# Exemption From Registration for Certain Foreign Intermediaries > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-23810 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** December 7, 2020 - **Citation:** 85 FR 78718 ## Text COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 3 RIN 3038-AE46 Exemption From Registration for Certain Foreign Intermediaries AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) is adopting amendments (Final Rule) revising the conditions set forth in the Commission regulation under which a person located outside of the United States (each, a foreign located person) engaged in the activity of a commodity pool operator (CPO) in connection with commodity interest transactions on behalf of persons located outside the United States (collectively, an offshore commodity pool or offshore pool) would qualify for an exemption from CPO registration and regulation with respect to that offshore pool. The Final Rule provides that the exemption under the applicable Commission regulation for foreign located persons acting as a CPO (a non-U.S. CPO) on behalf of offshore commodity pools may be claimed by such non-U.S. CPOs on a pool-by-pool basis. The Commission is also adopting a provision clarifying that a non-U.S. CPO may claim an exemption from registration under the applicable Commission regulation with respect to a qualifying offshore commodity pool, while maintaining another exemption from CPO registration, relying on a CPO exclusion, or even registering as a CPO, with respect to its operation of other commodity pools. Additionally, the Commission is adopting a safe harbor by which a non-U.S. CPO of an offshore pool may rely upon that exemption, if it satisfies several enumerated factors related to its operation of the offshore commodity pool. The Commission is also adopting an amendment permitting U.S. affiliates of a non-U.S. CPO to contribute initial capital to such non-U.S. CPO's offshore pools, without affecting the eligibility of the non-U.S. CPO for an exemption from registration under the applicable Commission regulation. The Commission is also adopting amendments to the applicable Commission regulation originally proposed in 2016 that clarify whether clearing of commodity interest transactions through a registered futures commission merchant (FCM) is required as a condition of the registration exemptions for foreign intermediaries, and whether such exemption is available for foreign intermediaries acting on behalf of international financial institutions. DATES: The effective date for this Final Rule is February 5, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua B. Sterling, Director, at 202-418-6056, jsterling@cftc.gov; with respect to the finalization of the 2016 Proposal: Frank N. Fisanich, Chief Counsel, at 202-418-5949 or ffisanich@cftc.gov; with respect to all other aspects of this release: Amanda Lesher Olear, Deputy Director, at 202-418-5283 or aolear@cftc.gov; Pamela Geraghty, Associate Director, at 202-418-5634 or pgeraghty@cftc.gov; Elizabeth Groover, Special Counsel, at 202-418-5985 or egroover@cftc.gov, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1151 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. Statutory and Regulatory Background B. Recent Regulatory Proposals Related to Commission Regulation 3.10(c) C. The 2020 Proposal II. Final Rule A. General Comments in Response to the 2016 and 2020 Proposals B. Reconsidering the 2016 Proposal and Comments Received 1. The 2016 Proposal's Amendments to Commission Regulation 3.10(c) 2. Responsive Comments Received Regarding the 2016 Proposal 3. Finalizing the 2016 Proposal C. Pool-by-Pool Exemption D. Utilizing the 3.10 Exemption Concurrent With Other Regulatory Relief Available to CPOs E. The Safe Harbor for Non-U.S. CPOs With Respect to Inadvertent U.S. Participants in Their Offshore Pools F. Exception for Initial Capital Contributions by U.S. Affiliates of a Non-U.S. CPO to Its Offshore Pools 1. U.S. “Controlling” Affiliates 2. The Timing of a U.S. Affiliate's Capital Contributions to an Offshore Pool 3. Additional Anti-Evasion Conditions: The Marketing Prohibition and Prohibiting “Bad Actor” U.S. Affiliates 4. Analysis Under Section 4(c) of the Act G. Additional Relief for Commodity Trading Advisors H. Reorganization of Commission Regulation 3.10(c) III. Related Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Cost-Benefit Considerations 1. Costs and Benefits Related to Finalizing the 2016 Proposal 2. Commission Regulation 3.10 (c)(5)(i): Claiming the 3.10 Exemption on a Pool-by-Pool Basis 3. Commission Regulation 3.10(c)(5)(iii): Providing A Safe Harbor for Non-U.S. CPOs Whose Offshore Pools May Have Inadvertent U.S. Participants 4. Commission Regulation 3.10(c)(5)(iv): Utilizing the 3.10 Exemption Concurrent with Other Available Exclusions and Exemptions 5. Commission Regulation 3.10(c)(5)(ii): The Affiliate Contribution Exception 6. Section 15(a) Factors D. Anti-Trust Considerations I. Background A. Statutory and Regulatory Background Section 1a(11) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA or Act) 1 defines the term “commodity pool operator” as any person 2 engaged in a business that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise, and who, with respect to that commodity pool, solicits, accepts, or receives from others, funds, securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of stock or other forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity interests. CEA section 1a(10) defines a “commodity pool” as any investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise operated for the purpose of trading in commodity interests. 3 CEA section 4m(1) generally requires each person who satisfies the CPO definition to register as such with the Commission. 4 With respect to CPOs, the CEA also authorizes the Commission, acting by rule or regulation, to include within or exclude from the term “commodity pool operator” any person engaged in the business of operating a commodity pool if the Commission determines that the rule or regulation will effectuate the purposes of the CEA. 5 1 7 U.S.C. 1a(11). See also 17 CFR 1.3 (defining “commodity interest” to include, inter alia, any contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery, and any swap as defined in the CEA); Adaptation of Regulations to Incorporate Swaps, 77 FR 66288, 66295 (Nov. 2, 2012) (discussing the modification of the term “commodity interest” to include swaps). The Act is found at 7 U.S.C. 1, et seq. (2018), and the Commission's regulations are found at 17 CFR Ch. I (2020). Both are accessible through the Commission's website, https://www.cftc.gov. 2 7 U.S.C. 1a(38); 17 CFR 1.3 (defining “person” to include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, and trusts). 3 7 U.S.C. 1a(10). 4 7 U.S.C. 6m(1). 5 7 U.S.C. 1a(11)(B). Additionally, CEA section 4(c), in relevant part with respect to the Final Rule, provides that the Commission, to promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition, by rule, regulation, or order, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may exempt, among other things, any person or class of persons offering, entering into, rendering advice, or rendering other services with respect to commodity interests from any provision of the Act. 6 CEA section 4(c) authorizes the Commission to grant exemptive relief if the Commission determines, inter alia, that the exemption would be consistent with the “public interest.” 7 6 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(1). 7 Conference Report, H.R. Report 102-978 at 8 (Oct. 2, 1992) (“The goal of providing the Commission with broad exemptive powers . . . is to give the Commission a means of providing certainty and stability to existing and emerging markets so that financial innovation and market development can proceed in an effective and competitive manner.”). To provide an exemption pursuant to section 4(c) of the Act with respect to registration as a CPO, the Commission must determine that the agreements, contracts, or transactions undertaken by the exempt CPO should not require registration, and that the exemption from registration would be consistent with the public interest and the Act. 8 The Commission must further determine that the agreement, contract, or transaction will be entered into solely between appropriate persons, and that it will not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any contract market to discharge its regulatory or self-regulatory duties under the Act. 9 The term “appropriate person” as used in CEA section 4(c) includes “a commodity pool formed or operated by a person subject to regulation under the Act.” 10 The Commission has previously interpreted the clause “subject to regulation under the Act” as including persons who are exempt from registration or excluded from the definition of a registration category. 11 8 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(2)(A). 9 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(2)(B). 10 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(3)(E). 11 77 FR 30596, 30655 (May 23, 2012) (finding, in the context of the eligible contract participant definition, that “construing the phrase `formed and operated by a person subject to regulation under the [CEA]' to refer to a person excluded from the CPO definition, registered as a CPO or properly exempt from CPO registration appropriately reflects Congressional intent”). Part 3 of the Commission's regulations governs the registration of intermediaries engaged in the offering and selling of, and the provision of advice concerning, all commodity interest transactions. Commission regulation 3.10 establishes the procedure that intermediaries, including CPOs, must use to register with the Commission, 12 and also sets forth certain exemptions from registration. 13 In particular, Commission regulation 3.10(c)(3)(i), discussed in further detail below, provides, inter alia, that a person engaged in the activity of a CPO, commodity trading advisor (CTA), or introducing broker (IB), in connection with any commodity interest transaction executed bilaterally or made on or subject to the rules of any designated contract market (DCM) or swap execution facility (SEF), is not required to register as a CPO, CTA, or IB (relief referred to herein as the 3.10 Exemption), provided that: 12 See, e.g., 17 CFR 3.10(a)(1)(i) (requiring the filing of a Form 7-R with the National Futures Association (NFA)). 13 17 CFR 3.10(c) (providing exemptions from registration for certain persons). 1. The person is located outside the United States, its territories, and possessions (the United States or U.S.); 2. The person acts only on behalf of persons located outside the United States; and 3. The commodity interest transaction is submitted for clearing through a registered FCM. 14 14 17 CFR 3.10(c)(3)(i). Commission regulation 3.10(c)(2)(i) provides a similar exemption from registration for a person located outside the United States acting as an FCM. 15 15 17 CFR 3.10(c)(2)(i). A person acting in accordance with the 3.10 Exemption remains subject to the antifraud provisions of, inter alia, CEA section 4 o, 16 but is otherwise not required to comply with those provisions of the CEA or Commission regulations applicable to any person registered in the relevant intermediary capacity, 17 or persons required to be so registered. 18 Of particular relevance to the amendments adopted herein regarding non-U.S. CPOs, the 3.10 Exemption provides that it is available to non-U.S. CPOs whose activities, in connection with any commodity interest transaction executed bilaterally or made on or subject to the rules of any DCM or SEF, are confined to acting on behalf of offshore commodity pools. 19 This exemption was first adopted in 2007 (2007 Final Rule) and was based on a long-standing no-action position articulated by the Commission's Office of General Counsel in 1976. 20 16 7 U.S.C. 6 o. 17 For purposes of this adopting release, the term “intermediary” includes persons acting in the capacity of an FCM, IB, CPO, or CTA. For more information, see “Intermediaries,” CFTC, available at https://www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/Intermediaries/index.htm. 18 17 CFR 3.10(c)(3)(ii). As market participants, however, such persons remain subject to all other applicable provisions of the CEA and the Commission's regulations promulgated thereunder. See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. 9 (prohibiting manipulation by any person with respect to a swap or futures transaction). 19 17 CFR 3.10(c)(3)(i). 20 Exemption from Registration for Certain Foreign Persons, 72 FR 63976, 63977 (Nov. 14, 2007) (2007 Final Rule). See also CFTC Staff Interpretative Letter 76-21. In adopting the 2007 Final Rule, the Commission agreed with commenters who cited its longstanding policy of focusing “`customer protection activities upon domestic firms and upon firms soliciting or accepting orders from domestic users of the futures markets.' ” 21 The Commission further stated that the protection of non-U.S. customers of non-U.S. firms may be best deferred to foreign regulators. 22 The Commission noted its understanding that, pursuant to the terms of the 3.10 Exemption, “[a]ny person seeking to act in accordance with any of the foregoing exemptions from registration should note that the prohibition on contact with U.S. customers applies to solicitation as well as acceptance of orders.” 23 Moreover, the Commission stated that, “[if] a person located outside the U.S. were to solicit prospective customers located in the U.S. as well as outside of the U.S., these exemptions would not be available, even if the only customers resulting from the efforts were located outside the U.S.” 24 21 2007 Final Rule, 72 FR at 63977, quoting Introducing Brokers and Associated Persons of Introducing Brokers, Commodity Trading Advisors and Commodity Pool Operators; Registration and Other Regulatory Requirements, 48 FR 35248, 35261 (Aug. 3, 1983). 22 Id. The Commission also cited this policy position in the initial proposal discussing what ultimately would be adopted as Commission regulation 3.10(c)(3)(i). Exemption from Registration for Certain Foreign Persons, 72 FR 15637, 15638 (Apr. 2, 2007). 23 2007 Final Rule, 72 FR at 63977-63978. 24 Id. at 63978. In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) 25 amended the definitions of “commodity pool operator” and “commodity pool” in the CEA to include those persons operating collective investment vehicles that engage in swaps, 26 which resulted in an expansion of the universe of persons captured within both statutory definitions. 27 When combined with the rescission of Commission regulation 4.13(a)(4) in 2012, 28 an increasing number of non-U.S. CPOs were required to either register with the Commission, or claim an available exemption or exclusion with respect to the operation of their commodity pools, regardless of whether such pools were offshore or offered to U.S. participants. 