Federal Registry

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 113

June 13, 2016

Part V

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

17 CFR Parts 37, 38, and 150
Position Limits for Derivatives: Certain Exemptions and Guidance;
Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38458

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
17 CFR Parts 37, 38, and 150
RIN 3038–AD99

Position Limits for Derivatives: Certain
Exemptions and Guidance
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:

The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or
‘‘CFTC’’) is proposing revisions and
additions to regulations and guidance
proposed in 2013 concerning
speculative position limits in response
to comments received on that proposal.
The Commission is proposing new
alternative processes for designated
contract markets (‘‘DCMs’’) and swap
execution facilities (‘‘SEFs’’) to
recognize certain positions in
commodity derivative contracts as nonenumerated bona fide hedges or
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedges, as well as to exempt from
federal position limits certain spread
positions, in each case subject to
Commission review. In this regard, the
Commission proposes to amend certain
of the regulations proposed in 2013
regarding exemptions from federal
position limits and exchange-set
position limits to take into account
these new alternative processes. In
connection with these changes, the
Commission proposes to further amend
certain relevant definitions, including to
clearly define the general definition of
bona fide hedging for physical
commodities under the standards in
CEA section 4a(c). Separately, the
Commission proposes to delay for DCMs
and SEFs that lack access to sufficient
swap position information the
requirement to establish and monitor
position limits on swaps.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 13, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN number 3038–AD99,
by any of the following methods:
• CFTC Web site: http://
comments.cftc.gov;
• Mail: Secretary of the Commission,
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC
20581;
• Hand delivery/courier: Same as
Mail, above.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow
instructions for submitting comments.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

All comments must be submitted in
English, or if not, accompanied by an
English translation. Comments will be
posted as received to http://
www.cftc.gov. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. If you wish the
Commission to consider information
that may be exempt from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act,
a petition for confidential treatment of
the exempt information may be
submitted according to the procedures
established in CFTC regulations at 17
CFR part 145.
The Commission reserves the right,
but shall have no obligation, to review,
pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or
remove any or all of your submission
from http://www.cftc.gov that it may
deem to be inappropriate for
publication, such as obscene language.
All submissions that have been redacted
or removed that contain comments on
the merits of the rulemaking will be
retained in the public comment file and
will be considered as required under the
Administrative Procedure Act and other
applicable laws, and may be accessible
under the Freedom of Information Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Sherrod, Senior Economist,
Division of Market Oversight, (202) 418–
5452, ssherrod@cftc.gov; Riva Spear
Adriance, Senior Special Counsel,
Division of Market Oversight, (202) 418–
5494, radriance@cftc.gov; Lee Ann
Duffy, Assistant General Counsel, Office
of General Counsel, 202–418–6763,
lduffy@cftc.gov; or Steven Benton,
Industry Economist, Division of Market
Oversight, (202) 418–5617, sbenton@
cftc.gov; Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC
20581.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The Commission has long established
and enforced speculative position limits
for futures and options contracts on
certain agricultural commodities in
accordance with the Commodity
Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’ or ‘‘Act’’).1 The
part 150 federal position limits regime 2
17

U.S.C. 1 et seq.
17 CFR part 150. Part 150 of the
Commission’s regulations establishes federal
position limits (that is, position limits established
by the Commission, as opposed to exchange-set
limits) on certain enumerated agricultural contracts;
the listed commodities are referred to as
enumerated agricultural commodities. The position
limits on these agricultural contracts are referred to
as ‘‘legacy’’ limits because these contracts on
agricultural commodities have been subject to
federal position limits for decades. See also Position
Limits for Derivatives, 78 FR 75680 at 75723, note
2 See

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

generally includes three components:
(1) The level of the limits, which set a
threshold that restricts the number of
speculative positions that a person may
hold in the spot month, an individual
month, and all months combined,3 (2)
exemptions for positions that constitute
bona fide hedging transactions and
certain other types of transactions,4 and
(3) rules to determine which accounts
and positions a person must aggregate
for the purpose of determining
compliance with the position limit
levels.5
In late 2013, the CFTC proposed to
amend its part 150 regulations
governing speculative position limits.
These proposed amendments were
intended to conform to the requirements
of part 150 to particular changes to the
CEA introduced by the Wall Street
Transparency and Accountability Act of
2010 (’’Dodd-Frank Act’’).6 The
proposed amendments included the
adoption of federal position limits for 28
exempt and agricultural commodity
futures and option contracts and swaps
that are ‘‘economically equivalent’’ to
such contracts.7 In addition, the
370 and accompanying text (Dec. 12, 2013)
(‘‘December 2013 position limits proposal’’).
3 See 17 CFR 150.2.
4 See 17 CFR 150.3.
5 See 17 CFR 150.4.
6 The Commission previously had issued
proposed and final rules in 2011 to implement the
provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act regarding
position limits and the bona fide hedge definition.
Position Limits for Derivatives, 76 FR 4752 (Jan. 26,
2011); Position Limits for Futures and Swaps, 76 FR
71626 (Nov. 18, 2011). A September 28, 2012, order
of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia vacated the November 18, 2011 rule, with
the exception of the rule’s amendments to 17CFR
150.2. International Swaps and Derivatives
Association v. United States Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, 887 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D.D.C.
2012). See generally the materials and links on the
Commission’s Web site at http://www.cftc.gov/
LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/Rulemakings/DF_
26_PosLimits/index.htm. The Commission issued
the December 2013 position limits proposal, among
other reasons, to respond to the District Court’s
decision in ISDA v. CFTC. See generally the
materials and links on the Commission’s Web site
at http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/
DoddFrankAct/Rulemakings/
PositionLimitsforDerivatives/index.htm.
7 See CEA section 4a(a)(5), 7 U.S.C. 6a(a)(5)
(providing that the Commission establish limits on
economically equivalent contracts); CEA section
4a(a)(6), 7 U.S.C. 6a(a)(6) (directing the Commission
to establish aggregate position limits on futures,
options, economically equivalent swaps, and
certain foreign board of trade contracts in
agricultural and exempt commodities (collectively,
‘‘referenced contracts’’)). See December 2013
position limits proposal 78 FR at 75825. Under the
December 2013 position limits proposal,
‘‘referenced contracts’’ would have been defined as
futures, options, economically equivalent swaps,
and certain foreign board of trade contracts, in
physical commodities, and been subject to the
proposed federal position limits. The Commission
proposed that federal position limits would apply
to referenced contracts, whether futures or swaps,

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Commission proposed to require that
DCMs and SEFs that are trading
facilities (collectively, ‘‘exchanges’’)
establish exchange-set limits on such
futures, options and swaps contracts.8
Further, the Commission proposed to (i)
revise the definition of bona fide
hedging position (which includes a
general definition with requirements
applicable to all hedges, as well as an
enumerated list of bona fide hedges),9
(ii) revise the process for market
participants to request recognition of
certain types of positions as bona fide
hedges, including anticipatory hedges
and hedges not specifically enumerated
in the proposed bona fide hedging
definition; 10 and (iii) revise the
exemptions from position limits for
transactions normally known to the
trade as spreads.11

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

II. Proposal To Supplement and Revise
the December 2013 Position Limits
Proposal
The CFTC is now proposing revisions
and additions to regulations and
guidance proposed in 2013 concerning
speculative position limits in response
to comments received on that proposal.
The Commission is proposing new
alternative processes for DCMs and
SEFs to recognize certain positions in
commodity derivative contracts as nonenumerated bona fide hedges or
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedges, as well as to exempt from
federal position limits certain spread
positions, in each case subject to
Commission review. In this regard, the
Commission proposes to amend certain
of the regulations proposed in 2013
regarding exemptions from federal
position limits and exchange-set
position limits to take into account
these new alternative processes. In
connection with these changes, the
Commission proposes to further amend
certain relevant definitions, including to
clearly define the general definition of
bona fide hedging for physical
regardless of where the futures or swaps positions
were established. See December 2013 positions
limits proposal at 78 FR 75826 (proposed § 150.2).
8 See December 2013 position limits proposal 78
FR at 75754–8. Consistent with DCM Core Principle
5 and SEF Core Principle 6, the Commission
proposed at § 150.5(a)(1) that for any commodity
derivative contract that is subject to a speculative
position limit under § 150.2, [a DCM] or [SEF] that
is a trading facility shall set a speculative position
limit no higher than the level specified in § 150.2.
9 See December 2013 position limits proposal 78
FR at 75706–11, 75713–18.
10 See December 2013 position limits proposal 78
FR at 75718.
11 See December 2013 position limits proposal 78
FR at 75735–6. CEA section 4a(a)(1), 7 U.S.C.
6a(a)(1), permits the Commission to exempt
transactions normally known to the trade as
‘‘spreads’’ from federal position limits.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

commodities under the standards in
CEA section 4a(c). Separately, the
Commission proposes to delay for DCMs
and SEFs that lack access to sufficient
swap position information the
requirement to establish and monitor
position limits on swaps at this time.
Because this proposal supplements
the December 2013 position limits
proposal, it must be read in conjunction
with that notice of proposed
rulemaking, such that where this
supplemental proposal sets out a
proposed rule text in full, as in four
definitions which this supplement
proposes to amend, the rule text is
intended to replace what was proposed
in the December 2013 position limits
proposal. Where this supplemental
proposal reserves a subsection proposed
in the December 2013 position limits
proposal, the intention is to provide
additional time for Commission
consideration of that subsection. For the
avoidance of doubt, the Commission is
still reviewing comments received on
such reserved subsections and does not
seek further comment on such reserved
subsections.
A. Proposed Guidance Regarding
Exchange-Set Limitations on Swap
Positions
As noted above, in December 2013 the
Commission proposed federal position
limits on futures and swaps in physical
commodities.12 Since that time, the
Commission has worked with industry
to improve the quality of swap position
reporting to the Commission under part
20.13 In light of the improved quality of
the swap position reporting, the
Commission intends to rely on part 20
swap position data, given adjustments
for obvious errors (e.g., data reported
based on a unit of measure, such as an
ounce, rather than a futures equivalent
number of contracts), to establish initial
levels of federal non-spot month limits
on futures and swaps in a final rule.
Moreover, the Commission notes that
12 CEA section 4a(a)(5) requires federal position
limits for swaps that are ‘‘economically equivalent’’
to futures and options that are subject to mandatory
position limits under CEA section 4a(a)(2). See
December 2013 position limits proposal at 78 FR
75681–5 (providing the Commission’s
interpretation of the statute as mandating that the
Commission impose limits on futures, options, and
swaps, in agricultural and exempt commodities).
13 The Commission stated in the December 2013
position limits proposal that it preliminarily had
decided not to use the swaps data then reported
under part 20 for purposes of setting the initial
levels of the proposed single and all-monthscombined positions limits due to concerns about
the reliability of such data. December 2013 position
limits proposal, 78 FR at 75533. The Commission
also stated that it might use part 20 swaps data
should it determine such data to be reliable, in
order to establish higher initial levels in a final rule.
Id. at 75734.

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38459

the improved quality allows the
Commission to utilize part 20 swap
position data when monitoring market
participants’ compliance with such
federal position limits on futures and
swaps.
However, the Commission notes that
with respect to exchange-set limits on
swaps, exchanges, on the other hand,
generally do not have access to swap
position information. Unlike futures
contracts—which are proprietary to a
particular DCM and typically cleared at
a single DCO affiliated with the DCM—
swaps in a particular commodity are not
proprietary to any particular trading
facility or platform. Market participants
may execute swaps involving a
particular commodity on or subject to
the rules of multiple exchanges or, in
some circumstances, over the counter
(‘‘OTC’’). Further, under the
Commission regulations, data with
respect to a particular swap transaction
may be reported to any swap data
repository (‘‘SDR’’).14
In addition, it should be noted that
although CEA section 2(h)(8) requires
that swap transactions required to be
cleared under CEA section 2(h)(7) must
be traded on either a DCM or a SEF if
a DCM or SEF ‘‘makes the swap
available to trade,’’ 15 there currently is
neither a requirement for mandatory
clearing of a swap on a physical
commodity,16 nor has a swap on a
physical commodity been made
available to trade.17 Consequently,
swaps on physical commodities may
use means of execution other than on a
DCM or SEF.
Even if an exchange had access to
cleared swap data from a particular
DCO, an exchange may need access to
data from additional DCOs in order to
have a sufficient understanding of a
market participant’s cleared swap
position, because a market participant
may clear economically equivalent
swaps on multiple DCOs. Further, DCO
cleared swap data would not provide an
exchange with data regarding
economically equivalent uncleared
swaps. While SDR data would include
14 See §§ 45.3, 45.4, and 45.10 of the
Commission’s regulations, 17 CFR 45.3, 45.4, and
45.10. See generally CEA sections 4r (reporting and
recordkeeping for uncleared swaps) and 21 (swap
data repositories), 7 U.S.C. 6r and 24a.
15 CEA section 2(h)(8), 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(8) (the
‘‘trading mandate’’).
16 See CEA section 2(h) and part 50 of the
Commission’s regulations. 7 U.S.C. 2(h) and 17 CFR
part 50.
17 For example, under rule 37.10, a swap
execution facility may make a swap available to
trade, pursuant to CEA section 2(h)(8). See current
list of swaps made available to trade at http://
www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@otherif/
documents/file/swapsmadeavailablechart.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38460

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

swap data regarding both cleared and
uncleared swaps, such data would need
to be converted to a futures-equivalent
position in order to measure compliance
with an exchange-set limit set at a level
no higher than that of the federal
position limit. The Commission
acknowledges that if an exchange does
not have access to sufficient data
regarding individual market
participants’ open swap positions, then
it cannot effectively monitor swap
position limits.
In light of the above, and based on (i)
comments received on the December
2013 position limits proposal; 18 (ii)
viewpoints expressed during a
Roundtable on Position Limits; 19 (iii)
several Commission advisory committee
meetings that each provided a focused
forum for participants to discuss some
aspects of the December 2013 position
limits proposal; 20 and (iv) information
obtained in the course of ongoing
Commission review of SEF registration
applications,21 the Commission has
determined to revise and amend certain
parts of the December 2013 position
limits proposal. The Commission
proposes to temporarily delay for
exchanges that lack access to sufficient
swap position information the
requirement to establish and monitor
position limits on swaps by: (i) Adding
Appendix E to part 150 to provide
guidance regarding § 150.5; and (ii)
revising guidance on DCM Core
Principle 5 and SEF Core Principle 6.22

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

18 Comments

on the December 2013 position
limits proposal are accessible on the Commission’s
Web site at http://comments.cftc.gov/
PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1436.
19 A transcript of the June 19, 2014 Roundtable on
Position Limits is available on the Commission’s
Web site at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/
@swaps/documents/dfsubmission/dfsubmission_
061914-trans.pdf.
20 Information regarding the December 9, 2014
and September 22, 2015 meetings of the
Agricultural Advisory Committee, sponsored by
Chairman Massad, is accessible on the
Commission’s Web site at http://www.cftc.gov/
About/CFTCCommittees/AgriculturalAdvisory/aac_
meetings. Information regarding February 26, 2015
and the July 29, 2015 meetings of the Energy &
Environmental Markets Advisory Committee
(‘‘EEMAC’’), sponsored by Commission Giancarlo,
is accessible on the Commission’s Web site at
http://www.cftc.gov/About/CFTCCommittees/
EnergyEnvironmentalMarketsAdvisory/emac_
meetings.
21 Added by the Dodd-Frank Act, section 5h(a) of
the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 7b-3, requires SEFs to register
with the Commission. See generally ‘‘Core
Principles and Other Requirements for Swap
Execution Facilities,’’ 78 FR 33476 (Aug. 5, 2013).
Information regarding the SEF application process
is available on the Commission’s Web site at http://
www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/
TradingOrganizations/SEF2/sefhowto.
22 DCM Core Principle 5, Position Limitations or
Accountability, is contained in CEA section 5(d)(5),
7 U.S.C. 7(d)(5). SEF Core Principle 6, Position
Limits or Accountability, is contained in CEA
section 5h(f)(6), 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(6).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

The CEA requires in SEF Core
Principle 6(B) that a SEF: (i) Set its
exchange-set limit on swaps at a level
no higher than that of the federal
position limit; and (ii) monitor positions
established on or through the SEF for
compliance with the federal position
limit and any exchange-set limit.23
Similarly, for any contract subject to a
federal position limit, including a swap
contract, DCM Core Principle 5(B)
requires that DCMs must set a position
limit at a level no higher than that of the
federal position limit.24
The December 2013 position limits
proposal specified that federal position
limits would apply to referenced
contracts,25 whether futures or swaps,
regardless of where the futures or swaps
positions are established.26 Consistent
with DCM Core Principle 5 and SEF
Core Principle 6, the Commission
proposed at § 150.5(a)(1) that, for any
commodity derivative contract that is
subject to a speculative position limit
under § 150.2, [a DCM] or [SEF] that is
a trading facility shall set a speculative
position limit no higher than the level
specified in § 150.2.27
Three commenters on proposed
regulation § 150.5 recommended that
the Commission not require SEFs to
establish position limits.28 Two noted
that because SEF participants may use
more than one derivatives clearing
organization (‘‘DCO’’), a SEF may not
know when a position has been offset.29
23 CEA section 5h(f)(6)(B), 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(6)(B)
(SEF Core Principle 6(B)). The Commission codified
SEF Core Principle 6(B), added by the Dodd-Frank
Act, in § 37.600 of its regulations, 17 CFR 37.600.
See generally Core Principles and Other
Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 78 FR
33476, 33533–4 (June 4, 2013).
24 CEA section 5(d)(5)(B), 7 U.S.C. 7(d)(5)(B)
(DCM Core Principle 5(B)). The Commission
codified DCM Core Principle 5(B), as amended by
the Dodd-Frank Act, in § 38.300 of its regulations,
17 CFR 38.300. See generally Core Principles and
Other Requirements for Designated Contract
Markets, 77 FR 36612, 36639 (June 19, 2012).
25 Under the December 2013 position limits
proposal, ‘‘referenced contracts’’ are defined as
futures, options, economically equivalent swaps,
and certain foreign board of trade contracts, in
physical commodities, and are subject to the
proposed federal position limits. See December
2013 position limits proposal 78 FR at 75825.
26 See December 2013 positions limits proposal at
78 FR 75826 (proposed § 150.2).
27 See December 2013 position limits proposal at
78 FR 75754–8.
28 Commodity Markets Council (‘‘CMC’’), on
February 10, 2014, (‘‘CL–CMC–59634’’), at 14–15;
Futures Industry Association (‘‘FIA’’), on March 30,
2015 (‘‘CL–FIA–60392’’), at 10. One commenter
stated that SEFs should be exempt from the
requirement to set positions limits because SEFs are
in the early stages of development and could be
harmed by limits that restrict liquidity.
International Swaps and Derivatives Association,
Inc. (‘‘ISDA’’) and Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (‘‘SIFMA’’), on February 10,
2014 (‘‘CL–ISDA/SIFMA–59611’’), at 35.
29 CL–CMC–59634 at 14–15; CL–FIA–60392 at 10.

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Further, during the ongoing SEF
registration process,30 a number of
persons applying to become registered
as SEFs told the Commission that they
lack access to information that would
enable them to knowledgeably establish
position limits or monitor positions.31
The Commission observes that this
information gap would also be a
concern for DCMs in respect of swaps,
because DCMs lacking access to swap
position information also would not be
able to reliably establish position limits
on swaps or monitor swap positions.
The Commission acknowledges that,
if an exchange does not have access to
sufficient data regarding individual
market participants’ open swap
positions, then it cannot effectively
monitor swap position limits. The
Commission believes that most
exchanges do not have access to
sufficient swap position information to
effectively monitor swap position
limits.32 In this regard, the Commission
believes that an exchange would have or
could have access to sufficient swap
position information to effectively
monitor swap position limits if, for
example: (1) It had access to daily
information about its market
participants’ open swap positions; or (2)
it knows that its market participants
regularly engage on its exchange in large
volumes of speculative trading activity
30 Under CEA section 5h(a)(1), no person may
operate a facility for trading swaps unless the
facility is registered as a SEF or DCM. 7 U.S.C. 7b–
3(a)(1).
31 For example, in a submission to the
Commission under part 40 of the Commission’s
regulations, BGC Derivative Markets, L.P. states that
‘‘[t]he information to administer limits or
accountability levels cannot be readily ascertained.
Position limits or accountability levels apply
market-wide to a trader’s overall position in a given
swap. To monitor this position, a SEF must have
access to information about a trader’s overall
position. However, a SEF only has information
about swap transactions that take place on its own
Facility and has no way of knowing whether a
particular trade on its facility adds to or reduces a
trader’s position. And because swaps may trade on
a number of facilities or, in many cases, over-thecounter, a SEF does not know the size of the
trader’s overall swap position and thus cannot
ascertain whether the trader’s position relative to
any position limit. Such information would be
required to be supplied to a SEF from a variety of
independent sources, including SDRs, DCOs, and
market participants themselves. Unless coordinated
by the Commission operating a centralized
reporting system, such a data collection
requirement would be duplicative as each separate
SEF required reporting by each information
sources.’’ BGC Derivative Markets, L.P., Rule
Submission 2015–09 (Oct. 6, 2015), available at
http://www.cftc.gov/filings/orgrules/
rule100615bgcsef001.pdf.
32 The Commission is aware of one SEF that may
have access to sufficient swap position information
by virtue of systems integration with affiliates that
are CFTC registrants and shared personnel. This
SEF requires that all of its listed swaps be cleared
on an affiliated DCO, which reports to an affiliated
SDR.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

(it may gain that knowledge through
surveillance of heavy trading activity),
that would cause reasonable
surveillance personnel at an exchange to
inquire further about a market
participant’s intentions 33 and total open
swap positions.
It is possible that an exchange could
obtain an indication of whether a swap
position established on or through a
particular exchange is increasing a
market participant’s swap position
beyond a federal or exchange-set limit,
if that exchange has data about some or
all of a market participant’s open swap
position from the prior day and
combines it with the transaction data
from the current day, to obtain an
indication of the market participant’s
current open swap position. By way of
example, part 20 requires clearing
organizations, clearing members and
swap dealers to report to the
Commission routine position reports for
physical commodity swaps; the part 20
swaps data identifies for the
Commission a market participant’s
reported open swap positions from the
prior trading day. If part 20 swaps data
were made available to an exchange, it
could use it to add to any swap
positions established on or through that
exchange during the current trading day
to get an indication of a potential
position limit violation.34 The
indication would alert the exchange to
contact the market participant to inquire
about that participant’s total open swap
position.
While this indication would not
include the market participant’s activity
transacted away from that particular
exchange, the Commission believes that
such monitoring would comply with the
requirement in CEA section
5h(f)(6)(B)(ii) that the SEF monitor
positions established on or through the
SEF for compliance with the limits set
by the Commission and the SEF.
However, the Commission understands
that exchanges generally do not
currently have access to a data source
that identifies a market participant’s
reported open swap positions from the
prior trading day.35 The Commission
does not believe that it would be
33 For instance, heavy trading activity at a
particular exchange might cause that exchange to
ask whether a market participant is building a large
speculative position or whether the heavy trading
activity is merely the result of a market participant
making a market across several exchanges.
34 Nonetheless, that market participant may have
conducted other swap transactions in the same
commodity, away from a particular exchange, that
reduced its swap position.
35 As noted above, although the Commission
receives swaps position data pursuant to Part 20,
the Commission has not made this information
available to any exchange.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

practicable for an exchange to require
that market participants self-report their
total open swap positions.36 And with
only the transaction data from a
particular exchange, it would be
impracticable, if not impossible, for that
exchange to monitor and enforce
position limits for swaps.
Moreover, the Commission has
neither required any DCO 37 or SDR 38 to
provide such swap data to exchanges,39
36 An exchange could theoretically obtain swap
position data directly from market participants, for
example, by requiring a market participant to report
its swap positions, as a condition of trading on the
exchange. However, the Commission thinks it is
unlikely that a single exchange would unilaterally
impose a swaps reporting regime on market
participants.
The Commission abandoned the approach of
requiring market participants to report futures
positions directly to the Commission many years
ago. See Reporting Requirements for Contract
Markets, Futures Commission Merchants, Members
of Exchanges and Large Traders, 46 FR 59960 (Dec.
8, 1981). Instead, the Commission and DCMs rely
on a large trader reporting system where futures
positions are reported by sources other than the
position holder itself, including futures commission
merchants, clearing members and foreign brokers.
See generally part 19 of the Commission’s
regulations, 17 CFR part 19. See also, for example,
the discussion of an exchange’s large trader
reporting system in the Division of Market
Oversight Rule Enforcement Review of the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of
Trade, July 26, 2013, at 24–7, available at http://
www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@iodcms/
documents/file/rercmecbot072613.pdf.
Further, as noted above, exchanges do not have
authority to demand swap position data from
derivative clearing organizations or swap data
repositories; nor do exchanges have general
authority to demand market participants’ swap
position data from clearing members of DCOs or
swap dealers (as the Commission does under part
20).
37 Core principle M for DCOs addresses
information sharing only for the purpose of the
DCO’s carrying out its risk management program as
‘‘appropriate and applicable,’’ but does not address
information sharing for other purposes, and does
not address information sharing with exchanges.
CEA section 5b(c)(2)(M), 7 U.S.C. 7a–1(c)(2)(M), and
§ 39.22, 17 CFR 39.22. The Commission has access
to DCO information relating to trade and clearing
details under § 39.19, 17 CFR 39.19, as is necessary
to conduct its oversight of a DCO. However, the
Commission has not used its general rulemaking
authority under CEA section 8a(5), 7 U.S.C. 12a(5),
to require DCOs to provide registered entities access
to swap information, although the Commission
could impose such a requirement by rule. CEA
section 5b(c)(2)(A)(i), 7 U.S.C. 7a–1(c)(2)(A)(i).
38 An SDR has a duty to provide direct electronic
access to the Commission, or a designee of the
Commission who may be a registered entity (such
as an exchange). CEA section 21(c)(4), 7 U.S.C.
24a(c)(4). See 76 FR 54538 at 54551, note 141 and
accompanying text (Sept. 1, 2011). However, the
Commission has not designated any exchange as a
designee of the Commission for that purpose.
Further, the Commission has not used its general
rulemaking authority under CEA section 8a(5), 7
U.S.C. 12a(5), to require SDRs to provide registered
entities (such as exchanges) access to swap
information, although the Commission could
impose such a requirement by rule. CEA section
21(a)(3)(A)(ii), 7 U.S.C. 24a(a)(3)(A)(ii).
39 Even if such information were to be made
available to exchanges, the swaps positions would

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38461

nor provided any exchange with access
to swaps data collected under part 20 of
the Commission’s regulations.40
In light of the foregoing, the
Commission is proposing a delay in
implementation of exchange-set limits
for swaps only, and only for exchanges
without sufficient swap position
information. After consideration of the
circumstances described above, and in
an effort to accomplish the policy
objectives of the Dodd-Frank Act
regulatory regime, including to facilitate
trade processing of any swap and to
promote the trading of swaps on SEFs,41
this current proposal amends the
guidance in the appendices to parts 37
and 38 of the Commission’s regulations
regarding SEF core principle 6 and DCM
core principle 5, respectively. The
revised guidance clarifies that an
exchange need not demonstrate
compliance with SEF core principle 6 or
DCM core principle 5 as applicable to
swaps until it has access to sufficient
swap position information, after which
the guidance would no longer be
applicable.42 For clarity, this current
proposal includes the same guidance in
a new appendix E to proposed part 150
in the context of the Commission’s
proposed regulations regarding
exchange-set position limits.
Although the Commission is
proposing to delay implementing the
core principles regarding position limits
on swaps, nothing in this current
proposal would prevent an exchange
from nevertheless establishing position
limits on swaps. However, it does seem
unlikely that an exchange would
implement position limits before
need to be converted to futures-equivalent positions
for purposes of monitoring position limits on a
futures-equivalent basis, which would place an
additional burden on exchanges. See December
2013 positions limits proposal at 78 FR75825 for
the proposed definition of futures-equivalent; see
also the discussion, below, regarding this current
notice’s amendments to that proposed definition. If
at some future time, the Commission were to
consider requiring DCOs or SDRs to provide swap
data to exchanges, or to provide the exchanges with
swap data collected under part 20, the Commission
would then consider the burden that would be
placed on the exchange by the need to convert swap
positions into futures equivalents.
40 The part 20 swaps data is reported in futures
equivalents, but does not include data specifying
where (e.g., OTC or a particular exchange)
reportable positions in swaps were established.
41 See, e.g., CEA sections 5h(b)(1)(B) and 5h(e), 7
U.S.C. 7b–3(b)(1)(B) and 7b–3(e), respectively.
42 Once the guidance was no longer applicable, a
DCM or a SEF would be required to file rules with
the Commission to implement the relevant position
limits and demonstrate compliance with Core
Principle 5 or 6, as appropriate. The Commission
notes that, for the same reasons regarding swap
position data discussed above in respect of CEA
section 5h(f)(6)(B), the proposed guidance also
would temporarily delay the requirement for SEFs
to comply with their statutory obligation under CEA
section 5h(f)(6)(A).

