Technology might ``change the data elements to be reported'' is not 
clear from their comments.\134\ The Commission has specified the data 
elements for Sec.  17.00(a) reports in appendix C to provide notice to 
reporting firms of those data elements. As discussed in the 
Proposal,\135\ this structure is similar to the approach taken by the 
Commission in parts 39, 43, and 45.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ FIA Letter at 7; ICE Letter at 2.
    \135\ See, e.g., 88 FR at 41527 (``Enumerating required data 
elements in an appendix is consistent with the approach taken for 
certain other Commission data reporting regulations.'').
    \136\ Separately, Wood's comment letter could be construed to 
suggest that Sec.  17.00(d) should delegate authority concerning 
part 17 data generally to either an individual in the Market 
Surveillance Branch of the Division of Enforcement or to the 
Director of the Division of Enforcement, rather than to the Director 
of the Office of Data and Technology. See Wood Letter (``Can you 
address why Market Surveillance leadership does not have delegated 
authority with respect to Part 17 data?''). As discussed in the 
Proposal, staff across several Divisions, including the Division of 
Enforcement, rely on position data loaded into ISS. The Office of 
Data and Technology is generally responsible for the ingest of data 
from registered entities pursuant to the CEA and Commission 
regulations, as well as integration of that data with other data 
sources. See, e.g., CFTC Organization, available at https://www.cftc.gov/About/CFTCOrganization/index.htm (discussing certain 
responsibilities of the Commission's Division of Data). The Office 
of Data and Technology typically maintains and manages technical 
specifications, guidebooks, and other staff guidance concerning data 
reporting, and at the same time collaborates with the other 
Divisions and Offices within the Commission concerning that data. 
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the Office of Data 
and Technology should continue in that role with respect to Sec.  
17.00(a) data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Final Rule
    As discussed, the Commission is adopting the Proposal largely as 
proposed, with non-substantive revisions to descriptions of certain 
data elements in appendix C. The Commission has incorporated into the 
Part 17 Guidebook instructions to enable reporting firms to submit 
certain of the product-related data elements enumerated in appendix C 
using a ``Unique Instrument Code.'' The Commission has also made 
certain conforming changes to the Part 17 Guidebook, which has been 
published on the Commission's website contemporaneously with this final 
rule.

III. Compliance Period

    In the Proposal, the Commission included a compliance date 365 days 
following publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. The 
Proposal explained that the 365-day compliance date was intended to 
provide reporting firms with sufficient time to revise or build 
infrastructure to submit Sec.  17.00(a) reports using the FIXML data 
submission standard or the CFTC Portal, and with sufficient time to 
incorporate reporting of new data elements. The Proposal also noted 
that the Commission expected to enable reporting firms to begin 
submitting Sec.  17.00(a) reports using the FIXML data submission 
standard or via the CFTC Portal, in parallel with submitting Sec.  
17.00(a) reports in the Sec.  17.00(g) record format, in advance of 
that compliance date. This would allow reporting firms to test the new 
reporting requirements, and would allow early adopters to report using 
a modern data submission standard.
    The Commission sought comment on whether 365 days after publication 
of this final rule is a sufficient implementation period. The 
Commission received five comments concerning the proposed 365-day 
compliance date.\137\ All commenters expressed concern that 365 days 
was insufficient given the large number of firms that would be affected 
by the Proposal and recommended at least a 24-month compliance period. 
FIA stated that it believes that any compliance date should be at least 
365 days following finalization of the CFTC Portal, and stated that it 
believes that the reporting firms should have three months to test the 
CFTC Portal before it is finalized.\138\ Alternatively, FIA requested a 
24-month compliance period from the date of publication of the final 
rule.\139\ FIA did not tie these timelines to specific bases, but did 
list factors that it believes will inform how much time reporting firms 
need, including whether the Commission ``provides clarity'' concerning 
certain data elements, whether the CFTC removes so-called ``static'' 
data elements from the Proposal, when the CFTC Portal becomes available 
for testing, the timing of testing, and ``whether imperceptible issues 
arise'' during testing.\140\ ICE stated that it supported the FIA's 
proposed timeline.\141\ CME advocated for a compliance period of ``at 
least 24 months,'' stating that in its experience as a recipient of 
large trader position data, a 365-day compliance period is 
insufficient, as typically many reporting firms face unique scenarios 
and challenges that require one-on-one support when implementing 
reporting changes.\142\ CME also observed that in undergoing ``other 
significant reporting rule changes,'' the time necessary to come into 
compliance is often underestimated.\143\ CBOE stated that it believes a 
24-month implementation period ``would be more appropriate,'' as 
additional time would provide reporting firms with ``time to 
troubleshoot questions and complications that may arise.'' \144\ OCC 
stated that it believed ``at least a 2-year compliance period would be 
appropriate'' ``in light of the extent of the proposed changes, the 
need to test the changes . . . , and registrants' need to balance 
competing priorities stemming from the Commission's recent 
rulemaking.'' \145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See FIA Letter at 9-10, CBOE Letter at 1-2, CME Letter at 
1-2, ICE Letter at 2, OCC Letter at 3-4.
    \138\ FIA Letter at 9, 9 n.23.
    \139\ Id. at 9.
    \140\ Id.
    \141\ ICE Letter at 2.
    \142\ CME Letter at 2.
    \143\ Id.
    \144\ CBOE Letter at 1.
    \145\ OCC Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes that reporting firms will require 
significant time to implement the changes set out in the Proposal. 
After considering the comments received, the Commission believes that a 
compliance date of June 3, 2026 is appropriate. Specifically, the

[[Page 47451]]

Commission believes that providing a lengthy testing period will 
accommodate potential difficult-to-anticipate issues that several 
commentators stated would likely arise. This should also ensure higher 
quality data and a reduced error rate at the time of implementation.
    In recognition of the importance of providing reporting firms with 
sufficient opportunity to test their reporting systems in advance of 
the compliance date, the Commission expects the updated CFTC Portal to 
become available for testing approximately six months after publication 
of this final rule. After the CFTC Portal becomes available, reporting 
firms should therefore have approximately 18 months to test submitting 
files in the format required by the final rule. After 24 months, all 
reporting firms will be required to submit files in compliance with the 
requirements of this final rule. For reporting firms that demonstrate 
the ability to submit Sec.  17.00(a) reports compliant with the final 
rule before the compliance date, the Director of the Office of Data and 
Technology may approve the use of that revised format and permit such 
reporting firms to cease submitting files in the current Sec.  17.00(g) 
record format.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See 17 CFR 17.03(d) (Pursuant to Sec.  17.00(a), the 
authority shall be designated to the Director of the Office of Data 
and Technology to approve a format and coding structure other than 
that set forth in Sec.  17.00(g).).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Frequency of Publication of COT Report

    Although the Proposal did not discuss timing of the COT Report, the 
NGFA requested that the Commission publish the COT report on a daily 
basis.\147\ This topic is outside the scope of the Proposal and is not 
addressed by this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ NGFA Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Related Matters