25 Public Law 111-203, H.R. 4173 (2010) (Dodd-Frank Act). 26 Section 721 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 27 See also Adaptation of Regulation to Incorporate Swaps, 77 FR 66288 (Nov. 2, 2012) (incorporating this expanded jurisdiction over swaps into existing Commission regulations). 28 See Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors; Compliance Obligations, 77 FR 11252, 11264 (Feb. 24, 2012). Former Commission regulation 4.13(a)(4) provided an exemption from registration as a CPO for operators of commodity pools offered and sold to sophisticated participants. See 17 CFR 4.13(a)(4) (2010). B. Recent Regulatory Proposals Related to Commission Regulation 3.10(c) As discussed further below, on July 27, 2016, the Commission proposed to amend Commission regulation 3.10(c) (2016 Proposal) revising the conditions under which the exemption from intermediary registration would apply. 29 Generally, the 2016 Proposal would permit a foreign located person acting in the capacity of an FCM, IB, CTA, or CPO, to utilize an exemption from registration as such, provided that the foreign located person, in connection with any commodity interest transaction, acts solely on behalf of (1) other foreign located persons, or (2) international financial institutions (IFIs, which were further defined in the 2016 Proposal's proposed Commission regulation (c)(6)). The proposed amendments provided an exemption from registration without regard to whether such foreign located person cleared the commodity interest transaction. 30 In response to the 2016 Proposal, the Commission received six comments, most of which were supportive of those proposed amendments. 31 The Commission, however, did not finalize the 2016 Proposal at that time. 29 Exemption from Registration for Certain Foreign Persons, 81 FR 51824 (Aug. 5, 2016) (2016 Proposal). 30 2016 Proposal, 81 FR at 51827. 31 The public comment file for the 2016 Proposal is available on the Commission's website. Comments for Proposed Rule 81 FR 51824, available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1724. See infra pt. II.B. for additional discussion of the 2016 Proposal and Commission responses to those public comments. In 2018, the Commission proposed, among other changes to its part 4 regulations, adding a new exemption from CPO registration to Commission regulation 4.13 (2018 Proposal) that would formally incorporate the relief provided by CFTC Staff Advisory 18-96 (Advisory 18-96) in the Commission's CPO regulatory provisions. 32 In the 2018 Proposal, the Commission noted that the proposed exemption based on Advisory 18-96 was intended to be claimed on a pool-by-pool basis, and stated that “[t]his characteristic would effectively differentiate the [proposed exemption] from the relief currently provided” under the 3.10 Exemption. 33 The Commission received several comments regarding the 2018 Proposal's discussion of the differences between the proposed amendment to Commission regulation 4.13 and the existing 3.10 Exemption. 34 32 Registration and Compliance Requirements for Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors, 83 FR 52902 (Oct. 18, 2018) (2018 Proposal); CFTC Staff Advisory 18-96 (Apr. 11, 1996). 33 2018 Proposal, 83 FR at 52914. 34 The comment file for the 2018 Proposal is also available on the Commission's website. Comments for Proposed Rule 83 FR 52902, available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=2925. For instance, one commenter noted that the 3.10 Exemption “is widely relied on around the world by non-U.S. managers of offshore funds that are not offered to U.S. investors but that may trade in the U.S. commodity interest markets.” 35 This commenter further noted that “CPO registration for these offshore entities with global operations is not a viable option[,]” due to the logistical and regulatory issues involved. 36 Another commenter stated that, “it is critical to bear in mind that the Commission . . . to our knowledge has never addressed, the separate and distinct question of whether an offshore CPO may rely on Rule 3.10(c)(3)(i) with respect to some of its offshore pools in combination with relying on other exemptions with respect to its other pools.” 37 Several other commenters expressed similar views and requested that the Commission affirm CPOs' ability to claim the 3.10 Exemption on a pool-by-pool basis and to rely upon that exemption in addition to other exemptions, exclusions, or registration. 38 35 Comment Letter from the Asset Management Group of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA AMG), at 9 (Dec. 17, 2018), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=61922&SearchText=. 36 Id. at 12. 37 Comment Letter from Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, & Jacobson, LLP (Fried Frank), at 6 (Dec. 17, 2018), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=61920&SearchText=. 38 See, e.g., Comment Letter from Willkie, Farr, and Gallagher, LLP (Willkie), at 6 (Dec. 17, 2018), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=61927&SearchText=; and Comment Letter from Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA), at 6 (Dec. 17, 2018), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=61907&SearchText=. In 2019, the Commission withdrew the portion of the 2018 Proposal related to adopting the relief provided in Advisory 18-96 as a CPO registration exemption, and, in light of the comments received in response to its discussion of the 3.10 Exemption, undertook an inquiry as to whether the 3.10 Exemption should be amended to respond to the current CPO space and the issues articulated by commenters. 39 Based on the foregoing experience and history, and in consideration of the increasingly global nature of the commodity pool space, the Commission proposed certain amendments to the 3.10 Exemption on May 28, 2020, which were subsequently published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2020 (2020 Proposal). 40 39 Registration and Compliance Requirements for Commodity Pool Operators (CPOs) and Commodity Trading Advisors: Family Offices and Exempt CPOs, 84 FR 67355, 67357 (Dec. 10, 2019). 40 Exemption from Registration for Certain Foreign Persons Acting as Commodity Pool Operators of Offshore Commodity Pools, 85 FR 35820 (Jun. 12, 2020) (2020 Proposal). C. The 2020 Proposal The 2020 Proposal consisted of several proposed amendments to the 3.10 Exemption. Specifically, the Commission proposed amendments to the 3.10 Exemption such that non-U.S. CPOs may rely on that relief on a pool-by-pool basis. 41 The Commission also proposed an amendment confirming that the 3.10 Exemption, as revised, may be utilized along with other exemptions or exclusions available to CPOs generally, or CPO registration. 42 The Commission further proposed a conditional safe harbor for non-U.S. CPOs who, by virtue of a pool's structure, cannot represent with absolute certainty that there are no U.S. participants in their operated offshore pool. 43 Finally, the Commission also proposed to provide an exception from the 3.10 Exemption's prohibition on U.S. participants, such that a U.S. controlling affiliate could provide initial capital to an offshore pool operated by its affiliated non-U.S. CPO without being considered a U.S. participant in that offshore pool. 44 In addition to the substantive amendments to the 3.10 Exemption proposed for the first time as part of the 2020 Proposal, the Commission also reopened the comment period associated with the 2016 Proposal for a period of 60 days. 45 41 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35822. 42 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35824. 43 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35823. 44 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35825. 45 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35826-35827. II. Final Rule After considering all of the comments received, and for the reasons stated by the Commission herein, the Commission is amending Commission regulation 3.10(c), in a manner generally consistent with the 2016 and 2020 Proposals, with certain adjustments resulting from commenters' suggestions and after additional consideration of the proposed regulatory text. The Commission will first generally summarize the public comments received addressing both the 2016 and 2020 Proposals. Then, in addition to the rulemaking history of Commission regulation 3.10(c) set forth above, the Commission will briefly explain the 2016 Proposal, respond to all of the relevant public comments received, and detail the amendments derived from the 2016 Proposal adopted in the Final Rule. 46 The Commission will then discuss the remaining 2020 Proposal amendments with respect to non-U.S. CPOs operating offshore pools pursuant to the 3.10 Exemption, summarize the 3.10 Exemption amendments being adopted, respond to the relevant public comments received, and explain the substance and rationale of any adjustments in approach from the 2020 Proposal to what the Commission is adopting in the Final Rule today. 47 Finally, the Commission will explain its efforts to reconcile proposed amendments from both the 2016 and 2020 Proposals, which includes a non-substantive reorganization of Commission regulation 3.10(c). 48 46 See infra pt. II.B. 47 See infra pts. II.C-G. 48 See infra pt. II.H. A. General Comments in Response to the 2016 and 2020 Proposals The Commission requested comment generally on all aspects of the 2020 Proposal, and specifically asked questions about potential additional conditions or limitations to the proposed relief that might be incorporated during finalization. 49 The comment period for the 2020 Proposal, along with the reopened comment period for the 2016 Proposal, expired on August 11, 2020, and the Commission received four relevant comment letters: One from an individual, one from a foreign intergovernmental organization, one submitted jointly by five industry professional and trade associations (collectively, the Industry Groups), and one submitted by an asset manager that operates globally. 50 Two of those comment letters also provided new or additional comments with respect to the 2016 Proposal. 51 Finally, Commission staff also hosted one ex parte meeting to discuss aspects of the 2020 Proposal with an Industry Group. 52 49 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35826 (asking three questions regarding the conditions of the proposed exception from the 3.10 Exemption for initial capital investments in a non-U.S. CPO's offshore pool by a U.S. controlling affiliate). See also id. at 35827 (asking, with respect to the 2016 Proposal, an additional question about the clearing of transactions otherwise covered by the 3.10 Exemption). 50 The Commission received a total of five comment letters, one of which was either spam or otherwise not substantively relevant to the 2020 Proposal in any respect. For relevant comments on the 2020 Proposal, see Comment Letter from Mr. Chris Barnard (Aug. 11, 2020) (Barnard); Comment Letter from the European Stability Mechanism (Aug. 6, 2020) (ESM); Joint Comment Letter from AIMA, SIFMA AMG, the Investment Advisers Association (IAA), Investment Company Institute Global (ICI Global), and the Managed Funds Association (MFA) (Aug. 11, 2020) (Industry Group Letter), and Comment Letter from the Vanguard Group (Aug. 11, 2020) (Vanguard). 51 Industry Group Letter, at 12-13, and ESM, at 1-3. 52 The complete comment file for the 2020 Proposal can be found on the Commission's website. Comments for Proposed Rule 85 FR 35820, available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=3122. The comments received by the Commission were, in general, strongly supportive of the 2020 Proposal. 53 Commenters largely agreed with the proposed amendments, positing that, if adopted, the 2020 Proposal “would simplify compliance by eliminating the potential need for the CFTC to require registration and oversight of non-U.S. CPOs whose pools have no U.S. investors.” 54 The Industry Groups also “applaud[ed] the Commission's actions in turning its attention to the increasingly global nature of the asset management space and proposing rule changes that will better align the express terms of its regulations with both the Commission's policy goals and current global practices.” 55 Although offering support for the 2020 Proposal overall, commenters also suggested additional regulatory edits with respect to several specific issues raised by that release, and provided responses to the questions posed by the Commission. 56 53 Industry Group Letter, at 2; Vanguard, at 2; Barnard, at 2; ESM, at 1. 54 Barnard, at 2. 55 Industry Group Letter, at 1. 56 See, e.g., Vanguard, at 2-3; Industry Group Letter, at 2-15, app. A. As noted above, the Commission requested comment generally on the 2020 Proposal, but also posed several targeted questions about potential additional conditions for the proposed exception regarding the initial capital contributions of U.S. controlling affiliates in a non-U.S. CPO's offshore pool (Affiliate Contribution Exception). 57 In addition to commenting generally on the 2020 Proposal, the Industry Groups submitted the sole comment letter specifically responding to those questions. The Industry Groups stated that they do not support additional conditions on the Affiliate Contribution Exception, and that they believe such limitations “would not provide any additional protection to U.S. investors, customers, or the U.S. commodity interest markets.” 58 For instance, the Commission queried whether the Affiliate Contribution Exception should more explicitly be intended for “seeding purposes,” including whether it should “be conditioned on the investment being limited in time to one, two, or three years, after which time the investments of the controlling affiliate must be reduced to a de minimis amount of the pool's capital, such as 3 or 5 percent?” 59 Alternatively, the Industry Groups suggested a defined “purpose” for affiliate contributions, “for the purpose of establishing, or providing ongoing support to, the pool.” 60 57 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35826. See infra pt. II.F for a more detailed discussion on the Affiliate Contribution Exception adopted in the Final Rule. 58 Industry Group Letter, at 17. 59 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35826. 60 Industry Group Letter, at 17. Regarding the nature of controlling affiliates, the Commission also queried whether the Affiliate Contribution Exception should “be limited to entities or persons that are otherwise financial institutions that are regulated in the United States to provide investor protections?” 