Revision of Federal Speculative Position Limits, 24705-24707 [05-9383]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Nassif Building, Washington, DC. To review
copies of the service information, go to the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at the NARA,
call (202) 741–6030, or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29,
2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–9198 Filed 5–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 150
RIN 3038–AC24
Revision of Federal Speculative
Position Limits
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (Commission) is
amending Commission regulation 150.2
to increase the speculative position
limit levels for all single-month and allmonths-combined positions subject to
such limits. In addition, the
Commission is making other clarifying
amendments concerning the aggregation
of positions when a Designated Contract
Market (DCM) trades two or more
contracts with substantially identical
terms, and is deleting several obsolete
provisions in part 150 that relate to
contracts that are no longer listed for
trading or to DCMs that no longer exist.
DATES: Effective June 10, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clarence Sanders, Attorney, Division of
Market Oversight, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20581, telephone (202)
418–5068, facsimile number (202) 418–
5507, electronic mail csanders@cftc.gov;
or Martin Murray, Economist, Division
of Market Oversight, telephone (202)
418–5276, facsimile number (202) 418–
5507, electronic mail
mmurray@cftc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 15, 2005 (70 FR 12621), the
Commission published proposed
amendments to Commission regulation
150.2 to increase the speculative
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:57 May 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
position limit levels for single-month
and all-months-combined positions for
CBT Corn, Oats, Soybeans, Wheat,
Soybean Oil, and Soybean Meal; MGE
Hard Red Spring Wheat; KCBT Hard
Winter Wheat, and NYBOT Cotton No.
2.1 The spot month limits for all of these
commodities would remain unchanged.
The Commission also proposed to
clarify in regulation 150.2 its practice of
aggregating traders’ positions for
purposes of ascertaining compliance
with Federal speculative position limits
when a DCM lists for trading two or
more contracts with substantially
identical terms based on the same
underlying commodity characteristics.
Finally, the Commission proposed to
delete several obsolete provisions in
part 150 that relate to contracts that are
no longer listed for trading or to DCMs
that no longer exist.2
II. Final Rules
The Commission is adopting as final
rules without additional amendment the
revisions to the speculative position
limit levels that were set forth in the
proposed rulemaking. This action is
based upon its experience in
administering these limits and after
carefully considering the comments
received in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Thirteen comment letters were
received in response to the proposed
rulemaking, all but one of which was in
favor. Favorable comments were
submitted by representatives of
agricultural trade or producer
organizations, in particular the
American Farm Bureau Federation
(AFBF) and the National Farmers Union
(NFU) who filed a joint statement, the
National Grain Trade Council, and the
National Grain and Feed Association;
two DCMs, the Minneapolis Grain
Exchange and the Chicago Board of
Trade; and several entities representing
the views of hedge fund managers,
particularly the Managed Funds
Association, Eclipse Capital, Campbell
& Company, Rotella Capital
Management, Chesapeake Capital
Corporation, John W. Henry & Co., and
1 Commission regulation 150.2 imposes three
types of position limits for each specified contract:
a spot-month limit, a single-month limit that
applies to each non-spot month, and an all-monthscombined limit.
2 Commission regulation 150.2 currently includes
Federal speculative position limits for agricultural
commodities traded on the MidAmerica
Commodity Exchange (MidAm) and for the white
wheat futures contract traded on MGE. These
provisions relating to the MidAm and the MGE
white wheat futures contract are obsolete and will
be repealed as part of this action. In addition,
reference to the New York Cotton Exchange is being
changed to NYBOT to reflect a change in corporate
organization.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
24705
Graham Capital Management. Most of
the favorable comments supported the
proposed higher limits as a desirable
interim step towards the ultimate
abolition of Federal limits, although the
AFBF and NFU supported both the
higher limits and the continued
retention of Federal limits indefinitely.
In this regard, as the Commission noted
in its proposed rulemaking, while the
Commission has determined at this time
to retain Federal speculative position
limits at the increased levels contained
herein, the Commission intends to
continue its review of its current
policies regarding the administration of
speculative position limits, including a
further evaluation of the merits of
retaining Federal speculative limits.