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38462

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

acquiring sufficient swap position
information because of the ensuing
difficulty of enforcing such a limit. The
Commission believes that providing the
proposed delay for those exchanges that
need it both preserves flexibility for
subsequent Commission rulemaking and
allows for phased implementation of
limitations on swaps by exchanges, as
practicable.43
The Commission observes that courts
have upheld relieving regulated entities
of their statutory obligations where
compliance is impossible or
impracticable.44 The Commission
believes that it would be impracticable,
if not impossible, for an exchange to
monitor and enforce position limits for
swaps with only the transaction data
from that particular exchange.
Accordingly, the Commission believes
that it is reasonable at this time to delay
implementation of this discrete aspect
of position limits, only with respect to
swaps position limits, and only for
exchanges that lack access to sufficient
swap position information. The
Commission believes that this approach
would further the policy objectives of
the Dodd-Frank Act regulatory regime,
including the facilitation of trade
processing of swaps and the promotion
of trading swaps on SEFs. While this
approach would delay the requirement
for certain exchanges to establish and
monitor exchange-set limits on swaps at
this time, the Commission notes that,
under the December 2013 position
limits proposal, federal position limits
would apply to swaps that are
economically equivalent to futures
contracts subject to federal position
limits.
43 Although this current proposal would provide
position limits relief to SEFs and to DCMs in
regards to swaps, it would not alter the definition
of referenced contract (including economically
equivalent swaps) as proposed in December 2013.
See December 2013 position limits proposal 78 FR
at 75825. The Commission continues to review and
consider comments received regarding the
definition of referenced contract.
44 See, e.g., Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. EPA,
494 F.3d 1027, 1031 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (allowing
regulated entities to enter into consent agreements
with EPA—without notice and comment—that
deferred prosecution of statutory violation until
such time as compliance would be practicable);
Catron v. County Bd. Of Commissioners v. New
Mexico Fish & Wildlife Serv., 75 F.3d 1429, 1435
(10th Cir.1966) (stating that ‘‘Compliance with [the
National Environmental Protection Act] is excused
when there is a statutory conflict with the agency’s
authorizing legislation that prohibits or renders
compliance impossible.’’). Further, it is axiomatic
that courts will avoid reading statutes to reach
absurd or unreasonable consequences. See, e.g.,
Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564
(1982). To require an exchange to monitor position
limits on swaps, when it currently has extremely
limited visibility into a market participant’s swap
position, is arguably absurd and certainly appears
unreasonable.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

Request for comment (‘‘RFC’’) 1. The
Commission requests comment on all
aspects of the proposed delay in
implementing the requirements of SEF
core principle 6(B) and DCM core
principle 5(B) with respect to the setting
and monitoring by exchanges of
position limits for swaps. Does any
DCM or SEF currently have access to
sufficient data regarding individual
market participants’ open swaps
positions to so set and monitor swaps
position limits other than by special
call? If yes, please describe in detail
how such access could be obtained.45 If
no, how easy or difficult would it be for
an exchange to obtain access to
sufficient swap position information by
means of contract or other
arrangements?
B. Proposal To Amend the Definition of
Bona Fide Hedging Position
As discussed below, the Commission
is now proposing a general definition of
bona fide hedging position that
incorporates only the standards in CEA
section 4a(c)(2), regarding physical
commodity derivatives. Conforming the
standards of a general definition of bona
fide hedging position to those of the
statute requires eliminating two
components of the general definition of
bona fide hedging position in current
§ 1.3(z)(1): The incidental test and the
orderly trading requirement.46 Thus, the
Commission is now proposing to
eliminate the incidental test and the
orderly trading requirement, as
discussed below.
45 The Commission expects that any DCM or SEF
that has access to sufficient swap position
information will report this to the Commission in
a comment letter that will be publicly available in
the comment file for this current proposal on the
Commission’s Web site.
46 The inclusion of the incidental test and the
orderly trading requirement in the definition of
bona fide hedging has a long history. As noted in
the December 2013 Position Limits proposal, ‘‘In
response to the 1974 legislation, the Commission’s
predecessor adopted in 1975 a bona fide hedging
definition in § 1.3(z) of its regulations stating,
among other requirements, that transactions or
positions would not be classified as hedging unless
their bona fide purpose was to offset price risks
incidental to commercial cash or spot operations,
and such positions were established and liquidated
in an orderly manner and in accordance with sound
commercial practices. Shortly thereafter, the newly
formed Commission sought comment on amending
that definition. Given the large number of issues
raised in comment letters, the Commission adopted
the predecessor’s definition with minor changes as
an interim definition of bona fide hedging
transactions or positions, effective October 18,
1975.’’ See December 2013 Position Limits Proposal
at 75703. The Commission is also proposing a nonsubstantive change to subsection (1)(ii)(B) of the
bona fide hedging definition by deleting from the
definition proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal the lead in words ‘‘such position.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

1. December 2013 Proposal
In the December 2013 position limits
proposal, the Commission proposed a
new definition of ‘‘bona fide hedging
position’’ in proposed § 150.1, to replace
the current definition in § 1.3(z). The
opening paragraph of the proposed
definition is a general definition of a
bona fide hedging position. As is the
case in the current definition in § 1.3(z),
that general definition contained two
requirements for a bona fide hedging
position that are not included in CEA
section 4a(c)(2): An incidental test and
an orderly trading requirement.47
The incidental test is a component of
the December 2013 proposed bona fide
hedging position definition requiring
that the risks offset by a commodity
derivative position must be incidental to
the position holder’s commercial
operations.48 The orderly trading
requirement is a component of the
December 2013 proposed bona fide
hedging position definition requiring
that a bona fide hedge position must be
established and liquidated in an orderly
manner in accordance with sound
commercial practices.49
2. Comments on the December 2013
Proposed Definition of Bona Fide
Hedging Position
Commenters generally objected to the
inclusion in the general definition of
bona fide hedging position of the
incidental test and the orderly trading
requirement. For example, one
commenter objected to the incidental
test, since that test is not included in
CEA section 4a(c) with respect to
physical commodity hedges.50
Commenters urged the Commission to
eliminate the orderly trading
requirement, because, in the context of
the over-the-counter markets, the
concept of orderly trading is not
defined, yet the requirement would
impose a duty on end users to monitor
market activities to ensure they do not
cause a significant market impact.51
Commenters noted the anti-disruptive
47 See December 2013 Position Limits Proposal at
75706–7 (stating ‘‘Bona fide hedging position means
any position whose purpose is to offset price risks
incidental to commercial cash, spot, or forward
operations, and such position is established and
liquidated in an orderly manner in accordance with
sound commercial practices, . . .’’).
48 See December 2013 Position Limits Proposal at
75707.
49 Id.
50 See, e.g., CME Group, Inc. (‘‘CME Group’’), on
February 10, 2014 (‘‘CL–CME–59718’’) at 47.
51 See Coalition of Physical Energy Companies
(‘‘COPE’’) on February 10, 2014 (‘‘CL–COPE–
59662’’) at 13, Duke Energy Utilities (‘‘DEU’’) on
February 10, 2014 (‘‘CL–DEU–59631’’) at 5–7, and
The Commercial Energy Working Group (‘‘Working
Group’’) CL–Working Group–59693 at 14.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
trading prohibitions and polices would
apply regardless of whether there is an
orderly trading requirement.52
Commenters requested that if the
Commission were to retain the orderly
trading requirement, the Commission
interpret such requirement in a manner
consistent with the Commission’s
disruptive trading practices
interpretation (i.e., a standard of
intentional or reckless conduct);
commenters also requested that the
Commission not apply a negligence
standard.53
3. Proposal To Amend the Definition
For the reasons discussed below, and
in response to the comments received,
the Commission is proposing to
eliminate the incidental test and orderly
trading requirement from the general
definition of bona fide hedging position.
For clarity, the Commission is herein
publishing, in proposed § 150.1, a
general definition of bona fide hedging
position for physical commodity
derivatives that incorporates only the
standards of CEA section 4a(c), but
notes that the definition is subject to
further requirements not inconsistent
with those statutory standards and the
policy objectives of position limits.
i. Incidental Test

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

The Commission proposes to
eliminate the incidental test. As noted
above, the incidental test and the
orderly trading requirement have been
part of the rule 1.3(z)(1) definition of
bona fide hedging since 1975.54 These
provisions were not separately
explained in the 1974 notice proposing
the adoption of rule 1.3(z)(1) (the notice
observed only that the ‘‘proposed
definition otherwise deviates in only
minor ways from the hedging definition
presently contained in [CEA section
52 Section 747 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended
the CEA to expressly prohibit certain disruptive
trading practices. Specifically, CEA section 4c(a)(5),
7 U.S.C. 6c(a)(5), states that it is unlawful for a
person to engage in any trading, practice, or
conduct on or subject to the rules of a registered
entity that (A) violates bids or offers; (B)
demonstrates intentional or reckless disregard for
the orderly execution of transactions during the
closing period; or (C) is, of the character of, or is
commonly known to the trade as, ‘spoofing’
(bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid
or offer before execution). See also, Antidisruptive
Practices Authority, 78 FR 31890 (May 28, 2103)
(providing a policy statement and guidance).
53 See, e.g., FIA on February 7, 2014 (‘‘CL–FIA–
59595’’), at 5, 33–34, the Edison Electric Institute
and the Electric Power Supply Association (‘‘EEI–
EPSA’’) on February 10, 2014 ‘‘CL–EEI–EPSA–
59602’’) at 14–15, CL–ISDA/SIFMA–59611 at 4, 39,
CL–CME–59718 at 67, and
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (‘‘ICE’’) on February
10, 2014 (‘‘CL–ICE–59669’’) at 11.
54 40 FR 11560 (March 12, 1975).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

4a(3)]’’).55 The then-current statutory
definition of bona fide hedging position
in CEA section 4a(3) used the concepts
of ‘‘good faith’’ (regarding the amount of
a commodity a person expects to raise)
and a ‘‘reasonable hedge’’ (regarding
hedges of inventory).
The Commission adopted the concept
of economically appropriate in 1977,
after finding its definition of bona fide
hedging inadequate due to changes in
commercial practices and the diverse
nature of commodities now under
regulation, but did not address whether
the concept of economically appropriate
overlapped with the incidental test.56
The economically appropriate test
requires that a bona fide hedging
position be economically appropriate to
the reduction of risks in the conduct
and management of a commercial
enterprise.57 While in the 1977
rulemaking defining bona fide hedging
the Commission discussed the concept
of economically appropriate as an
expansive standard, the incidental test
appears to have simply been left in the
definition as an historical carryover. In
the December 2013 position limits
proposal, the Commission noted that it
believed the incidental test’s concept of
commercial cash market activities is
embodied in the economically
appropriate test for physical
commodities in CEA section 4a(c)(2).58
In light of this connection between the
concept of commercial cash market
activities and the economically
55 See 39 FR 39731 (Nov. 11, 1974). CEA section
4a(3) then stated that no order issued under its
paragraph (1) shall apply to transactions or
positions which are shown to be bona fide hedging
transactions or positions as such terms as shall be
defined by the Commission within one hundred
and eighty days after the effective date of the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of
1974 by order consistent with the purposes of this
chapter. 7 U.S.C. 6a(3) 1974. As noted in the
Federal Register release adopting the definition, the
definition was proposed pursuant to section 404 of
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of
1974 (P.L. 93–463), which directed the Secretary of
Agriculture to promulgate regulations defining
‘‘bona fide hedging transactions and positions.’’ 39
FR at 39731 (Nov. 11, 1974).
56 42 FR 42748 (August 24, 1977). In the Federal
Register release adopting the amended definition,
the Commission stated that it was adopting
amendments to its general regulations to ‘‘generally
broaden the scope of the hedging definition to
include current commercial risk shifting practices
in the markets now under regulation. The
Commission has also recognized the potential for
market disruption if certain trading practices are
carried out during the delivery period of any future.
The definition therefore restricts the classification
of certain transactions and positions as bona fide
hedging during the last five days of trading. In
addition, the Commission has amended its
regulations to include reporting requirements for
some new types of bona fide hedging which will
now be recognized.’’ 42 FR 42718 (Aug. 24, 1977).
57 See CEA section 4a(c)(2)(A)(ii).
58 See December 2013 Proposal at 75707.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38463

appropriate test, the Commission notes
that it included in the December 2013
positions limits proposal the intention
to apply the economically appropriate
test to hedges in an excluded
commodity.59
In both the current and December
2013 proposed definitions of bona fide
hedging position, the incidental test
requires a reduction in price risk.
Although the Commission is now
proposing to eliminate the incidental
test from the first paragraph of its
proposed bona fide hedge definition, the
Commission notes that it interprets risk,
in the economically appropriate test, to
mean price risk. Commenters suggested
the Commission adopt a broader
interpretation of risk (including, for
example, execution and logistics risk
and credit risk).60 However, a broader
interpretation appears to be inconsistent
with the policy objectives of position
limits in CEA section 4a(a)(3)(B)
regarding physical commodities,
particularly: Diminishing excessive
speculation that causes sudden or
unreasonable fluctuations or
unwarranted changes in the price of a
commodity; deterring manipulation,
squeezes, and corners; and ensuring the
price discovery function is not
disrupted.
ii. Orderly Trading Requirement
The Commission proposes to
eliminate the orderly trading
requirement. While that provision has
been a part of the regulatory definition
of bona fide hedge since 1975,61 and
previously was found in the statutory
definition of bona fide hedge prior to
the 1974 amendment removing the
statutory definition from CEA section
4a(3), the Commission is not aware of a
denial of recognition of a position as a
bona fide hedge as a result of a lack of
orderly trading on an exchange. Further,
the Commission notes that the meaning
of the orderly trading requirement is
unclear in the context of the over-thecounter swap market, as well as in the
context of permitted off-exchange
transactions (e.g., exchange of
derivatives for related positions). In
addition, the Commission observes that
disruptive trading activity by a
commercial entity engaged in
establishing or liquidating a hedging
position would generally appear to be
contrary to its economic interests.
However, the Commission notes that an
exchange may use its own discretion to
condition its recognition of a bona fide
59 Id.
60 See, e.g., CMC on March 30, 2015, (‘‘CL–CMC–
60391’’) at 2.
61 See 40 FR 11560 (March 12, 1975).

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38464

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

hedging position on an orderly trading
requirement.
The Commission notes the antidisruptive trading prohibitions of CEA
section 4c(a)(5), as added by the DoddFrank Act, apply to trading on registered
entities, but not to over-the-counter
transactions, regardless of whether the
trading is related to hedging activities.
Specifically, the anti-disruptive trading
prohibitions in CEA section 4c(a)(5)
make it unlawful to engage in trading on
a registered entity that ‘‘demonstrates
intentional or reckless disregard for
orderly execution of trading during the
closing period.’’ In this regard, the
Commission notes that it also has the
authority, under CEA section 4c(a)(6), to
prohibit the intentional or reckless
disregard for the orderly execution of
transactions on a registered entity
outside of the closing period.
C. Proposed Rules Related to
Recognition of Bona Fide Hedging
Positions and Granting of Spread
Exemptions
In sections D, E, and F, below, this
current proposal discusses three sets of
proposed Commission rules that would
enable an exchange to submit to the
Commission exchange rules under
which the exchange could take action to
recognize certain bona fide hedging
positions and to grant certain spread
exemptions, with regard to both
exchange-set and federal position limits.
In each case, the proposed Commission
rules would establish a formal CFTC
review process that would permit the
Commission to revoke all such exchange
actions.
If the changes in this current proposal
are adopted, exchanges would be able
to: (i) Recognize certain non-enumerated
bona fide hedging positions
(‘‘NEBFHs’’), i.e., positions that are not
enumerated by the Commission’s rules
(pursuant to proposed § 150.9); 62 (ii)
grant exemptions to position limits for
certain spread positions (pursuant to
proposed § 150.10); 63 and (iii) recognize
certain enumerated anticipatory bona
fide hedging positions (pursuant to
proposed § 150.11).64
62 See

note 73 below.
Commission has authority to exempt
spread positions under CEA section 4a(a)(1), which
provides that the Commission may exempt
transactions normally known to the trade as
‘‘spreads’’ from federal position limits. Under this
current proposal, applicants may rely on an
exchange’s grant of a spread exemption absent
notice from such exchange or the Commission to
the contrary.
64 Unlike exemptions for spreads, no exemption
is needed for bona fide hedging transactions or
positions as under CEA section 4a(c)(1), no rule,
regulation or order issued under CEA section 4a(a)
applies to transactions or positions shown to be

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

63 The

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

The Commission’s authority to permit
certain exchanges to recognize positions
as bona fide hedging positions is found,
in part, in CEA section 4a(c)(1).65 CEA
section 4a(c)(1) provides that no CFTC
rule applies to ‘‘transaction or positions
which are shown to be bona fide
hedging transactions or positions,’’ as
those terms are defined by Commission
rule consistent with the purposes of the
CEA. The Commission notes that
‘‘shown to be’’ is passive voice, which
could encompass either a position
holder or an exchange being able to
‘‘show’’ that a position is entitled to
treatment as a bona fide hedge, and does
not specify that the Commission must
determine in advance whether the
position or transaction was shown to be
bona fide. The Commission interprets
CEA section 4a(c)(1) to authorize the
Commission to permit certain SROs
(i.e., DCMs and SEFs, meeting certain
criteria) to recognize positions as bona
fide hedges for purposes of federal
limits, subject to Commission review.
When determining whether to
recognize positions as bona fide hedges,
an exchange would be required to apply
the standards in the Commission’s
general definition of bona fide hedging
position, which incorporates the
standards in CEA section 4a(c)(2),66 and
bona fide hedging transactions or positions. 7
U.S.C. 6a(c)(1). Accordingly, Commission
regulation 1.3(z)((3), for example, provides that
upon request, the Commission may recognize
(rather than ‘‘exempt’’) certain transactions and
positions as bona fide hedges. By notifying the
applicant that the Commission, based on the
information provided, recognizes that the
applicant’s position has been shown to be a bona
fide hedge, the Commission is basically providing
a safe harbor from position limits in connection
with that position for the applicant. For ease of
administration, the Commission now proposes,
with respect to federal position limits, to extend
this recognition process to exchanges’ ‘‘recognition’’
of positions as NEBFHs or anticipatory enumerated
bona fide hedges with respect to federal limits
subject to subsequent Commission review. Under
this current proposal, positions recognized by
exchanges as NEBFHs or anticipatory enumerated
bona fide hedges will not be subject to federal limits
absent notice from an exchange or the Commission
to the contrary. DCMs currently grant nonenumerated exemptions to exchange-set limits that
are consistent with current § 1.3(z)(1), 17 CFR
1.3(z)(3). In addition, DCMs currently grant bona
fide exemptions to exchange-set limits for sales or
purchases for future delivery of unsold anticipated
production or unfilled anticipated requirements
consistent with, and enumerated in, § 1.3(z)(2)(i)(B)
or § 1.3(z)(2)(ii)(C), 17 CFR 1.3(z)(2) (i)(B) or
1.3(z)(2)(ii)(C).
65 Further, under CEA section 8a(5), the
Commission may make such rules as, in the
judgment of the Commission, are reasonably
necessary to effectuate any of the provisions or to
accomplish any of the purposes of the CEA.
66 CEA section 4a(c)(2), adopted by the DoddFrank Act, directs the Commission to define
(including to narrow the scope of) what constitutes
a bona fide hedging position, for the purpose of
implementing federal position limits on physical
commodity derivatives. In response to that

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

the exchange’s conclusions would be
subject to Commission review and, if
necessary, remediation.67
In addition, the Commission would
permit certain exchanges to exempt
positions normally known to the trade
as spreads, subject to a consideration of
the four policy objectives of position
limits found in CEA section
4a(a)(3)(B).68 The Commission notes
that nothing in CEA section 4a(a)(1)
prohibits the Commission from
exempting such spreads.69 The
Commission interprets this provision as
CEA statutory authority to exempt
spreads that are consistent with the
other policy objectives for position
limits, such as those in CEA section
4a(a)(3)(B).70 The Commission finds,
pursuant to CEA section 8a(5), that
permitting certain exchanges to
recognize such spreads, subject to
subsequent Commission review of such
actions, is reasonably necessary to
effectuate the CEA’s policy objectives.71
directive, in the December 2013 position limits
proposal, the Commission proposed to add a
definition of bona fide hedging position in § 150.1,
to replace the definition in current § 1.3(z). See
infra notes 104–106 and accompanying text; see
also supra preamble Section II.B.3 (describing the
Commission’s current proposal to further amend its
general definition of bona fide hedging position as
proposed in the December 2013 position limits
proposal).
67 See infra preamble Section II.D.3 (discussing
the proposed requirements that the exchanges:
Make recognitions pursuant to exchange rules
submitted to the Commission; keep related records;
make reports to the Commission; and provide
transparency to the public). After review, the
Commission could, for example, revoke or confirm
an exchange-granted exemption. See also proposed
§ 150.9.
68 As discussed below, the proposed rules would
require the exchanges: To issue exemptions
pursuant to exchange rules submitted to the
Commission; to keep records; to make reports to the
Commission; and to provide transparency to the
public. See infra Section II.E; see also proposed
§ 150.10.
69 See CEA section 4a(a)(1) (stating that ‘‘[n]othing
in this section shall be construed to prohibit the
Commission from . . . from exempting transactions
normally known to the trade as ‘spreads’. . .’’)
70 CEA section 4a(a)(3)(B) provides that the
Commission shall set limits to the maximum extent
practicable, in its discretion—to diminish,
eliminate, or prevent excessive speculation as
described under this section; to deter and prevent
market manipulation, squeezes, and corners; to
ensure sufficient market liquidity for bona fide
hedgers; and to ensure that the price discovery
function of the underlying market is not disrupted.’’
In addition, CEA section 4a(a)(7) authorizes the
Commission to exempt any class of transaction from
any requirement it may establish with respect to
position limits.
71 The Commission notes that the proposed
process for exchange exemptions of spread
positions, in a similar manner to the proposed
process for exchange recognition of a position as
bona fide hedge, would require the exchange to
apply the standards required under proposed
§ 150.10(a)((3)(ii)) (requiring the exchange to
determine that exempting the spread position
would further the purposes of CEA section

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Further, the Commission would
permit certain exchanges to recognize
certain enumerated anticipatory hedging
positions under the Commission’s
definition of bona fide hedging position,
essentially as an administrative
collection of certain information, but
subject to Commission review. Under
proposed § 150.11, the exchange would
be required to follow defined
administrative procedures that require
the market participant to file certain
information with the exchange,
including the information the market
participant would be required to file
with the Commission under § 150.7 as
proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal; in the alternative, the
market participant could choose to file
that same information directly with the
Commission under proposed § 150.7.72
Each of the exchange-administered
processes under proposed §§ 150.9,73
150.10,74 and 150.11 75 would be subject
to Commission review.76 The three
proposed processes would allow market
participants to rely on an exchange’s
recognition of an NEBFH, spread, or
4a(3)(B)), and the exchanges conclusions would be
subject to Commission review and, if necessary,
remediation (after review, the Commission could,
for example, revoke or confirm an exchange-granted
exemption). See proposed § 150.10.
72 As discussed below, the proposed rules would
require the exchanges: To make administrative
recognitions pursuant to exchange rules submitted
to the Commission; to keep records; and to make
reports to the Commission. There is no need for an
exchange to provide transparency to the public in
regard to the existence of a type of enumerated bona
fide hedging position, as the enumerated bona fide
hedge positions are already listed in the
Commission’s proposed definition of bona fide
hedging position. See infra Section II.F; see also
proposed § 150.11.
73 Specifically, exchanges will be able to: (1)
Grant exemptions from exchange-set limits for
NEBFHs pursuant to proposed §§ 150.9,
150.3(a)(1)(i) and § 150.5(a)(2); and (2) recognize
NEBFHs (pursuant to proposed §§ 150.9 and
150.3(a)(1)(i)) that will not be subject to federal
limits absent notice from an exchange or the
Commission to the contrary.
74 Specifically, exchanges will be able to: (1)
Grant exemptions from exchange-set limits for
certain spread positions pursuant to proposed
§§ 150.10, 150.3(a)(1)(iv) and 150.5(a)(2); and (2)
grant exemptions from federal limits for certain
spread positions pursuant to proposed §§ 150.10
and 150.3(a)(1)(iv).
75 Specifically, exchanges will be able to: (1)
Grant exemptions from exchange-set limits for
enumerated anticipatory bona fide hedges pursuant
to proposed §§ 150.11, 150.3(a)(1)(i) and
§ 150.5(a)(2); and (2) recognize enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedges (pursuant to proposed
§§ 150.11 and 150.3(a)(1)(i)) that will not be subject
to federal limits absent notice from an exchange or
the Commission to the contrary.
76 The three processes are non-exclusive because
there are alternative methods to seek recognition of
a position as a bona fide hedge or to receive an
exemption for a spread position, including requests
for no-action letters under § 140.99 or exemptive
relief under CEA section 4a(a)(7), per the December
2013 position limits proposal. See December 2013
position limits proposal, 78 FR at 75719–20.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

anticipatory exemption until an
exchange or the Commission notifies
them to the contrary. However, the
proposed processes would not protect
exchanges or applicants from charges of
violations of applicable sections of the
CEA or other Commission regulations,
other than position limits. For instance,
a market participant’s compliance with
position limits or an exemption does not
confer any type of safe harbor or good
faith defense to a claim that the market
participant had engaged in an attempted
manipulation, a perfected manipulation
or deceptive conduct, as is the case
under both current § 150.6 as well as
§ 150.6 as proposed in the December
2013 position limits proposal.77
The Commission views this current
proposal, enabling exchanges to elect to
administer these three processes, to be
suitable since each process requires
that: (i) An exchange submit
implementing rules subject to
Commission review, under the ordinary
rule submission procedures of the
Commission’s part 40 regulations; (ii)
the standards for receiving the
recognition or exemption be those set
out under the statute; 78 (iii) each
exchange’s actions under these
processes be reviewed under the
Commission’s rule enforcement review
program; 79 and (iv) all exchange actions
under such implementing rules are
subject to Commission review.80
The Commission observes that for
decades, exchanges have operated as
self-regulatory organizations
(‘‘SROs’’).81 These SROs are charged
77 See the discussion of § 150.6 as proposed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal, 78 FR at
75746–7.
78 See, e.g., proposed § 150.9(a)(3) (requiring
exchanges that elect to process NEBFH applications
to solicit sufficient information to allow it to
determine why a derivative position satisfies the
requirements of section 4a(c) of the Act), and
proposed § 150.9(a)(4) (requiring exchanges that
elect to process NEBFH applications to determine
whether a derivative position for which a complete
application has been submitted satisfies the
requirements of section 4a(c) of the Act), and
proposed § 150.10(a)(4)(vi) (requiring exchanges
that elect to process spread exemptions applications
to determine that exempting a spread position
would further the purposes of CEA section
4a(a)(3)(B)). See also infra discussion in Section
II.D.3 and III.E.2 (each providing discussion of the
standards for exchange determinations).
79 See note 126 for further information regarding
the Commission’s rule enforcement review
program.
80 See proposed §§ 150.9(a)(d), 150.10(a)(d), and
150.11(a)(d). The Commission notes that its de novo
review of exchange actions may be upon the
Commission’s own initiative or in response to a
request for an interpretation under § 140.99 by a
market participant whose application for
recognition of a position as a bona fide hedge was
rejected by an exchange.
81 CFTC regulation 1.3(ee) defines SRO to mean
a DCM, SEF, or registered futures association (such
as the National Futures Association). Under the