61 The Commission additionally inquired whether the Affiliate Contribution Exception should “only be available to U.S. controlling affiliates regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, a federal banking regulator, or an insurance regulator?” 62 The Industry Groups stated that they do not believe any benefit would result from “limiting the affiliates that contribute capital to regulated entities” because it would further introduce the Commission “into the decision-making process for commercial decisions and resource allocation of global organizations,” and “also prevent the use of common practices for this type of funding, including holding companies and trust companies.” 63 One commenter also stated that a U.S. affiliate should not be required to “be regulated in the United States in order to qualify” for the Affiliate Contribution Exception. 64 61 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35826. 62 Id. 63 Industry Group Letter, at 18. 64 Vanguard, at 2. The Commission also noted in the 2020 Proposal that one of the rationales behind the Affiliate Contribution Exception is the affiliate's likely ability to demand that the non-U.S. CPO provide it with information necessary to assess the offshore pool's operations and performance. 65 Because it may not be possible to ascertain with certainty whether such information must be provided to a U.S. controlling affiliate under laws applicable to the non-U.S. CPO, the Commission queried in the 2020 Proposal whether the Affiliate Contribution Exception should be “conditioned on there being an obligation on the non-U.S. CPO that is legally binding in its home jurisdiction to provide the U.S. controlling affiliate with information regarding the operation of the offshore pool by the affiliated non-U.S. CPO?” 66 The Industry Groups noted that “an organization's decision to contribute capital to support the operations of an offshore CPO is a commercial business decision, not an investment decision of the type that Part 4 information addresses.” 67 Therefore, the Industry Groups stated, there is “no need for the Commission to determine what type of information global business organizations will need to exercise their business judgment in this regard or for the Commission otherwise to intervene in the organization's decision-making process.” 68 The Commission did not receive any comments supporting the additional limitations for which the Commission specifically solicited public feedback in the 2020 Proposal. 65 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35826. 66 Id. 67 Industry Group Letter, at 18. 68 Id. (noting that “requiring this exception to be conditioned on there being a legally binding obligation in the non-U.S. CPO's home jurisdiction would create unnecessary non-U.S. legal analysis on the part of the affiliate”). B. Reconsidering the 2016 Proposal and Comments Received In addition to reopening the comment period with respect to the 2016 Proposal, the Commission queried specifically whether Commission regulation 3.10 should require commodity interest transactions of foreign located persons or IFIs that are required or intended to be cleared on a registered derivatives clearing organization (DCO) to be submitted for clearing through an FCM registered in accordance with section 4d of the Act, unless such foreign located person or IFI is itself a clearing member of such registered DCO. 69 As mentioned above, the Commission received two additional comments relevant to the 2016 Proposal as a result of the reopening of the 2016 Proposal's comment period. After a brief explanation of the 2016 Proposal, the Commission will discuss and address these additional comments, along with the public comments originally received in 2016, and outline the Final Rule amendments resulting from the 2016 Proposal below. 69 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35827. 1. The 2016 Proposal's Amendments to Commission Regulation 3.10(c) At the time the 2016 Proposal was published, and until the Final Rule's amendments become effective, Commission regulation 3.10(c)(2)-(c)(3) generally provides an exemption from registration, subject to specific conditions, for certain foreign located persons acting as intermediaries (collectively, Foreign Intermediaries) with respect to persons also located outside the U.S., even though such transactions may be executed bilaterally, or on or subject to the rules of a DCM or SEF. 70 With respect to activities involving commodity interest transactions executed bilaterally, or made on or subject to the rules of any DCM or SEF, Commission regulation 3.10(c)(3)(i) provides an exemption from registration as a CPO, CTA, or IB, where the person is a foreign located person, acting only on behalf of other foreign located persons, and the commodity interest transaction is submitted for clearing through a registered FCM. 71 Commission regulation 3.10(c)(2)(i) currently provides a similar exemption from registration for any Foreign Intermediary acting as an FCM. 72 70 17 CFR 3.10(c)(2)-(c)(3). See supra pt. I.A. 71 17 CFR 3.10(c)(3)(i). 72 17 CFR 3.10(c)(2)(i). Pursuant to the 2016 Proposal, the Commission proposed to amend Commission regulations 3.10(c)(2) and (c)(3) to revise the conditions under which those exemptions from registration would apply. 73 Specifically, the 2016 Proposal's amendments would permit a Foreign Intermediary to be eligible for an exemption from registration, if the Foreign Intermediary, in connection with a commodity interest transaction, only acts on behalf of (1) foreign located persons, or (2) IFIs, 74 without regard to whether such persons or institutions clear such commodity interest transaction. 75 It was the Commission's intention in 2016—and remains so now—to promulgate regulations consistent with its longstanding policy of focusing its customer protection activities upon domestic firms, and upon firms soliciting or accepting orders from domestic participants. 76 73 2016 Proposal. 74 For purposes of the 2016 Proposal, the Commission defined IFIs as those multinational institutions defined in the Commission's previous rulemakings and staff no-action letters, i.e., International Monetary Fund, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Development Association, International Finance Corporation, Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, African Development Bank, African Development Fund, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Bank for Economic Cooperation and Development in the Middle East and North Africa, Inter-American Investment Corporation, Council of Europe Development Bank, Nordic Investment Bank, Caribbean Development Bank, European Investment Bank and European Investment Fund (the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency are parts of the World Bank Group). 2016 Proposal, 81 FR at 51825, citing Further Definition of “Swap Dealer,” “Security-Based Swap Dealer,” “Major Swap Participant,” “Major Security-Based Swap Participant,” and “Eligible Contract Participant,” 77 FR 30596, 30692, n.1180 (May 23, 2012) (Entities Final Rule). 75 2016 Proposal, 81 FR at 51826. 76 Id. 2. Responsive Comments Received Regarding the 2016 Proposal In response to the 2016 Proposal, the Commission originally received six comments 77 and subsequently received two additional comments, 78 as a result of reopening the comment period pursuant to the 2020 Proposal. AIMA, CME, MFA, and the Industry Groups commented that the 2016 Proposal would improve market efficiency and increase liquidity in U.S. markets by eliminating the regulatory burden associated with Commission registration imposed on Foreign Intermediaries acting solely on behalf of other foreign located persons. 79 In particular, MFA also commented that foreign located persons would generally not have any expectation that a Foreign Intermediary would be subject to Commission oversight. 80 The CME also noted that the proposed amendments would positively impact the likelihood of productive cooperation concerning the regulation of derivatives across all jurisdictions going forward. 81 One individual commented that Foreign Intermediaries should be required to register with the Commission no matter the circumstance. 82 The other individual did not address the 2016 Proposal in any manner. Regarding the two additional comment letters received after the 2020 Proposal, the Industry Groups and ESM were both strongly supportive of the Commission finalizing amendments from the 2016 Proposal; additionally, ESM requested that it be explicitly included in the definition of “international financial institution.” 83 77 The original six comments were submitted by: AIMA; the CME Group, Inc. (CME); IAA; MFA; and two individuals unaffiliated with any registrant or derivatives industry organization. Comments for Proposed Rule 81 FR 51824, available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1724. See specifically, Comment Letter from AIMA (Sept. 6, 2016) (AIMA), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=61002&SearchText=; Comment Letter from CME (Aug. 23, 2016) (CME), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=60997&SearchText=; Comment Letter from IAA (Sept. 6, 2016) (IAA), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=61003&SearchText=; Comment Letter from MFA (Sept. 2, 2016) (MFA), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=61000&SearchText=. 78 The two additional 2020 comment letters addressing the 2016 Proposal are the jointly submitted Industry Group Letter and the comment letter from ESM, described above as a foreign intergovernmental organization. Comments for Proposed Rule 85 FR 35820, available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=3122. See supra pt. II.A. 79 AIMA, at 1; CME, at 1-2; MFA, at 1; Industry Group Letter, at 12-13. 80 MFA, at 1. 81 CME, at 2. 82 Comment Letter from “Jean Publieee” (Aug. 8, 2016), available at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=60987&SearchText=. 83 Industry Group Letter, at 13; ESM, at 2. 3. Finalizing the 2016 Proposal After considering all of the comments, the Commission is finalizing its amendments to Commission regulation 3.10(c) from the 2016 Proposal, with two modifications. First, the Commission originally proposed to amend the language of the exemptions to remove the requirement that any commodity interest transaction shall be submitted for clearing through a registered FCM. 84 In doing so, the Commission recognized that not all commodity interest transactions are subject to a clearing requirement under the CEA or Commission regulations, or even available for clearing by any DCO. 85 However, by removing the clearing condition, the Commission inadvertently failed to reiterate that those transactions that are required to be cleared must be cleared by a clearing member of the relevant DCO. The proposed removal of such language may have had the unintended consequence of leading some market participants to misconstrue the Commission's purpose as an intention to permit unregistered foreign located persons to become clearing members on a DCO to clear commodity interest transactions on behalf of customers that were also foreign located persons. Thus, the Final Rule provides that the exemptions from registration in Commission regulation 3.10(c) are conditioned on (1) clearing on a DCO any commodity interest transaction that is required or intended to be cleared on a registered DCO; and (2) an additional requirement that such transactions must be cleared through a registered FCM, unless the Foreign Intermediary's customer is a clearing member of the relevant DCO. 84 2016 Proposal, 81 FR at 51826. 85 Id. Second, the Commission is modifying the definition of “international financial institution” proposed in 2016 to be consistent with the definition of U.S. person recently adopted by the Commission in its final cross-border rules for swap dealers (SDs) and major swap participants (MSPs) (Cross-Border Final Rule), which generally excludes IFIs from the definition of U.S. person. 86 Consistent with the Cross-Border Final Rule, the Commission is defining the term “international financial institutions” in Commission regulation 3.10(c) to include the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the United Nations, the IFIs that are defined in 22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2), those institutions that are defined as “multilateral development banks” in the European Union's regulation on “OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories,” 87 their agencies and pension plans, and any other similar international organizations, and their agencies and pension plans. 88 86 Cross-Border Application of the Registration Thresholds and Certain Requirements Applicable to Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 85 FR 56924, 56937-38 (Cross-Border Final Rule). 87 Cross-Border Final Rule, 85 FR at 56937-56938; Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC Derivative Transactions, Central Counterparties and Trade Repositories, Article 1(5(a)) (July 4, 2012), available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012R0648. Article 1(5(a)) references Section 4.2 of Part 1 of Annex VI to Directive 2006/48/EC, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32006L0048. The definitions overlap, but together they include the following: The International Monetary Fund, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Development Association, International Finance Corporation, Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, African Development Bank, African Development Fund, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Bank for Economic Cooperation and Development in the Middle East and North Africa, Inter-American Investment Corporation, Council of Europe Development Bank, Nordic Investment Bank, Caribbean Development Bank, European Investment Bank and European Investment Fund. As noted above, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association, the International Finance Corporation, and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency are parts of the World Bank Group. 88 See infra new Commission regulation 3.10(c)(1)(iii) (adopting a formal IFI definition for purposes of applying the exemptions otherwise established by that provision). The IFI definition adopted by the Final Rule also includes two additional institutions identified in CFTC Staff Letters 17-34 89 and 18-13. 90 In CFTC Staff Letter 17-34, Commission staff provided relief from CFTC margin requirements to swaps between SDs and ESM, 91 and in CFTC Staff Letter 18-13, Commission staff identified the North American Development Bank as an additional entity that should be considered an IFI for purposes of applying the SD and MSP definitions. 