The American Cotton Shippers
Association (ACSA) opposed the
proposed increase in the single-month
and all-months combined limits for
cotton. In particular, ACSA noted that
the NYBOT has proposed, in
consultation with its cotton committee,
the establishment of its own, exchangeset speculative position limits for the
cotton No. 2 futures and option
contracts. The NYBOT’s proposed limits
of 2,500 futures-equivalent contracts for
single months and 4,000 futuresequivalent contracts for all months
combined are lower than those to be
adopted by the Commission in this
rulemaking. Accordingly, ACSA
expressed the view that the Commission
should adopt in part 150 of the
Commission’s regulations the NYBOT’s
proposed lower levels.3
The Commission has taken this view
into account but nevertheless believes
that the limit levels it has proposed for
the NYBOT cotton No. 2 futures and
option contracts under part 150 of the
Commission’s regulations are
appropriate and that no change from its
proposed rulemaking is necessary for
several reasons. First, the Commission
has applied consistent criteria in setting
Federal speculative limits for all
commodities subject to those limits, and
it believes that it should continue this
policy. Accordingly, the all-monthscombined speculative position limit
levels adopted herein, including the
limit for the cotton No. 2 futures
contract, were set according to the
Commission’s long standing and wellestablished formula that takes into
3 In an August 3, 2004, letter, the NYBOT
submitted for Commission approval proposed
speculative position limit rules for the cotton No.
2 futures and option contracts pursuant to Section
5c(c)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act, and
Commission regulation 40.4. At that time, the
NYBOT also agreed to extend the Commission’s
time to review and approve the amendments until
such time as the Commission should implement
amendments to Commission regulation 150.2.
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
24706
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
account open interest levels in the
underlying futures and option markets,
and the single-month levels adopted
herein for each commodity were set to
maintain the existing ratio between allmonths-combined and single-month
levels. In addition, the Commission
notes that most comments made to the
proposed rulemaking endorsed the
Commission’s approach for setting the
single-month and all-months-combined
speculative position limit levels.
Finally, the Commission notes that
DCMs may set speculative position
limits at levels lower than Commissionspecified levels, and that such lower
levels would necessarily apply to all
position holders. Thus, for the cotton
No. 2 contracts, the applicable limits
would be the lower levels that the
NYBOT proposes to adopt, consistent
with the comments expressed by the
ACSA. In this regard, it is the
Commission’s expressed policy to
review and approve, where appropriate,
all speculative position limit provisions
adopted by DCMs, and furthermore that
a violation of contract market position
limits that have been approved by the
Commission is also a violation of
section 4a(e) of the Act.4
In addition, the Commission is
making other clarifying amendments
concerning the aggregation of positions
when a Designated Contract Market
(DCM) trades two or more contracts
with substantially identical terms. No
comments were received in opposition
to this clarification.
III. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires Federal
agencies, in proposing rules, to consider
the impact of those rules on small
businesses. The Commission believes
that the rule amendments to raise
Commission speculative position limits
would only impact large traders. The
Commission has previously determined
that large traders are not small entities
for purposes of the RFA.5 Therefore, the
Acting Chairman, on behalf of the
Commission, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the action taken
herein will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The
Commission also notes in this regard
that the final rules will raise speculative
limit levels and thereby reduce the
regulatory burden on all affected
entities.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final rule and its associated
information collection requirements
have been reviewed and approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), under
control numbers 3038–0009 and 3038–
0013. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid
control number. In the notice of
proposed rulemaking, the Commission
estimated the paperwork burden that
would be imposed by the rules and
sought comments on the estimates. No
comments were received in response to
this request.
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 150
Agricultural commodities, Bona fide
hedge positions, Commodity futures,
Cotton, Grains, Position limits, Spread
exemptions.
In consideration of the foregoing,
pursuant to the authority contained in
the Commodity Exchange Act, the
Commission hereby proposes to amend
part 150 of chapter I of title 17 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
I
PART 150—LIMITS ON POSITIONS
1. The authority citation for part 150 is
revised to read as follows:
I
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6a, 6c, and 12a(5), as
amended by the Commodity Futures
Modernization Act of 2000, Appendix E of
Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000).
2. Section 150.2 is revised to read as
follows:
I
§ 150.2
Position limits.
No person may hold or control
positions, separately or in combination,
net long or net short, for the purchase
or sale of a commodity for future
delivery or, on a futures-equivalent
basis, options thereon, in excess of the
following:
SPECULATIVE POSITION LIMITS
[In contract units]
Contract
Spot month
Single month
All months
Chicago Board of Trade
Corn and Mini-Corn 1 ...........................................................................................................................
Oats .....................................................................................................................................................
Soybeans and Mini-Soybeans 1 ...........................................................................................................
Wheat and Mini-Wheat 1 ......................................................................................................................
Soybean Oil .........................................................................................................................................
Soybean Meal ......................................................................................................................................