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38465

with carrying out regulatory functions,
including, since 2001, complying with
core principles, and operate subject to
the regulatory oversight of the
Commission pursuant to the CEA as a
whole, and more specifically, sections 5
and 5h.82 As SROs, exchanges do not act
only as independent, private actors.83
When the Act is read as a whole, as the
Commission noted in 1981, ‘‘it is
apparent that Congress envisioned
cooperative efforts between the selfregulatory organizations and the
Commission. Thus, the exchanges, as
well as the Commission, have a
continuing responsibility in this matter
Commission’s regulations, SROs have certain
delineated regulatory responsibilities, which are
carried out under Commission oversight and which
are subject to Commission review. See also note 126
(describing reviews of DCMs carried out by the
Commission).
82 7 U.S.C. 7 and 7 U.S.C. 7b–3, respectively. See
also note 126 below.
83 The Commission views as instructive the
following examples of case law addressing grants of
authority by an agency (the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the ‘‘SEC’’) to a self-regulatory
organization (‘‘SRO’’) (in the SEC cases the SRO
was NASD, now FINRA), providing insight into the
factors addressed by the court regarding oversight
of an SRO.
First, in 1952, the Second Circuit reviewed an
SEC order that failed to set aside a penalty fixed by
NASD suspending the defendant broker-dealer from
membership. Citing Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co.
v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381 (1940), the Second Circuit
found that, in light of the statutory provisions
vesting the SEC with power to approve or
disapprove NASD’s rules according to reasonably
fixed statutory standards, and the fact that NASD
disciplinary actions are subject to SEC review, there
was ‘‘no merit in the contention that the Maloney
Act unconstitutionally delegates power to the
NASD.’’ R.H. Johnson v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 198 F. 2d 690, 695 (2d Cir. 1952).
In 1977, the Third Circuit, in Todd & Co. v.
Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Todd’’), 557
F.2d 1008 (3rd Cir. 1977), likewise concluded that
the Act did not unconstitutionally delegate
legislative power to a private institution. The Todd
court articulated critical factors that kept the
Maloney Act within constitutional bounds. First,
the SEC had the power, according to reasonably
fixed statutory standards, to approve or disapprove
NASD’s rules before they could go into effect.
Second, all NASD judgments of rule violations or
penalty assessments were subject to SEC review.
Third, all NASD adjudications were subject to a de
novo (non-deferential) standard of review by the
SEC, which could be aided by additional evidence,
if necessary. Id. at 1012. Based on these factors, the
court found that ‘‘[NASD’s] rules and its
disciplinary actions were subject to full review by
the SEC, a wholly public body, which must base its
decision on its own findings’’ and thus that the
statutory scheme was constitutional. Id., at 1012–
13. See also First Jersey Securities v. Bergen, 605
F.2d 690 (1979), applying the same three-part test
delineated in Todd, and then upholding a statutory
narrowing of the Todd test.
Further, in 1982, the Ninth Circuit considered the
constitutionality of Congress’ delegation to NASD
in Sorrel v. Securities and Exchange Commission,
679 F. 2d 1323 (9th Cir. 1982). Sorrel followed R.H.
Johnson, Todd and First Jersey in holding that
because the SEC reviews NASD rules according to
reasonably fixed standards, and the SEC can review
any NASD disciplinary action, the Maloney Act
does not impermissibly delegate power to NASD.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38466

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

under the Act.’’ 84 The Commission’s
approach to its oversight of its SROs
was subsequently ratified by Congress
in 1982, when it gave the CFTC
authority to enforce exchange set
limits.85 As the Commission observed in
2010, ‘‘since 1982, the Act’s framework
explicitly anticipates the concurrent
application of Commission and
exchange-set speculative position
limits.’’ 86 The Commission further
noted that the ‘‘concurrent application
of limits is particularly consistent with
an exchange’s close knowledge of
trading activity on that facility and the
Commission’s greater capacity for
monitoring trading and implementing
remedial measures across
interconnected commodity futures and
option markets.’’ 87
The Commission notes that it retains
the power to approve or disapprove the
rules of exchanges, under standards set
out pursuant to the CEA, and to review
an exchange’s compliance with those
rules. By way of example, the
Commission notes that its Division of
Market Oversight would conduct ‘‘rule
enforcement reviews’’ 88 of each
exchange’s compliance with the rules it
files under this current proposal. Such
reviews would include an examination
of how effectively an exchange
administers these three proposed
processes, including review of
recognitions and exemptions granted
under the rules. Exchanges, as SROs, are
also subject to comprehensive
Commission regulation.89
84 Establishment of Speculative Position Limits,
46 FR 50938, 50939 (Oct. 16, 1981). As the
Commission noted at that time that ‘‘[s]ince many
exchanges have already implemented their own
speculative position limits on certain contracts, the
new rule merely effectuates completion of a
regulatory philosophy the industry and the
Commission appear to share.’’ Id. at 50940. The
Commission believes this is true for the current
proposal.
85 See Futures Trading Act of 1982, Public Law
97–444, 96 Stat. 2299–30 (1983). In 2010, the
Commission noted that the 1982 legislation ‘‘also
gave the Commission, under section 4a(5) of the
Act, the authority to directly enforce violations of
exchange-set, Commission-approved speculative
position limits in addition to position limits
established directly by the Commission through
orders or regulations.’’ Federal Speculative Position
Limits for Referenced Energy Contracts and
Associated Regulations, 75 FR 4144, 4145 (Jan. 36,
2010) (‘‘2010 Position Limits Proposal for
Referenced Energy Contracts’’). Section 4a(5) has
since been redesignated as section 4a(e) of the Act.
7 U.S.C. 4a(e).
86 2010 Position Limits for Referenced Energy
Contracts at 4145.
87 Id.
88 See note126 for further information regarding
the Commission’s rule enforcement review
program.
89 See, e.g., § 1.52 of the Commission’s
regulations, 17 CFR 1.52 (Self-regulatory
organization adoption and surveillance of minimum
financial requirements); part 37, 17 CFR part 37

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

The Commission—in adopting and
administering a regime that permits
certain SROs (i.e., DCMs and SEFs that
meet certain criteria) to recognize
positions as bona fide hedges subject to
Commission review, modification, or
rejection—proposes building upon the
experience and expertise of the DCMs in
administering their own processes for
recognition of bona fide hedging
positions under current § 1.3(z).90
Consistent with current market practice,
the three proposed exchangeadministered processes will accomplish
fact gathering regarding large positions
for the Commission, without much
expense of Commission resources. The
information obtained by means of fact
gathering during the application
processes will be available to the
Commission at any time upon request
and pursuant to the recordkeeping and
recording provisions at proposed
§§ 150.9 (b) and (c), 150.10(b) and (c),
and 150.11(b) and (c). The Commission
believes that the initial disposition of
applications through the exchangeadministered processes should establish
a reasonable basis for a Commission
determination that an application
should be subsequently approved or
denied. The Commission anticipates
that exchanges will advise and consult
with Commission staff regarding the
effectiveness of these programs, once
implemented by the exchanges, and
their utility in advancing the policy
objectives of the Act.
Moreover, the Commission is not
diluting its ability to recognize or not
recognize bona fide hedging positions 91
(Swap Execution Facilities); part 38, 17 CFR part 38
(Designated Contract Markets); and part 40, 17 CFR
part 40 (Provisions Common to Registered Entities).
90 See note 116, and accompanying text (pointing
to ICE Futures U.S. and CME Group comment
letters noting their experience overseeing position
limits, position accountability levels, and the
recognition of bona fide hedges.)
91 In connection with recognition of bona fide
hedging positions, the Commission notes that the
statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the
specific issue—whether the CFTC may authorize
SROs to recognize positions as bona fide hedging
positions. CEA section 4a(c) provides that no
Commission rule establishing federal position
limits applies to positions which are shown to be
bona fide hedging positions, as such term shall be
defined by the CFTC. As noted above, the ‘‘shown
to be’’ phrase is passive voice, which could
encompass either a position holder or an exchange
being able to ‘‘show’’ that a position is entitled to
treatment as a bona fide hedge, and does not specify
that the Commission must be the party determining
in advance whether the position or transaction was
shown to be bona fide; the Commission interprets
that provision to permit certain SROs (i.e., DCMs
and SEFs, meeting certain criteria) to recognize
positions as bona fide hedges for purposes of
federal limits when done so within a regime where
the Commission can review and modify or overturn
such determinations. Under the proposal, an SRO’s
recognition is tentative, because the Commission
would reserve the power to review the recognition,

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

or to grant or not grant spread
exemptions. The Commission has
reserved to itself the ability to review
any exchange action, and to review any
application by a market participant to
an exchange, whether prior to or after
disposition of such application by an
exchange. An exchange may ask the
Commission to consider an NEBFH
application (proposed § 150.9(a)(8)),
spread application (proposed
§ 150.10(a)(8)), or enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge application
(proposed § 150.11(a)(6)). The
Commission may also on its own
initiative at any time—before or after
action by an exchange—review any
application submitted to an exchange
for recognition of an NEBFH (proposed
§ 150.9(d)(1)), a spread exemption
(proposed § 150.10(d)(1)), or an
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedge (proposed § 150.11(d)(1)).92 And,
as noted above, market participants will
still be able to request a staff
interpretive letter under § 140.99 from
the Commission or seek exemptive relief
under CEA section 4a(a)(7) from the
Commission, as an alternative to the
three proposed exchange-administered
processes.93
subject to the reasonably fixed statutory standards
in CEA section 4a(c)(2) (directing the CFTC to
define the term bona fide hedging position). An
SRO’s recognition would also be constrained by the
SRO’s rules, which would be subject to CFTC
review under the proposal. The SROs are parties
that are subject to Commission authority, their rules
are subject to Commission review and their actions
are subject to Commission de novo review under
the proposal—SRO rules and actions may be
changed by the Commission at any time.
92 Under the review process set forth in proposed
§§ 150.9(d) and 150.10(d), the Commission will give
notice to the exchange and the applicable applicant
that they have 10 business days to provide any
supplemental information to the Commission. The
review process set forth in proposed § 150.11(d) is
simpler because the Commission does not
anticipate that applications for recognition of
enumerated anticipatory bona fide hedge positions
would be based on novel facts and circumstances;
instead the review of such an application would
focus on whether the application met the filing
requirements contained in proposed § 150.11(a). If
the filing was not complete, then proposed
§ 150.11(d) would provide an opportunity to
supplement to the applicant and the exchange.
During the review process, when the Commission
considers an exchange’s disposition of an
application, the Commission will consider not only
the Act but the Commission’s relevant regulations
and interpretations. That is, the Commission will
apply the same standards during review as the
exchange should or would have applied in
disposing of an application.
93 The December 2013 position limits proposal
provides that market participants can request a staff
interpretive letter under § 140.99 from Commission
staff or seek exemptive relief under CEA section
4a(a)(7) from the Commission. See, e.g., 78 FR at
75719–20. As noted above, the process of requesting
interpretations under § 140.99 would also be
available to market participants whose application
for recognition of a position as a bona fide hedge
was rejected by an exchange. See supra note 76; see
also infra note 109 and accompanying text.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
The Commission notes that CEA
section 8a(5) authorizes the Commission
to make such rules as, in its judgment,
are reasonably necessary to effectuate
any of the provisions or to accomplish
any of the purposes of the Act.94 The
Commission currently views the
proposed processes to be reasonably
necessary to implement CEA section
4a(a)(1), including for the purpose of
diminishing, eliminating, or preventing
the burden of excessive speculation.95
As pointed out by the Commission in
1981: ‘‘Section [4a(a)(1)] represents an
express Congressional finding that
excessive speculation is harmful to the
market, and a finding that speculative
limits are an effective prophylactic
measure. Section 8a(5), accordingly
would authorize the Commission to
develop regulations necessary to
effectuate the purposes of the Act, one
of which is expressed in section
[4a(a)(1)]. Consistent with this
approach, the Commission fashioned
rule 1.61 [current rule 150.5] to assure
that the exchanges would have an
opportunity to employ their knowledge
of their individual contract markets to
propose the position limits they believe
most appropriate.’’ 96
In addition, section 8a(7) of the Act
provides the Commission with authority
to alter or supplement the rules of a
registered entity, including DCMs and
SEFs, if the Commission determines that
such changes are necessary or
appropriate.97 Consequently, as the
94 7

U.S.C. 12a(5).
U.S.C. 6a(a)(1). The proposal also is
reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes of
the Act delineated in CEA section 3(b): ‘‘to deter
and prevent price manipulation or any other
disruptions to market integrity. 7 U.S.C. 5(b).
Further, the proposal is reasonably necessary to
accomplish the purposes of the Act delineated in
CEA section 4a(c)(1) ‘‘to permit producers,
purchasers, sellers, middlemen, and users of a
commodity or a product derived therefrom to hedge
their legitimate anticipated business needs.’’ 7
U.S.C. 6a(c)(1).
96 46 FR 50938, 50940 (Oct. 16, 1981).
Commission § 1.61 required all contract markets not
subject to federal speculative position limits to
adopt and enforce exchange-set speculative position
limits; in 1999, as part of the Commission’s
simplification and reorganization of its position
limit rules, the substance of rule 1.61’s
requirements were relocated to Part 150 of the
Commission’s rules, ‘‘thereby incorporating within
that Part all Commission rules relating to
speculative position limits.’’ 64 FR 24038, 24040
(May 5, 1999).
97 CEA section 8a(7) provides the Commission
with authority ‘‘to alter or supplement the rules of
a registered entity insofar as necessary or
appropriate by rule or regulation or by order, if after
making the appropriate request in writing to a
registered entity that such registered entity effect on
its own behalf specified changes in its rules and
practices, and after appropriate notice and
opportunity for hearing, the Commission
determines that such registered entity has not made
the changes so required, and that such changes are

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

95 7

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

Commission noted in 1981, ‘‘CEA
section 8a(7) further underscores the
fact that Congress affirmatively
contemplated a regulatory system
whereby the exchanges would act in the
first instance to adopt rules which
would protect persons producing,
handling, processing or consuming any
commodity traded for future delivery.
Secondarily, the Commission has
express authority to mandate any
modifications to an exchange’s rules to
protect such persons.’’ 98
D. Exchange Recognition of Positions as
Non-Enumerated Bona Fide Hedges
1. Background
DCMs have for some time set their
own position limits on numerous
physical commodity futures contracts
pursuant to DCM Core Principle 5.99
DCMs have established exchange-set
limits for futures contracts, including
for futures contracts currently subject to
Commission-set limits under current
§ 150.2, as well as other futures
contracts not subject to federal position
limits. Pursuant to the guidance of
current § 150.5(d), DCMs may grant
exemptions to exchange-set position
limits for positions that meet the
Commission’s general definition of bona
fide hedging position in current
necessary or appropriate for the protection of
persons producing, handling, processing, or
consuming any commodity traded for future
delivery on such registered entity, or the product
or byproduct thereof, or for the protection of traders
or to insure fair dealing in commodities traded for
future delivery on such registered entity.’’ 7 U.S.C.
12a(7).
98 46 FR 50938, 50940 (Oct. 16, 1981). See also
the Commission’s statement in 1999, that the
Commission and the exchanges ‘‘share
responsibility for enforcement of speculative
position limits,’’ noting that ‘‘the Commission can
directly take enforcement actions against violations
of exchange-set speculative position limits as well
as those provided under Commission rules.’’ 64 FR
24038, note 3 and accompanying text (May 5, 1999).
99 7 U.S.C. 7(d)(5). As explained in the December
2013 position limits proposal, ‘‘the CFMA core
principles regime concerning position limitations or
accountability for exchanges had the effect of
undercutting the mandatory rules promulgated by
the Commission in § 150.5. Since the CFMA
amended the CEA in 2000, the Commission has
retained § 150.5, but only as guidance on, and
acceptable practice for, compliance with DCM core
principle 5.’’ December 2013 position limits
proposal, 78 FR at 75754.
Prior to the Commodity Futures Modernization
Act of 2000 (‘‘CFMA’’), DCMs set position limits
pursuant to the requirements of § 150.5, adopted on
May 5, 1999. 17 CFR 150.5; see 64 FR 24038 (May
5, 1999) (codifying various policies related to the
requirement that DCMs set speculative position
limits); see also 46 FR 50938 (Oct. 16, 1981)
(requiring DCMs to set speculative position limits
in active futures markets for which no exchange or
Commission imposed limits were then in effect).
There are only nine commodity futures contracts
currently subject to federal position limits pursuant
to § 150.2 of the Commission’s regulations. 17 CFR
150.5.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38467

§ 1.3(z)(1).100 Current § 1.3(z)(2)
provides a list of enumerated bona fide
hedging positions. In addition, current
§ 1.3(z)(3) provides a procedure for
market participants to seek recognition
from the Commission for NEBFHs for
contracts subject to federal position
limits under current § 150.2. DCMs
generally have granted NEBFH
exemptions pursuant to exchange rules
that incorporate the Commission’s
general definition of bona fide hedging
positions in current § 1.3(z)(1).
In contrast to the longstanding DCM
experience monitoring position limits
on futures contracts and granting
exemptions to those exchange-set limits
on futures contracts, exchanges
generally do not currently administer
speculative position limits on swaps.
Previously, facilities operating under
CEA section 2(h)(3) as exempt
commercial markets (‘‘ECMs’’) were
subject to CFTC regulation under
authority granted by Congress in 2008
(although that authority was
subsequently superseded by the DoddFrank Act).101 Under that 2008
authority, the Commission issued
guidance that an ECM should establish
spot month position limits on any swap
contract that the Commission
determined to be a significant price
discovery contract (‘‘SPDC’’).102
However, since the Dodd-Frank Act,
exchanges have ‘‘futurized’’ (or
converted into futures contracts) those
SPDCs.103 Thus, the Commission
understands that exchanges generally do
100 17

CFR 1.3(z)(1).
CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008, H.R.
2419, sec. 13201 (May 22, 2008) (promulgating 7
U.S.C. 2(h)(7(C)(ii)(IV) (Core Principles Applicable
to Significant Price Discovery Contracts—Position
Limitations or Accountability). The Dodd-Frank Act
amended CEA section 2(h), effective July 16, 2011,
H.R. 4173, sec. 734(a) (July 21, 2010), replacing the
provisions governing ECMs with clearing
requirements in regards to swaps.
102 17 CFR part 36. It should be noted that prior
to the Dodd-Frank Act, ECMs could require clearing
of swaps at a particular DCO and, thus, could gain
access to information on open positions in a
particular swap from a single affiliated DCO. The
Dodd-Frank Act altered the playing field, providing
market participants with a choice as to which DCO
they wish to use. CEA section 5h(f)(11)(B) generally
does not permit a SEF to impose any material
anticompetitive burden on clearing. 7 U.S.C. 7b–
3(f)(11)(B).
103 In 2012, ICE (which listed the only contracts
that had been determined by the Commission to be
SPDCs) ‘‘futurized’’ the SPDC contracts listed on its
ECM by listing them instead on its DCM (as it noted
at that time, its plan was to ‘‘convert 251 Energy
Contracts to futures contracts that would be listed
for trading on the Exchange’s electronic trading
platform,’’ along with a request that the
Commission issue an order transferring the swap
open interest carried at the DCO for the ICE ECM
OTC contracts to futures and options open interest
carried at the DCO for ICE, the DCM. ICE
Submission No. 12–45, August 15, 2012).
101 The

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38468

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

not currently have speculative position
limits applicable to swaps contracts.
CEA section 4a(c) provides generally
that federal position limits do not apply
to positions that are shown to be bona
fide hedging positions.104 CEA section
4a(c)(2), adopted by the Dodd-Frank
Act, directs the Commission to narrow
the scope of what constitutes a bona fide
hedging position, for the purpose of
implementing federal position limits on
physical commodity derivatives, within
specific parameters.105 In response to
that directive, the Commission proposed
to add a definition of bona fide hedging
position in § 150.1, to replace the
definition in current § 1.3(z).106
The December 2013 position limits
proposal would replace the process for
Commission recognition of NEBFHs
under current § 1.3(z)(3) 107 and
§ 1.47 108 of the Commission’s
regulations with proposed § 150.3(e),
which would provide guidance for
persons seeking non-enumerated
hedging exemptions through the filing
of a petition under section 4a(a)(7) of
104 7

U.S.C. 6a(c)(1).
section 4a(c)(2) generally requires the
Commission to define a bona fide hedging position
as a position that: (a) Meets three tests (a position
(1) is a substitute for activity in the physical
marketing channel (‘‘temporary substitute test’’), (2)
is economically appropriate to the reduction of risk,
and (3) arises from the potential change in value of
current or anticipated assets, liabilities or services);
or (b) reduces the risk of a swap that was executed
opposite a counterparty for which such swap would
meet the three tests (‘‘pass-through swap offset
requirement’’). 7 U.S.C. 6a(c)(2). In contrast, the
definition of a bona fide hedge in current § 1.3(z):
Does not include the temporary substitute test, but
instead includes guidance that a bona fide hedging
position should normally represent a substitute for
transactions in the physical marketing channel; and
does not include the pass-through swap offset
requirement. See December 2013 positions limits
proposal at 75708–9.
106 See December 2013 position limits proposal
78 FR at 75706, 75823.
107 17 CFR 1.3(z)(3) (providing authority for the
Commission to recognize bona fide hedge positions
other than those enumerated in § 1.3(z)(2)).
108 17 CFR 1.47 (providing a process for persons
to demonstrate NEBFH falls within the scope of
§ 1.3(z)(1)). As noted in the December 2013 position
limits proposal, ‘‘Section 1.47 of the Commission’s
regulations was removed and reserved by the
vacated part 151 Rulemaking. On September 28,
2012, the District Court for the District of Columbia
vacated the part 151 Rulemaking with the exception
of the amendments to § 150.2. 887 F. Supp. 2d 259
(D.D.C. 2012). Vacating the part 151 Rulemaking,
with the exception of the amendments to § 150.2,
means that as things stand now, it is as if the
Commission had never adopted any part of the part
151 Rulemaking other than the amendments to
§ 150.2. That is, . . . § 1.47 is still in effect.’’
December 2013 position limits proposal, 78 FR at
75740, note 478. The full text of current § 1.47 can
be found at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR2010-title17-vol1/pdf/CFR-2010-title17-vol1-sec147.pdf. See 17 CFR 1.3(z) (2010). Similarly, the full
text of current § 1.3(z)(3) can be found at https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title17-vol1/pdf/
CFR-2010-title17-vol1-sec1-3.pdf. See 17 CFR 1.3(z)
(2010).

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

105 CEA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

the Act or by requesting an
interpretation under § 140.99.109 When
discussing non-enumerated hedges in
the December 2013 position limits
proposal, the Commission noted that
‘‘[u]nder the proposal for physical
commodities, additional enumerated
hedges could only be added to the
definition of bona fide hedging position
by way of notice and comment
rulemaking,’’ and asked whether it
should ‘‘adopt, as an alternative, an
administrative procedure that would
allow the Commission to add additional
enumerated bona fide hedges without
requiring notice and comment
rulemaking.’’ 110 The Commission
recognized that ‘‘there are complexities
to analyzing the various price risks
applicable to particular commercial
circumstances in order to determine
whether a hedge exemption is
warranted.’’ 111
Historically, the Commission has
recognized bona fide hedges where a
demonstrated physical price risk has
been shown.112 In addition, when
summarizing the disposition of the
Working Group petition requests in the
December 2013 position limits proposal,
the Commission observed that ‘‘context
is essential to determining the nature of
any price risk that has been realized and
could support the existence of a bona
fide hedge,’’ and ‘‘the only way to
evaluate the nature of any price risk
would be for the Commission to be
provided with particulars of the
transaction.’’ 113
2. Comments on the December 2013
Process for Recognition of a Position as
a Bona Fide Hedge
Some commenters have suggested that
the Commission permit exchanges to
process applications for nonenumerated bona fide hedges
(‘‘NEBFHs’’).114 For example, ICE
109 7 U.S.C. 6a(a)(7) and 17 CFR 140.99,
respectively.
110 December 2013 position limits proposal, 78 FR
at 75718.
111 Id. at 75703.
112 Id.
113 Id. at 75719–20. As noted above, under the
December 2013 position limits proposal, the
Commission could consider the facts and
circumstances if the party either requested a staff
interpretive letter under § 140.99 or exemptive
relief under CEA section 4a(a)(7). See also note 76
and accompanying text.
114 See, e.g., comment of Tom LaSala, CME
Group, that ‘‘the exchanges would be open to a
1.47-like process’’ where the exchanges would
review requests for recognition of non-enumerated
bona fide hedge positions on behalf of the
Commission, Transcript, Roundtable on Position
Limits, June 19, 2014, p. 125, available at http://
www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/opaevent_
cftcstaff061914; Futures Industry Association (FIA),
on July 31, 2014 (‘‘CL–FIA–59931’’), at 8
(recommending exchange review of non-

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Futures U.S. (‘‘ICE Futures U.S.’’)
commented that the Commission should
not now undertake the daily
administration of NEBFHs when its
resources are limited,115 and stated that
it has extensive, direct experience
overseeing position limits, position
accountability levels, and the
recognition of bona fide hedges.116 ‘‘The
enumerated hedge applications in the first
instance); ISDA and SIFMA on July 7, 2014 (‘‘CL–
ISDA/SIFMA–59917’’), at 4 (suggesting that the
Commission include in the final rulemaking a
process for market participants to apply to
registered exchanges for bona fide hedging
exemptions); Natural Gas Supply Association
(‘‘NGSA’’) on Aug. 4, 2014 (‘‘CL–NGSA–59941’’), at
9 (requesting the Commission to consider using ICE
and CME Group to continue to administer hedge
exemptions); Working Group on March 30, 2015
(‘‘CL–Working Group–60396’’), at 6 (recommending
that DCMs be able to grant bona fide hedge
exemptions in the energy industry either on an
enumerated or non-enumerated basis); International
Energy Credit Association (‘‘IECreditAssn’’) on Aug.
4, 2014 (‘‘CL–IECreditAssn–59957’’), at 6 (stating
that ‘‘the [IECreditAssn] is generally supportive of
a pre-approval procedure for nonenumerated
hedging exemptions, whereby a commercial enduser could first seek and obtain review and
approval by a CFTC-regulated Exchange’’); ICE on
March 30, 2015 (‘‘CL–ICE–60387’’), at 8 (noting that
‘‘the exchanges should continue to exercise the
authority to grant non-enumerated hedge exemption
requests pursuant to their rules and procedures’’);
COPE on March 30, 2015 (‘‘CL–COPE–60388’’), at
6–8 (supporting Working Group’s suggestion that
DCMs administer enumerated and non-enumerated
hedge exemptions). See also Plains All-American
Pipeline, L.P. (‘‘PAAP’’) on Aug. 4, 2014 (‘‘CL–
PAAP–59951’’), at 3–4; BG Group Energy Merchants
(‘‘BG Energy’’) on March 30, 2015 (‘‘CL–BG Energy–
60383’’), at 7–8; Sempra Energy (‘‘Sempra’’) on
March 30, 2015 (‘‘CL–SEMP–60384’’), at 5. Contra
Occupy the SEC on Aug. 7, 2014 (‘‘CL–OSEC–
59972’’) at 4 (maintaining that permitting exchanges
to ‘‘self-define’’ hedging exceptions ‘‘would likely
create an environment conducive to producing a
‘race to the bottom’ among exchanges as they would
have incentives to attract and retain participants
seeking to take advantage of the loosest rules’’);
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy on March
30, 2015 (‘‘CL–IATP–60394’’) at 3 (arguing that the
Commission should not permit the exchanges ‘‘to
manage position limits’’). See also Transcript,
Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting, Sept. 22,
2015, pp. 124–51 available at http://www.cftc.gov/
idc/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/aac_
transcript092215.pdf (discussing exchangeadministered processes for NEBFHs); Transcript,
Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory
Committee Meeting, Feb. 26, 2015, pp. 239–44,
available at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/
@aboutcftc/documents/file/
emactranscript022615.pdf (offering a general
discussion touching on alternative processes).
115 ICE Futures U.S., on March 30, 2015 (‘‘CL–
ICEUS–60378’’), at 3–4. See also CL–CME–60406, at
5 (stating that ‘‘CME Group is sympathetic to the
fact that the Commission faces resource constraints
that would prevent it from administering a
workable non-enumerated hedge exemption in real
time . . . .’’).
116 CL–ICEUS–60378 at 1. See also CL–CME–
60406 at 5 (noting that ‘‘[E]xchanges have years of
experience reviewing requests for hedge
exemptions and approving or denying those
requests based on a facts-and-circumstances
approach.’’); statement of R. Oppenheimer on behalf
of the Working Group, Energy and Environmental
Markets Advisory Committee meeting, July 29, 2015
(asserting that ‘‘The exchanges have the knowledge,

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
rules and procedures developed and
used by . . . [ICE Futures U.S.] to
perform this important function were
designed to incorporate the specific
needs and differing practices of the
commercial participants in each of its
markets as those needs and practices
have developed over time.’’ 117 These
commenters generally espoused the
view that the Commission should
continue in its broad oversight role in
the granting of hedge exemptions and
should not begin to become involved in
the daily administration of hedge
exemptions. One academic suggested
that permitting the exchanges to process
NEBFH applications would be
acceptable so long as the Commission
surveils the work of the exchanges.118