92 The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to include these two entities in the IFI definition adopted by the Final Rule because the status of both entities as multinational organizations formed for public purposes is the same as that of the other already identified IFIs. Therefore, new Commission regulation 3.10(c)(1)(iii) lists specific IFIs, with these two additions. The IFI definition also includes a catch-all for “any other similar international organizations, and their agencies and pension plans,” which the Commission intends to extend the definition to any of the entities discussed above that are not explicitly listed in the definition. 89 CFTC Staff Letter No. 17-34 (Jul, 24, 2017), available at https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrlettergeneral/documents/letter/17-34.pdf. See also CFTC Staff Letter No. 19-22 (Oct. 16, 2019), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/19-22/download. 90 CFTC Staff Letter No. 18-13 (May 16, 2018), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/18-13/download. 91 CFTC Staff Letter No. 17-34. In addition, in May 2020, the Commission adopted an amendment to Commission regulation 23.151 to exclude ESM from the definition of “financial end user,” which will have the effect of excluding swaps between certain SDs and ESM from the Commission's uncleared swap margin requirements. Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 85 FR 27674 (May 11, 2020). 92 CFTC Staff Letter 18-13. See also CFTC Staff Letter 17-59 (Nov. 17, 2017) (providing no-action relief from the swap clearing requirement of section 2(h)(1) of the CEA), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/17-59/download. As the Commission recognized in the 2016 Proposal, IFIs are operated to satisfy public purposes and have as their members sovereign nations from around the world. Although such institutions may have headquarters or another significant presence in the United States, the Commission recognizes that the unique attributes and multinational status of these institutions do not warrant treating them as domestic persons for purposes of the intermediary registration exemptions in Commission regulation 3.10(c). The status of IFIs as multinational member agencies leads the Commission to recognize a need to mitigate restraints on the ability of IFIs to enter into transactions in all member countries in conjunction with promoting global economic development and fulfilling other public purposes. The Commission has determined that this purpose is better served by defining “international financial institution” to be consistent with the Cross-Border Final Rule because the list of IFIs as proposed in the 2016 Proposal was limited to a specified list and may have required amendment from time to time. C. Pool-by-Pool Exemption The 2020 Proposal would amend the 3.10 Exemption such that non-U.S. CPOs could avail themselves of the relief thereunder on a pool-by-pool basis, by specifying that the availability of the 3.10 Exemption would be determined by whether all of the participants in a particular offshore commodity pool are located outside the United States. 93 The Commission stated its preliminary belief that this amendment would appropriately focus Commission oversight on those pools that solicit and/or accept persons located in the United States as pool participants. 94 The Commission further noted several developments in the pooled investment space since the original adoption of the 3.10 Exemption that, in the Commission's preliminary opinion, also supported the amendments in the 2020 Proposal. 95 Specifically, the Commission observed that Congress in 2010, through the Dodd-Frank Act, expanded the Commission's jurisdiction to include swaps and rolling spot retail foreign exchange transactions, and that, when combined with the rescission or revision of certain CPO exemptions and exclusions, this expanded authority resulted in a significant increase in the number of entities captured within the definition of CPO. 96 93 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35822-35823. 94 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35823. 95 Id. 96 Id. In considering the propriety of the pool-by-pool exemption set forth in the 2020 Proposal, the Commission also noted the increasing globalization of the commodity pool industry, observing that, in contrast with the pool industry at the time of the original adoption of Commission regulation 3.10(c)(3)(i), several of today's largest CPOs, when measured by assets under management, are located outside the United States. 97 The Commission noted further that these larger CPOs typically operate many different commodity pools simultaneously, including some pools for U.S. investors and other pools for investors outside of the United States. 98 Therefore, the Commission preliminarily concluded that the 3.10 Exemption should be amended to reflect the Commission's regulatory interests in such an integrated international investment management environment, which the Commission preliminarily believed would be accomplished through the 2020 Proposal. 99 97 Id. 98 Id. 99 Id. The Commission received one comment explicitly addressing the proposed pool-by-pool availability of the 3.10 Exemption in the 2020 Proposal. 100 The Industry Groups stated their strong support for “the revised structure of the 3.10 Exemption that the Commission has proposed, which clearly and expressly provides for reliance on the exemption on a pool-by-pool basis.” 101 The Industry Groups further stated their agreement with the Commission's preliminary belief that the proposed amendments “ `better reflect the current state of operations of CPOs' and more clearly align the text of the rule with the Commission's policy goals.” 102 They also noted their belief that “[t]he intention to permit an exempt or registered non-U.S. offshore CPO to rely on the 3.10 Exemption on a pool-by-pool basis is crystal clear, both in the language of the proposed amendment and the Release.” 103 100 Industry Group Letter, at 10. See also Vanguard, at 2 (expressing support for the 2020 Proposal in general and the substantive comments from the Industry Groups); Barnard, at 2 (expressing support for the 2020 Proposal generally). 101 Industry Group Letter, at 10. 102 Id., quoting 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35822. 103 Id. at 11. After considering the comments received, the Commission has determined to finalize the 2020 Proposal so that non-U.S. CPOs may utilize the 3.10 Exemption for their offshore commodity pools on a pool-by-pool basis. As such, the Commission is amending the 3.10 Exemption for non-U.S. CPOs, as proposed, to specify that its availability would be determined, in part, by whether all of the participants in a particular offshore pool are foreign located persons. 104 Permitting non-U.S. CPOs to rely upon the relief provided by the 3.10 Exemption on a pool-by-pool basis will further allow the Commission to focus its resources on the oversight of CPOs operating pools offered and sold to participants located in the U.S., i.e., the Commission's primary customary protection mandate. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the Final Rule properly tailors the 3.10 Exemption to address the increasingly global nature of the investment management space since 2007, without compromising the Commission's mission of protecting U.S. pool participants and effectively regulating CPOs managing U.S. assets. 104 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35831 (proposing Commission regulation 3.10(c)(3)(ii) to provide this relief on a pool-by-pool basis to qualifying non-U.S. CPOs for their offshore pools). See infra new Commission regulation 3.10(c)(5)(i) (retaining that proposed language and updating solely to reflect the adoption of defined terms from the 2016 Proposal, including “foreign located person”). For the reasons stated above, the Commission determines that amending the 3.10 Exemption to provide relief from registration to non-U.S. CPOs for their offshore pools on a pool-by-pool basis is an appropriate exercise of its exemptive authority under CEA section 4(c). The persons involved in the transactions subject to the exemptive relief provided herein are “appropriate persons,” as discussed in the 2020 Proposal, because the term “appropriate person” as used in CEA section 4(c) includes “a commodity pool formed or operated by a person subject to regulation under the Act.” 105 The Commission has previously interpreted the clause “subject to regulation under the Act” as including persons who are exempt from registration or excluded from the definition of a registration category. 106 Consistent with its preliminary belief in the 2020 Proposal, the Commission believes that clearly enabling non-U.S. CPOs to avoid the additional organizational complexity associated with separately organizing their offshore and domestic facing commodity pool businesses may result in more non-U.S. CPOs undertaking to design and offer pools for persons in the United States. Moreover, this could, in turn, result in a greater diversity of commodity pools offered and/or sold to persons in the United States, and this increased competition amongst commodity pools and their CPOs could broadly foster additional innovation in the commodity pool space, already one of the more dynamic sectors regulated by the Commission. Further, this potential for increased competition and variation in commodity pools and CPOs resulting from the Final Rule will further promote the vibrancy of the U.S. commodity interest markets. 105 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(3)(E). 106 77 FR at 30655 (finding, in the context of the eligible contract participant definition, that construing the phrase “formed and operated by a person subject to regulation under the [CEA]” to refer to a person excluded from the CPO definition, registered as a CPO or properly exempt from CPO registration appropriately reflects Congressional intent). The Commission concludes that the amendments adopted herein will not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any DCM to discharge their duties under the Act, because non-U.S. CPOs relying on the 3.10 Exemption, as amended by the Final Rule, with respect to their offshore commodity pools will remain subject to the statutory and regulatory obligations imposed on all participants in the U.S. commodity interest markets. 107 This conclusion is consistent with section 4(d) of the Act, which provides that any exemption granted pursuant to CEA section 4(c) will not affect the authority of the Commission to conduct investigations in order to determine compliance with the requirements or conditions of such exemption or to take enforcement action for any violation of any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation or order thereunder caused by the failure to comply with or satisfy such conditions or requirements. 108 Further, to the extent a non-U.S. CPO operates both offshore and domestic commodity pools, these amendments to the 3.10 Exemption do not restrict or negatively affect the Commission's statutory and regulatory authority applicable to the commodity pool and intermediary activities of the non-U.S. CPO involving persons located in the United States. Rather, this aspect of the Final Rule simply reflects the Commission focusing its regulatory resources on U.S. pool participants and the firms soliciting them for trading commodity interests, which are squarely within its customer protection mandate. 109 Finally, under the Final Rule, the Commission retains the authority to take enforcement action against any non-U.S. CPO claiming the 3.10 Exemption based on its activities within the U.S. commodity interest markets, consistent with the Commission's authority regarding market participants generally. 107 See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. 9 (prohibiting the use or employment of any manipulative or deceptive device in connection with any swap or contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity). 108 7 U.S.C. 6(d). 109 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35823. D. Utilizing the 3.10 Exemption Concurrent With Other Regulatory Relief Available to CPOs As discussed above, the Commission proposed that the 3.10 Exemption for non-U.S. CPOs be available on a pool-by-pool basis. Consistent with those proposed amendments, and to address the concerns articulated by commenters to the 2018 Proposal, 110 the Commission also proposed to explicitly provide that a non-U.S. CPO may claim the 3.10 Exemption for its offshore pool(s), while such non-U.S. CPO also claims another registration exemption or regulatory exclusion with respect to other pools it operates, e.g., the de minimis exemption under Commission regulation 4.13(a)(3), 111 an exclusion from the CPO definition under Commission regulation 4.5, 112 or registers with respect to such pools. 113 As noted in the 2020 Proposal and confirmed by the responsive comments received, the Commission understands that this practice is known colloquially as the ability to “stack” exemptions. 110 See, e.g., AIMA, at 6; Willkie, at 6. 111 17 CFR 4.13(a)(3). 112 17 CFR 4.5. 113 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35824-25. See infra new Commission regulation 3.10(c)(5)(iv). Absent the finalization of this amendment, the 3.10 Exemption would not have a provision that expressly contemplates its simultaneous use with other exemptions or exclusions available under other Commission regulations. This contrasts with the language in Commission regulation 4.13(f), for example, which states that the filing of a notice of exemption from registration under that section will not affect the ability of a person to qualify for exclusion from the definition of the term “commodity pool operator” under § 4.5 in connection with its operation of another trading vehicle that is not covered under § 4.13. 114 In the 2020 Proposal, the Commission stated its preliminary belief that non-U.S. CPOs relying on the 3.10 Exemption should have the ability to rely on other regulatory exemptions or exclusions that they qualify for, just like any other CPO. 115 The Commission noted that it independently developed the terms under which CPOs of U.S. commodity pools may claim registration relief, and the fact that a non-U.S. CPO operates both offshore and U.S. commodity pools does not undermine the rationale providing the foundation for other regulatory relief available to CPOs generally. 116 The Commission therefore preliminarily concluded that a non-U.S. CPO relying upon the 3.10 Exemption for one or more of its offshore pools should not, by virtue of that reliance, be foreclosed from utilizing other relief generally available to CPOs of U.S. pools. 117 114 17 CFR 4.13(f). 115 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35825. 116 Id. 117 Id. The Commission received one comment regarding the ability to combine the 3.10 Exemption with either registration or other available CPO exemptions or exclusions. The Industry Groups strongly supported this aspect of the 2020 Proposal because it “clearly and expressly provides for reliance on the [3.10 E]xemption on a pool-by-pool basis and also, in a separate provision, expressly acknowledges the ability to combine or `stack' exemptions.” 