A. Cost-Benefit Considerations

1. Introduction
    Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the 
costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation 
under the CEA.\148\ 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 futures 
markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and 
(5) other public interest considerations (collectively, the ``section 
15(a) factors''). In conducting its analysis, the Commission may, in 
its discretion, give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated 
areas of concern and may determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a 
particular rule is necessary or appropriate to protect the public 
interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of 
the purposes of the CEA. Although the Commission believes these rules 
will create meaningful benefits for market participants and the public, 
the Commission also recognizes associated costs. The Commission has 
endeavored to enumerate these costs and, when possible, assign a 
quantitative value to the costs reporting firms might face given the 
changes. Where it is not possible to reasonably quantify costs and 
benefits, those costs and benefits are discussed qualitatively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ 7 U.S.C. 19(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Background
    The data required to be reported under Sec.  17.00(a) comprise core 
data used by many divisions within the Commission, including the 
Division of Market Oversight (``DMO''), the Office of the Chief 
Economist (``OCE''), and the Division of Enforcement (``DOE''). In 
addition, Sec.  17.00(a) submissions are collated to produce the 
database from which public COT reports are created. COT reports are 
used by news media, researchers, academics, and industry professionals 
to describe current trends in futures trading, conduct analysis of past 
trading patterns, and inform current market strategies. The current 
Sec.  17.00(g) record format, which instructs reporting firms to submit 
data in an 80-character, Cobol-based format, has been in effect since 
1986 and was last revised in 2004. This current format limits the 
amount of descriptive data that can be included in any given field. 
This limits the Commission's ability to capture the economic 
characteristics of certain products in Sec.  17.00(a) reports and, in 
some instances, prevents the Commission from distinguishing a position 
in one contract from a position in another contract. In addition, the 
current reporting fields do not allow for the granular reporting of 
EDRPs, of certain futures and options contracts, and for complete 
information reflecting day-to-day changes in position.
3. Request for Comment
    The Commission requested comment on a variety of cost and benefit 
metrics in the Proposal. As a general matter, the Commission requested 
that commenters provide data and any other information to assist or 
otherwise inform the Commission's ability to quantify or qualitatively 
describe the costs and benefits of the proposed amendments; and 
substantiating data, statistics, and any other information to support 
positions posited by commenters with respect to the Commission's 
discussion.\149\ The Commission also requested comment, including 
specific quantitative estimates, on the expected costs related to 
upgrading or obtaining systems to implement and comply with the 
Proposal, as well as the impact of the proposed rules on the section 
15(a) factors. As noted above in section II(A)(2)(a), commenters were 
broadly supportive of amendments to transition to a FIXML data 
submission standard, and several emphasized the benefits to switching 
to a FIXML reporting format from the current 80-character reporting 
format.\150\ Although several commenters asserted that the Proposal 
understated the total cost to the industry, certain commenters provided 
generalized estimates but did not provide specific quantitative 
estimates differing from the Commission's estimates.\151\ Consequently, 
the Commission performed its own analysis in updating the Proposal's 
Cost-Benefit Considerations for these final rules. However, the 
Commission recognizes that commenters, who have the benefit of 
implementing similar rules in recent years, may incur costs above what 
was estimated in the Proposal. For instance, one comment letter claimed 
that actual costs would be several times what was estimated.\152\ 
Additionally, the Commission has extended the implementation period 
from one year to two years, which may increase costs. For purposes of 
these final rules, the Commission has updated the cost estimates that 
appeared in the Proposal based on commenters' feedback and the most 
recent data and statistics available to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ 88 FR at 41534.
    \150\ See, e.g., FIA Letter at 1; CME Letter at 1; ICE Letter at 
1.
    \151\ See FIA Letter at 11; OCC Letter at 3.
    \152\ FIA submitted comments on behalf of a working group of 
reporting firm members and vendors. The FIA projected that ``actual 
costs to implement changes . . . [would] be approximately 3 to 5 
times the CFTC's estimated one-time implementation cost, and that 
ongoing annual costs should reflect approximately 15% of the one-
time cost.'' FIA Letter at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Baselines
    The costs and benefits considered herein use as a baseline the 
reporting provided by reporting firms under current part 17 
regulations. In particular, reporting firms are currently required to 
report positions for special accounts by 9 a.m. on the business day

[[Page 47452]]

following the trading day \153\ and to correct errors \154\ as they are 
found by either the Commission or the reporting firm. These elements of 
the rules do not change under the new reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ 17 CFR 17.00(a)(1).
    \154\ 17 CFR 17.00(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also notes that the discussion of Cost-Benefit 
Considerations set forth herein is based on its understanding that the 
derivatives market regulated by the Commission functions 
internationally with: (1) transactions that involve U.S. entities 
occurring across different international jurisdictions; (2) some 
entities organized outside of the United States that are registered 
with the Commission; and (3) some entities that typically operate both 
within and outside the United States and that follow 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 the regulations on all 
relevant derivatives activity, whether based on their actual occurrence 
in the United States or on their connection with activities in, or 
effect on, U.S. commerce.
5. Amendments to Part 17
    The Commission is promulgating two categories of amendments to part 
17. First, the Commission is removing current Sec.  17.00(g)'s 80-
character record format and amending Sec.  17.03(d) to delegate 
authority to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology to 
designate a data submission standard for reports required under Sec.  
17.00(a). That data submission standard will be published in a Part 17 
Guidebook, to be published on the Commission's website. The Part 17 
Guidebook designates a modern XML submission standard for submitting 
reports required under Sec.  17.00(a). Second, the Commission is adding 
an appendix C to part 17 enumerating data elements to be included in 
Sec.  17.00(a) reports. The data elements consist of (1) certain data 
elements currently required to be reported under Sec.  17.00(g), (2) 
certain data elements to facilitate processing files submitted in XML, 
(3) certain data elements necessary to represent innovative contracts 
that cannot currently be represented using the Sec.  17.00(g) format, 
and (4) data elements necessary to understand the transactions that 
resulted in day-to-day changes in positions of large traders. The form 
and manner for reporting these data elements in appendix C will be 
provided in the Part 17 Guidebook.
a. Change in Submission Standard From Current Sec.  17.00(g) Record 
Format to a Modern Data Standard Designated in a Part 17 Guidebook
    Currently, reporting firms submit Sec.  17.00(a) reports using 
Sec.  17.00(g)'s 80-character record format. These amendments require 
such reports to be submitted using a new submission standard, which 
will be designated in a Part 17 Guidebook published by the Office of 
Data and Technology on the Commission's website. The Part 17 Guidebook 
requires such submissions to be made using an XML format similar to 
that used in other reporting required by the Commission, including 
Trade Capture Reports submitted pursuant to Sec.  16.02 and swap data 
reports submitted to swap data repositories pursuant to part 43 and 45. 
In order to collect and transmit these reports to the Commission, 
reporting firms must modify the systems they currently use to report 
part 17 data. The Commission estimates there are currently over 300 
reporting firms submitting Sec.  17.00(a) reports. Reporting firms are 
divided between DCMs, FCMs, clearing members, and foreign brokers, 
including some firms that are registered under multiple categories. 
Over a 30-day period in early 2023 there were 310 reporting firms 
submitting Sec.  17.00(a) reports. The Commission estimates that 
approximately 74 of these reporting firms automate the creation of 
Sec.  17.00(a) reports and 236 of these firms create and submit Sec.  
17.00(a) reports manually. The Commission believes that reporting firms 
that currently automate the creation of Sec.  17.00(a) reports will 
continue to do so and will submit such reports formatted pursuant to 
FIXML standards in the Part 17 Guidebook by secure FTP, and that 
reporting firms that currently manually create Sec.  17.00(a) reports 
will continue these practices rather than modifying their systems to 
facilitate reporting by secure FTP. Firms that currently manually 
create Sec.  17.00(a) reports may need to update systems used to 
manually generate those reports. In addition, the Commission estimates 
that there are nine Derivatives Clearing Organizations (``DCOs'') that 
will need to update their systems to receive part 17 reporting data.
1. Benefits
    The amendments concerning the data submission standard will 
facilitate more rapid data ingestion for the Commission and increased 
automation in ingesting data required to be reported under Sec.  
17.00(a), which will reduce staff time devoted to data ingestion. The 
amendments concerning the data submission standard should also enhance 
data quality. First, a modern data submission standard should be less 
error-prone than the current Sec.  17.00(g) record format. Second, a 
modern data submission standard should facilitate automated, real-time 
error correction notifications, which will reduce the amount of manual 
staff intervention in the error correction process and should provide 
reporting firms with more efficient timelines for correcting errors. By 
improving data quality and enabling more rapid corrections of errors, 
the amendments concerning the data submission standard should ensure 
the timeliness of COT reports. The amendments concerning the data 
submission standard should simplify the error correction process for 
reporting firms by automating and accelerating feedback concerning 
errors. The amendments concerning the data submission standard should 
additionally enhance DMO's ability to monitor the markets, support the 
Commission's Surveillance Program, and facilitate OCE research 
projects.
2. Costs
    The Commission believes that the changes to part 17 necessitate 
reporting firms modifying their systems to collect and submit data 
using the new data submission standard. The cost of such modifications 
is likely to vary from entity to entity. Under the Part 17 Guidebook, 
reporting firms will submit reports required under Sec.  17.00(a) using 
an XML submission standard. The Commission expects more sophisticated 
reporting firms that submit a substantial number of daily reports, such 
as FCMs, will build systems to report using the XML submission standard 
designated in the Part 17 Guidebook, and will arrange to automate daily 
submissions using a secure FTP data feed. The Commission estimates that 
74 entities will submit reports in this manner. The Commission 
estimates those entities would incur a one-time initial cost of 
approximately $65,200 for each entity (400 hours x $163/hour) to modify 
and test their systems, or an estimated aggregate dollar cost of 
$4,824,800 (74 entities x $65,200).\155\ The Commission understands 
that some reporting firms today submit reports required under