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

3. Proposed NEBFH Recognition Process
In light of DCM experience in granting
NEBFH exemptions to exchange-set
position limits for futures contracts, and
after consideration of comments
recommending exchange review of
NEBFH requests, the Commission now
proposes to permit exchanges to
recognize NEBFHs with respect to the
proposed federal speculative position
limits. Under proposed § 150.9, an
exchange, as an SRO 119 that is under
Commission oversight and whose rules
are subject to Commission review,120
could establish rules under which the
exchange could recognize as NEBFHs
positions that meet the general
definition of bona fide hedging position
in proposed § 150.1, which implements
the statutory directive in CEA section
4a(c) for the general definition of bona
fide hedging positions in physical
commodities.121 The exchange’s
the expertise, and the regulatory incentive to
carefully scrutinize the exemption process, and
they already engage in a parallel process for their
own interest in self-regulating and ensuring
convergence and orderly liquidation of futures
contracts as they come to expiry.’’)
117 CL–ICEUS–60378 at 1.
118 John Parsons, Transcript, Roundtable on
Position Limits, June 19, 2014, at 135–6.
119 As noted above, under the Commission’s
regulations, SROs have certain delineated
regulatory responsibilities, which are carried out
under Commission oversight and which are subject
to Commission review. See also, note 126
(describing reviews of DCMs carried out by the
Commission).
120 See CEA section 5c(c), 7 U.S.C. 7a–2(a)
(providing Commission with authority to review
rules and rule amendments of registered entities,
including DCMs).
121 As previously noted, Congress has required in
CEA section 4a(c) that the Commission, within
specific parameters, define what constitutes a bona
fide hedging position for the purpose of
implementing federal position limits on physical
commodity derivatives, including, as previously
stated, the inclusion in new section 4a(c)(2) of a
directive to narrow the bona fide hedging definition
for physical commodity positions from that
currently in Commission regulation § 1.3(z). See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

recognition would be subject to review
by the Commission. Exchange
recognition of a position as a NEBFH
would allow the market participant to
exceed the federal position limit to the
extent that it relied upon the exchange’s
recognition unless and until such time
that the Commission notified the market
participant to the contrary.122 The
Commission could issue such a
notification in accordance with the
proposed review procedures. That is, if
a party were to hold positions pursuant
to a NEBFH recognition granted by the
exchange, such positions would not be
subject to federal position limits, unless
or until the Commission were to
determine that such NEBFH recognition
is inconsistent with the CEA or CFTC
regulations thereunder. Under this
framework, the Commission would
continue to exercise its authority in this
regard by reviewing an exchange’s
determination and verifying whether the
facts and circumstances in respect of a
derivative position satisfy the
requirements of the general definition of
bona fide hedging position proposed in
§ 150.1.123 If the Commission
determined that the exchange-granted
recognition was inconsistent with
supra notes 32 and 105 and accompanying text; see
also December 2013 positions limits proposal at
75705. In response to that mandate, the
Commission proposed in its December 2013
position limits proposal to add a definition of bona
fide hedging position in § 150.1, to replace the
definition in current § 1.3(z) See 78 FR at 75706,
75823.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission is
still reviewing comments received on these
provisions. The Commission intends to finalize the
general definition of bona fide hedging position
based on the standards of CEA section 4a(c), and
may further define the bona fide hedging position
definition consistent with those standards.
122 See generally the discussion of proposed
§ 150.9(d) and the requirements regarding the
review of applications by the Commission, below.
The Commission notes that exchange participation
is voluntary, not mandatory and that exchanges
could elect not to administer the process. Market
participants could still request a staff interpretive
letter under § 140.99 or seek exemptive relief under
CEA section 4a(a)(7), per the December 2013
position limits proposal. The process does not
protect exchanges or applicants from charges of
violations of applicable sections of the CEA or other
Commission regulations. For instance, a market
participant’s compliance with position limits or an
exemption thereto would not confer any type of safe
harbor or good faith defense to a claim that he had
engaged in an attempted manipulation, a perfected
manipulation or deceptive conduct; see the
discussion of § 150.6 (Ongoing application of the
Act and Commission regulations) as proposed in
the December 2013 position limits proposal, 78 FR
at 75746–7.
123 See, e.g. the general discussion of the
Commission’s review process proposed in
§ 151.9(c), which would support the Commission’s
surveillance program by facilitating the tracking of
NEBFHs recognized by exchanges, keeping the
Commission informed of the manner in which an
exchange is administering its procedures for
recognizing such NEBFHs.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38469

section 4a(c) of the Act and the
Commission’s general definition of bona
fide hedging position in § 150.1 and so
notified a market participant relying on
such recognition, the market participant
would be required to reduce the
derivative position or otherwise come
into compliance with position limits
within a commercially reasonable
amount of time.
The Commission believes that
permitting exchanges to so recognize
NEBFHs is consistent with its statutory
obligation to set and enforce position
limits on physical commodity contracts,
because the Commission is retaining its
authority to determine ultimately
whether any NEBFH so recognized is in
fact a bona fide hedging position. The
Commission’s authority to set position
limits does not extend to any position
that is shown to be a bona fide hedging
position.124 Further, most, if not all,
DCMs already have a framework and
application process to recognize nonenumerated positions, for purposes of
exchange-set limits, as within the
meaning of the general bona fide
hedging definition in § 1.3(z)(1).125 The
Commission has a long history of
overseeing the performance of the DCMs
in granting appropriate exemptions
under current exchange rules regarding
exchange-set position limits 126 and
124 CEA section 4a(c)(1), 7 U.S.C. 6a(c)(1). See
also supra note 65.
125 Rulebooks for some DCMs can be found in the
links to their associated documents on the
Commission’s Web site at http://sirt.cftc.gov/SIRT/
SIRT.aspx?Topic=TradingOrganizations.
126 The Commission bases this view on its long
experience overseeing DCMs and their compliance
with the requirements of CEA section 5 and part 38
of the Commission’s regulations, 17 CFR part 38.
Under part 38, a DCM must comply, on an initial
and ongoing basis, with twenty-three Core
Principles established in section 5(d) of the CEA, 7
U.S.C. 7(d), and part 38 of the CFTC’s regulations
and with the implementing regulations under part
38. The Division of Market Oversight’s Market
Compliance Section conducts regular reviews of
each DCM’s ongoing compliance with core
principles through the self-regulatory programs
operated by the exchange in order to enforce its
rules, prevent market manipulation and customer
and market abuses, and ensure the recording and
safe storage of trade information. These reviews are
known as rule enforcement reviews (‘‘RERs’’). Some
periodic RERs examine a DCM’s market
surveillance program for compliance with Core
Principle 4, Monitoring of Trading, and Core
Principle 5, Position Limitations or Accountability.
On some occasions, these two types of RERs may
be combined in a single RER. Market Compliance
can also conduct horizontal RERs of the compliance
of multiple exchanges in regard to particular core
principles. In conducting an RER, the Division of
Market Oversight (DMO) staff examines trading and
compliance activities at the exchange in question
over an extended time period selected by DMO,
typically the twelve months immediately preceding
the start of the review. Staff conducts extensive
review of documents and systems used by the
exchange in carrying out its self-regulatory
responsibilities; interviews compliance officials and

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

Continued

13JNP3

38470

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

believes that it would be efficient and in
the best interest of the markets, in light
of current resource constraints,127 to
rely on the exchanges to initially
process applications for recognition of
positions as NEBFHs. In addition,
because many market participants are
familiar with current DCM practices
regarding bona fide hedges, permitting
DCMs to build on current practice may
staff of the exchange; and prepares a detailed
written report of findings. In nearly all cases, the
RER report is made available to the public and
posted on CFTC.gov. See materials regarding RERs
of DCMs at http://www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/
TradingOrganizations/DCMs/dcmruleenf on the
Commission’s Web site. Recent RERs conducted by
DMO covering DCM Core Principle 5 and
exemptions from position limits have included the
Minneapolis Grain Exchange, Inc. (‘‘MGEX’’) (June
5, 2015), ICE Futures U.S. (July 22, 2014), the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange (‘‘CME’’) and the
Chicago Board of Trade (‘‘CBOT’’) (July 26, 2013),
and the New York Mercantile Exchange (May 19,
2008). While DMO may sometimes identify
deficiencies or make recommendations for
improvements, it is the Commission’s view that it
should be permissible for DCMs to process
applications for exchange recognition of positions
as NEBFHs. Consistent with the fifteen SEF core
principles established in section 5h(f) of the CEA,
7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f), and with the implementing
regulations under part 37, 17 CFR part 37, the
Commission will perform similar RERs for SEFs.
The Commission’s preliminary view is that it
should be permissible for SEFs to process
applications as well, after obtaining the requisite
experience administering exchange-set position
limits discussed below.
127 Since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act,
Commissioners, CFTC staff, and public officials
have expressed repeatedly and publicly that
Commission resources have not kept pace with the
CFTC’s expanded jurisdiction and increased
responsibilities. The Commission anticipates there
may be hundreds of applications for NEBFHs. This
is based on the number of exemptions currently
processed by DCMs. For example, under the
existing process, during the period from June 15,
2011 to June 15, 2012, the Market Surveillance
Department of ICE Futures U.S. received 142
exemption applications, 121 of which related to
bona fide hedging requests, while 21 related to
arbitrage or cash-and-carry requests; 92 new
exemptions were granted. Rule Enforcement review
of ICE Futures U.S., July 22, 2014, p. 40. Also under
the existing process, during the period from
November 1, 2010 to October 31, 2011, the Market
Surveillance Group from the CME Market
Regulation Department took action on and
approved 420 exemption applications for products
traded on CME and CBOT, including 114 new
exemptive applications, 295 applications for
renewal, 10 applications for increased levels, and
one temporary exemption on an inter-commodity
spread. Rule Enforcement Review of the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of
Trade, July 26, 2013, p. 54. These statistics are now
a few years old, and it is possible that the number
of applications under the processes outlined in this
proposal will increase relative to the number of
applications described in the RERs. The CFTC
would need to shift substantial resources, to the
detriment of other oversight activities, to process so
many requests and applications and has
determined, as described below, to permit
exchanges to process applications initially. The
Commission anticipates it will regularly, as
practicable, check a sample of the exemptions
granted, including in cases where the facts warrant
special attention, retrospectively as described
below, including through RERs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

reduce the burden on market
participants. Moreover, the process
outlined below should reduce
duplicative efforts because market
participants seeking recognition of an
NEBFH would be able to file one
application for relief, only to an
exchange, rather than to both an
exchange with respect to exchange-set
limits and to the Commission with
respect to federal limits.128
i. Proposed § 150.9(a)—Requirements
For Exchange Application Process
a. Submission of Exchange Rules Under
Part 40
The Commission contemplates in
proposed § 150.9(a)(1) that exchanges
may voluntarily elect to process NEBFH
applications by filing new rules or rule
amendments with the Commission
pursuant to part 40 of the Commission’s
regulations. The Commission
anticipates that, consistent with current
practice, most exchanges will selfcertify such new rules or rule
amendments pursuant to § 40.6. The
self-certification process should be a
low burden for exchanges, especially for
those that already recognize nonenumerated positions meeting the
general definition of bona fide hedging
position in § 1.3(z)(1).129 In the
128 One commenter specifically requested that the
Commission streamline duplicative processes.
American Gas Association (‘‘AGA’’) on March 30,
2015 (‘‘CL–AGA–60382’’) at 12 (stating that ‘‘AGA
. . . urges the Commission to ensure that hedge
exemption requests and any hedge reporting do not
require duplicative filings at both the exchanges
and the Commission, and therefore recommends
revising the rules to streamline the process by
providing that an applicant need only apply to and
report to the exchanges, while the Commission
could receive any necessary data and applications
by coordinating data flow between the exchanges
and the Commission.’’). See also CL—Working
Group—60396 (explaining that ‘‘To avoid
employing duplicative efforts, the Commission
should simply rely on DCMs to administer bona
fide hedge exemptions from federal speculative
position limits as they carry out their core duties
to ensure orderly markets.’’)
129 DCMs currently process applications for
exemptions from exchange-set position limits for
certain NEBFHs and enumerated anticipatory bona
fide hedges, as well as for exemptions from
exchange-set position limits for certain spread
positions, pursuant to CFMA-era regulatory
guidance. See note 102, above, and accompanying
text. This practice continues because, among other
things, the Commission has not finalized the rules
proposed in the December 2013 position limits
proposal.
As noted above and as explained in the December
2013 position limits proposal, while current § 150.5
regarding exchange-set position limits pre-dates the
CFMA ‘‘the CFMA core principles regime
concerning position limitations or accountability
for exchanges had the effect of undercutting the
mandatory rules promulgated by the Commission in
§ 150.5. Since the CFMA amended the CEA in 2000,
the Commission has retained § 150.5, but only as
guidance on, and acceptable practice for,
compliance with DCM core principle 5.’’ December
2013 position limits proposal 78 FR at 75754.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Commission’s view, allowing DCMs to
continue to follow current practice, and
extend that practice to exchange
recognition of NEBFHs for purposes of
the federal position limits, will permit
the Commission to more effectively
allocate its limited resources to
oversight of the exchanges’ actions.130
RFC 2. Are there any facts and
circumstances specific to DCMs that, for
purposes of exchange limits, currently
recognize non-enumerated positions
meeting the general definition of bona
fide hedging position in § 1.3(z)(1), that
the Commission should accommodate
in any final regulations regarding the
processing of NEBFH applications?
RFC 3. Are there any concerns
regarding an exchange that elects to stop
processing NEBFH applications? For
example, what should be the status of a
previously recognized NEBFH, if the
exchange that recognized a NEBFH no
longer provides for an annual review?
b. Requirements for an Exchange To
Process Applications
Proposed § 150.9(a)(1) provides that
exchange rules must incorporate the
general definition of bona fide hedging
position in § 150.1. It also provides that,
with respect to a commodity derivative
position for which an exchange elects to
process NEBFH applications, (i) the
position must be in a commodity
derivative contract that is a referenced
contract; (ii) the exchange must list such
commodity derivative contract for
trading; (iii) such commodity derivative
contract must be actively traded on such
exchange; (iv) such exchange must have
established position limits for such
commodity derivative contract; and (v)
such exchange must have at least one
year of experience administering
exchange-set position limits for such
commodity derivative contract. The
requirement for one year of experience
is intended as a proxy for a minimum
level of expertise gained in monitoring
futures or swaps trading in a particular
physical commodity.
The DCM application processes for bona fide
hedge exemptions from exchange-set position limits
generally reference or incorporate the general
definition of bona fide hedging position contained
in current § 1.3(z)(1), and the Commission believes
the exchange processes for approving nonenumerated bona fide hedge applications are at
least to some degree informed by the Commission
process outlined in current § 1.47.
130 If the Commission becomes concerned about
an exchange’s general processing of NEBFH
applications, the Commission may review such
processes pursuant to a periodic rule enforcement
review or a request for information pursuant to
Commission regulation § 37.5. Separately, under
proposed § 150.9(d), the proposal provides that the
Commission may review a DCM’s determinations in
the case of any specific NEBFH application.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

The Commission believes that the
exchange NEBFH process should be
limited only to those exchanges that
have at least one year of experience
overseeing exchange-set position limits
in an actively traded referenced contract
in a particular commodity because an
individual exchange may not be familiar
enough with the specific needs and
differing practices of the commercial
participants in those markets for which
the exchange does not list any actively
traded referenced contract in a
particular commodity. Thus, if a
referenced contract is not actively
traded on an exchange that elects to
process NEBFH applications for
positions in such referenced contract,
that exchange might not be incentivized
to protect or manage the relevant
commodity market, and its interests
might not be aligned with the policy
objectives of the Commission as
expressed in CEA section 4a. The
Commission expects that an individual
exchange will describe how it will
determine whether a particular listed
referenced contract is actively traded in
its rule submission, based on its
familiarity with the specific needs and
differing practices of the commercial
participants in the relevant market.131
The Commission is also mindful that
some market participants, such as
commercial end users in some
circumstances, may not be required to
trade on an exchange, but may
nevertheless desire to have a particular
derivative position recognized as a
NEBFH. The Commission believes that
commercial end users should be able to
avail themselves of an exchange’s
NEBFH application process in lieu of
requesting a staff interpretive letter
under § 140.99 or seeking CEA section
4a(a)(7) exemptive relief. This is
because the Commission believes that
exchanges that list particular referenced
contracts will have enough information
about the markets in which such
contracts trade and will be sufficiently
familiar with the specific needs and
131 For example, a DCM (‘‘DCM A’’) may list a
commodity derivative contract (‘‘KX,’’ where ‘‘K’’
refers to contract and ‘‘X’’ refers to the commodity)
that is a referenced contract, actively traded, and
DCM A has the requisite experience and expertise
in administering position limits in that one contract
KX. DCM A can therefore recognize NEBFHs in
contract KX. But DCM A is not limited to
recognition of just that one contract KX–DCM A can
also recognize any other contract that falls within
the meaning of referenced contract for commodity
X. So a market participant could, for example,
apply to DCM A for recognition of a position in any
contract that falls within the meaning of referenced
contract for commodity X. However, that market
participant would still need to seek separate
recognition from each exchange where it seeks an
exemption from that other exchange’s limit for a
commodity derivative contract in the same
commodity X.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

differing practices of the commercial
participants in such markets in order to
knowledgeably recognize NEBFHs for
derivatives positions in commodity
derivative contracts included within a
particular referenced contract. The
Commission also views this to be
consistent with the efficient allocation
of Commission resources.
RFC 4. Are there circumstances in
which the Commission should permit
an exchange to process an NEBFH
application for a position in a
commodity derivative contract where
that contract is a referenced contract
that is not actively traded on such
exchange or for which the exchange has
less than one year of experience
administering position limits?
RFC 5. Should the Commission define
‘‘actively traded’’ in terms of a
minimum monthly volume of trading,
such as an average monthly trading
volume of 1,000 futures-equivalent
contracts over a twelve month period?
RFC 6. Are there any concerns if a
market participant applies for
recognition of a NEBFH on one
exchange, intending to execute the
trades comprising the recognized
position away from that exchange (e.g.,
over the counter)?
RFC 7. Are there concerns regarding
the applicability of NEBFH positions in
the spot month? Should the
Commission, parallel to the
requirements of current regulation
1.3(z)(2) (i.e., the ‘‘five-day rule’’),
provide that such positions not be
recognized as NEBFH positions during
the lesser of the last five days of trading
or the time period for the spot
month? 132
RFC 8. If the Commission permits
NEBFH positions to be held into the
spot month, should recognition of
NEBFH positions be conditioned upon
additional filings to the exchange—
similar to the proposed Form 504 filings
required for the proposed conditional
spot month limit exemption? 133 As
proposed, Form 504 would require
additional information on the market
132 17 CFR 1.3(z)(2). See also, e.g., the ‘‘bona fide
hedging position’’ definition proposed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal, 78 FR at
75823–24.
133 The conditional spot month limit exemption
and the related Form 504 were discussed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal (78 FR
75680 at 75736–8). A copy of the proposed form
was submitted to the Federal Register (id. at 75803–
8) to ensure the public has the opportunity to
comment on the information required by the
proposed form. The Commission estimated the
number of market participants that would be
required to file the form in the December 2013
position limits proposal (id. at 75783). Commenters
are encouraged to review and comment on the
proposed Form 504 under the context of this
current proposal.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38471

participant’s cash market holdings for
each day of the spot month period.
Under this alternative, market
participants would submit daily cash
position information to the exchanges in
a format determined by the exchange,
which would then be required to
forward that information to the
Commission in a process similar to that
proposed under § 150.9(c)(2).
RFC 9. Alternatively, if the
Commission permits NEBFH positions
to be held into the spot month, should
the Commission require market
participants to file the Form 504 with
the Commission? Under this alternative,
the relevant cash market information
would be submitted directly to the
Commission, eliminating the need for
the exchange to intermediate, although
the Commission could share such a
filing with the exchanges. The
Commission would adjust the title of
the Form 504 to clarify that the form
would be used for all daily spot month
cash position reporting purposes, not
just the proposed requirements of the
conditional spot month limit exemption
in proposed § 150.3(c).
Consistent with the restrictions
regarding the offset of risks arising from
a swap position in CEA section
4a(c)(2)(B), proposed § 150.9(a)(1)
would not permit an exchange to
recognize an NEBFH involving a
commodity index contract and one or
more referenced contracts. That is, an
exchange may not recognize an NEBFH
where a bona fide hedge position could
not be recognized for a pass through
swap offset of a commodity index
contract.134
c. Exchanges May Establish a DualTrack Application Process
Proposed § 150.9(a)(2) permits an
exchange to establish a less expansive
application process for NEBFHs
previously recognized and published on
such exchange’s Web site than for
NEBFHs based on novel facts and
circumstances. This is because the
Commission believes that some lesser
degree of scrutiny may be adequate for
applications involving recurring fact
patterns, so long as the applicants are
134 This is consistent with the Commission’s
interpretation in the December 2013 position limits
proposal that CEA section 4a(c)(2)(b) is a direction
from Congress to narrow the scope of what
constitutes a bona fide hedge in the context of index
trading activities. ‘‘Financial products are not
substitutes for positions taken or to be taken in a
physical marketing channel. Thus, the offset of
financial risks from financial products is
inconsistent with the proposed definition of bona
fide hedging for physical commodities.’’ December
2013 position limits proposal, 78 FR at 75740. See
also the discussion of the temporary substitute test
in the December 2013 position limits proposal, 78
FR at 75708–9.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38472

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

similarly situated. However, the
Commission understands that DCMs
currently use a single-track application
process to recognize non-enumerated
positions, for purposes of exchange
limits, as within the meaning of the
general bona fide hedging definition in
§ 1.3(z)(1).135 The Commission does not
know whether any exchange will elect
to establish a separate application
process for NEBFHs based on novel
versus non-novel facts and
circumstances, or what the salient
differences between the two processes
might be, or whether a dual-track
application process might be more
likely to produce inaccurate results, e.g.,
inappropriate recognition of positions
that are not bona fide hedges within the
parameters set forth by Congress in CEA
section 4a(c).136 In proposing to permit
separate application processes for novel
and non-novel NEBFHs, the
Commission seeks to provide flexibility
for exchanges, but will insist on fair and
open access for market participants to
seek recognition of compliant positions
as NEBFHs.
RFC 10. Would separate application
processes for novel and non-novel
NEBFHs be more likely to produce
inaccurate results, e.g., inappropriate
recognition of positions that are not
bona fide hedges within the parameters
set forth by Congress in section 4a(c) of
the Act?
d. Market Participant’s Facts and
Circumstances
The Commission believes that there is
a core set of information and materials
necessary to enable an exchange to
determine, and the Commission to
verify, whether the facts and
circumstances attendant to a position
satisfy the requirements of CEA section
4a(c). Accordingly, the Commission
proposes to require in § 150.9(a)(3)(i),
(iii) and (iv) that all applicants submit
certain factual statements and
representations. Proposed
§ 150.9(a)(3)(i) requires a description of
the position in the commodity
derivative contract for which the
application is submitted and the
offsetting cash positions.137 Proposed
§ 150.9(a)(3)(iii) requires a statement
concerning the maximum size of all
gross positions in derivative contracts to
be acquired during the year after the
135 17

CFR 1.3(z)(1).
U.S.C. 6a(c). The Commission notes that it
could, under the proposal, review determinations
made by a particular exchange, for example, that
recognizes an unusually large number of bona fide
hedges, relative to those of other exchanges.
137 See § 1.47(b)(1), 17 CFR 1.47(b)(1), requiring a
description of the futures positions and the
offsetting cash positions.
136 7

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

application is submitted.138 Proposed
§ 150.9(a)(3)(iv) requires detailed
information regarding the applicant’s
activity in the cash markets for the
commodity underlying the position for
which the application is submitted
during the past three years.139 These
proposed application requirements are
similar to existing requirements for
recognition under current § 1.48 of a
NEBFH.
The Commission also proposes to
require in § 150.9(a)(3)(ii) and (v) that
all applicants submit detailed
information to demonstrate why the
position satisfies the requirements of
CEA section 4a(c) 140 and any other
information necessary to enable the
exchange to determine, and the
Commission to verify, whether it is
appropriate to recognize such a position
as an NEBFH.141 The Commission
138 See § 1.47(b)(4), 17 CFR 1.47(b)(4), requiring
the maximum size of gross futures positions which
will be acquired during the following year.
139 See §§ 1.47(b)(6), 1.48(b)(1)(i) and (2)(i), 17
CFR 1.47(b)(6), 1.48(b)(1)(i) and 2(i), requiring three
years of history of production or usage.
140 Although many commenters have requested
that the Commission retain the pre-Dodd Frank Act
standard contained in current § 1.3(z), 17 CFR
1.3(z), there is explicit and implicit support in the
comments on the December 2013 position limits
proposal for pegging what applicants must
demonstrate to the current statutory provision as
amended by the Dodd-Frank Act. One commenter
requested that the Commission ‘‘publicly clarify
that hedge positions are bona fide when they satisfy
the hedge definition codified by Congress in section
4a(c)(2) of the Act, as added by the Dodd-Frank
Act.’’ CME Group, on Feb. 10, 2014 (‘‘CL–CME–
59718’’), at 46. Another commenter supported a
‘‘process for Commission approval of a ‘nonenumerated’ hedge that . . . complies with the
statutory definition of the term ‘bona fide hedge.’ ’’
NGSA on Feb. 10, 2014 (‘‘CL–NGSA–59673’’), at 2.
CEA section 4a(c)(2) contains standards for
positions that constitute bona fide hedges. The
Commission expects that exchanges will consider
the Commission’s relevant regulations and
interpretations, when determining whether a
position satisfies the requirements of CEA section
4a(c)(2). However, exchanges may confront novel
facts and circumstances with respect to a particular
applicant’s position, dissimilar to facts and
circumstances previously considered by the
Commission. In these cases, an exchange may
request assistance from the Commission; see the
discussion of proposed § 150.9(a)(8), below.
141 See § 1.47(b)(2), 17 CFR 1.47(b)(2), requiring
detailed information to demonstrate that the futures
positions are economically appropriate to the
reduction of risk in the conduct and management
of a commercial enterprise. See also § 1.47(b)(3), 17
CFR 1.47(b)(3), requiring, upon request, such other
information necessary to enable the Commission to
determine whether a particular futures position
meets the requirements of the general definition of
bona fide hedging. Under current application
processes, market participants provide similar
information to DCMs, make various representations
required by DCMs and agree to certain terms
imposed by DCMs with respect to exemptions
granted. The Commission has recognized that DCMs
already consider any information they deem
relevant to requests for exemptions from position
limits. See, e.g., Rule Enforcement Review of ICE
Futures U.S., July 22, 2014, p. 41.

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

anticipates that such detailed
information may include both a factual
and legal analysis indicating why
recognition is justified for such
applicant’s position. The Commission
expects that if the materials submitted
in response to proposed § 150.9(a)(3)(ii)
are relatively comprehensive, requests
for additional information pursuant to
proposed § 150.9(a)(3)(v) will be
relatively infrequent. Nevertheless, the
Commission believes that it is important
to include the requirement in proposed
§ 150.9(a)(3)(v) that applicants submit
any other information necessary to
enable the exchange to determine, and
the Commission to verify, that it is
appropriate to recognize a position as a
non-enumerated bona fide hedge so that
DCMs can protect and manage their
markets.
Under the proposal, the Commission
would permit an exchange to recognize
a smaller than requested position for
purposes of exchange-set limits. For
instance, an exchange might recognize a
smaller than requested position that
otherwise satisfies the requirements of
CEA section 4a(c) if the exchange
determines that recognizing a larger
position would be disruptive to the
exchange’s markets. This is consistent
with current exchange practice. This is
also consistent with DCM and SEF core
principles. DCM core principle 5(A)
provides that, ‘‘[t]o reduce the potential
threat of market manipulation or
congestion (especially during trading
during the delivery month), the board of
trade shall adopt for each contract of the
board of trade, as is necessary and
appropriate, position limitations or
position accountability for
speculators.’’ 142 SEF core principle 6(A)
contains a similar provision.143
By requiring in proposed § 150.9(a)(3)
that all applicants submit a core set of
information and materials, the
Commission anticipates that all
exchanges will develop similar NEBFH
application processes. However, the
Commission intends that exchanges
have sufficient discretion to
accommodate the needs of their market
participants. The Commission also
intends to promote fair and open access
for market participants to obtain
recognition of compliant derivative
positions as NEBFHs.
142 CEA section 5(d)(5)(A), 7 U.S.C. 7(d)(5)(A);
§ 38.300, 17 CFR 38.300. The Commission
proposed, consistent with previous Commission
determinations, a preliminary finding that
speculative position limits are necessary in the
December 2013 position limits proposal. December
2013 position limits proposal, 78 FR at 75685.
143 CEA § 5h(f)(6)(A), 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(f)(6)(A);
§ 38.300, 17 CFR 38.300.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
RFC 11. Is the proposed core set of
information required of market
participants adequate for an exchange to
review applications for NEBFHs?