118 They did, however, suggest removing from the proposed amendment the specific references to Commission regulations 4.13 and 4.5, so as to better align the provision with the Commission's stated intentions in the 2020 Proposal, i.e., to permit the 3.10 Exemption to be broadly combinable with other available exemptions or exclusions, or registration. 119 118 Industry Group Letter, at 10. 119 Id. at 12 (citing the 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 25824-25, and stating that the Commission repeatedly describes the provision “as permitting simultaneous reliance on different exemptions or registration, giving examples of such exemptions, but without limiting the exemptions in question”). After considering the comments received, and for the reasons stated in the 2020 Proposal, the Commission is adopting the proposed amendment permitting the 3.10 Exemption to be maintained concurrently with CPO registration and/or other exemptions or exclusions otherwise available to the claiming non-U.S. CPO. The Commission agrees that it is not necessary for the exclusions and exemptions available under Commission regulations 4.5 and 4.13 to be explicitly enumerated therein. Although the relief provided by Commission regulations 4.5 and 4.13 is the predominant means by which commodity pools are operated without the registration of a CPO, those provisions are not the sole source of such relief available to CPOs for their pools. Therefore, the Final Rule adopts the provision permitting the “stacking” of the 3.10 Exemption with either registration or other available relief from CPO regulation by the Commission, without the specific references to Commission regulations 4.5 and 4.13. 120 120 See infra new Commission regulation 3.10(c)(5)(iv). E. The Safe Harbor for Non-U.S. CPOs With Respect to Inadvertent U.S. Participants in Their Offshore Pools The 2020 Proposal also proposed a safe harbor for non-U.S. CPOs that have taken reasonable actions designed to minimize the possibility that participation units in the operated offshore pool are being offered or sold to persons located in the United States. The Commission understands that some non-U.S. CPOs may not be able to represent with absolute certainty that they are acting only on behalf of foreign located persons invested in their offshore pools, as such non-U.S. CPOs may not have complete visibility into the ultimate beneficial ownership of their offshore pool participation units. Pursuant to the proposed safe harbor, a non-U.S. CPO would be permitted to engage in the U.S. commodity interest markets on behalf of an offshore pool for which it cannot represent with absolute certainty that all of the pool participants are offshore, as required by the 3.10 Exemption, provided that such non-U.S. CPO meets the following conditions: 1. The offshore pool's offering materials and any underwriting or distribution agreements include clear, written prohibitions on the offshore pool's offering to participants located in the United States and on U.S. ownership of the offshore pool's participation units; 2. The offshore pool's constitutional documents and offering materials: (a) Are reasonably designed to preclude persons located in the United States from participating therein, and (b) include mechanisms reasonably designed to enable the non-U.S. CPO to exclude any persons located in the United States who attempt to participate in the offshore pool notwithstanding those prohibitions; 3. The non-U.S. CPO exclusively uses non-U.S. intermediaries for the distribution of participations in the offshore pool; 4. The non-U.S. CPO uses reasonable investor due diligence methods at the time of sale to preclude persons located in the United States from participating in the offshore pool; and 5. The offshore pool's participation units are directed and distributed to participants outside the United States, including by means of listing and trading such units on secondary markets organized and operated outside of the United States, and in which the non-U.S. CPO has reasonably determined participation by persons located in the United States is unlikely. With respect to this proposed safe harbor, the Commission stated its preliminary expectation that a non-U.S. intermediary would include a non-U.S. branch or office of a U.S. entity, or a non-U.S. affiliate of a U.S. entity, provided that the distribution takes place exclusively outside of the United States. 121 121 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35824. The Commission also stated its preliminary belief that satisfying the criteria of the proposed safe harbor would serve as an indication that a non-U.S. CPO is exercising sufficient diligence with respect to those circumstances within its control to minimize the possibility of engaging with persons located in the United States concerning the offered offshore pool. 122 Moreover, the Commission stated its preliminary belief that, if a non-U.S. CPO meets the five factors in the proposed safe harbor, the likely absence of U.S. participants is sufficiently ensured so as to allow reliance on the 3.10 Exemption. 123 As with any of the Commission's other registration exemptions available to CPOs generally, the Commission expressed in the 2020 Proposal its expectation that non-U.S. CPOs claiming the 3.10 Exemption would maintain adequate documentation to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the safe harbor. 124 122 Id. 123 Id. 124 Id. The Commission received only one comment regarding the proposed safe harbor. The commenter supported it, saying that “[t]he proposed safe harbor provides adequate provisions that will simplify compliance with no loss of regulatory amenity.” 125 125 Barnard, at 2. Accordingly, upon consideration of the comments, and consistent with the rationale expressed in the 2020 Proposal, the Commission is adopting the safe harbor as proposed. The Commission believes, as it did in the 2020 Proposal, that this amendment is an appropriate exercise of the Commission's exemptive authority under CEA section 4(c). The persons involved in the transactions subject to the exemptive relief provided herein are “appropriate persons,” as discussed in the 2020 Proposal, because the term “appropriate person” as used in CEA section 4(c) includes “a commodity pool formed or operated by a person subject to regulation under the Act.” 126 The Commission has previously interpreted the clause “subject to regulation under the Act” as including persons who are exempt from registration or excluded from the definition of a registration category. 127 This safe harbor may promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition in the U.S. commodity interest markets generally, thereby increasing their vibrancy and liquidity. 128 The safe harbor adopted herein permits a non-U.S. CPO of an offshore pool, by taking defined steps designed to mitigate the risk of U.S. participation in the offshore pool, to continue to qualify for the 3.10 Exemption, and thus, avoid being regulated both by its regulatory authority in its home jurisdiction and by the Commission. This effectively places the non-U.S. CPO on an equal footing with those domestic CPOs solely regulated by the Commission because each is generally subject to a single, appropriate regulatory regime with respect to the operation of its commodity pools. Additionally, the presence and activity of additional offshore pools with trading strategies developed outside the United States creates a diversity of viewpoint in the U.S. commodity interest markets, which could encourage innovation and competition by domestic CPOs as well. 126 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(3)(E). 127 77 FR at 30655 (finding, in the context of the eligible contract participant definition, that construing the phrase “formed and operated by a person subject to regulation under the [CEA]” to refer to a person excluded from the CPO definition, registered as a CPO or properly exempt from CPO registration appropriately reflects Congressional intent). 128 7 U.S.C. 6(c). Moreover, providing a safe harbor enabling non-U.S. CPOs to utilize the 3.10 Exemption, subject to appropriate conditions minimizing possible U.S. participants in the covered offshore pools, may result in more non-U.S. CPOs and their offshore pools choosing to trade in the U.S. commodity interest markets, which adds liquidity to those markets and thereby promotes more efficient price discovery therein. Importantly, the adoption of the safe harbor will not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission to discharge its regulatory duties under the Act. Pursuant to CEA section 4(d), the Commission expressly retains the statutory authority to conduct investigations in order to determine compliance with the requirements or conditions of such exemption, or to take enforcement action for any violation of any provision of the CEA or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder caused by the failure to comply with or satisfy such conditions or requirements, notwithstanding this amendment. 129 Finally, as noted above, the Commission retains the authority to take enforcement action against any non-U.S. CPO claiming the 3.10 Exemption based on their activities within the U.S. commodity interest markets. Nothing in the Final Rule, including the adoption of this safe harbor, negatively affects or restricts the Commission's statutory and regulatory authority applicable to the commodity pool and intermediary activities of a non-U.S. CPO involving persons located in the United States. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the safe harbor, as adopted herein, is an appropriate exercise of its authority pursuant to section 4(c) of the Act. 130 129 7 U.S.C. 6(d). 130 See infra new Commission regulation 3.10(c)(5)(iii). F. Exception for Initial Capital Contributions by U.S. Affiliates of a Non-U.S. CPO to Its Offshore Pools The 2020 Proposal also proposed an Affiliate Contribution Exception, providing that initial capital contributed by a non-U.S. CPO's U.S. controlling affiliate to the non-U.S. CPO's offshore commodity pool would not affect the eligibility of the non-U.S. CPO for the 3.10 Exemption with respect to that offshore pool. 131 To that end, despite its initial capital contribution(s), the U.S. controlling affiliate would not be considered a “participant” for purposes of determining whether all of the offshore pool's participants are located outside of the United States, as required by the 3.10 Exemption. 132 The Commission noted that the term “control” in this proposed provision: (1) Was intended to provide a meaningful degree of protection and transparency with respect to the controlling affiliate's contribution of initial capital to the non-U.S. CPO's offshore commodity pool; and (2) would be defined, consistent with part 49 of its regulations, as the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting shares, by contract, or otherwise. 133 As discussed in more detail below, the Commission proposed multiple conditions and limitations to the Affiliate Contribution Exception: (1) The U.S. affiliate must “control,” as defined in Commission regulation 49.2(a)(4), the non-U.S. CPO of the offshore pool; (2) only contributions considered to be “initial capital contributions,” i.e., those made at or near the inception of an offshore commodity pool, are covered by the exception; (3) interests in the U.S. affiliate are not being marketed as an investment or asset that provides exposure to the U.S. commodity interest markets; and (4) the U.S. affiliate must not be subject to a statutory disqualification, ongoing registration suspension or bar, prohibition on acting as a principal, or trading ban with respect to the U.S. commodity interest markets. 134 131 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35825-35826. 132 Id. at 35825. 133 Id. (explaining that this definition of “control” stems from Commission regulation 49.2(a)(4) and was recently incorporated into the Commission's approach in the cross-border regulation of SDs); Id. at 35832 (proposing Commission regulation 3.10(c)(3)(iii)). 134 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35825, 35831-35832. The Commission received two comment letters addressing and discussing the Affiliate Contribution Exception in the 2020 Proposal. Both commenters generally supported the Commission's proposed Affiliate Contribution Exception. Vanguard strongly supported this aspect of the 2020 Proposal, but stated its belief that “two changes would enhance the Proposal, consistent with the Commission's mandate to protect U.S. commodity pool participants.” 135 The Industry Groups also strongly supported the proposed Affiliate Contribution Exception. This approach, the Industry Groups explained, as reflected in the Commission's own staff relief letters and certain regulatory provisions, “recognizes that these [affiliate] capital contributions are not `investments' made for the purpose of seeking returns from a pooled vehicle,” and that prior Commission staff letters have previously recognized that capital contributions to a pool by the CPO's U.S. affiliate or the CPO's U.S. principals do not constitute “participation” in the pool that would otherwise require the protections of the Commission's CPO regulatory program in 17 CFR part 4. 136 135 Vanguard, at 2. The two changes urged by Vanguard are discussed in more detail below. 136 Industry Group Letter, at 5. Specifically, the Industry Groups noted that the proposed approach recognizes that affiliate contributions “reflect `commercial' business decisions” to further the CPO's business goals and support the CPO's innovation and investment opportunities. 137 Both comment letters also recommended that, in finalizing the 2020 Proposal, the Commission adopt certain modifications that would generally expand the proposed availability of the Affiliate Contribution Exception. 138 The Commission will now explain the proposed conditions, responsive comments, and finally, the approach it is taking in the Final Rule, including the Commission's analysis pursuant to CEA section 4(c). 137 Industry Group Letter, at 5. 138 Industry Group Letter, at 2-3; Vanguard, at 2. 