[[Page 47453]]

Sec.  17.00(a) manually through the CFTC Portal, and believes that many 
of those firms would continue to do so under the new submission 
standard. The Commission estimates that 236 entities would continue to 
manually report through the CFTC Portal and would incur a one-time 
initial cost of approximately $2,780 to update their systems (20 hours 
x $139/hour) for each entity, or an estimated aggregate dollar cost of 
$656,080 (236 entities x $2,780).\156\ On an ongoing basis, the 
Commission believes that the 310 estimated reporting firms would incur 
modest additional costs above the baseline once setup is complete. 
However, the Commission estimates that approximately 74 entities filing 
using secure FTP may incur an ongoing operation and maintenance cost of 
$7,824 per year (4 hours per month x $163 per hour) per entity to 
maintain their systems, or an estimated aggregate annual cost of 
$578,976 (74 entities x $7,824). In addition, the Commission estimates 
that 236 entities filing manually would incur ongoing additional costs 
of $3,336 per year (2 hours per month x $139 per hour) per entity to 
maintain their systems, or an estimated aggregate annual cost of 
$787,296 (236 entities x $3,336). However, the Commission believes that 
costs associated with correcting errors would be reduced due to 
improved data validation at the time of ingest. These cost estimates 
are based on a number of assumptions and cover a number of tasks 
required by reporting firms to design, test, and implement an updated 
data system based on an XML submission standard.\157\ These tasks 
include defining requirements, developing an extraction query, 
developing an interim extraction format (such as a CSV, or ``comma-
separated values,'' file), developing validations, developing 
formatting conversions, developing a framework to execute tasks on a 
repeatable basis, and finally, integration and testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ For costs associated with upgrading reporting systems for 
secure FTP filers, the Commission estimates that modifications and 
testing will be undertaken by computer and information research 
scientists, database architects, software developers, programmers, 
and testers. The associated costs are taken from the U.S. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, 
available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2022/may/oes_nat.htm, and 
adjusted with a multiple of 2.5 to account for benefits and overhead 
costs.
    \156\ For costs associated with upgrading reporting systems for 
CFTC Portal filers, the Commission estimates that the necessary 
modifications will be undertaken by data scientists. The associated 
costs are taken from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' 
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2022/may/oes_nat.htm, and adjusted with a multiple 
of 2.5 to account for benefits and overhead costs.
    \157\ The OCC noted that in its role as an aggregator and 
submitter of information on behalf of a DCM and reporting firms, it 
needs to ``design, maintain, and operate systems'' to comply with 
this rule. OCC Letter at 3. Although the Commission believes that 
these costs are outside the scope of the Cost-Benefit 
Considerations, we can nevertheless provide an estimate based on 
their comment. The OCC estimated that changes to their system would 
include 5,000 hours of work for design, programming, project 
management and verification. At the hourly rate used in this 
analysis for FCMs ($163/hour), this totals $815,000. The OCC further 
noted that this may understate the true investment needed to work 
with reporting firms for testing, but did not include the 
anticipated additional hours needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to information collection-related costs incurred by 
reporting firms, one commenter noted that DCOs will also need to update 
their systems in order to receive reports, and conduct daily 
surveillance.\158\ The Commission recognizes this potential new 
compliance cost and estimates that nine DCOs may need to update their 
systems accordingly. The commenter provided no cost analyses or 
estimates. In the absence of any particular hours or cost estimates by 
market participants, the Commission has conducted its own analysis of 
the likely costs incurred by these entities. To update their systems 
and work with reporting firms to receive the data, the Commission 
estimates that DCOs would incur one-time costs of $51,200, with an 
investment of 320 hours of time split between software developers, 
database architects, and computer network architects. Across 9 DCOs, 
these investments sum to a total cost of $460,800. Although there may 
be ongoing costs with maintaining these systems, the Commission 
believes that entities will not incur additional costs, relative to the 
baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ See CME Letter at 2 n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Changes in Data Elements Reported
    As detailed above, the current 80-character Sec.  17.00(g) format 
does not allow for flexibility in the reporting of certain types of 
futures, such as bounded futures, and certain types of options, such as 
capped or barrier options. The amendments will enable these products to 
be identified in Sec.  17.00(a) reports, and therefore capture 
additional information reflecting changes in position, including 
reporting concerning numbers of transfers, reporting of numbers of 
expirations of contracts, and more granular reporting of EDRPs, 
including specifying the type of related product (physical, swap, or 
option). Additionally, the expanded reporting regime instills 
flexibility such that the Part 17 Guidebook can facilitate reporting of 
positions in products with innovative features.
1. Benefits
    The additional fields necessary to identify certain contracts will 
facilitate collection of more robust market information for the 
Commission, including allowing the Commission to distinguish between 
positions in different contracts that may not currently be 
distinguishable. The additional fields necessary to identify changes in 
positions, including more granular information concerning types of 
EDRPs, will also allow the Commission to collect better market 
information. Additionally, obtaining accurate, granular information 
concerning daily changes in position should improve data quality. These 
data elements will enable reporting firms to perform an internal 
consistency check to confirm the accuracy of data, which should reduce 
reporting errors.\159\ Obtaining accurate, granular information 
concerning daily changes in positions will also support the 
Commission's surveillance and monitoring programs. This data will 
provide the Commission with a more comprehensive understanding 
concerning the nature of changes in positions--as opposed to merely 
understanding the scope of positions--and should further facilitate 
linking position data reported under Sec.  17.00(a) with transaction 
data reporting under Sec.  16.02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ The inclusion in Sec.  17.00(a) position reports of data 
elements reflecting counts of transactions that resulted in day-to-
day changes in positions enables reporting firms to perform an 
internal consistency check on position reports by comparing the size 
of a reported position with the net value of contracts bought and 
sold, EDRPs bought and sold, expirations and assignments of 
contracts, and transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Costs
    The amendments will require reporting firms to report certain 
additional data elements to the Commission beyond those elements 
required by the current Sec.  17.00(g) record format. CFTC staff 
experienced in designing data reporting, ingestion, and validation 
systems, estimate that for the 74 reporting firms that automate 
reporting through a secure file transfer protocol, the process of 
upgrading and testing systems to collect and report new fields will 
require them to incur on average 800 hours to update, test, and 
implement the additional data elements required by appendix C, for a 
total of 59,200 hours across all FTP filers at an hourly wage rate of 
$163. This would amount to total capital and start-up costs of 
$9,649,600 across all FTP filers (800 hours x 74 FTP filers x $163 = 
$9,649,600). In addition, the Commission estimates that these firms may 
each incur one-time costs of up to $1,000 for equipment modifications 
associated with these changes. The Commission estimates that the 236 
reporting firms that manually input data required to be reported under 
Sec.  17.00(a) into the CFTC Portal will incur on average 40 hours to 
implement