600
600
600
600
540
720
13,500
1,400
6,500
5,000
5,000
5,000
22,000
2,000
10,000
6,500
6,500
6,500
600
5,000
6,500
300
3,500
5,000
600
5,000
6,500
Minneapolis Grain Exchange
Hard Red Spring Wheat ......................................................................................................................
New York Board of Trade
Cotton No. 2 ........................................................................................................................................
Kansas City Board of Trade
Hard Winter Wheat ..............................................................................................................................
1 For
purposes of compliance with these limits, positions in the regular sized and mini-sized contracts shall be aggregated.
5 47
FR 18618 (April 30, 1982).
4 See
Appendix B to part 38 of the Commission’s
regulations, pertaining to Acceptable Practices
under Core Principle 5 for DCMs.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:57 May 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 11, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Issued by the Commission this 6th day of
May, 2005, in Washington, DC.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–9383 Filed 5–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–M
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 150
[USCG–2005–21111]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Gulf Gateway Deepwater
Port, Gulf of Mexico
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
establishing an interim safety zone
around the primary component of the
Gulf Gateway Deepwater Port, Gulf of
Mexico, and its accompanying systems.
The purpose of this safety zone is to
protect vessels and mariners from the
potential safety hazards associated with
deepwater port operations. All vessels,
with the exception of deepwater port
support vessels, are prohibited from
entering into or moving within this
safety zone.
DATES: This interim rule is effective May
11, 2005. Comments and related
material must reach the Docket
Management Facility on or before July
11, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket [USCG–2005–
21111]. Docket information can be
examined on the Department of
Transportation docket management
system Web site at https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call
Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Kevin
Tone, Coast Guard Office of Operating
and Environmental Standards, at (202)
267–0226, e-mail:
ktone@comdt.uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call
Andrea M. Jenkins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
0271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:57 May 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://dms.dot.gov
and will include any personal
information you have provided. We
have an agreement with the Department
of Transportation (DOT) to use the
Docket Management Facility. Please see
DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph below.
Submitting comments: If you submit a
comment, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking (USCG–2005–21111),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. You may submit your
comments and material by electronic
means, mail, fax, or delivery to the
Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES; but please
submit your comments and material by
only one means. If you submit them by
mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit them by
mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change
this rule in view of them.
Viewing comments and documents:
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://dms.dot.gov at any time and
conduct a simple search using the
docket number. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in room
PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review the Department of
Transportation’s Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Regulatory Information
We did not publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
rulemaking. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for not publishing an NPRM.
Publishing an NPRM and delaying its
effective date would be contrary to the
public interest, since there is not
sufficient time to publish a proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
24707
rule in advance of the next transfer
operation and immediate action is
needed to protect persons and vessels
against the hazards associated with
deepwater port operations.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register. While there is a 60 day public
comment period, delaying its effective
date would be contrary to public
interest since immediate action is
needed to respond to the potential
hazards posed to local marine traffic
and personnel involved in maritime
operations by deepwater port
operations.
Background and Purpose
The Gulf Gateway Deepwater Port
(DWP) is located approximately 116
miles off the Louisiana coast at West
Cameron Area, South Addition Block
603 ‘‘A’’, 28°05′16″ N, 093°03′07″ W.
The DWP operator plans to offload
liquefied natural gas (LNG) vessels by
regasifying the LNG on board vessels.
The regasified natural gas is then
transferred through a submerged loading
turret buoy (STL), to a flexible riser
leading to a seabed pipeline to a
metering platform. From the platform
the natural gas feeds into two separate
downstream seabed pipelines to connect
with the Southeastern United States
natural gas network. In order to improve
safety and security at the port while
regasification and transfer operations
are occurring, several routing measures
have been implemented. In July 2004,
the Coast Guard forwarded a proposal to
the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) requesting the establishment of
an Area To Be Avoided (ATBA) and a
mandatory No Anchoring Area for the
Excelerate Gulf Gateway (formerly the
El Paso Energy Bridge) deepwater port.
These two routing measures will
promote safety, security, and vessel
traffic management in the vicinity of the
DWP.