1. U.S. “Controlling” Affiliates In the 2020 Proposal, the Commission proposed to permit U.S. controlling affiliates to contribute initial capital to offshore pools operated by their affiliated non-U.S. CPOs, because it preliminarily believed that the control typically exercised by a U.S. controlling affiliate over its non-U.S. CPO affiliate should provide a meaningful degree of protection and transparency with respect to the U.S. controlling affiliate's contribution of initial capital to a non-U.S. CPO's offshore commodity pool. 139 For purposes of determining what constitutes a “controlling affiliate,” as that term was used in the 2020 Proposal, 140 the Commission used the definition of “affiliate” set forth in Commission regulation 4.7(a)(1)(i), which defines an “affiliate” as a person that directly or indirectly through one or more persons, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the specified person, 141 and the definition of “control” as set forth in Commission regulation 49.2(a)(4), which defines “control” as the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise. 142 139 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35825. 140 The proposed Affiliate Contribution Exception referred to the qualifying contributing affiliate as “the control affiliate.” See, e.g., 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35832. 141 17 CFR 4.7(a)(1)(i). 142 17 CFR 49.2(a)(4). The Commission further noted that the majority of a registered CPO's compliance obligations focus on customer protection through a variety of disclosures regarding a person's participation in a pool, which information a controlling affiliate would likely already be in a position to obtain, independent of the Commission's regulations. 143 The Commission preliminarily believed that a controlling person would have the corporate or other legal authority to require the controlled non-U.S. CPO to provide information equivalent to that required by the Commission, such as detailed information about the non-U.S. CPO's finances, management, and operations, and more relevant to the proposed amendment, access to investment and performance information for the offshore pool. 144 Based on that understanding, the Commission preliminarily concluded that, due to the fundamentally different features of the relationship between a controlling affiliate and a non-U.S. CPO, as compared with that between an outside investor and that CPO, initial capital contributions by a U.S. controlling affiliate to an offshore pool operated by an affiliated non-U.S. CPO do not raise the same customer protection concerns as investments in those pools by unaffiliated persons located in the United States. 145 143 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35825, citing 17 CFR 4.22(c)(8) (providing that a registered CPO need not distribute an annual report to pools operated by persons controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the CPO, provided that information regarding the underlying pool is contained in the investor pool's annual financial statement). 144 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35825. 145 Id. As noted above, both responsive comments supported the general concept of the proposed Affiliate Contribution Exception. Although the commenters agreed that employing the definition of “affiliate” from Commission regulation 4.7(a)(1)(i) for this purpose is appropriate, they both opposed the additional proposed condition of “control,” as defined in Commission regulation 49.2(a)(4). 146 Vanguard recommended that the Commission not require that the U.S. affiliate contributing capital to an offshore pool managed by a non-U.S. CPO “be a controlling affiliate of the non-U.S. CPO or be regulated in the United States in order to qualify for” the Affiliate Contribution Exception. 147 Likewise, the Industry Groups specifically recommended that the Affiliate Contribution Exception be applicable to offshore pool contributions by all affiliates, as defined in Commission regulation 4.7(a)(1)(i), rather than just controlling affiliates, and further stated their belief that limiting the exception to contributions from controlling affiliates serves no regulatory need for the Commission. 148 146 Vanguard, at 2; Industry Group Letter, at 5. 147 Vanguard, at 2 (citing other 17 CFR part 4 regulations as provisions that “acknowledge that a CPO's affiliate that contributes capital to offshore pools does not need to receive the information that is otherwise provided by a CPO to other investors for their protection”). 148 Industry Group Letter, at 5-6 (stating that, “[a]s proposed, the [Affiliate Contribution Exception] would be available only to contributions by those entities in an organizational structure that are upstream of the CPO, and would exclude contributions from all other affiliates”). Additionally, the Industry Groups stated that the Commission's motivation in requiring such control, that the U.S. controlling affiliate would therefore have access to any and all information on the non-U.S. CPO and the offshore pool otherwise required for participants by virtue of 17 CFR part 4, was misplaced because, they argued, capital contributions to a pool by affiliates of its CPO “reflect commercial business decisions intended for the purpose of supporting the organization's business operations.” 149 The Industry Groups emphasized, moreover, that limiting the Affiliate Contribution Exception to controlling affiliates is “neither necessary nor appropriate to ensure that global organizations can obtain the information they need for commercial decision-making.” 150 They stated that requiring control in the Affiliate Contribution Exception “would in no way further the protection of U.S. investors,” because affiliate contributions to an offshore pool are “not properly viewed as participant investments requiring Part 4 protection[s].” 151 The Industry Groups also argued that the proposed condition would “prevent many global organizations from being able to rely on the exemption in circumstances that do not present any of the concerns” raised in the 2020 Proposal. 152 Finally, the Industry Groups stated that “there is no basis for requiring the entity directly contributing capital to control the [non-U.S.] CPO,” as long as all of the entities involved remain, “under [the] common control of an entity responsible for the success of the enterprise.” 153 149 Id. at 6. 150 Id. (noting further that this proposed condition does not “accurately reflect the realities of enterprise decision-making and information flow”). 151 Industry Group Letter, at 8. 152 Id. at 7-8. 153 Id. at 6. After further consideration of the proposed Affiliate Contribution Exception and the comments received, the Commission does not believe that requiring the U.S. affiliate to “control” the non-U.S. CPO is necessary to address the Commission's stated policy concerns. The definition of “affiliate” in Commission regulation 4.7(a)(1)(i) already incorporates the idea of “control,” 154 which is substantively identical to that in Commission regulation 49.2(a)(4). 155 Therefore, as noted by commenters, control is already required between or among related entities for those entities to be considered “affiliates” under Commission regulation 4.7(a)(1)(i), as “control” is inherent to that “affiliate” definition. 154 17 CFR 4.7(a)(1)(i). 155 When the Commission proposed the definition of “affiliate” in Commission regulation 4.7, which it later adopted without modification, it stated that the definition was identical to that in the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) Regulation D. Exemption for Commodity Pool Operators With Respect to Offerings to Qualified Eligible Participants; Exemption for Commodity Trading Advisors With Respect to Advising Qualified Eligible Clients, 65 FR 11253, 11256 (Mar. 2, 2000) (stating that the proposed definition is based upon the “affiliate” definition in Rule 501 of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933.); 17 CFR 230.501(b). The definition of “affiliate” in Regulation D is identical to that in SEC Rule 405 of Regulation C. Revision of Certain Exemptions From Registration for Transactions Involving Limited Offers or Sales, 47 FR 11251, 11255 (Mar. 16, 1982); 17 CFR 230.405. Rule 405 of Regulation C, in turn, defines “control” as used in the definition of “affiliate” in both Regulation D and—pertinent to this Final Rule—Commission regulation 4.7(a)(1)(i), as the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise. 17 CFR 203.405, control. Because control is a fundamental element of the relationship between a U.S. affiliate and non-U.S. CPO, and therefore is incorporated into the proposed Affiliate Contribution Exception due to its reference to Commission regulation 4.7(a)(1)(i), the Commission believes that including an additional reference to “control” from Commission regulation 49.2(a)(4) is redundant and unnecessary to ensure there is “a meaningful degree of protection and transparency,” or adequate information and disclosure flowing between those entities. Upon consideration of the comments and the Commission's concerns delineated in the 2020 Proposal about sufficient information regarding an offshore pool investment being available to a contributing U.S. affiliate, the Commission believes that such U.S. affiliate does not have to control the non-U.S. CPO, as contemplated by the 2020 Proposal, for the Commission to be reasonably confident that the U.S. affiliate has a meaningful degree of visibility into the operations of the non-U.S. CPO and the offshore pool, absent the protections provided by part 4 of the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the Commission concludes in the Final Rule that it is not necessary for the U.S. affiliate to be a controlling affiliate, provided that “control,” as articulated by the affiliate definition in Commission regulation 4.7(a)(1)(i), is present. 156 156 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35825. The Commission notes that, in the 2020 Proposal, this discussion focused on the relationship between a “U.S. controlling affiliate” and the non-U.S. CPO because the Commission believed that, for purposes of the proposed Affiliate Contribution Exception, the control that a U.S. controlling affiliate is able to exercise with respect to the operations of the non-U.S. CPO and its offshore pools provides adequate assurances that the U.S. controlling affiliate is able to obtain and act upon the information relevant to its participation in the non-U.S. CPO's offshore pool. Id. at 35825-35826. In arriving at this conclusion, the Commission reflected upon the nature and characteristics of the types of relationships generally included within the definition of “affiliate” under Commission regulation 4.7(a)(1)(i), as incorporated in both the 2020 Proposal and the Final Rule. As explained above, entities meet the definition of “affiliate” in Commission regulation 4.7(a)(1)(i) primarily by virtue of the control in their relationships to one another; this obviates the need for the Commission, through its regulations or otherwise, to mandate the provision of information to the contributing affiliate. For instance, if the U.S. affiliate controls the non-U.S. CPO, as discussed in the 2020 Proposal, the U.S. affiliate would have the direct authority to obtain any information it needs related to its capital contribution to the offshore pool operated by its controlled non-U.S. CPO. Alternatively, if a U.S. affiliate is controlled by the non-U.S. CPO of an offshore pool, as a corporate subsidiary, in the Commission's experience, the U.S. affiliate typically has increased access to information about the operations of its parent, as compared to a third-party participant, because the controlled U.S. affiliate may obtain such information as needed, and otherwise has the ability to access internal information regarding its parent's operations, including information regarding an offshore pool. Moreover, where the U.S. affiliate and the non-U.S. CPO are under common control of a third entity, that third-party controlling affiliate, due to its interest in the continued viability of the U.S. affiliate, the non-U.S. CPO, and the enterprise as a whole, would, in the Commission's experience, ensure that its controlled U.S. affiliate was in possession of any and all relevant information regarding the offshore pool necessary to assess the propriety of the U.S. affiliate contributing initial capital to that vehicle. In each instance, the U.S. affiliate, regardless of whether it is controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a non-U.S. CPO of an offshore pool, would have a mechanism to obtain information regarding the operations of that offshore pool, independent of the Commission's regulatory requirements under 17 CFR part 4. This conclusion is also consistent with the Commission's determination to exempt certain affiliated pool participants from the disclosure and reporting requirements in part 4 of its regulations, based on similar analyses of the nature of those contributions and of the relationships between such affiliated participants and the CPO. 157 157 See, e.g., 17 CFR 4.21(a)(2) (stating that, for purposes of distributing disclosure documents to prospective participants, a CPO is not required to distribute to a commodity pool operated by a pool operator that is the same as, or that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, the pool operator of the offered pool); 17 CFR 4.22(c)(8) (providing that, for purposes of the Annual Report distribution requirement, the term “participant” does not include a commodity pool operated by a pool operator that is the same as, or that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the pool operator of a pool in which the commodity pool is invested). Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the general nature of such affiliate relationships assuages its stated concerns in the 2020 Proposal in the context of the Affiliate Contribution Exception. The Commission believes that where the U.S. affiliate contributing initial capital to the offshore pool controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, the offshore pool's non-U.S. CPO, consistent with the “affiliate” definition in Commission regulation 4.7(a)(1)(i), this provides such U.S. affiliate with sufficient access to the information it needs about the non-U.S. CPO or the offshore pool to make properly informed decisions regarding any initial capital contributions to that offshore pool. Thus, the Commission concludes that such U.S. affiliate of a non-U.S. CPO contributing to its offshore pool should be eligible for the Affiliate Contribution Exception, provided the other conditions are met. The Final Rule therefore adopts the Affiliate Contribution Exception, without additionally requiring that the U.S. affiliate control the affiliated non-U.S. CPO, and without reference to Commission regulation 49.2(a)(4). 158 158 See infra new Commission regulation 3.10(c)(5)(ii). 