[[Page 47454]]

additional data elements required by appendix C, or 9,440 total hours 
across all manual filers, at an hourly wage rate of $139 per hour (236 
entities x 40 hours). The Commission estimates that in the aggregate 
manual filers will incur total capital and start-up costs associated 
with updating, testing and implementing new data elements of $1,312,160 
(9,440 hours x $139/hour). On an ongoing basis, there would be minimal 
additional costs related to the addition of new data elements, since 
reporting firms would not be required to submit substantially more 
information than the baseline. For example, the Commission does not 
believe that the amendments are likely to affect the overall number of 
reports submitted annually under Sec.  17.00(a). However, given the 
additional data elements required by the amendments, the Commission 
estimates that 74 entities who automate their reporting systems may 
each incur an ongoing operation and maintenance cost of $7,824 per year 
(4 hours per month x $163 per hour) per entity, or an estimated 
aggregate annual cost of $578,976 (74 entities x $7,824) related to 
implementation of the new data elements. In addition, the Commission 
estimates that 236 firms that manually file reports may incur ongoing 
operation and maintenance costs of $3,336 per year (2 hours per month x 
$139 per hour) per entity as a result of implementing the amendments 
implementing new data elements, or an estimated aggregate annual cost 
of $787,296 (236 entities x $3,336). These cost estimates are based on 
a number of assumptions and cover a number of tasks required by the 
reporting firms to design, test, and implement an updated data system 
based on an XML format. These tasks include defining requirements, 
developing an extraction query, developing an interim extraction format 
(such as a CSV, or ``comma-separated values,'' file), developing 
validations, developing formatting conversions, developing a framework 
to execute tasks on a repeatable basis, and finally, integration and 
testing. Additionally, these costs may be mitigated because certain of 
the data elements are conditional and will only be applicable to a 
subset of the reporting firms. For example, if a particular FCM is not 
a participant on an exchange that lists ``bounded'' or ``barrier'' 
contracts, that FCM will not be required to report data elements that 
are conditional and only applicable to positions in ``bounded'' or 
``barrier'' contracts.
6. Section 15(a) Considerations
    CEA section 15(a) requires the Commission to consider the costs and 
benefits of the amendments to part 17 with respect to the following 
factors: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) 
efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures 
markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and 
(5) other public interest considerations. A discussion of these 
amendments in light of the CEA section 15(a) factors is set out 
immediately below.
a. Protection of Market Participants and the Public
    The Commission expects that the changes to part 17 reporting will 
lead to improvements in the Commission's ability to collect data on 
large traders. The Commission expects better validation of data at 
ingest, leading to more efficient error corrections compared to the old 
reporting format. The Commission expects these enhancements will occur 
without sacrificing the Commission's ability to perform comprehensive 
oversight of the market.
    Additionally, reducing the risk of errors and delays in the 
publication of the COT report will benefit the public by providing more 
accurate data on positions held by large traders. Furthermore, higher-
quality and more granular position data from large traders will improve 
the Commission's oversight and surveillance capabilities and, in turn, 
will aid the Commission in protecting markets, participants, and the 
public in general.
b. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity of Futures 
Markets
    The Commission believes the amendments will improve the accuracy 
and completeness of futures and options position data available to the 
Commission by improving data quality and providing Commission staff 
with a more complete understanding of the products comprising certain 
positions. In particular, the rules will allow for more complete 
reporting of EDRPs and complex futures and options positions. Access to 
more accurate and complete data will in turn assist the Commission 
with, among other things, evaluating if certain traders are in 
violation of position limits, monitoring concentrations of risk 
exposures, and preventing fraud and market manipulation. In addition, 
as described above, the amendments are expected to improve the 
efficiency of data reporting and analysis by reducing the number of 
reporting errors and automating data validation and error corrections 
processes.
c. Price Discovery
    The Commission does not believe the rules will have a significant 
impact on price discovery.
d. Sound Risk Management Practices
    The Commission believes the rule changes will improve the data 
quality associated with futures and options position reporting required 
under Sec.  17.00(a). The additional data elements will capture more 
complete product information for certain positions and more complete 
information concerning changes in position will provide the Commission 
with an expanded view of the marketplace that will enable the 
Commission to more effectively identify disruptive or manipulative 
trading activity. These improvements in the reporting will allow the 
Commission to evaluate risk throughout the futures and related markets. 
The Commission does not believe that the costs arising from the rules 
will threaten the ability of market participants to manage risks.
e. Other Public Interest Considerations
    The Commission believes that the increased reliability and detail 
resulting from improvements to data reporting will further other public 
interest considerations, including transparency in the futures market 
to the public and detection of fraud or manipulation. Additionally, the 
reporting structure will provide additional flexibility to collect 
information on new products developed by exchanges, thereby allowing 
for those exchanges to innovate and respond to the demands of the 
marketplace while still providing traders' positions to the Commission.
7. Consideration of Alternatives
    Certain commenters suggested alternatives to rule changes proposed 
in the Proposal for purposes of minimizing costs to market 
participants. In particular, as discussed above in section II(B)(2)(c), 
several commenters suggested that the Commission remove from appendix C 
data elements requiring certain product-specific data--so-called 
``static'' data elements for which the values will not vary across 
Sec.  17.00(a) reports reflecting positions for the same product--and 
obtain this information directly from DCMs rather than from reporting 
firms.\160\ The final rules incorporate these alternative proposals in 
a manner that could reduce costs for some participants without 
sacrificing benefits.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ See FIA Letter at 4-6; CME Letter at 3; CBOE Letter at 2.
    \161\ Note that, although the Commission has updated cost 
estimates that appeared in the Proposal to reflect comments and 
other data, the Commission has not reduced the cost estimates in the 
final rules to account for the incorporation of the potential cost-
saving proposal described below. As a result, total reporting costs 
to the industry may be lower than the sum of the costs provided 
above.

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

[[Page 47455]]