The ATBA has a radius of 2 nautical
miles, is recommendatory in nature and
does not restrict vessels from transiting
the area. However vessel operators are
strongly urged to seek alternate routes
outside the ATBA and away from the
DWP. The No Anchoring Area has a
radius of one and one half nautical
miles from the STL buoy and
compliance is mandatory. It is required
to protect the anchoring system securing
the port and vessels from potential
damage by sub-surface fishing
operations (e.g., trawling). These routing
measures were adopted by IMO in
December 2004 and will be
implemented on July 1, 2005. A safety
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 11, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24705-24707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9383]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 150
RIN 3038-AC24
Revision of Federal Speculative Position Limits
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) is
amending Commission regulation 150.2 to increase the speculative
position limit levels for all single-month and all-months-combined
positions subject to such limits. In addition, the Commission is making
other clarifying amendments concerning the aggregation of positions
when a Designated Contract Market (DCM) trades two or more contracts
with substantially identical terms, and is deleting several obsolete
provisions in part 150 that relate to contracts that are no longer
listed for trading or to DCMs that no longer exist.
DATES: Effective June 10, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clarence Sanders, Attorney, Division
of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three
Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581,
telephone (202) 418-5068, facsimile number (202) 418-5507, electronic
mail csanders@cftc.gov; or Martin Murray, Economist, Division of Market
Oversight, telephone (202) 418-5276, facsimile number (202) 418-5507,
electronic mail mmurray@cftc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 15, 2005 (70 FR 12621), the Commission published proposed
amendments to Commission regulation 150.2 to increase the speculative
position limit levels for single-month and all-months-combined
positions for CBT Corn, Oats, Soybeans, Wheat, Soybean Oil, and Soybean
Meal; MGE Hard Red Spring Wheat; KCBT Hard Winter Wheat, and NYBOT
Cotton No. 2.\1\ The spot month limits for all of these commodities
would remain unchanged. The Commission also proposed to clarify in
regulation 150.2 its practice of aggregating traders' positions for
purposes of ascertaining compliance with Federal speculative position
limits when a DCM lists for trading two or more contracts with
substantially identical terms based on the same underlying commodity
characteristics. Finally, the Commission proposed to delete several
obsolete provisions in part 150 that relate to contracts that are no
longer listed for trading or to DCMs that no longer exist.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Commission regulation 150.2 imposes three types of position
limits for each specified contract: a spot-month limit, a single-
month limit that applies to each non-spot month, and an all-months-
combined limit.
\2\ Commission regulation 150.2 currently includes Federal
speculative position limits for agricultural commodities traded on
the MidAmerica Commodity Exchange (MidAm) and for the white wheat
futures contract traded on MGE. These provisions relating to the
MidAm and the MGE white wheat futures contract are obsolete and will
be repealed as part of this action. In addition, reference to the
New York Cotton Exchange is being changed to NYBOT to reflect a
change in corporate organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Final Rules
The Commission is adopting as final rules without additional
amendment the revisions to the speculative position limit levels that
were set forth in the proposed rulemaking. This action is based upon
its experience in administering these limits and after carefully
considering the comments received in response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Thirteen comment letters were received in response to the proposed
rulemaking, all but one of which was in favor. Favorable comments were
submitted by representatives of agricultural trade or producer
organizations, in particular the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF)
and the National Farmers Union (NFU) who filed a joint statement, the
National Grain Trade Council, and the National Grain and Feed
Association; two DCMs, the Minneapolis Grain Exchange and the Chicago
Board of Trade; and several entities representing the views of hedge
fund managers, particularly the Managed Funds Association, Eclipse
Capital, Campbell & Company, Rotella Capital Management, Chesapeake
Capital Corporation, John W. Henry & Co., and Graham Capital
Management. Most of the favorable comments supported the proposed
higher limits as a desirable interim step towards the ultimate
abolition of Federal limits, although the AFBF and NFU supported both
the higher limits and the continued retention of Federal limits
indefinitely. In this regard, as the Commission noted in its proposed
rulemaking, while the Commission has determined at this time to retain
Federal speculative position limits at the increased levels contained
herein, the Commission intends to continue its review of its current
policies regarding the administration of speculative position limits,
including a further evaluation of the merits of retaining Federal
speculative limits.
The American Cotton Shippers Association (ACSA) opposed the
proposed increase in the single-month and all-months combined limits
for cotton. In particular, ACSA noted that the NYBOT has proposed, in
consultation with its cotton committee, the establishment of its own,
exchange-set speculative position limits for the cotton No. 2 futures
and option contracts. The NYBOT's proposed limits of 2,500 futures-
equivalent contracts for single months and 4,000 futures-equivalent
contracts for all months combined are lower than those to be adopted by
the Commission in this rulemaking. Accordingly, ACSA expressed the view
that the Commission should adopt in part 150 of the Commission's
regulations the NYBOT's proposed lower levels.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In an August 3, 2004, letter, the NYBOT submitted for
Commission approval proposed speculative position limit rules for
the cotton No. 2 futures and option contracts pursuant to Section
5c(c)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act, and Commission regulation
40.4. At that time, the NYBOT also agreed to extend the Commission's
time to review and approve the amendments until such time as the
Commission should implement amendments to Commission regulation
150.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has taken this view into account but nevertheless
believes that the limit levels it has proposed for the NYBOT cotton No.