2. The Timing of a U.S. Affiliate's Capital Contributions to an Offshore Pool In the 2020 Proposal, the Commission also stated its preliminary intent to limit the Affiliate Contribution Exception to capital contributed by a U.S. controlling affiliate at or near the inception of a non-U.S. CPO's offshore pool. 159 The Commission explained that such initial capital contributions generally result from commercial decisions by the U.S. controlling affiliate, typically in conjunction and coordination with the non-U.S. CPO, to support the offshore pool until such time as it has an established performance history for solicitation purposes, notwithstanding that the affiliate's capital may remain invested for the life of the offshore pool. 160 Limiting the Affiliate Contribution Exception to initial capital contributions, the Commission preliminarily believed, is appropriate to ensure that the capital is being contributed in an effort to support the operations of the offshore pool at a time when its viability is being tested, rather than as a mechanism for the U.S. controlling affiliate to generate returns for its own investors. 161 159 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35826. 160 Id. 161 Id. The Commission also discussed in the 2020 Proposal whether such contributions should be time-limited in any regard. The Commission acknowledged a staff letter issued by the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (DSIO), wherein DSIO staff determined that a limitation on how long U.S. contributions could remain invested in an offshore pool without the non-U.S. CPO registering as such was appropriate, because some of the U.S. derived capital came from U.S. natural persons employed by the non-U.S. CPO's affiliated U.S. investment advisers. 162 In the 2020 Proposal, the Commission preliminarily concluded that imposing a similar time limit on the proposed Affiliate Contribution Exception was not necessary, where the initial capital contributions are derived not from natural person employees, but rather from the corporate funds of the contributing affiliate. 163 162 Id. at 35825, citing CFTC Staff Letter 15-46 (May 8, 2015), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/15-46/download. 163 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35825. In response, the Industry Groups commented that the Commission's rationale supporting the Affiliate Contribution Exception “applies equally to affiliate support provided at other points in a pool's life cycle, and that limiting the [exception] to `initial' contributions would thus reduce the effectiveness of the exemption without serving any U.S. investor protection purpose.” 164 Vanguard supported the Commission's belief that any contribution of capital by a U.S. affiliate should be done to support the operations of an offshore pool at a time when its viability is being tested. 165 However, Vanguard noted that limiting contributions to “at or near a pool's inception” would have the unintended consequence of “limiting [an] affiliate's ability to support its non-U.S. CPO,” and accordingly, recommended that the Commission not limit the Affiliate Contribution Exception to initial capital contributions. 166 164 Industry Group Letter, at 8. 165 Vanguard, at 3. 166 Id. Additionally, the Industry Groups stated that there are “many situations in the life of an offshore pool, after the initial startup period, where it is beneficial, and may be essential, to the pool's viability and to its participants for the CPO or its affiliates to provide additional support for the pool.” 167 The Industry Groups noted that there are matters beyond a CPO's control “such as shareholder redemption activity and market disruptions” that make it important for the offshore pool to have continued access to affiliate capital support. 168 Alternatively, the Industry Groups stated that they would not be opposed to the Commission including in the Affiliate Contribution Exception a specific “purpose” provision, to ensure it is used “properly” or in good faith; their suggested language would require that, “ `contributions of the affiliate will be for the purpose of establishing, or providing ongoing support to, the [offshore] pool to attract or retain non-U.S. investors and will not be used as a mechanism for the U.S. affiliate to generate returns for its own investors.' ” 169 167 Industry Group Letter, at 8-9 (describing regulatory and business reasons, such as limits on owner concentration, investment diversification, internal guidelines, ensuring qualified purchaser status, or seeding a new share class for an existing offshore pool). 168 Industry Group Letter, at 9. 169 Id. After considering the comments received, the Commission is limiting the Affiliate Contribution Exception to initial capital contributions to an offshore pool by U.S. affiliates of the pool's non-U.S. CPO, as proposed. Specifically, commenters confirmed the Commission's preliminary belief that affiliates commonly support offshore pools by making capital contributions at or near the pool's inception to facilitate the establishment of performance history for solicitation purposes, although the affiliate's capital may remain invested as long as the offshore pool operates. The Commission was clear in the 2020 Proposal that it was comfortable excepting from regulation, via the proposed Affiliate Contribution Exception, those capital contributions from a non-U.S. CPO's U.S. affiliate to an offshore pool that are contributed “at or near a pool's inception” for the specific purposes of generating performance history resulting from innovative or new trading programs. 170 The Commission stated that, consistent with its authority under CEA section 4(c), the Commission intended the proposed Affiliate Contribution Exception to allow such non-U.S. CPOs to test novel trading programs or otherwise engage in proof of concept testing in the collective investment industry that might otherwise not be possible due to a lack of a performance history for the offshore pool. 171 170 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35826. 171 Id. Conversely, commenters have recommended expanding the time frame for affiliate capital contributions to permit them at any point during an offshore pool's existence, such that affiliate contributions may be made for a variety of reasons, other than testing a novel trading strategy or establishing a performance history for solicitation purposes. 172 Such circumstances would permit a U.S. affiliate to provide ongoing support to an offshore pool, either to facilitate the offshore pool's ongoing operations in times of distress, or to attract and retain participants later in the offshore pool's lifecycle, well beyond its inception. The Commission has concerns that expanding the time frame for the Affiliate Contribution Exception in this manner could result in a U.S. affiliate being used by its affiliated non-U.S. CPO to financially support an otherwise poorly performing or even failing offshore pool, which could, in turn, adversely affect the financial condition of (and potentially result in the failure of) the U.S. affiliate, and ultimately, cause harm to the U.S. financial system and investors. 172 See, e.g., Industry Group Letter, at 8-9. Moreover, the Commission believes that it would be difficult to craft a regulatory provision that appropriately expands the time frame and/or circumstances under which U.S. affiliates would be permitted to make capital contributions to an offshore pool, without rendering the Affiliate Contribution Exception overbroad or impermissibly vague. As noted above, commenters suggested rule text requiring that, “ `contributions of the affiliate will be for the purpose of establishing, or providing ongoing support to, the [offshore] pool to attract or retain non-U.S. investors and will not be used as a mechanism for the U.S. affiliate to generate returns for its own investors.' ” 173 This suggested language, in the Commission's opinion, provides such minimal limitations on the circumstances under which a U.S. affiliate could contribute capital to an offshore pool (with the only prohibition being the outright evasive generation of profits for investors in the U.S. affiliate), as to render the limitation meaningless in practice. As noted above, the Commission intended the proposed Affiliate Contribution Exception to be available for specific purposes related to the start-up or inception of an offshore pool, and to generating performance history for its new trading program or strategy. The Commission finds that broadening the exception's purpose as suggested by commenters could result in undue risk from offshore pools flowing back onto U.S. shores, and thus, to U.S. investors. Therefore, the Commission declines to broaden the time frame, and is adopting the Affiliate Contribution Exception as proposed, with the limitation to initial capital contributions by U.S. affiliates. 174 173 Id. 174 Any non-U.S. CPO contemplating accepting additional capital contributions for an offshore pool from one or more of its U.S. affiliates outside the period of initial capitalization would have to separately qualify for, rely upon, or claim other relief from registration as a CPO with the Commission. Any such investment would not be eligible for this Affiliate Contribution Exception. The Industry Groups also suggested that the Commission consider clarifying that, for purposes of the 3.10 Exemption, including the Affiliate Contribution Exception, when the Commission or one of its regulations refers to a “pool,” it should generally be construed as also referring to series, sub-funds, and/or segregated portfolios of business organizations that provide statutory ring-fencing of assets and liabilities for each series, sub-fund, or segregated portfolio. 175 The Commission notes that the 2020 Proposal did not address the treatment of series, sub-funds, and/or segregated portfolios of structures that provide limited liability amongst such subdivisions. Furthermore, the Commission notes that, to date, it has not revised the definition of the term “pool” in Commission regulation 4.10(d) to recognize such subdivisions as individual pools, nor did the Commission propose such amendment in the 2020 Proposal. 176 Finally, given that the term “pool” is used throughout the Commission's regulations, the Commission believes that it would be more appropriate to address the issue of how a pool may be organized more globally within its regulations, which it is unable to accomplish through this Final Rule. 177 Therefore, the Commission is not adopting a definition of “pool” for purposes of the 3.10 Exemption. 175 Industry Group Letter, at 11, n. 25 (noting that, despite the different terminology between domestic series trusts and “segregated portfolios,” the latter is an analogous corporate structure frequently used in jurisdictions outside of the United States). 176 17 CFR 4.10(d)(1) (defining “pool” as any investment trust, syndicate or similar form of enterprise operated for the purpose of trading commodity interests). 177 See Administrative Procedure Act, Public Law 404, 60 Stat. 237, ch. 324, sections 1-12 (1946) (APA); codified by Public Law 89-554 (1966) at 5 U.S.C. 551-559, 701-706, 1305, 3105, 3344, 5372, 7521 (2011). Specifically, see APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 3. Additional Anti-Evasion Conditions: The Marketing Prohibition and Prohibiting “Bad Actor” U.S. Affiliates The Commission acknowledged in the 2020 Proposal that the proposed Affiliate Contribution Exception could result in evasion of the Commission's regulations generally with respect to offshore pools. 178 As an example, the Commission described a situation where a U.S. controlling affiliate could invest in its affiliated non-U.S. CPO's offshore commodity pool, and then solicit persons located in the United States for investment in the U.S. controlling affiliate, in an effort to provide such U.S. investors with indirect exposure to the offshore pool. 179 The Commission then stated its preliminary belief that, under those circumstances, the Commission would consider such practices as constituting evasion of the Commission's CPO regulations, and would thus render the non-U.S. CPO ineligible for the 3.10 Exemption. 180 The Commission therefore proposed an “anti-evasion” requirement in the Affiliate Contribution Exception that, interests in the U.S. controlling affiliate are not marketed as providing access to trading in commodity interest markets in the United States, its territories or possessions. 181 178 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35826. 179 Id. 180 Id. 181 Id. at 35832 (proposing Commission regulation 3.10(c)(3)(iii)(B)). If interests in a U.S. entity including an affiliate of a CPO are marketed to U.S. persons as providing access to trading in commodity interest markets outside the United States, its territories or possessions, then that entity may be required to register with the Commission pursuant to Commission regulation 30.4(c). 17 CFR 30.4(c). In the 2020 Proposal, the Commission further stated its preliminary belief that U.S. controlling affiliates who are barred from participating in the U.S. commodity interest markets should not be permitted to utilize the Affiliate Contribution Exception as a method to gain indirect access to those markets via an affiliated non-U.S. CPO's offshore pool, which would undermine the efficacy of such a bar. 182 Therefore, the Commission also proposed to limit the Affiliate Control Exception to U.S. controlling affiliates, which themselves and their principals are not subject to a statutory disqualification, ongoing registration suspension or bar, prohibition on acting as a principal, or trading ban with respect to participating in commodity interest markets in the United States, its territories or possessions. 183 182 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35826. 183 Id. at 35832 (proposing Commission regulation 3.10(c)(3)(iii)(A)). Regarding the Commission's concerns about the Affiliate Contribution Exception being used to evade other of the Commission's part 4 regulatory protections, the Industry Groups concluded that the “anti-evasion condition of the [2020] Proposal,” prohibiting the marketing of interests in the U.S. affiliate as providing access to trading in U.S. commodity interest markets, addresses this concern and “is well-tailored to achieve its purpose.” 184 The Industry Groups did suggest, however, that the Commission could also “specify in the rule text, or in the final adopting release, that only affiliated entities, and not natural person affiliates, are contemplated by the [Affiliate Contribution Exception].” 185 The Commission agrees that it would further its intention of limiting the Affiliate Contribution Exception to juridical persons, rather than natural persons, as stated in the 2020 Proposal, to specifically limit the availability of that provision to entities, and not natural persons, in the regulatory text. As discussed in the 2020 Proposal, the Commission declined to propose a limit on the time in which capital contributions from U.S. affiliates can remain in the offshore pool because it was envisioning such contributions deriving from entity affiliates rather than natural persons. 