    To remove data elements from Sec.  17.00(a) reports--and thus 
potentially reduce costs to reporting firms--without diminishing or 
compromising the dataset as set out in the Proposal, the Commission 
requires a method for linking each Sec.  17.00(a) report to a product 
reference file for the contract in which the reportable position is 
held. The product reference file contains data elements for each 
contract that do not vary by reporting firm. Such a link can be 
achieved through a Unique Instrument Code--an exchange-assigned code 
that serves as a primary key to a product reference file for a 
particular instrument or contract. The Part 17 Guidebook published 
concurrently with the final rules permits reporting firms to provide 
the relevant Unique Instrument Code as an alternative to providing 
certain product-related data elements. Those product-related data 
elements are required to be included in a Sec.  17.00(a) report if a 
Unique Instrument Code is not reported. However, if a reporting firm 
provides a Unique Instrument Code, it need not provide these product-
related data elements in a Sec.  17.00(a) report.
    In providing this alternative method for reporting certain product-
related data elements, the Commission intends to enable reporting firms 
to select the most efficient method for preparing their Sec.  17.00(a) 
reports. As noted in the Proposal and discussed previously, one of the 
reasons the Commission has introduced additional data elements to Sec.  
17.00(a) reports is that the current Sec.  17.00(g) format is incapable 
of distinguishing between certain products.\162\ The Commission expects 
that providing this alternative approach will allow the Commission to 
obtain more comprehensive product data necessary to distinguish between 
products, but may also reduce costs to reporting firms by permitting 
firms to populate fewer data elements per report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ See, e.g., 88 FR at 41528-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') requires that agencies, in 
proposing rules, consider the impact of those rules on small business 
or, in the statute's parlance, ``small entities.'' \163\ If a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, the agency must provide a regulatory flexibility analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rules modify the data submission standard and content of 
daily large trader position reports for futures and options required to 
be submitted to the Commission by FCMs, clearing members, foreign 
brokers, and certain reporting markets. The Commission has previously 
determined that FCMs, clearing members, foreign brokers, and reporting 
markets are not considered small entities for purposes of the RFA.\164\ 
The Commission did not receive any comment stating that these rules 
would have a significant economic impact on the operations of a small 
entity. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Chairman, on 
behalf of the Commission, certifies that these final rules will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ See Policy Statement and Establishment of Definition of 
``Small Entities'' for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
47 FR 18618 (April 30, 1982) (reporting markets, FCMs, and large 
traders); Final Rule, Special Calls, 72 FR 34417, 34418 (June 22, 
2007) (foreign brokers); Final Rule and Interim Final Rule, Position 
Limits for Futures and Swaps, 76 FR 71626, 71680 (November 18, 2011) 
(clearing members); Final Rule, Large Trader Reporting for Physical 
Commodity Swaps, 76 FR 43851, 43860 (July 22, 2011) (clearing 
members).
    \165\ See 88 FR at 41535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'') imposes certain 
requirements on federal agencies, including the Commission, in 
connection with conducting or sponsoring any ``collection of 
information,'' as defined by the PRA.\166\ 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 PRA is 
intended, in part, to minimize the paperwork burden created for 
individuals, businesses, and other persons as a result of the 
collection of information by federal agencies, and to ensure the 
greatest possible benefit and utility of information created, 
collected, maintained, used, shared, and disseminated by or for the 
federal government. The PRA applies to all information, regardless of 
form or format, whenever the federal government is obtaining, causing 
to be obtained, or soliciting information, and includes required 
disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions, when 
the information collection calls for answers to identical questions 
posed to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed 
on, ten or more persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rulemaking modifies a collection of information 
previously approved by the OMB for which the Commission has received a 
control number: OMB control number 3038-0009, Large Trader Reports 
(``OMB Collection 3038-0009).\167\ The Commission does not believe the 
final rule as adopted imposes any other new collections of information 
that require approval of OMB under the PRA. The Commission requests 
that OMB approve and revise OMB control number 3038-0009 in accordance 
with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ For the previously approved estimates, see ICR Reference 
No: 202303-3038-002, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202303-3038-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the PRA 
burden analysis contained in the Proposal. The Commission did, however, 
receive comments on certain aspects of the Cost-Benefit Considerations 
analysis. Certain of those comments relate to potential capital and 
start-up costs that may be incurred as a result of the changes proposed 
in the Proposal. Based on these comments, the Commission has modified 
its estimates of the capital and start-up and operations and 
maintenance costs reporting firms may incur as a result of the changes 
adopted in these final rules. These comments and the Commission's 
response are discussed in further detail in the analysis of Cost-
Benefit Considerations above.
    This final rulemaking modifies the existing annual burden estimates 
for complying with certain requirements of part 17. Specifically, the 
Commission is amending Sec. Sec.  17.00(a), (g), (h), and 17.03(d), 
which set out (1) the data submission standard and (2) the data 
elements for large trader reports required to be filed under Sec.  
17.00(a), among other things.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ These final rules adopts two categories of amendments to 
part 17. First, the final rules remove current Sec.  17.00(g)'s 80-
character record format and amends Sec.  17.03(d) to delegate 
authority to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology to 
determine the form, manner, coding structure, and electronic data 
transmission procedures for reporting the data elements in appendix 
C to part 17 and to determine whether to permit or require one or 
more particular data standards for reports required under Sec.  
17.00(a). That submission standard will be published in a Part 17 
Guidebook. A Part 17 Guidebook has been published on the 
Commission's website concurrently with publication of the final 
rules. The Part 17 Guidebook designates a modern XML submission 
standard for submitting reports required under Sec.  17.00(a). 
Second, the Commission is adding an appendix C to part 17 
enumerating data elements to be included in Sec.  17.00(a) reports. 
The data elements consist of (1) certain data elements currently 
required to be reported under Sec.  17.00(g), (2) certain data 
elements to facilitate processing files submitted in XML, (3) 
certain data elements necessary to represent innovative contracts 
that cannot currently be represented using the Sec.  17.00(g) 
format, and (4) data elements necessary to understand the 
transactions that resulted in day-to-day changes in positions of 
large traders. The form and manner for reporting these data elements 
in appendix C is provided in the Part 17 Guidebook. The burden 
estimates provided in this section take into account the burden 
associated with reporting using a modern XML submission standard and 
reporting the data elements as set out in appendix C, in compliance 
with the Part 17 Guidebook.

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

[[Page 47456]]

    As discussed in the Proposal, the Commission has previously 
estimated that the reporting requirements associated with Sec.  17.00 
of the Commission's regulations entail an estimated 17,160 burden hours 
for all reporting firms.\169\ The Commission is revising its total 
burden estimates for this clearance to reflect updated estimates of the 
number of respondents to the collection. The Commission is also 
estimating the total capital and start-up costs and ongoing operation 
and maintenance costs associated with the amendments to the part 17 
regulations described herein. In this final rulemaking, the Commission 
has revised its estimates of total capital and start-up costs and 
ongoing operation and maintenance costs upward in response to public 
comment as described in the Cost-Benefit Considerations analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See ICR Reference No: 202303-3038-002, available at 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202303-3038-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission expects that requiring reporting pursuant to a 
modern data standard will not require reporting firms to submit 
substantially more information than is currently required. Accordingly, 
as discussed in the Proposal, the Commission is retaining its previous 
estimated numbers of reports, burden hours per report, and average 
burden hour cost. Based on review of recent data from 2023, the 
Commission is reducing its estimate of the number of respondents from 
330 to 310. Accordingly, the Commission is reducing its estimate from 
the previous 17,160 burden hours for all reporting firms \170\ to 
16,120 burden hours. In addition, the Commission anticipates that 
implementation of a modern submission standard in the final rules 
should reduce or eliminate manual corrections and resubmissions that 
occur under the current regulations.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ See ICR Reference No: 202303-3038-002, available at 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202303-3038-002.
    \171\ As discussed previously, the Commission has also revised 
the Part 17 Guidebook to allow a reporting firm to submit a ``Unique 
Instrument Code'' from a DCM's product reference file in lieu of 
certain product-specific data elements. If a reporting firm includes 
a ``Unique Instrument Code'' from a DCM's product reference file in 
a Sec.  17.00(a) report, then that reporting firm need not include 
certain product-related data elements identified in the Part 17 
Guidebook. As noted previously, the Commission believes this 
alternative manner of reporting may reduce costs for reporting 
firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The aggregate annual estimate for the reporting burden associated 
with part 17, as amended by the final rules,\172\ is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ The previous burden estimates for 17 CFR 17.00 are 
available at Notice, Agency Information Collection Activities Under 
OMB Review, 88 FR 18127 (Mar. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 310.
    Estimated Average Burden Hours per Respondent: 52 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 16,120 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: Periodically.
    In addition, the Commission anticipates that the final rules will 
result in annual capital and start-up costs as well as operating and 
maintenance costs, consisting of (1) start-up costs to implement the 
rule changes, (2) operating and maintenance costs to implement the rule 
changes, and (3) costs to modify equipment as necessary to comply with 
the rule changes. As previously discussed, the Commission estimates 
that some respondents may report by secure FTP (``FTP filers'') and 
some firms may report manually (``manual filers''), and that the total 
capital and start-up costs will vary based on whether a respondent is 
an FTP filer or a manual filer.
    The Commission estimates that FTP filers would comprise 74 
respondents. The Commission estimates that these respondents would 
incur one-time initial costs associated with (1) modifying systems to 
adopt a new data standard, (2) updating and testing systems to 
implement new data elements, and (3) modifying equipment to implement 
new data elements. First, the Commission estimates that such firms 
would incur a one-time initial burden of 400 hours per entity to modify 
their systems to adopt changes to the data submission standard 
described in this final rulemaking, for a total estimated 29,600 total 
hours. Second, the Commission estimates that FTP filers will incur 
total capital and start-up costs associated with updating, testing, and 
implementing new data elements of 800 hours, for a total estimated 
59,200 hours. Third, the Commission also estimates that FTP filers 
would incur one-time costs of $1,000 to modify equipment to implement 
new data elements. This would amount to $14,548,400 (((400 + 800 hours) 
x 74 FTP filers x $163 \173\) + (74 FTP filers x $1,000) = 
$14,548,400).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ For the cost calculations for FTP filers, the Commission 
has used a composite (blended) wage rate by averaging the hour wages 
for (1) Computer Research Scientists, (2) Database Architects, (3) 
Software Developers, and (4) Developers, Programmers, and Testers. 
Per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, national industry-specific 
occupational employment and wage estimates from May 2022, the mean 
hourly wage for a computer research scientist is $74.94, database 
architect is $65.65, software developer is $63.91, and developers, 
programmers, and testers is $150.18. See U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, available 
at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2022/may/oes_nat.htm. The average of 
those wages is $65.31. The Commission has applied a multiplier of 
2.5 times to account for benefits and overhead. The Commission is 
therefore using an hourly wage rate of $163 for FTP filers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission estimates that as a result of 
implementing that new data submission standard, these 74 FTP filers may 
incur additional operating and maintenance costs of 48 hours per year, 
for 3,552 total hours, resulting in costs of $578,976 (48 hours x 74 
FTP filers x $163 \174\ = $578,976), and, as a result of implementing 
new data elements, these 74 FTP filers may incur additional operating 
and maintenance costs of 48 hours per year, for 3,552 total hours, 
resulting in costs of $578,976 (48 hours x 74 FTP filers x $163 \175\ = 
$578,976). This yields additional annual operating and maintenance 
costs of $1,157,952 for FTP filers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ See id.
    \175\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that manual filers would comprise 236 
reporting firms. The Commission estimates that these respondents would 
incur one-time initial costs associated with (1) modifying systems to 
adopt a new data standard and (2) updating and testing systems to 
implement new data elements. First, the Commission estimates such 
respondents would incur a one-time initial burden of 20 hours to modify 
their systems to implement a new data standard, for a total estimated 
4,720 total hours. Second, the Commission estimates that manual filers 
will incur an average one-time cost of 40 hours to implement additional 
data elements required by new appendix C, for a total estimated 9,440 
total hours. This would amount to aggregate one-time initial costs of 
$1,968,240 ((20 hours + 40 hours) x 236 manual filers x $139 \176\ = 
$1,968,240).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ For the cost calculations for manual filers, the 
Commission used the wage rate for Data Scientists. Per the U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, national industry-specific occupational 
employment and wage estimates from May 2021, the mean hourly wage 
for a data scientist is $55.40. See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' 
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2022/may/oes_nat.htm. The Commission has applied a 
multiplier of 2.5 times to account for benefits and overhead. The 
Commission is therefore using an hourly wage rate of $139 for manual 
filers.