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

e. Application Process Timeline
Proposed § 150.9(a)(4) sets forth
certain timing requirements that an
exchange must include in its rules for
the NEBFH application process. A
person intending to rely on an
exchange’s recognition of a position as
a NEBFH would be required to submit
an application in advance and to
reapply at least on an annual basis. This
is consistent with commenters’ views
and DCMs’ current annual exemption
review process.144 Proposed
§ 150.9(a)(4) would require an exchange
to notify an applicant in a timely
manner whether the position was
recognized as a NEBFH or rejected,
including the reasons for any
rejection.145 On the other hand, and
consistent with the status quo, proposed
§ 150.9(a)(4) would allow the exchange
to revoke, at any time, any recognition
previously issued pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9 if the exchange determines the
recognition is no longer in accord with
section 4a(c) of the Act.146
The Commission does not propose to
prescribe time-limited periods (e.g., a
specific number of days) for submission
or review of NEBFH applications. The
Commission proposes only to require
that an applicant must have received
recognition for a NEBFH position before
such applicant exceeds any limit then in
effect, and that the exchange administer
the process, and the various steps in the
process, in a timely manner. This means
that an exchange must, in a timely
manner, notify an applicant if a
submission is incomplete, determine
whether a position is an NEBFH, and
144 See, e.g., statement of Ron Oppenheimer on
behalf of the Working Group (supporting an annual
NEBFH application), statement of Erik Haas,
Director, Market Regulation, ICE Futures U.S.,
(describing the DCM’s annual exemption review
process), and statement of Tom LaSala, Chief
Regulatory Officer, CME Group, (envisioning
market participants applying for NEBFHs on a
yearly basis), transcript of the EEMAC open
meeting, July 29, 2015, at 40, 53, and 58, available
at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@
aboutcftc/documents/file/
emactranscript072915.pdf.
145 See, e.g., statement of Ron Oppenheimer on
behalf of the Working Group (noting that exchanges
retain the ability to revoke an exemption if market
circumstances warrant), transcript of the EEMAC
open meeting, July 29, 2015, at 57, available at
http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@aboutcftc/
documents/file/emactranscript072915.pdf.
146 As noted above, the current proposal does not
impair the ability of any market participant to
request an interpretation under § 140.99 for
recognition of a position as a bona fide hedge if an
exchange rejects their recognition application or
revokes recognition previously issued. See supra
note 78 and accompanying text.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

notify an applicant whether a position
will be recognized, or the application
rejected. The Commission anticipates
that rules of an exchange may
nevertheless set deadlines for various
parts of the application process. The
Commission does not believe that
reasonable deadlines or minimum
review periods are inconsistent with the
general principle of timely
administration of the application
process. An exchange could also
establish different deadlines for a dualtrack application process. The
Commission believes that the individual
exchanges themselves are in the best
position to evaluate how quickly each
can administer the application process,
in order best to accommodate the needs
of market participants. In addition to
review of an exchange’s timeline when
it submits its rules for its application
process under part 40, the Commission
would review the exchange’s timeliness
in the context of a rule enforcement
review.
RFC 12. The Commission invites
comment regarding the discretion
proposed for exchanges to process
NEBFH applications in a timely manner.
f. NEBFH Deemed Recognized Upon
Exchange Recognition
Proposed § 150.9(a)(5) makes it clear
that the position will be deemed to be
recognized as a NEBFH when an
exchange recognizes it; proposed
§ 150.9(d) provides the process through
which the exchange’s recognition would
be subject to review by the
Commission.147 As noted above, DCMs
currently exercise discretion with regard
to exchange-set limits to approve
exemptions meeting the general
147 See supra notes 121–123 and accompanying
text; see also the discussion of proposed § 150.9(d),
review of applications by the Commission, below.
Exchange recognition of a position as a NEBFH
would allow the market participant to exceed the
federal position limit until such time that the
Commission notified the market participant to the
contrary, pursuant to the proposed review
procedure that the exchange action was dismissed.
That is, if a party were to hold positions pursuant
to a NEBFH recognition granted by the exchange,
such positions would not be subject to federal
position limits, unless or until the Commission
were to determine that such NEBFH recognition is
inconsistent with the CEA or CFTC regulations
thereunder. Under this framework, the Commission
would continue to exercise its authority in this
regard by reviewing an exchange’s determination
and verifying whether the facts and circumstances
in respect of a derivative position satisfy the
requirements of the Commission’s general
definition of bona fide hedging position in § 150.1.
If the Commission determines that the exchangegranted recognition is inconsistent with section
4a(c) of the Act and the Commission’s general
definition of bona fide hedging position in § 150.1,
a market participant would be required to reduce
the derivative position or otherwise come into
compliance with position limits within a
commercially reasonable amount of time.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38473

definition of bona fide hedge. The
Commission works cooperatively with
DCMs to enforce compliance with
exchange-set speculative position limits.
The Commission believes a
continuation of this cooperative process,
and an extension to the proposed
federal position limits, would be
consistent with the policy objectives in
CEA section 4a(3)(B).148
g. Market Participant Reporting
Requirements
Proposed § 150.9(a)(6) requires
exchanges that elect to process NEBFH
applications to promulgate reporting
rules for applicants who own, hold or
control positions recognized as
NEBFHs. The Commission expects that
the exchanges will promulgate
enhanced reporting rules in order to
obtain sufficient information to conduct
an adequate surveillance program to
detect and potentially deter excessively
large positions that may disrupt the
price discovery process. At a minimum,
these rules should require applicants to
report when an NEBFH position has
been established, and to update and
maintain the accuracy of such reports.
These rules should also elicit
information from applicants that will
assist exchanges in complying with
proposed § 150.9(c) regarding exchange
reports to the Commission.
RFC 13. Should the Commission
provide further guidance regarding the
types of information that exchanges
should seek to elicit from reporting
rules with respect to NEBFH positions?
h. Transparency to Market Participants
Proposed § 150.9(a)(7) requires an
exchange to publish on its Web site, no
less frequently than quarterly, a
description of each new type of
derivative position that it recognizes as
a NEBFH. The Commission envisions
that each description would be an
executive summary. The description
must include a summary describing the
type of derivative position and an
explanation of why it qualifies as a
NEBFH. The Commission believes that
the exchanges are in the best position
when quickly crafting these descriptions
to accommodate an applicant’s desire
for trading anonymity while promoting
fair and open access for market
participants to information regarding
which positions might be recognized as
NEBFHs. As discussed below, the
Commission proposes to spot check
these summaries pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9(e).
RFC 14. Should the Commission
prescribe that exchanges publish any
148 7

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

U.S.C. 6a(3)(B).

13JNP3

38474

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

specific information regarding
recognized NEBFHs based on novel
facts and circumstances?
RFC 15. Should the Commission
require exchanges to publish summary
statistics, such as the number of
recognized NEBFHs based on non-novel
facts and circumstances?
i. Requests for Commission
Consideration
An exchange may elect to request the
Commission review an NEBFH
application that raises novel or complex
issues under proposed § 150.9(a)(8),
using the process set forth in proposed
§ 150.9(d), discussed below.149 If an
exchange makes a request pursuant to
proposed § 150.9(a)(8), the Commission,
as would be the case for an exchange,
would not be bound by a time
limitation. This is because the
Commission proposes only that NEBFH
applications be processed in a timely
manner.150 Essentially, this proposed
provision largely preserves the
Commission’s review process under
current § 1.47,151 except that a market
participant first seeks recognition of a
NEBFH from an exchange.
RFC 16. Does the proposed flexibility
for exchanges to request Commission
review provide market participants with
a sufficient process for review of a
potential NEBFH?
ii. Proposed § 150.9(b)—Recordkeeping
Requirements

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Proposed § 150.9(b) outlines
recordkeeping requirements for
exchanges that elect to process nonenumerated bona fide hedge
applications under proposed § 150.9(a).
Exchanges must maintain complete
books and records of all activities
relating to the processing and
disposition of applications in a manner
consistent with the Commission’s
existing general regulations regarding
149 If the exchange determines to request under
proposed § 150.9(a)(8) that the Commission
consider the application, the exchange must, under
proposed § 150.9(a)(4)(v)(C), notify an applicant in
a timely manner that the exchange has requested
that the Commission review the application. This
provision provides the exchanges with the ability
to request Commission review early in the review
process, rather than requiring the exchanges to
process the request, make a determination and only
then begin the process of Commission review
provided for under proposed § 150.9(d). The
Commission notes that although most of its reviews
would occur after the exchange makes its
determination, the Commission could, as provided
for in proposed § 150.9(d)(1), initiate its review, in
its discretion, at any time.
150 Novel facts and circumstances may present
particularly complex issues that could benefit from
extended consideration, given the Commission’s
current resource constraints.
151 17 CFR 1.47.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

recordkeeping,152 with certain minor
conforming changes. In consideration of
the fact that DCMs currently recognize
NEBFHs for periods of up to a year and
that the proposal would require annual
updates, the Commission proposes that
exchanges keep books and records until
the termination, maturity, or expiration
date of any recognition of a NEBFH and
for a period of five years after such date.
Five years should provide an adequate
time period for Commission reviews,
whether that be a review of an
exchange’s rule enforcement or a review
of a market participant’s
representations.
Exchanges would be required to store
and produce records pursuant to current
§ 1.31 of the Commission’s regulations,
and would be subject to requests for
information pursuant to other
applicable Commission regulations
including, for example, § 38.5.
Consistent with current § 1.31,153 the
Commission expects that these records
would be readily accessible until the
termination, maturity, or expiration date
of the recognition and during the first
two years of the subsequent five year
period.154 The Commission does not
intend in proposed § 150.9(b)(1) to
create any new obligation for an
exchange to record conversations with
applicants, which includes their
representatives; however, the
Commission does expect that an
exchange would preserve any written or
electronic notes of verbal interactions
with such parties.
Finally, the Commission emphasizes
that parties who avail themselves of
exemptions under proposed § 150.3(a),
as revised herein, are subject to the
recordkeeping requirements of
152 Requirements regarding the keeping and
inspection of all books and records required to be
kept by the Act or the Commission’s regulations are
found at § 1.31, 17 CFR 1.31. DCMs and SEFs are
already required to maintain records of their
business activities in accordance with the
requirements of § 1.31 and 17 CFR 38.951.
153 Proposed § 150.9(b) is analogous to the
requirement in § 1.31 for records to be kept
regarding any swap or related cash forward
transaction until the termination, maturity,
expiration, transfer, assignment, or novation date of
such transaction and for a period of five years after
such date. 17 CFR 1.31(a)(1). Other Commission
requirements for swap record retention take a
similar approach: DCMs must retain required
records with respect to each swap throughout the
life of the swap and for a period of at least five years
following the final termination of the swap, 17 CFR
45.2(c), and the records that exchanges are required
to retain shall be readily accessible throughout the
life of the swap and for two years following the final
termination of the swap, 17 CFR 45.2(e)(1).
154 In addition, the Commission expects that
records required to be maintained by an exchange
pursuant to this section would be readily accessible
during the pendency of any application, and for two
years following any disposition that did not
recognize a derivative position as a bona fide hedge.

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

§ 150.3(g), as well as requests from the
Commission for additional information
under § 150.3(h), each as proposed in
the December 2013 position limits
proposal. The Commission may request
additional information, for example, in
connection with review of an
application.155
iii. Proposed § 150.9(c)—Exchange
Reporting
The Commission proposes, in
§ 150.9(c)(1), to require an exchange that
elects to process NEBFH applications to
submit a weekly report to the
Commission. The proposed report
would provide information regarding
each commodity derivative position
recognized by the exchange as an
NEBFH during the course of the week.
Information provided in the report
would include the identity of the
applicant seeking such recognition, the
maximum size of the derivative position
that is recognized by the exchange as an
NEBFH,156 and, to the extent that the
exchange determines to limit the size of
such bona fide hedge position under the
exchange’s own speculative position
limits program, the size of any limit
established by the exchange.157 The
Commission envisions that the
proposed report would specify the
maximum size and/or size limitations
by contract month and/or type of limit
(e.g. spot month, single month, or allmonths-combined), as applicable.158
The proposed report would also provide
information regarding any revocation of,
155 In the December 2013 position limits proposal,
persons claiming exemptions under proposed
§ 150.3 must still ‘‘maintain complete books and
records concerning all details of their related cash,
forward, futures, options and swap positions and
transactions. Furthermore, such persons must make
such books and records available to the
Commission upon request under proposed
§ 150.3(h), which would preserve the ‘special call’
rule set forth in current 17 CFR 150.3(b).’’ 78 FR
75741 (footnote omitted).
156 An exchange could determine to recognize all,
or a portion, of the commodity derivative position
in respect of which an application for recognition
has been submitted, as an NEBFH, provided that
such determination is made in accordance with the
requirements of proposed § 150.9 and is consistent
with the Act and the Commission’s regulations.
157 As proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal, § 150.5(a)(2)(iii) provides, inter
alia, that for any commodity derivative contract that
is subject to a speculative position limit under
§ 150.2, an exchange may limit bona fide hedging
positions which the exchange determines are not in
accord with sound commercial practices, or which
exceed an amount that may be established and
liquidated in an orderly fashion. Such proposal
largely mirrors the second half of current § 150.5(d),
although updated to specify DCMs instead of
‘‘contract markets’’ as well as to include SEFs.
158 An exchange could determine to recognize all,
or a portion, of the commodity derivative position
in respect of which an application for recognition
has been submitted, as an NEBFH, for different
contract months or different types of limits (e.g., a
separate limit level for the spot month).

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

or modification to the terms and
conditions of, a prior determination by
the exchange to recognize a commodity
derivative position as an NEBFH. In
addition, the report would include any
summary of a type of recognized NEBFH
that was, during the course of the week,
published or revised on the exchange’s
Web site pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9(a)(7).
The proposed weekly report would
support the Commission’s surveillance
program by facilitating the tracking of
NEBFHs recognized by exchanges,159
keeping the Commission informed of
the manner in which an exchange is
administering its procedures for
recognizing such NEBFHs. For example,
the report would make available to the
Commission, on a regular basis, the
summaries of types of recognized
NEBFHs that an exchange posts to its
Web site pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9(a)(7). This would facilitate any
review by the Commission of such
summaries, pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9(e), and would help to ensure, if
the Commission determines that
revisions to a summary are necessary,
that such revisions are carried out in a
timely manner by the exchange.
In certain instances, information
included in the proposed weekly report
may prompt the Commission to request
records required to be maintained by an
exchange pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9(b). For example, it is proposed
that, for each derivative position
recognized by the exchange as an
NEBFH, or any revocation or
modification of such recognition, the
report would include a concise
summary of the applicant’s activity in
the cash markets for the commodity
underlying the position. It is the
Commission’s expectation that this
summary would focus on the facts and
circumstances upon which an exchange
based its determination to recognize a
commodity derivative position as an
NEBFH, or to revoke or modify such
recognition. In light of the information
provided in the summary, or any other
information included in the proposed
weekly report regarding the position,
159 The Commission believes that the exchange’s
assignment of a unique identifier to each of the nonenumerated bona fide hedge applications that the
exchange receives, and, separately, the exchange’s
assignment of a unique identifier to each type of
commodity derivative position that the exchange
recognizes as an NEBFH, would assist the
Commission’s tracking process. Accordingly, the
Commission suggests that, as a ‘‘best practice,’’ the
exchange’s procedures for processing NEBFH
applications contemplate the assignment of such
unique identifiers. Pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9(c)(1)(i), an exchange that assigns such
unique identifiers would be required to include the
identifiers in the exchange’s weekly report to the
Commission.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

the Commission may decide that it is
appropriate to request the exchange’s
complete record of the application for
recognition of the position as an
NEBFH—in order to determine, for
example, whether the application
presents novel or complex issues that
merit additional analysis pursuant to
proposed § 150.9(d)(2), or to evaluate
whether the disposition of the
application by the exchange was
consistent with section 4a(c) of the Act
and the general definition of bona fide
hedging position in § 150.1.
Proposed § 150.9(c)(2) would require
an exchange to submit to the
Commission any report made to the
exchange by an applicant, pursuant to
proposed § 150.9(a)(6), notifying the
exchange that the applicant owns or
controls a commodity derivative
position that the exchange has
recognized as an NEBFH.160 Unless the
Commission instructs otherwise,161 the
exchange would be required to submit
such applicant reports to the
Commission no less frequently than
monthly.162 The exchange’s submission
of these reports would provide the
Commission with notice that an
applicant has taken a commodity
derivative position that the exchange
has recognized as an NEBFH, and would
also show the applicant’s offsetting
positions in the cash markets. Requiring
an exchange to submit these applicant
reports to the Commission would
therefore support the Commission’s
surveillance program, by facilitating the
160 Proposed § 150.9(a)(6) would require an
exchange to have in place rules requiring an
applicant to report to the exchange when the
applicant owns, holds or controls a commodity
derivative position that the exchange has
recognized as an NEBFH, and for the applicant to
report its offsetting cash positions. Pursuant to
proposed § 150.9(a)(6), such rules must require an
applicant to update and maintain the accuracy of
any such report to the exchange. Accordingly, a
exchange’s submission to the Commission pursuant
to proposed § 150.9(c)(2) would be expected to
include any updates, corrections or other
modifications made by an applicant to a report
previously submitted to the exchange.
161 The Commission proposes, in § 150.9(f)(1)(ii),
to delegate to the Director of the Commission’s
Division of Market Oversight, or such other
employee or employees as the Director may
designate from time to time, the authority to
provide instructions regarding the submission to
the Commission of information required to be
reported by an exchange pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9(c).
162 Proposed § 150.9(c)(2) addresses the
submission by the exchange of applicant reports to
the Commission. The timeframe within which an
applicant would be required to report to the
exchange that the applicant owns or controls a
commodity derivative position that the exchange
has recognized as an NEBFH, would be established
by the exchange in its rules, as appropriate and in
accordance with proposed § 150.9(a)(6). An
exchange could decide to require such a report from
an applicant more frequently than monthly.

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38475

tracking of NEBFHs recognized by the
exchange, and helping the Commission
to ensure that an applicant’s activities
conform to the terms of recognition that
the exchange has established.
Proposed § 150.9(c)(3)(i) and (ii)
would require an exchange, unless
instructed otherwise by the
Commission,163 to submit weekly
reports under proposed § 150.9(c)(1),
and applicant reports under proposed
§ 150.9(c)(2). Proposed § 150.9(c)(3)(i)
and (ii) contemplate that, in order to
facilitate the processing of such reports,
and the analysis of the information
contained therein, the Commission will
establish reporting and transmission
standards, and may require reports to be
submitted to the Commission using an
electronic data format, coding structure
and electronic data transmission
procedures approved in writing by the
Commission, as specified on the Forms
and Submissions page at
www.cftc.gov.164 Proposed
§ 150.9(c)(3)(iii) would require such
reports to be submitted to the
Commission no later than 9:00 a.m.
Eastern time on the third business day
following the report date, unless the
exchange is otherwise instructed by the
Commission.165
RFC 17. The Commission requests
comment on all aspects of the proposed
reporting requirements.
iv. Proposed § 150.9(d)—Review of
Applications by the Commission
One participant at the June 19, 2014
Roundtable on Position Limits
commented that if the Commission were
to permit exchanges to administer a
process for NEBFHs, the Commission
should continue to do ‘‘a certain amount
163 The Commission proposes to delegate to the
Director of the Commission’s Division of Market
Oversight, or such other employee or employees as
the Director may designate from time to time, the
authority to provide instructions for such
submissions in proposed § 150.9(f)(1)(ii).
164 The Commission proposes, in § 150.9(f)(1)(ii),
to delegate to the Director of the Commission’s
Division of Market Oversight, or such other
employee or employees as the Director may
designate from time to time, the authority to specify
on the Forms and Submissions page at www.cftc.gov
the manner for submitting to the Commission
information required to be reported by an exchange
pursuant to proposed § 150.9(c), and to determine
the format, coding structure and electronic data
transmission procedures for submitting such
information.
165 Proposed § 150.9(c)(2) would require reports
submitted to an exchange pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9(a)(6), from applicants owning or controlling
commodity derivative positions that the exchange
has recognized as NEBFHs, to be submitted to the
Commission no less frequently than monthly. For
purposes of proposed § 150.9(c)(2), the timeframe
set forth in proposed § 150.9(c)(3)(iii) would be
calculated from the date of a exchange’s submission
to the Commission, and not from the date of an
applicant’s report to the exchange.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38476

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

of de novo analysis and review.’’ 166 The
Commission agrees. Proposed § 150.9(d)
provides for Commission review of
applications to ensure that the processes
administered by the exchange, as well
as the results of such processes, are
consistent with the requirements of CEA
section 4a(c) of the Act and the
Commission’s regulations
thereunder.167 The Commission
proposes to review records required to
be maintained by an exchange pursuant
to proposed § 150.9(b); however, the
Commission may request additional
information under proposed
§ 150.9(d)(1)(ii) if, for example, the
Commission finds additional
information is needed for its own
review.
The Commission could decide to
review a pending application prior to
disposition by an exchange, but
anticipates that it will most likely
review applications after some action
has already been taken by an exchange.
The Commission’s proposal in
§ 150.9(d)(2) and (3) requires the
Commission to notify the exchange and
the applicable applicant that they have
10 business days to provide any
supplemental information. This
approach provides the exchanges and
the particular market participant with
an opportunity to respond to any issues
raised by the Commission.
During the period of any Commission
review of an application, an applicant
could continue to rely upon any
recognition previously granted by the
exchange. If the Commission determines
that remediation is necessary, the
Commission would provide for a
commercially reasonable amount of
time for the market participant to
comply with limits after announcement
of the Commission’s decision under
proposed § 150.9(d)(4). In determining a
166 John Parsons, Roundtable on Position Limits,
June 19, 2014, transcript at p. 135.
167 See supra note 66 and accompanying text. As
noted above, under the proposal, the SRO’s
recognition is tentative, because the Commission
would reserve the power to review the recognition,
subject to the reasonably fixed statutory standards
in CEA section 4a(c)(2) (directing the CFTC to
define the term bona fide hedging position) that are
incorporated into the Commission’s proposed
general definition of bona fide hedging position in
§ 150.1. The SRO’s recognition would also be
constrained by the SRO’s rules, which would be
subject to CFTC review under the proposal. The
SROs are parties subject to Commission authority,
their rules are subject to Commission review and
their actions are subject to Commission de novo
review under the proposal—SRO rules and actions
may be changed by the Commission at any time. In
addition, it should be noted that the exchange is
required to make its determination consistent with
both CEA section 4a(c) and the Commission’s
general definition of bona fide hedging position in
§ 150.1. Further, the Commission notes that CEA
section 4a(c)(1) requires a position to be shown to
be bona fide as defined by the Commission.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

commercially reasonable amount of
time, the Commission may consider
factors such as current market
conditions and the protection of price
discovery in the market.168
RFC 18. The Commission requests
comments on all aspects of the proposed
review process.
v. Proposed § 150.9(e)—Commission
Review of Summaries
While the Commission proposes to
rely on the expertise of the exchanges to
summarize and post executive
summaries of NEBFHs to their
respective Web sites under proposed
§ 150.9(a)(7), it also proposes, in
§ 150.9(e), to review such executive
summaries to ensure they provide
adequate disclosure to market
participants of the potential availability
of relief from speculative position
limits. The Commission believes that an
adequate disclosure would include
generic facts and circumstances
sufficient to alert similarly situated
market participants to the possibility of
receiving recognition of a NEBFH. Such
market participants may use this
information to help evaluate whether to
apply for recognition of a NEBFH. Thus,
adequate disclosure should help ensure
fair and open access to the application
process. Due to resource constraints, the
Commission may not be able to preclear each summary, so the Commission
proposes to spot check executive
summaries after the fact.
E. Process for Exemption From Position
Limits for Certain Spread Positions
1. Background
The Commission proposes to permit
exchanges, by rule, to exempt from
federal position limits certain spread
transactions, as authorized by CEA
section 4a(a)(1),169 and in light of the
provisions of CEA section 4a(a)(3)(B)
and CEA section 4a(c)(2)(B).170 In
168 In the December 2013 position limits proposal,
when discussing the provision of a commercially
reasonable time period as necessary to exit the
market in an orderly manner, the Commission
stated that, generally, it ‘‘believes such time period
would be less than one business day.’’ 78 FR 75680
at 75713.
169 7 U.S.C. 6a(a)(1) (authorizing the Commission
to exempt transactions normally known to the trade
as ‘‘spreads’’). DCMs currently process applications
for exemptions from exchange-set position limits
for certain spread positions pursuant to CFMA-era
regulatory parameters. See note 101 for further
background.
It should be noted that, in current § 150.3(a)(3),
the Commission exempts spread positions
‘‘between single months of a futures contract and/
or, on a futures-equivalent basis, options thereon,
outside of the spread month, in the same crop
year,’’ subject to certain limitations. 17 CFR
150.3(a)(3).
170 7 U.S.C. 6a(a)(3)(B) and 7 U.S.C. 6a(c)(2)(B),
respectively.