186 For the reasons stated in the 2020 Proposal, the Commission is therefore adopting, as proposed, but with the additional limitation suggested by commenters, the “anti-evasion” requirement designed to prohibit evasive conduct, in which U.S. participant capital could be solicited for investment in the U.S. affiliate, providing indirect exposure to the offshore pool. 187 184 Industry Group Letter, at 7. 185 Id. 186 2020 Proposal, 85 FR at 35825. 187 See infra new Commission regulation 3.10(c)(5)(ii)(C). With respect to the proposed condition prohibiting those U.S. controlling affiliates that are subject to a statutory disqualification, ongoing registration suspension or bar, prohibition on acting as a principal, or trading ban with respect to participating in commodity interest markets in the United States from relying on the Affiliate Contribution Exception, the Industry Groups stated that the proposed condition goes far beyond its purpose as stated by the Commission. 188 The Industry Groups explained that the “regulatory purpose is to keep out affiliates that are barred from participating in the U.S. commodity interest markets,” but the proposed condition “applies to the vague and far broader universe of persons that are `subject to a statutory disqualification.' ” 189 Consequently, the Industry Groups recommended that the Commission remove any reference to statutory disqualification in this provision, for the purpose of eliminating confusion, and that the Commission focus this condition on prohibiting “entities that are in fact barred from participating in the U.S. commodity interest markets,” from utilizing the Affiliate Contribution Exception. 190 188 Industry Group Letter, at 10. 189 Id. 190 Id. The Commission agrees that including statutory disqualifications in this provision does not further its goal of mitigating the risk that persons no longer permitted to participate in the U.S. commodity interest markets directly use the Affiliate Contribution Exception to access such markets through indirect means. The Commission notes that the issue of statutory disqualifications is related to registration with the Commission and generally concerns judgments regarding fitness to intermediate transactions on behalf of third parties. 191 Those concerns are not present in the context of the Affiliate Contribution Exception, where the Commission is more focused on foreclosing a potential loophole that could permit persons that are barred or prohibited from trading in the U.S. commodity interest markets to do so indirectly via offshore pool investments. Therefore, in response to commenters and to more clearly tailor this provision to the rationale the Commission articulated in the 2020 Proposal, the Commission is adopting the Affiliate Contribution Exception with the condition that the affiliate and its principals are not barred or suspended from participating in commodity interest markets in the United States, its territories or possessions. 192 191 See 7 U.S.C. 12a(2) and 12a(3). 192 See infra new Commission regulation 3.10(c)(5)(ii)(B). 4. Analysis Under Section 4(c) of the Act Consistent with its authority under section 4(c) of the Act, the Commission concludes that providing the Affiliate Contribution Exception, subject to the conditions included in the Final Rule as detailed above, could result in increased economic or financial innovation by non-U.S. CPOs and their offshore pools participating in the U.S. commodity interest markets. The persons involved in the transactions subject to the exemptive relief provided herein are “appropriate persons,” as discussed in the 2020 Proposal, because the term “appropriate person” as used in CEA section 4(c) includes a commodity pool formed or operated by a person subject to regulation under the Act. 193 The Commission has previously interpreted the clause “subject to regulation under the Act” as including persons who are exempt from registration or excluded from the definition of a registration category. 194 The Commission continues to believe that enabling U.S. affiliates to provide initial capital to offshore pools operated by affiliated non-U.S. CPOs could provide such non-U.S. CPOs with the ability to test novel trading programs, or otherwise engage in proof of concept testing with respect to innovations in the collective investment industry that might otherwise not be possible, due to a lack of a performance history for the offered pool. 193 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(3)(E). 194 77 FR at 30655 (finding, in the context of the eligible contract participant definition, that construing the phrase “formed and operated by a person subject to regulation under the [CEA]” to refer to a person excluded from the CPO definition, registered as a CPO or properly exempt from CPO registration appropriately reflects Congressional intent). Additionally, the adoption of the Affiliate Contribution Exception will not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission to discharge its regulatory duties under the CEA. The U.S. affiliates contributing initial capital to offshore pools operated by their affiliated non-U.S. CPO will typically have access to the information and disclosures necessary for such U.S. affiliate to independently evaluate the propriety of its contribution to a specific offshore pool, absent the protections typically provided by part 4 of the Commission's regulations. Based on its analysis above, the Commission concludes that the contributions subject to the Affiliate Contribution Exception are distinguishable from offshore pool contributions sourced from the general public in the United States that otherwise make such offshore pool ineligible for the 3.10 Exemption. Also, pursuant to CEA section 4(d), the Commission expressly retains the statutory authority to conduct investigations in order to determine compliance with the requirements or conditions of such exemption, or to take enforcement action for any violation of any provision of the CEA or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder caused by the failure to comply with or satisfy such conditions or requirements, notwithstanding this amendment. 195 Further, the Commission retains the authority to take enforcement action against any non-U.S. CPO claiming the 3.10 Exemption based on its activities within the U.S. commodity interest markets, and nothing in the Final Rule, including the adoption of the Affiliate Contribution Exception, negatively affects or restricts the Commission's statutory and regulatory authority applicable to the commodity pool and intermediary activities of a non-U.S. CPO involving persons located in the United States. For the reasons stated in the 2020 Proposal and the analysis provided in this Final Rule, the Commission concludes that it is appropriate to provide the Affiliate Contribution Exception from the U.S. participant prohibition in the 3.10 Exemption, pursuant to section 4(c) of the Act. 195 7 U.S.C. 6(d). G. Additional Relief for Commodity Trading Advisors The Industry Groups recommended that the Commission adopt relief for non-U.S. CTAs, substantially similar to that proposed for non-U.S. CPOs in the 2020 Proposal, because, they argued, “[t]he regulatory goals in the 2020 Release apply equally to CTAs.” 196 Specifically, the Industry Groups requested that the Commission amend Commission regulation 3.10(c) to “permit non-U.S. CTAs to claim the relief under Commission regulation 3.10(c) on an account-by-account basis . . . and [to] simultaneously rely on registration or other exemptions or exclusions for CTA activities on behalf of U.S. investors, in the same manner as the proposed amendments provide for CPOs.” 197 They argued that this amendment would also make it clear that a non-U.S. CTA providing advice to an offshore pool operated pursuant to the 3.10 Exemption would be eligible for relief from registration with the Commission. 198 In support of their arguments, the Industry Groups cited multiple instances of the Commission and its staff historically permitting the “stacking” of statutory and regulatory exemptions with registration for CTAs, and stated that “the Commission's focus on [commodity trading] advice to U.S. investors [is] well established in the Commission's regulatory framework.” 199 196 Industry Group Letter, at 13. 197 Id. 198 Id. 199 Id. at 13-14. Despite these comments, the Commission is not adopting the suggested amendments to Commission regulation 3.10(c) regarding the activities of non-U.S. CTAs. The 2020 Proposal, which dealt primarily with amendments impacting the operations of CPOs, did not contemplate or discuss any such comparable modifications to Commission regulation 3.10(c) with respect to the activities of non-U.S. CTAs on behalf of foreign located persons. 200 The 2020 Proposal also did not query whether the amendments impacting non-U.S. CPOs and their offshore pools should likewise be extended to include any of the activities of non-U.S. CTAs; nor did it address or consider the regulatory impact, positive or negative, such policy choices could have on the Commission's regulatory program for CTAs. Under these circumstances, the Commission does not believe that the public would have had sufficient notice regarding the issue of adopting parallel provisions for non-U.S. CTAs, such that the public could provide meaningful comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. 201 Therefore, the Commission declines to amend revised Commission regulation 3.10(c)(4) in a manner that would substantively alter or change the relief currently provided by that regulation to qualifying non-U.S. CTAs. 200 The Commission is adopting as final herein other amendments to Commission regulation 3.10(c) applicable to non-U.S. CTAs consistent with the 2016 Proposal. The Commission notes that those amendments broadly applied to non-U.S. IBs, non-U.S. CPOs, and non-U.S. CTAs, and did not impact or alter the specific conditions of eligibility for non-U.S. CTAs relying on the exemptive relief in that regulation. 201 APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)-(c). The Commission notes that it does not disagree with the Industry Groups' characterization of the Commission's or its staff's past positions with respect to the “stacking” of statutory and/or regulatory exemptions from CTA registration, or their combination with registration as such, being permissible. The Commission is, however, declining to adopt in revised Commission regulation 3.10(c)(4) relief for non-U.S. CTAs, comparable to that adopted herein for non-U.S. CPOs, without a prior published rulemaking proposal raising, addressing, and soliciting public comment on that specific policy question. H. Reorganization of Commission Regulation 3.10(c) As recognized by certain commenters, and as mentioned above, adopting the Final Rule as proposed in both the 2020 Proposal and the 2016 Proposal requires modification of the rule text as presented in each proposal. Thus, the Final Rule reorganizes that provision to accommodate the adopted changes and to increase the regulation's overall readability and clarity. Other than the changes specifically explained in this adopting release, this reorganization is not intended to make substantive changes to the regulatory obligations of any affected market participant. Commission regulation 3.10(c), as adopted in the Final Rule, is reorganized. New paragraph 3.10(c)(1) now provides certain definitions of terms that are used throughout the remainder of paragraph (c), including: “covered transaction,” defined to mean a commodity interest 202 transaction executed bilaterally or made on or subject to the rules of any DCM or registered SEF; “foreign located person,” defined to mean a person located outside the United States, its territories, or possessions; and “international financial institution,” the definition of which is discussed above in section II.B.3. The remainder of paragraph (c) is organized so that its enumerated sub-paragraphs refer to registration exemptions available to each type of intermediary. Thus, new paragraph 3.10(c)(2) sets forth exemptions applicable to market participants engaged in the activities of an FCM; new paragraph 3.10(c)(3) sets forth exemptions applicable to those persons engaged in the activities of an IB; new paragraph 3.10(c)(4) refers to an exemption for CTAs; and new paragraph 3.10(c)(5) provides an exemption for CPOs, and contains the conditions thereto and related provisions discussed above. Finally, new paragraph 3.10(c)(6) contains the rule text previously presented in Commission regulation 3.10(c)(5). 202 “Commodity interest” is defined in Commission regulation 1.3. 17 CFR 1.3, commodity interest. III. Related Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies, when promulgating regulations, to consider whether the rules they propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the rules are determined to have a significant economic impact, such agencies must provide a regulatory flexibility analysis regarding such economic impact. Each Federal agency is required to conduct an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis for each rule of general applicability for which the agency issues a general notice of proposed rulemaking. 203 203 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The Final Rule adopted by the Commission today would affect FCMs, IBs, CTAs, and CPOs. The Commission has established certain definitions of “small entities” to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its rules on such entities in accordance with the requirements of the RFA. 204 The Commission has previously determined that FCMs are not small entities for purposes of the RFA. Therefore, the RFA does not apply to FCMs. 205 204 See, e.g., Policy Statement and Establishment of Definitions of “Small Entities” for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 47 FR 18618, 18620 (Apr. 30, 1982). 205 Id. With respect to CPOs, the Commission previously has determined that a CPO is a small entity for purposes of the RFA, if it meets the criteria for an exemption from registration under Commission regulation 4.13(a)(2). 206 With respect to small CPOs operating pursuant to Commission regulation 4.13(a)(2), the Commission has concluded that, should the amendments to the 3.10 Exemption be adopted as final, certain of those small CPOs may choose to operate additional pools outside the United States, which could provide additional opportunities to develop their operations not currently available to them. 207 The Commission notes, however, that such small CPOs would remain subject to the total limitations on aggregate gross capital contributions and pool participants set forth in Commission regulation 4.13(a)(2) because that exemption is based [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-23810. Public record. Not legal advice.