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

[[Page 47457]]

    In addition, the Commission estimates that as a result of 
implementing that new data submission standard, these 236 manual filers 
may incur additional operating and maintenance costs of 24 hours per 
year, for 5,664 total hours, for an associated cost of $787,296 (24 
hours x 236 manual filers x $139 \177\ = $787,296), and, as a result of 
implementing new data elements, these 236 manual filers may incur 
additional operating and maintenance costs of 24 hours per year, for 
5,664 total hours, for an associated cost of $787,296 (24 hours x 236 
manual filers x $139 \178\ = $787,296). This yields additional annual 
operating and maintenance costs of $1,574,592 for manual filers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ See id.
    \178\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the total estimated capital and start-up costs across 
all 310 reporting firms is $16,516,640 ($14,548,400 + $1,968,240 = 
$16,516,640). Based on five-year, straight line depreciation, this 
amounts to annualized total capital and start-up costs for all 
reporting firms of $3,303,328. Based on five-year, straight line 
depreciation, the total estimated annual operating and maintenance 
costs across all entities is $2,732,544 ($1,157,952 for FTP filers + 
$1,574,592 for manual filers = $2,732,544). The Commission estimates 
that total annual capital and start-up costs and operation and 
maintenance costs for all reporting firms would be $6,035,872 
($3,303,328 + $2,732,544 = $6,035,872).

D. Antitrust Considerations

    CEA section 15(b) 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 
objectives of the CEA in issuing any order or adopting any Commission 
rule or regulation.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ 7 U.S.C. 19(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not anticipate that the changes to part 17 
contained in these final rules would result in anticompetitive 
behavior. The Commission did not receive any comments on antitrust 
considerations.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 17

    Brokers, Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Swaps.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission amends 17 CFR part 17 to read as follows:

PART 17--REPORTS BY REPORTING MARKETS, FUTURES COMMISSION 
MERCHANTS, CLEARING MEMBERS, AND FOREIGN BROKERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 2, 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6t, 7, 7a, and 
12a.


0
2. In Sec.  17.00, revise paragraphs (a)(1), (g), and (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.00  Information to be furnished by futures commission 
merchants, clearing members, and foreign brokers.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Each futures commission merchant, clearing member and foreign 
broker shall submit a report to the Commission for each business day 
with respect to all special accounts carried by the futures commission 
merchant, clearing member or foreign broker, except for accounts 
carried on the books of another futures commission merchant or clearing 
member on a fully-disclosed basis. Except as otherwise authorized by 
the Commission or its designee, such report shall be made pursuant to 
paragraph (g) of this section. The report shall show each futures 
position, separately for each reporting market and for each future, and 
each put and call options position separately for each reporting 
market, expiration and strike price in each special account as of the 
close of market on the day covered by the report and, in addition, the 
number of futures and options contracts bought and sold, the quantity 
of exchanges of futures or options for commodities or for derivatives 
positions, the number of delivery notices issued for each such account 
by the clearing organization of a reporting market and the number 
stopped by the account, the number of long and short options expired 
and exercised, the number of long and short futures assigned, and the 
number of long and short transfers sent and received. The report shall 
also show all positions in all contract months and option expirations 
of that same commodity on the same reporting market for which the 
special account is reportable.
* * * * *
    (g) Media and file characteristics. Except as otherwise approved by 
the Commission or its designee, all of the applicable data elements set 
forth in appendix C to this part shall be included in a report required 
by paragraph (a) of this section and shall be submitted together in a 
single file. The report shall be submitted in the form and manner 
published by the Commission or its designee pursuant to Sec.  17.03.
    (h) Correction of errors and omissions. Except as otherwise 
approved by the Commission or its designee, corrections to errors and 
omissions in data provided pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section 
shall be submitted in the form and manner published by the Commission 
or its designee pursuant to Sec.  17.03.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  17.03, revise paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.03  Delegation of authority to the Director of the Office of 
Data and Technology or the Director of the Division of Market 
Oversight.