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

particular, CEA section 4a(a)(1) provides
the Commission with authority to
exempt from position limits transactions
normally known to the trade as
‘‘spreads’’ or ‘‘straddles’’ or ‘‘arbitrage’’
or to fix limits for such transactions or
positions different from limits fixed for
other transactions or positions. The
Dodd-Frank Act amended the CEA by
adding section 4a(a)(3)(B), which now
directs the Commission, in establishing
position limits, to ensure, to the
maximum extent practicable and in its
discretion, ‘‘sufficient market liquidity
for bona fide hedgers.’’ 171 In addition,
the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to the
CEA in section 4a(c)(2)(B) limited the
definition of a bona fide hedge to only
those positions (in addition to those
included under CEA section
4a(c)(2)(A)) 172 resulting from a swap
that was executed opposite a
counterparty for which the transaction
would qualify as a bona fide hedging
transaction, in the event the party to the
swap is not itself using the swap as a
bona fide hedging transaction. In this
regard, the Commission interprets this
statutory definition to preclude spread
exemptions for a swap position that was
executed opposite a counterparty for
which the transaction would not qualify
as a bona fide hedging transaction.
Prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank
Act, the Commission exercised its
exemptive authority pertaining to
spread transactions in promulgating
current § 150.3. Current § 150.3 provides
that the position limits set in § 150.2
may be exceeded to the extent such
positions are spread or arbitrage
positions between single months of a
futures contract and/or, on a futuresequivalent basis, options thereon,
outside of the spot month, in the same
crop year; provided, however, that such
spread or arbitrage positions, when
combined with any other net positions
in the single month, do not exceed the
all-months limit set forth in § 150.2. In
addition, the Commission has permitted
DCMs, in setting their own position
171 CEA section 4a(a)(3)(B) also directs the
Commission, in establishing position limits, to
diminish, eliminate, or prevent excessive
speculation; to deter and prevent market
manipulation, squeezes, and corners; and to ensure
that the price discovery function of the underlying
market is not disrupted.
172 7 U.S.C. 6a(c)(2)(A). As explained above in
note 66, CEA section 4a(c)(2) generally requires the
Commission to define a bona fide hedging position
as a position that in CEA section 4a(c)(2)(A): Meets
three tests (a position (1) is a substitute for activity
in the physical marketing channel, (2) is
economically appropriate to the reduction of risk,
and (3) arises from the potential change in value of
current or anticipated assets, liabilities or services);
or, in CEA section 4a(c)(2)(B), reduces the risk of
a swap that was executed opposite a counterparty
for which such swap would meet the three tests.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

limits under the terms of current
§ 150.5(a), to exempt spread, straddle or
arbitrage positions or to fix limits that
apply to such positions which are
different from limits fixed for other
positions.173
The December 2013 position limits
proposal deleted the exemption in
current § 150.3(a)(3) for spread or
arbitrage positions between single
months of a futures contract or options
thereon, outside the spot month; the
Commission instead proposed to
maintain the current practice in § 150.2
of setting single-month limits at the
same levels as all-months limits,
rendering the ‘‘spread’’ exemption
unnecessary.174 In particular, the spread
exemption set forth in current
§ 150.3(a)(3) permits a spread trader to
exceed single month limits only to the
extent of the all months limit. Since
§ 150.2 as proposed in the December
2013 position limits proposal sets single
month limits at the same level as all
months limits, the existing spread
exemption no longer provides useful
relief.
Further, the December 2013 position
limits proposal would codify guidance
in proposed § 150.5(a)(2)(ii) to allow an
exchange to grant exemptions from
exchange-set position limits for
intramarket and intermarket spread
positions (as those terms are defined in
§ 150.1 as proposed in the December
2013 position limits proposal) involving
commodity derivative contracts subject
to the federal limits. To be eligible for
exemption under § 150.5(a)(2)(ii) as
proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal, intermarket and
intramarket spread positions would
have to be outside of the spot month for
physical delivery contracts, and
intramarket spread positions could not
exceed the federal all-months limit
when combined with any other net
positions in the single month. As
proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal, § 150.5(a)(2)(iii) would
require traders to apply to the exchange
for any exemption, including spread
exemptions, from its speculative
position limit rules.
Several commenters have requested
that the Commission provide a spread
exemption to federal position limits.175
173 Current § 150.5 applies as non-exclusive
guidance and acceptable practices for compliance
with DCM core principle 5. See December 2013
position limits proposal, 78 FR at 75750–2.
174 December 2013 position limits proposal, 78 FR
at 75736.
175 See, e.g., CL–CMC–59634 at 15; Olam
International Ltd. on February 10, 2014 (‘‘CL–
Olam–59658’’) at 7; CME Group on February 10,
2014 (‘‘CL–CME –59718’’) at 69–71; Citadel LLC on
February 10, 2014 (‘‘CL–Citadel–59717’’) at 8, 9;
Armajaro Asset Management (‘‘Amajaro’’) on

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

Of these commenters, most urged the
Commission to recognize spread
exemptions in the spot month as well as
non-spot months.176 Several of these
commenters noted that the
Commission’s proposal would permit
exchanges to grant spread exemptions
for exchange-set limits in commodity
derivative contracts subject to Federal
limits, and recommended that the
Commission establish a process for
granting such spread exemptions for
purposes of Federal limits.177
In response to these comments, the
Commission now proposes to permit
exchanges to process and grant
applications for spread exemptions from
federal position limits. Most, if not all,
DCMs already have rules in place to
process and grant applications for
spread exemptions from exchange-set
position limits pursuant to Part 38 of the
Commission’s regulations (in particular,
current §§ 38.300 and 38.301) and
current § 150.5. As noted above, the
Commission has a long history of
overseeing the performance of the DCMs
in granting appropriate spread
exemptions under current exchange
rules regarding exchange-set position
limits and believes that it would be
efficient, and in the best interest of the
markets, in light of current resource
constraints, to rely on the exchanges to
process applications for spread
exemptions from federal position limits.
In addition, the Commission observes
because many market participants may
be familiar with current DCM practices
regarding spread exemptions, permitting
DCMs to build on current practice may
lower the burden on market participants
and reduce duplicative filings at the
exchanges and the Commission. As
noted, this plan would permit
exchanges to provide market
participants with spread exemptions,
pursuant to exchange rules submitted to
the Commission; however, the
Commission would retain the authority
to review—and, if necessary, reverse—
the exchanges’ actions.
RFC 19. Would permitting exchanges
to process applications for spread
exemptions from federal limits, subject
to Commission review, provide for an
efficient implementation of the
Commission’s statutory authority to
exempt such spread positions?
February 10, 2014 (‘‘CL–Armajaro–59729’’) at 2; ICE
Futures U.S. on February 10, 2014 (‘‘CL–ICEUS–
59645’’) at 8–10.
176 See CL–CMC–59634 at 15; CL–Olam–59658 at
7; CL–CME–59718 at 71; CL–Armajaro–59729 at 2;
CL–ICEUS–59645 at 8–10.
177 See CL–Olam–59658 at 7; CL–CME–59718 at
71; CL–ICEUS–59645 at 10.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38477

2. Spread Exemption Proposal
i. Proposed § 150.10(a)—Requirements
for Application Process
The Commission contemplates in
proposed § 150.10(a)(1) that exchanges
may voluntarily elect to process spread
exemption applications, by filing new
rules or rule amendments with the
Commission pursuant to part 40 of the
Commission’s regulations.178 The
proposed process under § 150.10(a) is
substantially similar to that described
above for proposed § 150.9(a). For
example, proposed § 150.10(a)(1)
provides that, with respect to a
commodity derivative position for
which an exchange elects to process
spread exemption applications, (i) the
exchange must list for trading at least
one component of the spread or must
list for trading at least one contract that
is a referenced contract included in at
least one component of the spread; and
(ii) any such exchange contract must be
actively traded and subject to position
limits for at least one year on that
exchange. As noted with respect to the
process outlined above for proposed
§ 150.9(a), the Commission believes it is
appropriate that an exchange may
process spread exemptions only if it has
at least one year of experience
overseeing exchange-set position limits
in an actively traded referenced contract
that is in the same commodity as that of
at least one component of the spread.
The Commission believes that an
exchange may not be familiar enough
with the specific needs and differing
practices of the participants in those
markets for which an individual
exchange does not list any actively
traded referenced contract in a
particular commodity. If a component of
a spread is not actively traded on an
exchange that elects to process spread
exemption applications, such exchange
might not be incentivized to protect or
manage the relevant commodity market,
and the interests of such exchange
might not be aligned with the policy
objectives of the Commission as
expressed in CEA section 4a(a)(3)(B).
The Commission expects that an
individual exchange will describe how
it will determine whether a particular
component of a spread is actively traded
in its rule submission, based on its
familiarity with the specific needs and
differing practices of the participants in
the relevant market.
178 See note 63, regarding Commission authority
to recognize spreads under CEA section 4a(a)(1).
Any action of the exchange to recognize a spread,
pursuant to rules filed with the Commission, would
be subject to review and revocation by the
Commission.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38478

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Consistent with the restrictions
regarding the offset of risks arising from
a swap position in CEA section
4a(c)(2)(B), proposed § 150.10(a)(1)
would not permit an exchange to
recognize a spread between a
commodity index contract and one or
more referenced contracts. That is, an
exchange may not grant a spread
exemption where a bona fide hedge
position could not be recognized for a
pass through swap offset of a
commodity index contract.179
The Commission notes that for intercommodity spreads in which different
components of the spread are traded on
different exchanges, the exemption
granted by one exchange would be
recognized by the Commission as an
exemption from federal limits for the
applicable referenced contract(s), but
would not bind the exchange(s) that list
the other components of the spread to
recognize the exemption for purposes of
that other exchange(s)’ position limits.
In such cases, a trader seeking such
inter-commodity spread exemptions
would need to apply separately for a
spread exemption from each exchangeset position limit.
Proposed § 150.10(a)(2) specifies the
type of spreads that an exchange may
exempt from position limits, including
calendar spreads; quality differential
spreads; processing spreads (such as
energy ‘‘crack’’ or soybean ‘‘crush’’
spreads); and product or by-product
differential spreads. This list is not
exhaustive, but reflects common types
of spread activity that may enhance
liquidity in commodity derivative
markets, thereby facilitating the ability
of bona-fide hedgers to put on and offset
positions in those markets. For example,
trading activity in many commodity
derivative markets is concentrated in
the nearby contract month, but a hedger
may need to offset risk in deferred
months where derivative trading
activity may be less active. A calendar
spread trader could provide such
liquidity without exposing himself or
herself to the price risk inherent in an
outright position in a deferred month.
Processing spreads can serve a similar
function. For example, a soybean
179 This proposal is consistent with the
Commission’s interpretation in the December 2013
position limits proposal that CEA section 4a(c)(2)(b)
is a mandate from Congress to narrow the scope of
what constitutes a bona fide hedge in the context
of index trading activities. ‘‘Financial products are
not substitutes for positions taken or to be taken in
a physical marketing channel. Thus, the offset of
financial risks from financial products is
inconsistent with the proposed definition of bona
fide hedging for physical commodities.’’ December
2013 position limits proposal, 78 FR at 75740. See
also the discussion of the temporary substitute test,
id. at 75708–9.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

processor may seek to hedge his or her
processing costs by entering into a
‘‘crush’’ spread, i.e., going long
soybeans and short soybean meal and
oil. A speculator could facilitate the
hedger’s ability to do such a transaction
by entering into a ‘‘reverse crush’’
spread (i.e., going short soybeans and
long soybean meal and oil). Quality
differential spreads, and product or byproduct differential spreads, may serve
similar liquidity-enhancing functions
when spreading a position in an actively
traded commodity derivatives market
such as CBOT Wheat against a position
in another actively traded market, such
as MGEX Wheat.
The Commission anticipates that a
spread exemption request might include
spreads that are ‘‘legged in,’’ that is,
carried out in two steps, or alternatively
are ‘‘combination trades,’’ that is, all
components of the spread are executed
simultaneously.
This proposal would not limit the
granting of spread exemptions to
positions outside the spot month, unlike
the existing spread exemption
provisions in current § 150.3(a)(3), or in
§ 150.5(a)(2)(ii) as proposed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal.
The proposal herein responds to
specific requests of commenters to
permit spread exemptions in the spot
month. For example, the CME
recommended ‘‘the Commission
reaffirm in DCMs the discretion to apply
their knowledge of individual
commodity markets and their
judgement, as to whether allowing
intermarket spread exemptions in the
spot month for physical-delivery
contracts is appropriate.’’ 180
The Commission proposes to revise
the December 2013 position limits
proposal in the manner described above
because, as noted in the examples
above, permitting spread exemptions in
the spot month would further one of the
four policy objectives set forth in
section 4a(a)(3)(b) of the Act: To ensure
sufficient market liquidity for bona fide
hedgers.181 This policy objective is
incorporated into the proposal in its
requirements that: (i) The applicant
provide detailed information
demonstrating why the spread position
should be exempted from position
limits, including how the exemption
would further the purposes of CEA
section 4a(a)(3)(B); 182 and (ii) the
exchange determines whether the
spread position (for which a market
180 See

CL–CME–59718 at 71.
section 4a(a)(3)(B)(iii); 7 U.S.C.
6a(a)(3)(B)(iii). See also the discussion of proposed
§ 150.10(a)(3)(ii), below.
182 See proposed § 150.10(a)(3)(ii).
181 CEA

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

participant was seeking an exemption)
would further the purposes of CEA
section 4a(a)(3)(B).183 Moreover, the
Commission retains the ability to review
the exchange rules as well as to review
how an exchange enforces those
rules.184
The Commission, however, remains
concerned, among other things, about
protecting the price discovery process in
the core referenced futures contracts,
particularly as those contracts approach
expiration. Accordingly, as an
alternative, the Commission is also
considering whether to prohibit an
exchange from granting spread
exemptions that would be applicable
during the lesser of the last five days of
trading or the time period for the spot
month.
RFC 20: Are there concerns regarding
the applicability of spread exemptions
in the spot month that the Commission
should consider? Should the
Commission, parallel to the
requirements of current § 1.3(z)(2),
provide that such spread positions not
be exempted during the lesser of the last
five days of trading or the time period
for the spot month? 185
RFC 21: If the Commission permits
exchanges to grant spread positions
applicable in the spot month, should
recognition of NEBFH positions be
conditioned upon additional filings
similar to the proposed Form 504 that
is required for the proposed conditional
spot month limit exemption? 186
Proposed Form 504 would require
additional information on the market
participant’s cash market holdings for
each day of the spot month period.
Under this alternative, market
participants would submit daily cash
position information to an exchange in
a format determined by the exchange,
which would then be required to
forward that information to the
Commission in a process similar to that
proposed under § 150.10(c)(2).
RFC 22: Alternatively, if the
Commission permits exchanges to grant
183 See

proposed § 150.10(a)(4)(vi).
Commission could, for example, revoke or
confirm exchange-granted exemptions.
185 See also supra notes 56 and 132 and
accompanying text.
186 The conditional spot month limit exemption
and the related Form 504 were discussed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal (78 FR
75680 at 75736–8). A copy of the proposed form
was submitted to the Federal Register (id. at 75803–
8) to ensure the public had the opportunity to
comment on the information required by the
proposed form. The Commission estimated the
number of market participants that would be
required to file the form in the December 2013
position limits proposal (id. at 75783). Commenters
are encouraged to review and comment on
proposed Form 504 in the context of this current
proposal.
184 The

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

spread exemptions applicable in the
spot month, should the Commission
require market participants to file
proposed Form 504 with the
Commission? Under this alternative, the
relevant cash market information would
be submitted directly to the
Commission, eliminating the need for
the exchange to intermediate. The
Commission would adjust the title of
proposed Form 504 to clarify that the
form would be used for all daily spot
month cash position reporting purposes,
not just the proposed requirements of
the conditional spot month limit
exemption in proposed § 150.3(c).
Proposed 150.10(a)(3) sets forth a core
set of information and materials that all
applicants must submit to enable an
exchange to determine, and the
Commission to verify, whether the facts
and circumstances attendant to a
position further the policy objectives of
CEA section 4a(a)(3)(B). In particular,
the applicant must demonstrate, and the
exchange must determine, that
exempting the spread position from
position limits would, to the maximum
extent practicable, ensure sufficient
market liquidity for bona fide hedgers,
but not unduly reduce the effectiveness
of position limits to diminish, eliminate
or prevent excessive speculation; deter
and prevent market manipulation,
squeezes, and corners; and ensure that
the price discovery function of the
underlying market is not disrupted.187
One DCM, ICE Futures U.S., currently
grants certain types of spread
exemptions that the Commission is
concerned may not be consistent with
these policy objectives.188 ICE Futures
U.S. allows ‘‘cash-and-carry’’ spread
exemptions to exchange-set limits,
which permit a market participant to
hold a long position greater than the
speculative limit in the spot month and
an equivalent short position in the
following month in order to guarantee a
return that, at minimum, covers its
carrying charges, i.e., the cost of
financing, insuring, and storing the
physical inventory until the next
expiration.189 Market participants are
187 See also infra note 192 and accompanying text
(describing the DCM’s responsibility under its
application process to make this determination in
a timely manner).
188 See ICE Futures U.S. Rule 6.29(e).
189 Carrying charges include insurance, storage
fees, and financing costs, as well as other costs such
as aging discounts that are specific to individual
commodities. The ICE Futures U.S. rules require an
applicant to provide: (i) Its cost of carry; (ii) the
minimum spread at which the applicant will enter
into a straddle position and which would result in
an profit for the applicant; and (iii) the quantity of
stocks in exchange-licensed warehouses that it
already owns. The applicant’s entire long position
carried into the notice period must have been put
on as a spread at a differential that covers the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

able to take physical delivery in the
nearby month and redeliver the same
product in a deferred month, often at a
profit. The Commission notes that while
market participants are permitted to redeliver the physical commodity, they
are under no obligation to do so.
ICE Futures U.S.’s rules condition the
cash-and-carry spread exemption upon
the applicant’s agreement that ‘‘before
the price of the nearby contract month
rises to a premium to the second (2nd)
contract month, it will liquidate all long
positions in the nearby contract
month.’’ 190 The Commission
understands that ICE Futures U.S.
requires traders to provide information
about their expected cost of carry,
which is used by the exchange to
determine the levels by which the trader
has to reduce the position. Those exit
points are then communicated to the
applicant when the exchange responds
to the trader’s hedge exemption request.
The Commission is considering
whether to impose on the exchange a
requirement to ensure exit points in
cash-and-carry spread exemptions are
appropriate to facilitate an orderly
liquidation in the expiring futures
contract. The Commission is concerned
that a large demand for delivery on cash
and carry positions may distort the price
of the expiring futures price upwards.
This may particularly be a concern in
those commodity markets where the
cash spot price is discovered in the
expiring futures contract.
In a recent Rule Enforcement Review,
ICE Futures U.S. opined that such
exemptions are ‘‘beneficial for the
market, particularly when there are
plentiful warehouse stocks, which
typically is the only time when the
opportunity exists to utilize the
exemption,’’ maintaining that the
exchange’s rules and procedures are
effective in ensuring orderly
liquidations.191 The Commission
remains concerned, however, about
these exemptions and their impact on
the spot month price. The Commission
is still reviewing the effectiveness of the
exchange’s cash-and-carry spread
applicant’s cost of carry. See Rule Enforcement
Review of ICE Futures U.S., July 22, 2014 (‘‘ICE
Futures U.S. Rule Enforcement Review’’), at 44–45,
available at http://www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/
TradingOrganizations/DCMs/dcmruleenf.
190 ICE Futures U.S. Rule 6.29(e) (at the time of
the target period of the ICE Futures U.S. Rule
Enforcement Review (June 15, 2011 to June 15,
2012), the cash-and-carry provision currently found
in ICE Futures U.S. Rule 6.29(e) was found in ICE
Futures U.S. Rule 6.27(e)). Further, under the
exchange’s rules, additional conditions may also
apply.
191 ICE Futures U.S. Rule Enforcement Review, at
45.

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38479

exemptions and the procedure by which
they are granted.
As an alternative to providing
exchanges with discretion to consider
granting cash-and-carry spread
exemptions, the Commission is
considering prohibiting cash-and-carry
spread exemptions to position limits. In
this regard, the Commission does not
grant such exemptions to current federal
position limits. As another alternative,
the Commission is considering
permitting exchanges to grant cash-andcarry spread exemptions, but would
require suitable safeguards be placed on
such exemptions. For example, the
Commission could require cash-andcarry spread exemptions be conditioned
on a market participant reducing
positions below speculative limit levels
in a timely manner once current market
prices no longer permit entry into a full
carry transaction, rather than the less
stringent condition of ICE Futures U.S.
that a trader reduce positions ‘‘before
the price of the nearby contract month
rises to a premium to the second (2nd)
contract month.’’
RFC 23: Do cash-and-carry spread
exemptions further the policy objectives
of the Act, as outlined in proposed
§ 150.10(a)(3)? Why or why not? Do cash
and carry spread exemptions facilitate
an orderly liquidation? Do these
exemptions impede convergence or
distort the price of the expiring futures
contract?
RFC 24: If cash-and-carry spread
exemptions are allowed, what
conditions should be placed on the
exemptions? For example, on what basis
should a trader be required to exit
futures positions above position limit
levels? Should such exemptions be
conditioned, for example, to require a
market participant to reduce the
positions below speculative limit levels
in a timely manner once current market
prices no longer permit entry into a full
carry transaction? Are there other types
of spread exemptions that may not
further the policy objectives of CEA
section 4a and, thus, should be
prohibited or conditioned?
RFC 25: With cash-and-carry spread
exemptions still under review by the
Commission, should the proposed rules
allow such exemptions to be granted
under proposed § 150.10? Why or why
not?
RFC 26: If the proposed rules do not
prohibit such exemptions, an exchange
could determine that cash-and-carry
spread exemptions—or another type of
spread exemption—further the policy
objectives in proposed § 150.10(a)(3)
and so begin to grant such exemptions
from federal position limits. If, after
finishing its review, the Commission

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

38480

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

disagrees with the exchange’s
determination, is the proposed process
in § 150.10(d) for reviewing exemptions
sufficient to address any concerns
raised?
Under the proposal, an exchange’s
rules would require an applicant to
submit to the exchange a core set of
information and materials that would
include, at a minimum: (i) A description
of the spread position for which the
application is submitted, including
details on all components of the spread;
(ii) detailed information to demonstrate
why the spread position should be
exempted from position limits,
including how the exemption would
further the purposes of CEA section
4a(a)(3)(B); and (iii) a statement
concerning the maximum size of all
gross positions in derivative contracts to
be acquired by the applicant during the
year after the application is submitted.
Further, an exchange would not be
permitted to grant a spread exemption
request that would be contrary to the
requirements for a pass-through swap
offset position in CEA section
4a(c)(2)(B), which the Commission
interprets to preclude spread
exemptions for a swap position that was
executed opposite a counterparty for
which the transaction would not qualify
as a bona fide hedging transaction. The
requirement that an applicant specify a
maximum size of all gross positions to
be acquired will enable an exchange to
more effectively set a cap on a market
participant’s spread position. Such a
cap could reasonably take into account
the specific liquidity needs of the
marketplace and the ability of the
spread position to be put on and offset
in an orderly fashion and without
causing market disruptions. The
Commission expects that an exchange
would be particularly attentive to the
size of any component of a spread
position it permits to be held in the spot
month in light of its obligation to
consider, in granting such spread
exemptions, the goals of deterring and
preventing market manipulation,
squeezes, and corners.
RFC 27: Does the application process
solicit sufficient information for an
exchange to consider whether a spread
exemption would, to the maximum
extent practicable, further the policy
objectives of CEA section 4a(a)(3)(B)?
For example, how would an exchange
determine whether an applicant for a
spread exemption may provide
liquidity, such that the goal of ensuring
sufficient market liquidity for bona-fide
hedgers would be furthered by the
spread exemption?
RFC 28: How would exchanges
oversee or monitor exemptions that

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

have been granted, and, if the exchange
determines it necessary, revoke the
exemption?
Proposed § 150.10(a)(4) sets forth
certain timing requirements that an
exchange must include in its rules for
the spread application process. While
these timing requirements are similar to
those under proposed § 150.9(a)(4),192
the exchange under proposed
§ 150.10(a)(4) must also determine in a
timely manner whether the facts and
circumstances attendant to a position
further the policy objectives of CEA
section 4a(a)(3)(B).193 Finally, the
spread exemption application processes
proposed in § 150.10(a)(5), (6), (7), and
(8) are all substantially similar to those
proposed under § 150.9(a)(5), (6), (7),
and (8).
ii. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements, and Review of
Applications and Summaries by
Commission
The proposed processes under
§ 150.10(b) Recordkeeping, § 150.10(c)
Reports to the Commission; § 150.10(d)
Review of Applications by the
Commission; § 150.10(e) Review of
Summaries by the Commission; and
§ 150.10(f) Delegation of Authority to
the Director of the Division of Market
Oversight are substantially similar to the
corresponding provisions in § 150.9(b)
through (f), as described above.194
Hence, the Commission does not repeat
the discussion here.
RFC 29: Is it appropriate to have the
same processes under § 150.10(b)
through (f) for spread exemptions as
proposed for NEBFHs outlined under
§ 150.09(b) through (f)? If no, explain
why and how those processes should
differ.
F. Recognition of Positions as
Enumerated Anticipatory Bona Fide
Hedges
1. Background
In the December 2013 position limits
proposal, the Commission proposed
§ 150.7, requirements for anticipatory
192 For example, proposed 150.9(a)(4) provides
that: (i) A person intending to rely on a exchange’s
exemption from position limits would be required
to submit an application in advance and to reapply
at least on an annual basis; (ii) the exchange would
be required to notify an applicant in a timely
manner whether the position was exempted, and
reasons for any rejection; and (iii) the exchange
would be able to revoke, at any time, any
recognition previously issued pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9 if the exchange determined the recognition
was no longer in accord with section 4a(c) of the
Act.
193 See supra note 171 and accompanying text.
194 See the discussion of the NEBFH application
process in Sections II(C)(3)(ii)–(v) of the
Supplementary Information above.

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

bona fide hedging position
exemptions,195 to replace current
§ 1.48,196 which provides requirements
for classification of certain anticipatory
bona fide hedge positions under current
§ 1.3(z)(2) (i)(B) or (ii)(C) of the
Commission’s regulations. As proposed
in the December 2013 position limits
proposal, § 150.7 would require market
participants to file statements with the
Commission regarding certain
anticipatory hedges, which would
become effective absent Commission
action or inquiry ten days after
submission.197 The Commission now
proposes to supplement the process
proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal by allowing exchanges,
as an alternative, to review requests for
recognition of such enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedging
exemptions pursuant to exchange rules
submitted to the Commission.
In response to the December 2013
position limits proposal, the
Commission has received comments
that suggested that the exchanges would
be better equipped to recognize nonenumerated hedge positions and
anticipatory hedging positions.
For example, one commenter noted
that the exchanges have a long history
of enforcing position limits and are in
a much better position than the
Commission to judge the applicant’s
hedging needs and to set an appropriate
level for the hedge.198 According to
another commenter, providing the
195 As proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal, § 150.7 provides a process for
recognition as bona fide hedge positions for:
Unfilled anticipated requirements, unsold
anticipated production, anticipated royalties,
anticipated service contract payments or receipts, or
anticipatory cross-commodity hedges under the
provisions of paragraphs (3)(iii), (4)(i), (4)(iii), 4(iv)
or (5), respectively, of the definition of bona fide
hedging position in § 150.1. These types of
anticipatory positions do not implicate commodity
index contracts, in contrast to the positions
discussed in notes 134 and 180 and the
accompanying text.
196 17 CFR 1.48 (providing a process for persons
to demonstrate NEBFH falls within the scope of
§ 1.3(z)(1)). As noted in the December 2013 position
limits proposal, ‘‘On September 28, 2012, the
District Court for the District of Columbia vacated
the part 151 Rulemaking with the exception of the
amendments to § 150.2. 887 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D.D.C.
2012). Vacating the part 151 Rulemaking, with the
exception of the amendments to § 150.2, means that
as things stand now, it is as if the Commission had
never adopted any part of the part 151 Rulemaking
other than the amendments to § 150.2.’’ December
2013 position limits proposal, 78 FR at 75740, note
478.
Current § 1.48 can be found at https://www.gpo.
gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collection
Code=CFR&searchPath=Title+17%2FChapter
+I%2FPart+1%2FSubjgrp&oldPath=Title+
17%2FChapter+I%2FPart+1&isCollapsed=true&
selectedYearFrom=2010&ycord=594.
197 See December 2013 position limits proposal,
78 FR at 75746.
198 CL–AGA–60382 at 13.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
exchanges with the ability to grant
hedge exemptions for federal limits in
conjunction with the grant of an
exchange hedge exemption would create
consistency and efficiency, and take
advantage of the expertise gained by
exchanges in granting hedge exemptions
from position limits over many years.199
A third asserted that the proposed
requirement to file Form 704 is ‘‘unduly
burdensome and commercially
impracticable,’’ and requests that the
Commission ‘‘allow the exchanges to
continue to grant annual hedge
exemptions, which do not include
onerous reporting requirements.’’ 200 A
fourth commenter requested that the
Commission consider incorporating the
proposed position limits regime into the
existing framework managed by the
exchanges, stating that market
participants and exchanges alike are
comfortable and have a unique
familiarity with the current futuresexchange-set position limits and
aggregation processes, and have
developed an effective working
relationship.201 This commenter also
stated its belief that the current
framework regarding hedge exemptions
provides commercial market
participants with the efficacy and the
timeliness needed to ensure they are
able to hedge their risks.202
2. Enumerated Anticipatory Bona Fide
Hedge Exemption Proposal

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

While the Commission continues to
consider comments regarding proposed
§ 150.7, it is expected that a number of
anticipatory bona fide hedging positions
will be enumerated in the final rule, as
proposed.203 In this current proposal,
the Commission proposes that
exchanges, pursuant to exchange rules
submitted to the Commission, could
review requests for recognition of such
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedging exemptions, as an alternative to
the process set forth in the December
2013 position limits proposal that
required market participants to file a
199 PAAP on February 10, 2014 (‘‘CL–PAAP–
59664’’) at 3.
200 BG Energy on February 10, 2014 (‘‘CL–BG
Energy–59656’’) at 11.
201 EDF Trading on March 30, 2015 (‘‘CL–EDF–
60398’’) at 3–4.
202 CL–EDF–60398 at 5.
203 As noted above, the December 2013 position
limits proposal provided a process, under § 150.7,
for recognition as bona fide hedging positions for
unfilled anticipated requirements, unsold
anticipated production, anticipated royalties,
anticipated service contract payments or receipts, or
anticipatory cross-commodity hedges under the
provisions of paragraphs (3)(iii), (4)(i), (4)(iii), 4(iv)
or (5), respectively, of the definition of bona fide
hedging position in § 150.1. See supra note 196 and
accompanying text.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

statement with the Commission.204
Similar to the current DCM rule
framework and application process
noted above for the recognition of
NEBFH positions for purposes of
exchange limits, most, if not all, DCMs
already have some sort of framework
and application process allowing market
participants to request exemptions from
exchange position limits for anticipatory
bona fide hedge positions.
Proposed § 150.11 would permit
exchanges to recognize certain
anticipatory bona fide hedge positions,
such as unfilled anticipated
requirements, unsold anticipated
production, anticipated royalties,
anticipated service contract payments or
receipts, or anticipatory crosscommodity hedges. Under proposed
§ 150.11, market participants could
continue to work with exchanges to
request the exemption. In addition,
proposed § 150.11 would allow
exchanges to adopt a shorter timeline
for processing the exemption
applications than under § 150.7 as
proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal. Under proposed
§ 150.11, an exchange could potentially
recognize a position as a bona fide
hedge in fewer than ten days after filing.
In contrast, § 150.7 as proposed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal,
would provide the Commission with a
full ten days after receipt of a filing to
reject the position as a bona fide hedge
before a filing would become effective.
The process under proposed
§ 150.11(a) is like the process under
proposed § 150.9(a) described above.
For example, an exchange with at least
one year of experience and expertise
administering position limits could
elect to adopt rules to recognize
commodity derivative positions as
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedges. However, it is different from the
process under proposed § 150.9(a) in
that the Commission does not propose
to permit separate processes for
applications based on novel versus nonnovel facts and circumstances. The
Commission determined to define
certain anticipatory positions as
enumerated bona fide hedges when it
adopted current § 1.3(z)(2). The
December 2013 position limits proposal
does not change this determination.
Consequently, the Commission does not
anticipate that applications for
recognition of enumerated anticipatory
bona fide hedge positions would be
based on novel facts and circumstances.
For the same reason, proposed
§ 150.11(a) does not require exchanges
204 See December 2013 position limits proposal,
78 FR at 75746.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38481

to post summaries of any enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge positions.
Other simplifications follow from this
difference.
In addition, the application process
established by exchanges under
proposed § 150.11(a) addresses the
information exchanges should elicit in
the application process by citing to the
information required under § 150.7(d) as
proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal. Moreover, the reporting
requirements for applicants under
proposed § 150.11(a)(5) differ from the
reporting requirements under proposed
§ 150.9(a)(6). Under proposed
§ 150.11(a)(5), applicants would be
required to file a report with the
Commission pursuant to § 150.7 as
proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal and a copy with the
exchange. Proposed § 150.9(a)(6), on the
other hand, requires the applicant to file
reports with the exchange recognizing
the position, and additionally requires
under proposed § 150.9(c)(2) that the
exchange would provide such
information to the Commission on a
monthly basis.
RFC 30: The Commission requests
comments on all aspects of proposed
§ 150.11, including whether the
Commission should consider any other
factors in addition to those listed in
proposed § 150.11(a)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
and (v).
Finally, in order to correct some
errors, the Commission is proposing
technical edits to § 150.7 as it was
proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal. The reference to
paragraph (f) in the last sentence in
§ 150.7(b) as proposed in the December
2013 position limits proposal should
instead be a reference to paragraph (h).
And the introductory language to
§ 150.7(h) as proposed in the December
2013 position limits proposal, ‘‘Sales or
purchases of commodity derivative
contracts considered to be bona fide
hedging positions under paragraphs
3(iii)(A) or 4(i) of the bona fide hedging
position definition in § 150.1 . . .’’
should instead read as ‘‘. . . under
paragraphs 3(iii)(A), 4(i), 4(iii) or 4(iv) of
the bona fide hedging position
definition in § 150.1, or any crosscommodity hedges thereof, . . . .’’
G. Delegation of Authority
The Commission proposes to delegate
certain of its authorities under proposed
§ 150.9, § 150.10 and § 150.11 to the
Director of the Commission’s Division of
Market Oversight, or such other
employee or employees as the Director
may designate from time to time.
Proposed § 150.9(f)(1)(ii),
§ 150.10(f)(1)(ii) and § 150.11(e)(1)(ii)