2 futures and option contracts under part 150 of the Commission's
regulations are appropriate and that no change from its proposed
rulemaking is necessary for several reasons. First, the Commission has
applied consistent criteria in setting Federal speculative limits for
all commodities subject to those limits, and it believes that it should
continue this policy. Accordingly, the all-months-combined speculative
position limit levels adopted herein, including the limit for the
cotton No. 2 futures contract, were set according to the Commission's
long standing and well-established formula that takes into
[[Page 24706]]
account open interest levels in the underlying futures and option
markets, and the single-month levels adopted herein for each commodity
were set to maintain the existing ratio between all-months-combined and
single-month levels. In addition, the Commission notes that most
comments made to the proposed rulemaking endorsed the Commission's
approach for setting the single-month and all-months-combined
speculative position limit levels. Finally, the Commission notes that
DCMs may set speculative position limits at levels lower than
Commission-specified levels, and that such lower levels would
necessarily apply to all position holders. Thus, for the cotton No. 2
contracts, the applicable limits would be the lower levels that the
NYBOT proposes to adopt, consistent with the comments expressed by the
ACSA. In this regard, it is the Commission's expressed policy to review
and approve, where appropriate, all speculative position limit
provisions adopted by DCMs, and furthermore that a violation of
contract market position limits that have been approved by the
Commission is also a violation of section 4a(e) of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Appendix B to part 38 of the Commission's regulations,
pertaining to Acceptable Practices under Core Principle 5 for DCMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Commission is making other clarifying amendments
concerning the aggregation of positions when a Designated Contract
Market (DCM) trades two or more contracts with substantially identical
terms. No comments were received in opposition to this clarification.
III. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
requires Federal agencies, in proposing rules, to consider the impact
of those rules on small businesses. The Commission believes that the
rule amendments to raise Commission speculative position limits would
only impact large traders. The Commission has previously determined
that large traders are not small entities for purposes of the RFA.\5\
Therefore, the Acting Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the action taken herein
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The Commission also notes in this regard that the final
rules will raise speculative limit levels and thereby reduce the
regulatory burden on all affected entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 47 FR 18618 (April 30, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final rule and its associated information collection
requirements have been reviewed and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
44 U.S.C. 3507(d), under control numbers 3038-0009 and 3038-0013. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the
Commission estimated the paperwork burden that would be imposed by the
rules and sought comments on the estimates. No comments were received
in response to this request.
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 150
Agricultural commodities, Bona fide hedge positions, Commodity
futures, Cotton, Grains, Position limits, Spread exemptions.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, pursuant to the authority contained
in the Commodity Exchange Act, the Commission hereby proposes to amend
part 150 of chapter I of title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 150--LIMITS ON POSITIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 150 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6a, 6c, and 12a(5), as amended by the
Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Appendix E of Pub. L.
106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000).
0
2. Section 150.2 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 150.2 Position limits.
No person may hold or control positions, separately or in
combination, net long or net short, for the purchase or sale of a
commodity for future delivery or, on a futures-equivalent basis,
options thereon, in excess of the following:
Speculative Position Limits
[In contract units]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Spot month Single month All months
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Board of Trade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn and Mini-Corn \1\........ 600 13,500 22,000
Oats.......................... 600 1,400 2,000
Soybeans and Mini-Soybeans \1\ 600 6,500 10,000
Wheat and Mini-Wheat \1\...... 600 5,000 6,500
Soybean Oil................... 540 5,000 6,500
Soybean Meal.................. 720 5,000 6,500
-------------------------------
Minneapolis Grain Exchange
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard Red Spring Wheat......... 600 5,000 6,500
-------------------------------
New York Board of Trade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton No. 2.................. 300 3,500 5,000
-------------------------------
Kansas City Board of Trade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard Winter Wheat............. 600 5,000 6,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of compliance with these limits, positions in the
regular sized and mini-sized contracts shall be aggregated.
[[Page 24707]]
Issued by the Commission this 6th day of May, 2005, in
Washington, DC.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-9383 Filed 5-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