* * * * *
    (a) Pursuant to Sec.  17.00(a) and (h), the authority shall be 
designated to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology to 
determine whether futures commission merchants, clearing members, and 
foreign brokers may report the information required under Sec.  
17.00(a) and (h) using some format other than that required under Sec.  
17.00(g) upon a determination that such person is unable to report the 
information using the format, coding structure, or electronic data 
transmission procedures otherwise required.
* * * * *
    (d) Pursuant to Sec.  17.00(a), (g), and (h), the authority shall 
be designated to the Director of the Office of Data and Technology to 
determine the form, manner, coding structure, and electronic data 
transmission procedures for reporting the data elements in appendix C 
to this part and to determine whether to permit or require one or more 
particular data standards.
* * * * *

0
4. Add appendix C to read as follows:

[[Page 47458]]



                  Appendix C to Part 17--Data Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Data element
                     name              Definition for data element
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............  Total Message    The total number of position reports
                Count.           included in the file.
2............  Message Type...  Message report type.
3............  Sender ID......  The CFTC-issued reporting firm
                                 identifier assigned to the firm
                                 submitting the position report.
4............  To ID..........  Indicates the position report was
                                 submitted to the CFTC.
5............  Message,         The date and time the file was created.
                Transmit,
                Datetime.
6............  Report ID......  A unique identifier assigned to each
                                 position report.
7............  Record Type      Indicates the action that triggered the
                (Action).        position report.
8............  Report Date....  The date of the information being
                                 reported.
9............  Reporting Firm   CFTC-assigned identifier for the
                ID.              reporting firm.
10...........  Special Account  The Legal Entity Identifier (``LEI'')
                Controller LEI.  issued to the special account
                                 controller.
11...........  Account ID.....  A unique account identifier, assigned by
                                 the reporting firm to each special
                                 account. Assignment of the account
                                 number is subject to the provisions of
                                 Sec.   17.00(b) and appendix A of this
                                 part (Form 102).
12...........  Exchange         The exchange where the contract is
                Indicator.       traded.
13...........  Commodity        The clearinghouse-assigned commodity
                Clearing Code.   code for the futures or options
                                 contract.
14...........  Product Type...  Type of product.
15...........  Ticker Symbol..  Ticker symbol of the product traded.
16...........  Maturity Month   Month and year of the delivery or
                Year.            maturity of the contract, as
                                 applicable. Day must be provided when
                                 necessary to characterize a contract.
17...........  Maturity Time..  The expiration time of an option or last
                                 trading time of a future.
18...........  Listing Date...  Product listing date.
19...........  First Exercise   The earliest time at which notice of
                Date.            exercise can be given.
20...........  Strike Level...  Numeric option moneyness criterion.
21...........  Alpha Strike...  Non-numeric option moneyness criterion.
22...........  Cap Level......  Ceiling value of a capped option or
                                 bounded future.
23...........  Floor Level....  Floor value of a capped option or
                                 bounded future.
24...........  Bound or         Behavior of the product when it hits the
                Barrier Type.    bound or barrier.
25...........  Bound or         Bound or barrier level of a contingent
                Barrier Level.   option.
26...........  Put or Call      Nature of the option exercise.
                Indicator.
27...........  Exercise Style.  Type of exercise of an option.
28...........  Payout Amount..  Cash amount indicating the payout
                                 associated with the contract.
29...........  Payout Type....  The type of valuation method or payout
                                 trigger.
30...........  Underlying       The instrument that forms the basis of
                Contract ID.     an option.
31...........  Underlying       Underlying delivery year and month (and
                Maturity Month   day where applicable).
                Year.
32...........  Long Position..  The total of long open contracts carried
                                 at the end of the day.
33...........  Short Position.  The total of short open contracts
                                 carried at the end of the day.
34...........  Contracts        The total quantity of contracts bought
                Bought.          (gross) during the day associated with
                                 a special account, including all block
                                 trades and contracts claimed for
                                 clearing as a result of trade
                                 allocations such as give-ups. Do not
                                 include exchanges of derivatives for
                                 related positions EDRPs (EFP, EFS or
                                 EFR, EOO) or transfers.
35...........  Contracts Sold.  The total quantity of contracts sold
                                 (gross) during the day associated with
                                 a special account, including all block
                                 trades and contracts claimed for
                                 clearing as a result of trade
                                 allocations such as give-ups. Do not
                                 include exchanges of derivatives for
                                 related positions EDRPs (EFP, EFS or
                                 EFR, EOO) or transfers.
36...........  EDRPs Bought...  The quantity of purchases of futures or
                                 options in connection with exchanges of
                                 futures or options for related
                                 positions (``EDRPs'') done pursuant to
                                 a DCM's rules, disaggregated into
                                 quantity of purchases of futures or
                                 options in connection with EDRPs by
                                 type of EDRP, including exchanges of
                                 futures for physical, exchanges of
                                 futures for risk, exchanges of options
                                 for options, and any other EDRP offered
                                 pursuant to a DCM's rules.
37...........  EDRPs Sold.....  The quantity of sales of futures or
                                 options in connection with EDRPs done
                                 pursuant to a DCM's rules,
                                 disaggregated into quantity of sales of
                                 futures or options in connection with
                                 EDRPs by type of EDRP, including
                                 exchanges of futures for physical,
                                 exchanges of futures for risk,
                                 exchanges of options for options, and
                                 any other EDRP offered pursuant to a
                                 DCM's rules.
38...........  Delivery         The number of futures contracts for
                Notices          which delivery notices have been
                Stopped.         stopped during a day.
39...........  Delivery         The number of futures contracts for
                Notices Issued.  which delivery notices have been issued
                                 during a day.
40...........  Long Options     Long options positions expired without
                Expired.         being exercised.
41...........  Short Options    Short options positions expired without
                Expired.         being exercised.
42...........  Long Options     Long options positions exercised during
                Exercised.       the day.
43...........  Short Options    Short options positions exercised during
                Exercised.       the day.
44...........  Long Futures     Long futures assigned as the result of
                Assigned.        an option exercise.
45...........  Short Futures    Short futures assigned as the result of
                Assigned.        an option exercise.
46...........  Long Transfers   Long positions sent through other
                Sent.            transfers during the day. (Do not
                                 include give-ups).
47...........  Long Transfers   Long positions received through other
                Received.        transfers during the day. (Do not
                                 include give-ups).
48...........  Short Transfers  Short positions sent through other
                Sent.            transfers during the day. (Do not
                                 include give-ups).
49...........  Short Transfers  Short positions received through other
                Received.        transfers during the day. (Do not
                                 include give-ups).
50...........  Product-         Terms of the contract that are
                Specific Terms.  economically material to the contract,
                                 maintained in the ordinary course of
                                 business by the reporting market
                                 listing the contract, and not otherwise
                                 reported under the data elements in
                                 this appendix.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 47459]]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 23, 2024, 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 Large Trader Reporting Requirements--Voting Summary and 
Chairman's and Commissioners' Statements

Appendix 1--Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Behnam and Commissioners Johnson, 
Goldsmith Romero, and Mersinger voted in the affirmative. 
Commissioner Pham voted in the negative.

Appendix 2--Statement of Chairman Rostin Behnam

    I support the final rules to amend the Commission's large trader 
reporting regulations for futures and options. The rules modernize 
large trader data reporting under part 17 of the Commission's 
regulations, and create a path for efficient future modernization. 
In addition, the amendments align part 17 data and reporting with 
the reporting structure in other Commission regulations.
    The large trader reports that result from this data are used for 
surveillance (detection and prevention of price manipulation) and 
enforcement of speculative limits. This particular data set can be 
crucial when it comes to exercising our enforcement authority in the 
cash markets. CFTC economists and analysts monitor the commodity 
markets on a daily, real-time basis, and can view the derivatives 
positions of large traders on a next-day basis. Large trader reports 
also provide the basis for the Commission's weekly Commitments of 
Traders report, which is used by a wide range of market 
participants. Modernizing and aligning these rules promotes 
transparency and efficiency as we carry out our regulatory and 
enforcement functions.
    These final rules add one more segment to the Commission's data 
arc that now spans well over a decade since Congress set forth a 
new, more ambitious vision for how data could address some of the 
underlying causes of the 2008 financial crisis and instill greater 
resilience in the decades to come. I have prioritized the 
Commission's data and analytics capabilities--adjusting, 
harmonizing, prioritizing standardization without abandoning 
mission-critical functions, and generally keeping pace with the 
markets. We are still moving forward, bringing the arc full circle 
toward full cloud integration, zero-trust architecture, and data 
cataloging, as well as Commission-wide upskilling focused on 
enhanced analytics and integration and use of artificial 
intelligence.
    I thank the staff for their hard work in producing these 
important rules, and I am proud to support them.