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

38482

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

would delegate the Commission’s
authority to the Division of Market
Oversight (‘‘DMO’’) to provide
instructions regarding the submission of
information required to be reported to
the Commission by an exchange, and to
specify the manner and determine the
format, coding structure, and electronic
data transmission procedures for
submitting such information. Proposed
§ 150.9(f)(1)(v) and § 150.10(f)(1)(v)
would delegate the Commission’s
review authority under proposed
§ 150.9(e) and § 150.10(e), respectively,
to DMO with respect to summaries of
types of recognized non-enumerated
bona fide hedges, and types of spread
exemptions, that are required to be
posted on an exchange’s Web site
pursuant to proposed § 150.9(a)(7) and
§ 150.10(a)(7), respectively.
Proposed § 150.9(f)(1)(i),
§ 150.10(f)(1)(i) and § 150.11(e)(1)(i)
would delegate the Commission’s
authority to DMO to agree to or reject a
request by an exchange to consider an
application for recognition of an NEBFH
or enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedge, or an application for a spread
exemption. Proposed § 150.9(f)(1)(iii),
§ 150.10(f)(1)(iii) and § 150.11(e)(1)(iii)
would delegate the Commission’s
authority to review any application for
recognition of an NEBFH or enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge, or
application for a spread exemption, and
all records required to be maintained by
an exchange in connection with such
application. Proposed § 150.9(f)(1)(iii),
§ 150.10(f)(1)(iii) and § 150.11(e)(1)(iii)
would also delegate the Commission’s
authority to request such records, and to
request additional information in
connection with such application from
the exchange or from the applicant.
Proposed § 150.9(f)(1)(iv) and
§ 150.10(f)(1)(iv) would delegate the
Commission’s authority, under
proposed § 150.9(d)(2) and
§ 150.10(d)(2), respectively, to
determine that an application for
recognition of an NEBFH, or an
application for a spread exemption,
requires additional analysis or review,
and to provide notice to the exchange
and the particular applicant that they
have 10 days to supplement such
application.
The Commission does not propose to
delegate its authority under proposed
§ 150.9(d)(3) or § 150.10(d)(3) to make a
final determination as to the exchange’s
disposition. The Commission believes
that if an exchange’s disposition raises
concerns regarding consistency with the
Act or presents novel or complex issues,
then the Commission should make the
final determination, after taking into
consideration any supplemental

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

information provided by the exchange
or the applicant.
However, the Commission proposes,
in § 150.11(e)(iv), to delegate its
authority to determine, under proposed
§ 150.11(d)(2), that it is not appropriate
to recognize a commodity derivative
position as an enumerated anticipatory
bona fide hedge, or that the disposition
by an exchange of an application for
such recognition is inconsistent with
the filing requirements of proposed
§ 150.11(a)(2). The delegation would
also provide DMO with the authority,
after any such determination was made,
to grant the applicant a reasonable
amount of time to liquidate its
commodity derivative position or
otherwise come into compliance. This
proposed combined delegation takes
into account that applications processed
by an exchange under proposed § 150.11
would be for positions that should
satisfy the requirements for enumerated
hedges set forth in the Commission’s
rules, and should therefore be less likely
to raise novel issues of interpretation, or
novel issues with respect to consistency
with the filing requirements of proposed
§ 150.11(a)(2), than applications
processed under proposed § 150.9 or
§ 150.10. Such delegation is consistent
with the Commission’s longstanding
delegation to DMO of its authority to
review applications for recognition of
enumerated bona fide hedges under
current § 1.48, as well as consistent with
the more streamlined approach to
Commission review of enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge
applications in proposed § 150.7.
RFC 31: The Commission invites
comments on its proposed delegation of
authority in § 150.11(e)(iv), and on all
other aspects of its proposed delegation
of authority in § 150.9(f), § 150.10(f) and
§ 150.11(e).
H. Related Changes to § 150.3 and
§ 150.5—Exemptions and Exchange-Set
Speculative Position Limits
In the December 2013 position limits
proposal, the Commission proposed to
replace both current § 150.3, which
establishes exemptions from federal
position limits, and current § 150.5(a),
which provides guidance to DCMs for
exchange-set position limits. The
changes to § 150.3 as proposed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal
would have provided for recognition of
enumerated bona fide hedge positions,
but would not have exempted any
spread positions from federal limits. For
any commodity derivative contracts
subject to federal position limits,
§ 150.5(a)(2) as proposed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal
would have established requirements

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

under which exchanges could recognize
exemptions from exchange-set position
limits, including hedge exemptions and
spread exemptions. Because the
Commission is now proposing to permit
exchanges to recognize NEBFH
positions under proposed § 150.9, to
grant spread exemptions from federal
limits under proposed § 150.10, and to
recognize certain enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge positions
under proposed § 150.11, the
Commission proposes corresponding
changes to § 150.3 205 and § 150.5(a)(2).
Further, in the December 2013
position limits proposal, the
Commission proposed § 150.5(b) to
establish requirements and acceptable
practices for commodity derivative
contracts not subject to federal position
limits. The Commission now proposes
to revise § 150.5(b)(5) as proposed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal
to permit exchanges to recognize
NEBFHs, as well as spreads, to conform
to the instant proposal. The Commission
notes that it is no longer proposing to
prohibit recognizing spreads during the
spot month, although such exemptions
would not have been permitted under
§§ 150.5(a)(2) or (b)(5) as proposed in
the December 2013 position limits
proposal. Instead, this current proposal
would, in part, maintain the status quo:
Exchanges that currently recognize
spreads in the spot month under current
§ 150.5(a) will be able to continue to do
so.206 However, exchanges would be
responsible for determining whether
recognizing spreads, including spreads
in the spot month, would further the
policy objectives in section 4a(3) of the
Act.
I. Changes to the Definitions of FuturesEquivalent, Intermarket Spread
Position, and Intramarket Spread
Position
1. Changes to the Definition of ‘‘FuturesEquivalent’’
In the December 2013 position limits
proposal, the Commission proposed to
broaden the definition of the term
‘‘futures-equivalent’’ found in current
§ 150.1(f) of the Commission’s
205 As noted above, in the regulatory text below
where the CFTC sets out the proposed changes to
the CFR, the Commission has designated certain
appendices and subsections, such as appendices (A)
through (D), § 150.3(a)(ii),§ 150.3(a)(iii), and
§ 150.5(a)(3) through (6), among others, as
‘‘[Reserved].’’ For the avoidance of doubt, the
Commission is still reviewing comments received
on such reserved provisions and does not seek
further comment on such reserved provisions. See
supra preamble Section II.
206 Under current § 150.5(a), a DCM may exempt
from exchange-set speculative position limits any
position normally known to the trade as a spread,
straddle, or arbitrage position.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

regulations,207 and to expand upon
clarifications included in the current
definition relating to adjustments and
computation times.208 The Dodd-Frank
Act amendments to CEA section 4a,209
in part, direct the Commission to apply
aggregate federal position limits to
physical commodity futures contracts
and to swaps contracts that are
economically equivalent to such
physical commodity futures contracts
on which the Commission has
established limits. In order to aggregate
positions in futures, options and swaps
contracts, it is necessary to adjust the
position sizes, since such contracts may
have varying units of trading (e.g., the
amount of a commodity underlying a
particular swap contract could be larger
than the amount of a commodity
underlying a core referenced futures
contract). The Commission proposed to
adjust position sizes to an equivalent
position based on the size of the unit of
trading of the core referenced futures
contract. The December 2013 position
limits proposal would extend the
current definition of ‘‘futures
equivalent’’ in current § 150.1(f), that is
applicable only to an option contract, to
both options and swaps.
The Commission now proposes two
further clarifications to the definition of
the term ‘‘futures-equivalent.’’ First, the
Commission proposes to address
circumstances in which a referenced
contract for which futures equivalents
must be calculated is itself a futures
contract. This may occur, for example,
when the referenced contract is a
futures contract that is a mini-sized
version of the core referenced futures
contract (e.g., the mini-corn and the
corn futures contracts).210 The
207 17 CFR 150.1(f) currently defines ‘‘futuresequivalent’’ only for an option contract, adjusting
the open position in options by the previous day’s
risk factor, as calculated at the close of trading by
the exchange.
208 The December 2013 position limits proposal
defines ‘‘futures-equivalent’’ for: (1) An option
contact, adjusting the position size by an
economically reasonable and analytically supported
risk factor, computed as of the previous day’s close
or the current day’s close or contemporaneously
during the trading day; and (2) a swap, converting
the position size to an economically equivalent
amount of an open position in a core referenced
futures contract. See December 2013 position limits
proposal, 78 FR at 75698–9.
209 Amendments to CEA section 4a(1) authorize
the Commission to extend position limits beyond
futures and option contracts to swaps traded on an
exchange and swaps not traded on an exchange that
perform or affect a significant price discovery
function with respect to regulated entities. 7 U.S.C.
6a(a)(1). In addition, under new CEA sections
4a(a)(2) and 4a(a)(5), speculative position limits
apply to agricultural and exempt commodity swaps
that are ‘‘economically equivalent’’ to DCM futures
and option contracts. 7 U.S.C. 6a(a)(2) and (5).
210 Under current § 150.2, for purposes of
compliance with federal position limits, positions

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

Commission proposes to clarify in
proposed § 150.1 that the term ‘‘futuresequivalent’’ includes a futures contract
which has been converted to an
economically equivalent amount of an
open position in a core referenced
futures contract. This clarification
mirrors the expanded definition of
‘‘futures-equivalent’’ in the December
2013 position limits proposal, as it
would pertain to swaps.
Second, the Commission proposes to
clarify the definition of the term
‘‘futures-equivalent’’ to provide that, for
purposes of calculating futures
equivalents, an option contract must
also be converted to an economically
equivalent amount of an open position
in a core referenced futures contract.
This clarification addresses situations,
for example, where the unit of trading
underlying an option contract (that is,
the notional quantity underlying an
option contract) may differ from the unit
of trading underlying a core referenced
futures contract.211
These clarifications are consistent
with the methodology the Commission
used to provide its analysis of unique
persons over percentages of the
proposed position limit levels in the
December 2013 position limits
proposal.212
2. Changes to the Definitions of
‘‘Intermarket Spread Position’’ and
‘‘Intramarket Spread Position’’
In the December 2013 position limits
proposal, the Commission proposed to
add to current § 150.1 new definitions of
the terms ‘‘intermarket spread position’’
and ‘‘intramarket spread position.’’ 213
in regular sized and mini-sized contracts are
aggregated. The Commission’s practice of
aggregating futures contracts, when a DCM lists for
trading two or more futures contracts with
substantially identical terms, is to scale down a
position in the mini-sized contract, by multiplying
the position in the mini-sized contract by the ratio
of the unit of trading in the mini-sized contract to
that of the regular sized contract. See paragraph
(b)(2)(D) of app. C to part 38 of the Commission’s
regulations for guidance regarding the contract size
or trading unit for a futures or futures option
contract.
211 For an example of a futures-equivalent
conversion of a swaption, see example 6, WTI
swaptions, app. A to part 20 of the Commission’s
regulations.
212 See Table 11 in the December 2013 position
limits proposal, 78 FR at 75731–3.
213 In the December 2013 position limits proposal,
the Commission proposed to define an ‘‘intermarket
spread position’’ as ‘‘a long position in a
commodity derivative contract in a particular
commodity at a particular designated contract
market or swap execution facility and a short
position in another commodity derivative contract
in that same commodity away from that particular
designated contract market or swap execution
facility.’’ The Commission also proposed to define
an ‘‘intramarket spread position’’ as ‘‘a long
position in a commodity derivative contract in a
particular commodity and a short position in

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38483

In connection with its proposal to
permit exchanges to process
applications for exemptions from
federal position limits for certain spread
positions, the Commission now
proposes to expand the definitions of
these terms as proposed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal.
The Commission now proposes to
define an ‘‘intermarket spread position’’
to mean ‘‘a long (short) position in one
or more commodity derivative contracts
in a particular commodity, or its
products or its by-products, at a
particular designated contract market,
and a short (long) position in one or
more commodity derivative contracts in
that same, or similar, commodity, or its
products or its by-products, away from
that particular designated contract
market.’’ Similarly, the Commission
now proposes to define an ‘‘intramarket
spread position’’ to mean ‘‘a long
position in one or more commodity
derivative contracts in a particular
commodity, or its products or its byproducts, and a short position in one or
more commodity derivative contracts in
the same, or similar, commodity, or its
products or its by-products, on the same
designated contract market.’’
The expanded definitions that the
Commission now proposes would take
into account that a market participant
may take positions in multiple
commodity derivative contracts to
establish an intermarket spread position
or an intramarket spread position. The
expanded definitions would also take
into account that such spread positions
may be established by taking positions
in derivative contracts in the same
commodity, in similar commodities, or
in the products or by-products of the
same or similar commodities. By way of
example, the expanded definitions
would include a short position in a
crude oil derivative contract and long
positions in a gasoline derivative
contract and a diesel fuel derivative
contract (collectively, a reverse crack
spread).
RFC 32: The Commission invites
comment on all aspects of its proposed
expanded definitions of ‘‘intermarket
spread position’’ and ‘‘intramarket
spread position.’’
III. Related Matters
A. Cost-Benefit Considerations
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the
Commission to consider the costs and
benefits of its actions before
promulgating a regulation under the
another commodity contract in the same
commodity on the same designated contract market
or swap execution facility.’’ See December 2013
position limits proposal, 78 FR at 75699–700.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

38484

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

CEA or issuing certain orders. Section
15(a) further specifies that the costs and
benefits shall be evaluated in light of
five broad areas of market and public
concern: (1) Protection of market
participants and the public; (2)
efficiency, competitiveness, and
financial integrity of futures markets; (3)
price discovery; (4) sound risk
management practices; and (5) other
public interest considerations. The
Commission considers the costs and
benefits resulting from its discretionary
determinations with respect to the
Section 15(a) factors.
In December 2013, the Commission
proposed, among other things, to
establish speculative position limits for
28 contracts, to revise the process
recognizing certain market participant
positions as bona fide hedges, and to
revise exemptions for spreads.214 The
December 2013 position limits proposal
invited the public to comment on the
Commission’s consideration of the costs
and benefits of the proposals, identify
and assess any costs and benefits not
discussed therein, as well as, provide
possible alternative proposals.
As discussed in Sections I and II of
this release, the Commission now
proposes: (a) To delay implementing the
requirements of SEF core principle 6(B)
and DCM core principle 5(B) with
respect to the setting and monitoring of
position limits for swaps; (b) to revise
the process for recognizing certain
positions as non-enumerated bona fide
hedges; (c) to revise the process for
exempting spreads, as well as
expanding the types of spreads that may
be exempted from position limits; and
(d) to add a recognition process for
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedges. This release, in large part, is a
response to comments to the December
2013 position limits proposal. As
discussed earlier, commenters urged the
Commission to rely on the exchanges’
long-standing experience in overseeing
position limits, recognizing bona fide
hedges, and reviewing spreads.
This supplemental proposal adds new
provisions to and otherwise modifies
some of the proposed rules identified
and discussed in the December 2013
position limits proposal. The baseline
against which the Commission
considers the benefits and costs of this
supplemental proposal is the same as
that employed in the December 2013
position limits proposal: The statutory
requirements of the CEA and the
Commission regulations now in effect—
214 78

FR 75680–842.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

in particular the Commission’s Part 150
regulations and rules 1.47 and 1.48.215
1. Guidance for DCM Core
Principle5(B), SEF Core Principle 6(B),
and Part 150
As explained in Section IIA above, the
Commission received comments in
response to the December 2013 position
limits proposal that most exchanges do
not have the ability to effectively
monitor all swap positions held by a
market participant across exchanges.
The Commission now proposes to
amend its guidance regarding DCM core
principle 5(B) and SEF core principle
6(B), and add Appendix E to Part 150.
The proposed amendments would have
the effect of delaying the
implementation of exchanges’ obligation
to adopt swap position limits until there
is sufficient access to swap position
information regarding market
participants’ swap positions.
ii. Baseline
The baselines for these changes are
DCM Core Principle 5, SEF Core
Principle 6, and Part 150.
iii. Benefits and Costs
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the
Commission to consider the costs and
benefits of its discretionary actions with
respect to rules and orders. Though
guidance, the Commission is also
considering the costs and benefits of
changes to the proposed amendments to
the appendices to parts 37, 38, and 150
of the Commission’s regulations. As
discussed in Section IIA, the
Commission appreciates that the
proposed amendments to guidance will
delay implementation of exchanges’
obligation to monitor and enforce
federal position limits for swaps. As a
result, this delay will likely confer
benefits and will likely reduce costs. For
instance, exchanges and market
participants will benefit from not
investing in technology and personnel
to assess position limits. Instead, both
exchanges and market participants will
be able to allocate such resources to
other functions, like surveillance and
product innovation, within the
businesses. In terms of costs, the
Commission believes that there might be
a cost to the market associated with this
delay because excessive positions
cannot be monitored in real-time by
exchanges.216
215 See chart listing current regulations, December
2013 position limits proposal at 75712.
216 As stated in Section IIA, the Commission
foresees various possibilities in remediating this
current inability to monitor position limits in realtime in the future.

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

iv. Request for Comment
RFC 33: The Commission requests
comment on its consideration of the
benefits and costs associated with the
proposed amendments to guidance. Are
there additional costs and benefits that
the Commission should consider? Has
the Commission misidentified any costs
or benefits? Commenters are encouraged
to include both quantitative and
qualitative assessments of benefits as
well as data, or other information of
support for such assessments. Are there
additional alternatives that the
Commission has not identified? If so,
please describe these additional
alternatives and provide a discussion of
the associated qualitative and
quantitative costs and benefits.
2. Section 150.1—Definitions
a. Bona Fide Hedging Position
i. Summary of Changes
As discussed earlier, the Commission
proposed in December 2013 a new
definition of bona fide hedging position
in proposed § 150.1, to replace the
current definition in § 1.3(z). The
December 2013 position limits proposal
proposed a general definition of bona
fide hedging position that contained two
requirements for a bona fide hedging
position: An incidental test and an
orderly trading requirement.217 The
Commission is now proposing the
following changes to proposed § 150.1.
First, the Commission is proposing to
strike the opening paragraph to the
definition of bona fide hedging position
in proposed § 150.1. By removing the
opening paragraph, the Commission has
eliminated the incidental test and
orderly trading requirement from the
general definition of bona fide hedging
position. Second, the Commission is
proposing to add sub-part
150.1(2)(i)(D)(2) to the definition of
bona fide hedging position. The
proposed addition reiterates the
Commission’s authority to permit
exchanges to recognize bona fide
positions and those positions are subject
to CEA section 4a(c) standards as well
as Commission review.
ii. Baseline
The baseline for this change is the
definition for ‘‘bona fide hedging
transactions and positions for excluded
commodities,’’ set forth in current
§ 1.3(z).218
217 See December 2013 Position Limits Proposal
at 75706–7.
218 17 CFR 1.3(z).

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
iii. Benefits and Costs
In the December 2013 position limits
proposal, the Commission discussed the
benefits and costs associated with the
proposed amendments to the definition
of bona fide hedging position.219 In this
proposal, the Commission proposes
changes that were not discussed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal.
The changes to the definition of bona
fide hedging position discussed herein
provide substantive benefits and costs.
In terms of benefits, the Commission
has made the definition of bona fide
hedging position conform more closely
to the CEA’s statutory language by
eliminating the incidental test. As
explained in Section IIB3(ii), the
Commission considers the incidental
test superfluous because the idea of
commercial cash market activities is
covered in the economically appropriate
test. Therefore, by discarding the
incidental test, market participants
benefit from greater regulatory certainty
and less redundancy.
By deleting the orderly trading
requirement from the definition of bona
fide hedging position, the Commission
seeks to eliminate a source of potential
confusion for exchanges and market
participants. The Commission sets forth
a definition that is consistent with the
CEA. More directly, CEA 4c(a)(5)
separately states that intentional or
reckless disregard for orderly trading
execution is unlawful. Thus, market
participants benefit from having a
definition that lessens or eliminates the
confusion between having two different
standards, that is, an orderly-trading
requirement and an intentional or
reckless disregard standard.
The addition of proposed sub-part
150.1(2)(i)(D)(2) to the definition of
bona fide hedging position represents a
non-substantive modification. The
actual benefits and costs associated with
this proposed sub-part arise from
recognitions under proposed § 150.9(a).

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

iv. Request for Comment
RFC 34: The Commission requests
comment on its consideration of the
benefits and costs associated with the
proposed revisions to the definition of
‘‘bona fide hedging position.’’ Are there
additional costs and benefits that the
Commission should consider? Has the
Commission misidentified any costs or
benefits? Commenters are encouraged to
include both quantitative and
qualitative assessments of benefits as
well as data and other information of
support for such assessments.
219 December 2013 position limits proposal at
75761–64.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

RFC 35: Futures contracts function to
hedge price risk because they lock-in
prices and quantities at designated
points in time. Futures contracts,
thereby, create price certainty for market
participants.220 Thus, the Commission
believes that bona fide hedging
positions need to ultimately result in
hedging against some form of price risk
as discussed in Section IIB3(i), above. Is
the Commission reasonable in
concluding that by eliminating the
incidental test market participants will
benefit from regulatory certainty and
reduced compliance costs because they
need only focus on price risk or other
risks that can be transformed into price
risk?
RFC 36: It is challenging to interpret
the orderly-trading requirement in the
context of the over-the-counter swaps
market and permitted off-exchange
transactions as discussed in Section
IIB3(ii), above. Given this challenge, is
it reasonable for the Commission to
conclude that by eliminating the
orderly-trading requirement, market
participants benefit from avoiding the
compliances costs of an unclear
requirement?
RFC 37: The Commission recognizes
that there exist alternatives to the
proposed definition of ‘‘bona fide
hedging position.’’ These alternatives
include: (i) Maintaining the status quo
in current § 1.3(z), or (ii) pursuing the
changes in the December 2013 position
limits proposal.221 Are there additional
alternatives that the Commission has
not identified? If so, please describe
these additional alternatives and
provide a discussion of the associated
qualitative and quantitative costs and
benefits.
b. Futures Equivalent
i. Summary of Changes
In the December 2013 position limits
proposal, the Commission proposed to
expand the definition of ‘‘futuresequivalent’’ from the narrow scope of an
option contract. The term ‘‘futuresequivalent,’’ as proposed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal,
would include certain options contracts
and swaps, converted to economically
equivalent amounts. The Commission
now proposes two further revisions to
the definition of ‘‘futures-equivalent.’’
220 Futures contracts and futures equivalents are
tools by which market participants can lock-in price
risk. They are limited in that regard. Other
derivatives contracts, however, enable market
participants to hedge other types of risk, beyond
price risks, because contract terms and conditions
can be tailored to the specific risks.
221 The costs and benefits of these alternatives
were discussed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal at 75761–64.

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38485

First, the Commission proposes to
clarify that the term ‘‘futuresequivalent’’ includes a futures contract
which has been converted to an
economically equivalent amount of an
open position in a core referenced
futures contract. Second, the
Commission proposes to clarify that, for
purposes of calculating futures
equivalents, an option contract must
also be converted into an economicallyequivalent amount of an open position
in a core referenced futures contract.
ii. Baseline
The baseline for this change to the
definition of ‘‘futures equivalent’’ is the
current § 150.1(f) definition of ‘‘futuresequivalent’’.
iii. Benefits and Costs
As explained in the December 2013
position limits proposal, the
Commission’s view is that nonsubstantive changes to the definitional
provisions of § 150.1 do not have any
benefit or cost implications. With the
exception of the term ‘‘bona fide
hedging position,’’ any benefits or costs
attributable to substantive definitional
changes and additions to § 150.1 as
proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal were considered in the
discussion of the rule in which such
new or amended term was proposed to
be operational.222
The Commission also explained in
2013 that the definition of ‘‘futuresequivalent’’ in current § 150.1(f) was too
narrow in light of the Dodd-Frank Act
amendments to CEA section 4a. To
conform to the statutory changes and to
fit within the broader position limits
regime, the Commission proposed a
more descriptive definition of ‘‘futuresequivalent’’ in the December 2013
position limits proposal. Upon further
review, the Commission is now
proposing to add more explanatory text
to the ‘‘futures-equivalent’’ definition so
that it comports better with the statutory
changes. The proposed revisions reflect
more clearly the Commission’s intent as
discussed in the December 2013
position limits proposal. Thus, the
Commission believes that there are no
cost or benefit implications to these
further clarifications.
iv. Request for Comment
RFC 38: Are there any benefits or
costs associated with the proposed
revisions to the definition of ‘‘futures
equivalent’’? If yes, commenters are
encouraged to include both quantitative
and qualitative assessments of these
222 December 2013 position limits proposal at
75761.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38486

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

costs and benefits, as well as data or
other information to support such
assessments.
RFC 39: The Commission recognizes
that one possible alternative to the
clarifications made to the ‘‘futuresequivalent’’ definition is to retain the
definition of ‘‘futures-equivalent’’ as
proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal. Additional alternatives
may exist as well. The Commission
requests comment on whether an
alternative to what is proposed would
result in a superior cost-benefit profile,
with support for any such position
provided.
c. Intermarket Spread Position and
Intramarket Spread Position
i. Summary of Changes
Current part 150 does not contain
definitions for the terms ‘‘intermarket
spread position’’ or ‘‘intramarket spread
position.’’ In the December 2013
position limits proposal, the
Commission proposed definitions for
both terms. The Commission now
proposes to expand the scope of these
two definitions. The expanded
definitions would now include
positions in multiple commodity
derivative contracts so that market
participants can establish an
intermarket spread position or an
intramarket spread position that would
be taken into account under the
proposed position limits regime and
exemption processes. The expanded
definitions also would cover spread
positions established by taking positions
in derivative contracts in the same
commodity, in similar commodities, or
in the products or by-products of the
same or similar commodities.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

ii. Baseline
Current § 150.1 does not include
definitions for the terms ‘‘intermarket
spread position’’ and ‘‘intramarket
spread position.’’ Therefore, the
baseline is a market where
‘‘intermarket’’ and ‘‘intramarket’’ spread
positions are not explicitly exempted
from federal position limits.
iii. Benefits and Costs
The proposed changes to ‘‘intermarket
spread position’’ and ‘‘intermarket
spread positions’’ broaden the scope of
the two terms in comparison to the
definitions proposed in the December
2013 position limits proposal. In the
Commission’s view, the proposed
changes are only operative in proposed
§§ 150.3, 150.5 and 150.10, which
address exemptions from position limits
for certain spread positions. The two
definitions operate in conjunction with
proposed § 150.10, which sets forth a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

proposed process for exchanges to
administer spread exemptions, because
the proposed definitions and proposed
§ 150.10, together, will enable market
participants to obtain relief from
position limits for these types of
spreads, among others.
iv. Request for Comment
RFC 40: Are there benefits or costs
associated with the definitions of
‘‘intermarket spread position’’ and
‘‘intramarket spread position’’? If yes,
commenters are specifically encouraged
to include both quantitative and
qualitative assessments of these costs
and benefits, as well as data or other
information to support such
assessments.
RFC 41: The Commission recognizes
that one possible alternative to the
proposed definitions of ‘‘intermarket
spread position’’ and ‘‘intramarket
spread position’’ is to retain the
definitions proposed in the December
2013 position limits proposal.
Additional alternatives may exist as
well. The Commission requests
comment on whether an alternative to
what is proposed would result in a
superior cost-benefit profile, with
support for any such alternative
provided.
3. Section 150.3—Exemptions
a. Rule Summary
CEA Section 4a(a)(7) authorizes the
Commission to exempt, conditionally or
unconditionally, any person, swap,
futures contract, or option—as well as
any class of the same—from the position
limits requirements that the
Commission establishes. In the
December 2013 position limits proposal,
the Commission proposed revisions to
current § 150.3(a) 223 The 2013 revisions
would have provided for Commission
recognition of enumerated bona fide
hedge positions, and provided guidance
about seeking relief from the
Commission for non-enumerated
positions, but would not have exempted
any spread positions from federal limits.
In this supplemental proposal, the
Commission is proposing in
§ 150.3(a)(1) that commodity derivative
positions recognized by exchanges as
NEBFHs under proposed § 150.9 or
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedge positions under proposed
§ 150.11, and certain exempt spread
positions under § 150.10, may exceed
federal position limits established under
§ 150.2 as proposed in the December
2013 position limits proposal. Proposed
§ 150.3(a)(1) should not be read alone
223 See 17 CFR 150.3 (list of exemptions that may
exceed position limits set forth in § 150.2).