Appendix 3--Statement of Commissioner Kristin N. Johnson

    Today, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission or 
CFTC) adopts amendments to large trader reports. Ensuring the 
integrity and transparency of these reports fosters sound 
derivatives markets by providing the Commission with critical 
information concerning the largest positional exposures in futures 
and options markets. I support adopting the final rule, which amends 
certain provisions of the Large Trader Reporting Requirements for 
futures and options under Commission Regulation 17.00(a) and (g) 
(Final Rule).
    Sections 4a, 4c(b), 4g, and 4i of the Commodity Exchange Act 
(CEA) establish the Commission's authority to create regulation 
imposing large trader reporting and recordkeeping requirements on 
registrants. Part 17 sets out the obligations for reports that 
markets, futures commission merchants, clearing members, and foreign 
brokers must provide to the Commission.\1\ The Commission's large 
trader reporting system has been foundational to ensuring market 
integrity, fostering price discovery, and promoting hedging utility 
of futures and options contracts for commercial end-users. The large 
trader reporting framework has admirably supported the Commission's 
market surveillance efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 7 U.S.C. 6; 17 CFR 17.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CFTC Regulation 17.00(a) requires reporting firms to report 
daily position information for special accounts--futures and options 
trader accounts that exceed certain Commission-prescribed levels--to 
the Commission, in accordance with the record format and data 
elements set forth in CFTC Regulation 17.00(g).\2\ Data reporting 
technology has advanced since the time of part 17's promulgation 
such that the current data record format is outdated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is adopting the Final Rule to modernize certain 
technical aspects of the reporting requirements and clarify aspects 
of the reporting requirements and instructions. The Final Rule will 
transition reporting format to the Financial Information eXchange 
Markup Language (FIXML). Additionally, the Commission is updating 
the data elements to be reported and delegating authority to the 
Director of the Division of Data to designate a data submission 
standard. Contemporaneously, the Commission will publish an updated 
Part 17 Guidebook.
    The Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on June 
27, 2023 and received twelve substantive comment letters. The Final 
Rule is responsive to many of the comments received and reflects 
thoughtful engagement with market participants--an essential aspect 
of the notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
    Access to more fulsome and reliable data will improve the 
Commission's understanding of how traders employ futures and 
options, enable the Commission to surveil for market integrity in a 
single market or across markets, and facilitate the Commission's 
detection and enforcement of abusive trading practices.
    As I have previously stated:
    Appropriately-tailored regulatory disclosure is a powerful tool 
in identifying vulnerabilities and trends in our markets, mitigating 
systemic risk, and addressing financial stability concerns. 
Disclosure of financial information to market regulators is critical 
to the regulatory oversight of our financial markets, particularly 
when such disclosure is accurate, timely, robust, and usable.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Kristin N. Johnson, Commissioner, CFTC, Statement on the 
Importance of Financial Market Transparency for Systemic Risk 
Management (Feb. 8, 2024), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/johnsonstatement020824.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's Final Rule supports position reporting that meets these 
characteristics. Though facilitating effective supervision can 
engender costs, the important data reported to the Commission plays 
a crucial role in stemming broader market disruptions.
    I commend the work of the staff of the Division of Market 
Oversight, including Owen Kopon, Paul Chaffin, Chase Lindsey, and 
Jason Smith, on the Final Rule.

Appendix 4--Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham

    I respectfully dissent from the Large Trader Reporting Rule 
primarily because it raises fair notice and due process issues for 
future regulatory changes. The Commission is also delegating its 
authority to a non-existent office, which I believe is not only 
impermissible, but makes no sense.
    I would like to thank Owen Kopon, Paul Chaffin, Chase Lindsay, 
Jason Smith, Nora Flood, and Vince McGonagle in the Division of 
Market Oversight, as well as James Fay in the Division of Data and 
Daniel Prager in the Office of the Chief Economist, for their work 
on the Large Trader Reporting Rule. I appreciate the staff working 
with me to make revisions to address my concerns. While the 
revisions to the rulemaking preamble are intended to alleviate the 
fair notice concerns, they ultimately do not provide sufficient due 
process protections as required under the law because there were no 
associated revisions to the rule text.
    Overall, I continue to support most of the rule amendments that 
would update the outdated large trader reporting submission 
standards in the part 17 regulations.\1\ The CFTC's Commitment of 
Traders (COT) Report, derived from part 17 data, provides 
transparency and aids in price discovery and risk management for 
market participants and end-users. I support improving the CFTC's 
preparation of the COT Report. I also believe that the two-year 
implementation period will help to minimize disruptions and ensure a 
seamless transition with enough time for adequate testing of firms' 
systems and processes for large trader reporting prior to the 
compliance date. I strongly encourage the Commission to include 
adequate implementation periods in all of our rulemakings, which 
will support compliance

[[Page 47460]]

and risk management efforts that enhance market integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham in Support of 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Large Trader Reporting 
Requirements Under Part 17 (June 7, 2023), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement060723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, I have two significant concerns. First, the Commission 
will make a new delegation of authority to the Director of the 
Office of Data and Technology (ODT) in Regulation 17.03(d) to 
determine the form, manner, coding structure, and electronic data 
transmission procedures for reporting the data elements in part 17, 
appendix C and to determine whether to permit or require one or more 
particular data standards. I find it deeply troubling and against 
all common sense that the Commission is making a new delegation of 
authority to an office that no longer exists at the CFTC.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.cftc.gov/About/CFTCOrganization/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I find it insincere, or incongruous at best, for the Commission 
to state that it is dedicated to providing certainty to market 
participants--or even clarity, which the Final Rule asserts seven 
times--when the Commission is delegating authority to a ghost office 
to make decisions that may cost firms millions of dollars to 
implement.
    Second, multiple commenters requested that the Commission 
include a notice standard under Regulation 17.03(d) if the ODT 
Director changes these standards in the future.\3\ Commenters raised 
concerns about potential costs associated with future changes, such 
as technology and infrastructure changes for reporting firms. Even 
seemingly minor changes to reporting requirements require firms to 
identify and allocate technology budget and resources; program and 
test reporting logic; and implement controls, among other things. 
Inexplicably, the Commission declined to adopt a reasonable notice 
standard in the regulation, even though fair notice is inherent to 
due process under the Administrative Procedure Act and other law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Futures Industry Association, Large Trader Reporting 
Requirements (RIN 3038-AF27), 7 (Aug. 28, 2023), https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=73056&SearchText=; ICE Futures U.S., Large 
Trader Reporting Requirements (RIN 3038-AF27), 2 (Aug. 28, 2023), 
https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=73046&SearchText=; Options Clearing Corporation, 
RIN 3038-AF27 Large Trader Reporting Requirements, 4 (Aug. 28, 
2023), https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=73050&SearchText=.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering the CFTC's aggressive enforcement posture towards 
pursuing reporting violations with a strict liability standard and 
no materiality threshold, resulting in seven-figure penalties for 
anything less than 100% perfection,\4\ I am deeply concerned about 
using delegated authority to change reporting standards without 
reasonable notice requirements in the regulation. This would ensure 
that firms have adequate time for compliance and implementation of 
new requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., CFTC Orders Morgan Stanley and Co. Incorporated 
to Pay $350,000 Penalty for Omitting Futures and Options Data from 
Part 17 Large Trader Reports (Nov. 2, 2017), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/7638-17; see generally CFTC Releases FY 2023 
Enforcement Results (Nov. 7, 2023), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8822-23; CFTC Releases Annual Enforcement Results 
(Oct. 20, 2022), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8613-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, while I support most of the revisions to the Large 
Trader Reporting Final Rule, my outstanding concerns outweigh that 
support.

[FR Doc. 2024-11798 Filed 5-31-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P