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

but in conjunction with proposed
§§ 150.9, 150.10, and 150.11.
As discussed above in more detail, the
Commission has proposed to delay the
requirement that exchanges set position
limits on swaps because, among other
reasons, of the impracticability of
exchanges being able to enforce swap
position limits. As a result, the
Commission believes that it would be
unlikely that exchanges would establish
exchange-set limits and, thus, market
participants would not have a need for
exemptions to exchange-set limits for
swaps.
b. Baseline
The baseline is the same as it was in
the December 2013 position limits
proposal: Current § 150.3 of the
Commission’s regulations.
c. Benefits and Costs
The costs and benefits associated with
the changes to proposed § 150.3 will be
considered in the sections that discuss
proposed §§ 150.9, 150.10, and 150.11.
4. Section 150.5—Exemptions From
Exchange-Set Limits
a. Rule Summary
In the December 2013 position limits
proposal, the Commission proposed to
replace current § 150.5(a), which
provides guidance to exchanges for
exchange-set limits. For any commodity
derivative contracts subject to federal
position limits, § 150.5(a)(2) as proposed
in the December 2013 position limits
proposal, would have established
requirements under which exchanges
could recognize exemptions from
exchange-set position limits, including
hedge exemptions and spread
exemptions. Because the Commission is
now proposing to permit exchanges to
recognize NEBFH positions under
proposed § 150.9, to grant spread
exemptions from federal limits under
proposed § 150.10, and to recognize
certain enumerated anticipatory bona
fide hedge positions under proposed
§ 150.11, the Commission proposes
related changes to § 150.5(a)(2). For
commodity derivative contracts not
subject to federal position limits, the
Commission now proposes to revise
§ 150.5(b)(5), as proposed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal,
to permit exchanges to recognize
NEBFHs, as well as spreads. The
Commission notes that it is no longer
proposing to prohibit recognizing
spreads during the spot month, although
such exemptions would not have been
permitted under §§ 150.5(a)(2) or (b)(5),
as proposed in the December 2013
position limits proposal.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
b. Baseline
The baseline is the same as it was in
the December 2013 position limits
proposal: The current reasonable
discretion afforded to exchanges to
exempt market participant from their
exchange-set position limits.
c. Benefits and Costs
The costs and benefits associated with
the changes to proposed § 150.5 will be
discussed in the sections that discuss
proposed §§ 150.9, 150.10, and 150.11.
5. Section 150.9—Exchange Recognition
of NEBFHs
In response to comments to the
December 2013 position limits proposal,
the Commission now proposes to permit
exchanges to elect to administer a
process to recognize certain commodity
derivative positions as NEBFHs under
proposed § 150.9. Subject to certain
conditions set forth in proposed
§ 150.3(a)(1), positions recognized as
NEBFHs by exchanges pursuant to the
proposed § 150.9 application process
would be exempt from federal position
limits. Proposed § 150.9 works in
concert with the following three
proposed rules:
• Proposed § 150.3(a)(1)(i), with the
effect that recognized NEBFH positions
may exceed federal position limits;
• proposed § 150.5(a)(2), with the
effect that recognized NEBFH positions
may exceed exchange-set position limits
for contracts subject to federal position
limits; and
• proposed § 150.5(b)(5), with the
effect that recognized NEBFH positions
may exceed exchange-set position limits
for contracts not subject to federal
position limits.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

a. Rule Summary
The proposed NEBFH process has six
sub-parts: (a) Through (f). The first three
sub-parts—§ 150.9(a), (b), and (c)—
require exchanges that elect to have an
NEBFH process and market participants
that seek relief under the NEBFH
process to carry out certain duties and
obligations. The latter three sub-parts—
§ 150.9(d), (e), and (f)—delineate the
Commission’s role and obligations in
reviewing NEBFH recognition requests.
i. § 150.9(a)—Exchange-Administered
NEBFH Application Process
In sub-part (a) of proposed § 150.9, the
Commission identifies the process and
information required for an exchange to
assess whether it should grant a market
participant’s request that its derivative
position(s) be recognized as an NEBFH.
As an initial step under proposed
§ 150.9(a)(1), exchanges that voluntarily
elect to process NEBFH applications are

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

required to notify the Commission of
their intention to do so by filing new
rules or rule amendments with the
Commission under part 40 of the
Commission’s regulations. In proposed
§ 150.9(a)(2), the Commission offers
guidelines for exchanges to establish
adaptable application processes by
permitting different processes for
‘‘novel’’ versus ‘‘substantially similar’’
applications for NEBFH recognitions.
Proposed § 150.9(a)(3) describes in
general terms the type of information
that exchanges should collect from
applicants. Proposed § 150.9(a)(4)
obliges applicants and exchanges to act
timely in their submissions and
notifications, respectively, and that
exchanges retain revocation authority.
Proposed § 150.9(a)(5) provides that the
position will be deemed recognized as
an NEBFH when an exchange
recognizes it. Proposed § 150.9(a)(6)
instructs exchanges to have rules
requiring applicants that receive NEBFH
recognitions to report those positions
and offsetting cash positions. Proposed
§ 150.9(a)(7) requires an exchange to
publish on their Web site descriptions
of unique types of derivative positions
recognized as NEBFHs based on novel
facts and circumstances.
ii. § 150.9(b)—NEBFH Recordkeeping
Requirements
Under proposed § 150.9(b), exchanges
would be required to maintain complete
books and records of all activities
relating to the processing and
disposition of NEBFH applications. As
explained in proposed § 150.9(b)(1)
through (b)(2), the Commission instructs
exchanges to retain applicantsubmission materials, exchange notes,
and determination documents.
Moreover, consistent with current
§ 1.31, the Commission expects that
these records would be readily
accessible until the termination,
maturity, or expiration date of the bona
fide hedge recognition and during the
first two years of the subsequent, fiveyear retention period.
iii. § 150.9(c)—NEBFH Reporting
Requirements
The Commission proposes weekly
and monthly reporting obligations by
exchanges for positions recognized as
NEBFHs. Both reports also will be
subject to the Commission’s proposed
formatting requirements as explained in
proposed § 150.9(c)(3). In addition to
submitting reports to the Commission,
proposed § 150.9(c)(1)(ii) provides that
exchanges post NEBFH summaries on
their Web sites.

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38487

iv. § 150.9(d) and (e)—Commission
Review
The Commission proposes that under
certain circumstances market
participants and exchanges must
respond to Commission requests.
b. Baseline
For the NEBFH process, the baseline
for NEBFH subject to federal position
limits is current § 1.47. For NEBFH
exemptions to exchange-set position
limits, the baseline is the current
exchange regulations and practices as
well as the Commission’s guidance to
exchanges in current § 150.5(d), which
provides, generally, that an exchange
may recognize bona fide hedging
positions in accordance with the general
definition of bona fide hedging position
in current § 1.3(z)(1).
c. Benefits
The Commission recognizes that there
are positions that reduce price risks
incidental to commercial operations.
For that reason, among others, such
positions that are considered to be bona
fide hedging positions under CEA
Section 4a(c) are not subject to position
limits. Market participants have several
options regarding bona fide hedging
positions. A market participant could
conclude that a commodity derivative
position comports with the definition of
bona fide hedging position under
§ 150.1, as proposed in the December
2013 position limits proposal. Also as
discussed in the December 2013
position limits proposal, market
participants may request a staff
interpretive letter under § 140.99 or seek
exemptive relief under CEA section
4(a)(7). The Commission proposes in
this supplemental proposal another
option for participants to hold
commodity derivative positions that
exceed speculative limits: They may file
an application with an exchange for
recognition of an NEBFH under
proposed § 150.9.
While all of the aforementioned
options are viable, proposed § 150.9 in
this supplemental proposal outlines a
framework similar to existing exchange
practices that recognize non-enumerated
bona fide hedge exemptions to
exchange-set limits. These practices are
familiar to many market participants. As
a consequence, there are sizeable
benefits to the proposed § 150.9 process
that are not easily quantifiable. The
benefits are heavily dependent on the
individual characteristics of the
applicant, its use of commodity
derivatives, its commercial needs, and
market idiosyncrasies. Because of these
varying characteristics, a qualitative

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

38488

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

discussion is more appropriate, and
therefore, discussed herein.
Under proposed § 150.9, the
Commission will be able to leverage
exchanges’ existing practices and
expertise in administering exemptions.
Thus, proposed § 150.9 should reduce
the need to invent new procedures to
recognize NEBFHs. For example, many
exchanges already evaluate hedging
strategies in connection with setting and
enforcing exchange-set position limits;
thus, many exchanges should be able
readily to identify bona fide hedges.224
Exchanges also may be familiar with the
applicant-market participant’s needs
and practices so there would be an
advanced understanding for why certain
trading strategies are pursued.
Furthermore, by having the availability
of the exchange’s analysis and a macroview of the markets, which includes the
Commission’s access to regulatory swap
data, the Commission would likely be
better informed should it become
necessary for the Commission to review
a determination under proposed
§ 150.9(d), and determine whether a
commodity derivative position should
be recognized as an NEBFH. This may
benefit market participants, in the form
of administrative efficiency, because the
Commission would be able to initiate its
review based on materials already
submitted by the applicant under
proposed § 150.9, as well as the analysis
by the exchanges.
For applicants seeking recognition of
an NEBFH, proposed § 150.9 should
reduce duplicative efforts because
applicants would be saved the expense
of applying to both an exchange for
relief from exchange-set position limits
and to the Commission for relief from
federal limits. Because many exchanges
already possess similar application
processes and market participants are
probably somewhat accustomed to the
exchanges’ existing application
processes, administrative certainty
should be increased in the form of
reduced application-production time by
market participants and reduced
response time by exchanges.
Another probable benefit of proposed
§ 150.9 is the creation and retention of
records that may be used as reference
material in the future for similar bona
fide hedge recognition requests either by
relevant exchanges or the Commission.
Over time, retained records will help
the Commission to ensure that an
exchange’s determinations are internally
consistent and consistent with the Act
224 See note 108 (for text of 17 CFR 1.47 and
discussion). For a discussion on the history of
exemptions, see December 2013 position limits
proposal at 75703–06.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

and the Commission’s regulations
thereunder. There is also the additional
benefit that records would be accessible
if they are needed for a potential
enforcement action.
An exchange’s submission of reports
under proposed § 150.9(c) would
provide the Commission with notice
that an applicant has taken a commodity
derivative position that the exchange
has recognized as an NEBFH, and also
would show the applicant’s offsetting
positions in the cash markets. This is
beneficial to the public because such
reports would support the
Commission’s surveillance program.
Reports would facilitate the tracking of
NEBFHs recognized by the exchanges,
and would assist the Commission in
ensuring that a market participant’s
activities conform to the exchange’s
terms of recognition and to the Act. The
web-posting of summaries also would
benefit market participants in general by
providing transparency and open access
to the NEBFH recognition process. In
addition, reporting and posting gives
market participants seeking recognition
of an NEBFH an understanding of the
types of commodity derivative positions
an exchange may recognize as an
NEBFH, thereby providing greater
administrative and legal certainty.
d. Costs
To a large extent, exchanges and
market participants have incurred
already many of the compliance costs
associated with proposed § 150.9
because most, if not all, exchanges
currently administer similar processes
for recognizing NEBFHs. Nevertheless,
the Commission has detailed a number
of the readily-quantifiable costs for
exchanges and market participants
associated with processing NEBFH
recognitions under proposed § 150.9 in
Tables A1 to G1, below. The
Commission estimates that six entities
would elect to process NEBFH
applications and file new rules or rule
amendments pursuant to part 40 of the
Commission’s regulations. Even though
the number of applicants and associated
applications will likely vary based on
the referenced contract, the Commission
forecasts the number of applicants based
on the Commission’s past experience.
The costs are broken down in the tables
below. In short, most of the quantified
costs are related to the time, effort, and
materials that will be spent on
producing, processing, reviewing,
granting, and retaining applications for
NEBFH recognitions.
There are, however, other costs that
are not easily quantified. These are
qualitative costs that are related to the
specific attributes and needs of

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

individual market participants that are
hedging. Given that qualitative costs are
highly-specific, the Commission
believes that market participants would
choose to incur § 150.9-related costs
only if doing so is less costly than
complying with position limits and not
executing the desired hedge position.
Thus, by providing market participants
with an option to apply for relief from
speculative position limits under
proposed § 150.9, the Commission
believes it is offering market
participants a way to ease overall
compliance costs because it is
reasonable to assume that entities would
seek recognition of NEBFHs only if the
outcome of doing so justifies the costs.
The Commission also believes that
market participants would consider how
the costs of applying for recognition of
an NEBFH under proposed § 150.9
would compare to the costs of
requesting a staff interpretive letter
under § 140.99, or seeking exemptive
relief under CEA section 4a(a)(7).
Likewise, exchanges must consider
qualitative costs in their decision to
create an NEBFH application process or
revise an existing program.
The Commission acknowledges that
there may also be other costs to market
participants if the Commission disagrees
with an exchange’s decision to
recognize an NEBFH under proposed
§ 150.9 or under an independent
Commission request or review under
proposed § 150.9(d) or (e). These costs
would include time and effort spent by
market participants associated with a
Commission review. In addition, market
participants would lose amounts that
the Commission can neither predict nor
quantify if it became necessary to
unwind trades or reduce positions were
the Commission to conclude that an
exchange’s disposition of an NEBFH
application is inconsistent with section
4a(c) of the Act and the general
definition of bona fide hedging position
in § 150.
The Commission recognizes that costs
may result if the Commission disagrees
with an exchange’s disposition of an
NEBFH application under proposed
§ 150.9, the Commission, however,
believes such situations would be
limited based on the history of
exchanges approving similar
applications for exemptions to
exchange-set limits. Exchanges have
strong incentives to protect market
participants from the harms that
position limits are intended to prevent,
such as manipulation, corners, and
squeezes. In addition, an exchange that
recognizes a market participant’s
NEBFH that enables the participant to
exceed position limits must then deter

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the same market participant from
trading in a manner that causes adverse
price impacts on the market. For
example, this might mean that as part of
recognizing a NEBFH, the exchange
directs the market participant to execute
no more than ten contracts per day over
a five-day period rather than executing
50 contracts in one trading day. This
approach may be necessary for the
exchange to ensure sufficient market
liquidity because the exchange believes
that the particular contract market
cannot absorb the execution of 50
contracts by one market participant in
one day without an inordinately large
price impact. If the exchange fails to
deter (or instruct), other market
participants will likely face greater costs
in the form of transactions fees and

other trading-implementation costs,
which includes foregone trading
opportunities because market prices
moved against the trader and prevented
the trader from executing at the desired
prices. In other words, the exchange’s
mismanagement of the market
participant that took advantage of the
NEBFH would cause the other market
participants’ costs to implement trades
to increase. Such an outcome would
likely discredit the exchange and the
proposed § 150.9 program, as well as
reduce the exchange’s overall trading
commissions. The Commission believes
that the exchanges have little incentive
to engage in such behavior because of
reputational risk and economic
incentives.

38489

i. Costs To Create or Amend Exchange
Rules for NEBFH Application Programs
The Commission believes that
exchanges electing to process NEBFH
applications under proposed § 150.9(a)
are likely to already administer similar
processes and would need to file with
the Commission amendments to existing
exchange rules rather than create new
rules. The exchanges would only have
to file amendments once. As discussed
in the Paperwork Reduction Act
discussion below, the Commission
forecasts an average annual filing cost of
$610 per exchange that files new rules
or modifications per proposed process
that an exchange adopts.

TABLE A1
Proposed regulation/file or amend rules

Total average
labor hours

Total
average labor
costs per hour

Total
average annual
cost per
exchange

§ 150.9(a)(1) .............................................................................................................................

5

$122

$610
[5 × $122]

ii. Costs To Review Applications Under
Proposed Processes
An exchange that elects to process
applications also will incur costs related
to the review and disposition of such
applications pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9(a). For example, exchanges will
need to expend resources on reviewing
and analyzing the facts and
circumstances of each application to
determine whether the application

meets the standards established by the
Commission. Exchanges also will need
to expend effort in notifying applicants
of the exchanges’ disposition of
recognition or exemption requests. The
Commission believes that exchanges
electing to process NEBFH applications
under proposed § 150.9(a) are likely to
have processes for the review and
disposition of such applications
currently in place. As such, an
e3.xchange’s cost to comply with the

proposed rules are likely to be
incrementally less costly than having to
create process from inception because
the exchange would already have staff,
policies, and procedures established to
accomplish its duties under the
proposed rules. Thus, the Commission
has forecast that the average annual cost
for each exchange to process
applications for NEBFH recognitions is
$122,850.

TABLE B1

Proposed regulation/review applications

Total
average
applications
processed per
exchange

Total average
labor hours
per application

§ 150.9(a)(2) .........................................................................

185

5

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

iii. Costs To Post Summaries for NEBFH
Recognitions
Exchanges that elect to process the
applications under proposed § 150.9

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

will incur costs to publish on their Web
sites summaries of the unique types of
NEBFH positions. The Commission has
estimated an average annual cost of

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Average
total hours
for total
applications
reviewed per
exchange
925
[185 × 5]

Total average
labor costs
per hour

Total average
annual cost
per
exchange

$122

$112,850
[$122 × 925]

$18,300 for the web-posting of NEBFH
summaries.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38490

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE C1

Proposed regulation/web-posting

Total average
summaries per
exchange

Total average
labor hours
per application

§ 150.9(a) .............................................................................

30

5

iv. Costs To Market Participants Who
Would Seek NEBFH Relief From
Position Limits
Under proposed § 150.9(a)(3), market
participants must submit applications
that provide sufficient information to
allow the exchanges to determine, and

Average total
hours for total
applications
reviewed per
exchange
150
[30 × 5]

the Commission to verify, whether it is
appropriate to recognize such position
as an NEBFH. These applications would
be updated annually. Proposed
§ 150.9(a)(6) would require applicants to
file a report with the exchanges when an
applicant owns, holds, or controls a

Total average
labor costs per
hour

Total average
annual cost
per exchange

$122

18,300
[150 × $122]

derivative position that has been
recognized as an NEBFH. The
Commission estimates that each market
participant seeking relief from position
limits under proposed § 150.9 would
likely incur approximately $2,440
annually in application costs.225

TABLE D1
Proposed regulation/market participants
seeking relief from position limits

Number of
market
participants

Total average
applications
per market
participant

Total average
labor hours
per
application

Average total
hours for each
application
filed
per exchange

§ 150.9(a)(3), (6) ......................................

222

5

4

20
[4 × 5]

v. Costs for NEBFH Recordkeeping

pursuant to other Commission
regulations, including § 1.31. The
Commission, however, also believes that
the proposed rules may confer
additional recordkeeping obligations on
exchanges that elect to process
applications for NEBFHs. The

The Commission believes that
exchanges that currently process
applications for spread exemptions and
bona fide hedging positions maintain
records of such applications as required

Total average
labor costs per
hour

Total average
annual cost
per market
participant

$122

$2,440
[20 × $122]

Commission estimates that each
exchange electing to administer the
proposed NEBFH process would likely
incur approximately $3,660 annually to
retain records for each proposed
process.

TABLE E1

Proposed regulation/recordkeeping

Number of
DCMs

Total
average labor
hours for
recordkeeping

Total
average labor
costs per hour

§ 150.9(b) .........................................................................................................

6

30

$122

vi. Costs for Weekly and Monthly
NEBFH Reporting to the Commission

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

The Commission anticipates that
exchanges that elect to process NEBFH
applications will be required to file two
types of reports. The Commission is
aware that five exchanges currently

submit reports each month, on a
voluntary basis, which provide
information regarding exchangeprocessed exemptions of all types. The
Commission believes that the content of
such reports is similar to the
information required of the reports in

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

$3,660
[30 × $122]

proposed rule § 150.9(c), but the
frequency of such required reports
would increase under the proposed rule.
The Commission estimates an average
cost of approximately $19,032 per
exchange for weekly reports under
proposed § 150.9(c).

225 Assuming that exchanges administer
exemptions to exchange-set limits, these costs are
incrementally higher.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

Total average
annual
recordkeeping
cost per
exchange

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

38491

TABLE F1

Proposed regulation/weekly reporting

Estimated
number of
DCMs

Estimated
number of
hours per
response

Average
reports
annually by
each
exchange

Total average
labor costs per
hour

§ 150.9(c) .............................................................................

6

3

52

$122

For the monthly report, the
Commission anticipates a minor cost for
exchanges because the proposed rules
would require exchanges essentially to

forward to the Commission notices
received from applicants who own,
hold, or control the positions that have
been recognized or exempted. The

Total average
annual
reporting
cost per
exchange
$19,032
[3 × 52 ×
$122]

Commission estimates an average cost of
approximately $2,928 per exchange for
monthly reports under proposed
§ 150.9(c).

TABLE G1

Proposed regulation/monthly reporting

Estimated
number of
DCMs

Estimated
number of
hours per
response

Average
reports
annually by
each
exchange

Total average
labor costs per
hour

§ 150.9(c) .............................................................................

6

2

12

$122

vii. Costs Related to Subsequent
Monitoring
Exchanges would have additional
surveillance costs and duties with
respect to NEBFH that the Commission
believes would be integrated with their
existing self-regulatory organization
surveillance activities as an exchange.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

e. Request for Comment
RFC 42. The Commission requests
comment on its considerations of the
benefits of proposed § 150.9. Are there
additional benefits that the Commission
should consider? Has the Commission
misidentified any benefits? Commenters
are encouraged to include both
quantitative and qualitative assessments
of these benefits, as well as data or other
information to support such
assessments.
RFC 43. The Commission requests
comment on its considerations of the
costs of proposed § 150.9. Are there
additional costs that the Commission
should consider? Has the Commission
misidentified any costs? What other
relevant cost information or data,
including alternative cost estimates,
should the Commission consider and
why? Commenters are encouraged to
include both quantitative and
qualitative assessments of these
benefits, as well as data or other
information to support such
assessments.
RFC 44. The Commission requests
comment on whether a Commission
administered process promotes more

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

consistent and efficient decisionmaking. Commenters are encouraged to
include both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, as well as data
or other information to support such
assessments.
RFC 45. The Commission recognizes
there exist alternatives to proposed
§ 150.9. These include such alternatives
as: (1) Not permitting exchanges to
administer any process to recognize
NEBFHs; or (2) maintaining the status
quo. The Commission requests comment
on whether an alternative to what is
proposed would result in a superior
cost-benefit profile, with support for any
such position provided.
RFC 46. The Commission requests
comment on whether the options for
recognizing NEBFHs outlined in the
December 2013 position limits proposal
are superior from a cost-benefit
perspective to proposed § 150.9.226 If
yes, please explain why.
6. Section 150.10—Spread Exemptions
As discussed in Section IID above, the
Commission has the authority under
CEA section 4a(a)(1) to exempt certain
spreads from position limits. Before the
Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission
exempted certain spreads from position
limits under current § 150.3. In the
December 2013 position limits proposal,
the Commission proposed changing
current § 150.3 to eliminate exemptions
for spreads outside the spot month, and
placed limitations on inter- and
226 78

PO 00000

FR at 75711–73.

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Total average
annual
reporting
average cost
per exchange
$2,928
[2 × 12 ×
$122]

intramarket spreads.227 After reviewing
comments, the Commission has refined
its spread exemption proposal to permit
spread exemptions from federal position
limits, and, combined with changes to
the definitions of ‘‘intermarket spread
position’’ and ‘‘intramarket spread
position,’’ authorized such spreads to
exceed position limits during spot and
non-spot months.
a. Rule Summary
The Commission proposes to
authorize exchanges to exempt spread
positions from federal position limits.
The proposed § 150.10 process lists four
types of spreads as defined and
proposed in § 150.1 of the December
2013 positions limits proposal and
modified in this supplemental proposal.
Proposed § 150.10 works in concert with
the following three proposed rules:
• Proposed § 150.3(a)(1)(iv), with the
effect that exempt spread positions may
exceed federal position limits;
• proposed § 150.5(a)(2), with the
effect that exempt spread positions may
exceed exchange-set position limits for
contracts subject to federal position
limits; and
• proposed § 150.5(b)(5)(ii)(C), with
the effect that exempt spread positions
may exceed exchange-set position limits
for contracts not subject to federal
position limits.
227 For cost-benefit discussion on spread
exemptions, see December 2013 position limits
proposal at 75774–76.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38492

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

The proposed § 150.10 process is
analogous to the application process for
recognition of NEBFHs under proposed
§ 150.9. The proposed spread exemption
process has six sub-parts: (a) Through
(f). The first three sub-parts—
§ 150.10(a), (b), and (c)—require
exchanges that elect to have a spread
exemption process, and market
participants that seek relief under the
spread exemption process, to carry out
certain duties and obligations. The latter
four sub-parts—§ 150.10(d), (e), and
(f)—delineate the Commission’s role
and obligations in reviewing requests
for spread exemptions.
i. Section 150.10(a)—ExchangeAdministered Spread Exemption

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

In sub-part (a) of proposed § 150.10,
the Commission identifies the process
and information required for an
exchange to grant a market participant’s
request that its derivative position(s) be
recognized as an exempt spread
position. As an initial step under
proposed § 150.10(a)(1), exchanges that
voluntarily elect to process spread
exemption applications are required to
notify the Commission of their intention
to do so by filing new rules or rule
amendments with the Commission
under part 40 of the Commission’s
regulations. In proposed § 150.10(a)(2),
the Commission identifies four types of
spreads that an exchange may approve.
Proposed § 150.10(a)(3) describes in
general terms the type of information
that exchanges should collect from
applicants. Proposed § 150.10(a)(4)
obliges applicants and exchanges to act
timely in their submissions and
notifications, respectively, and require
exchanges to retain revocation
authority. Proposed § 150.10(a)(6)
instructs exchanges to have rules
requiring applicants who receive spread
exemptions to report those positions,
including each component of the
spread. Proposed § 150.10(a)(7) requires
exchanges to publish on its Web site a
summary describing the type of spread
position and explaining why it was
exempted.
ii. Section 150.10(b)—Spread
Exemption Recordkeeping
Requirements
Exchanges must maintain complete
books and records of all activities
relating to the processing and
disposition of spread exemption
applications under proposed
§ 150.10(b). This is similar to the record
retention obligations of exchanges for
positions recognized as NEBFHs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

iii. Section 150.10(c)—Spread
Exemption Reporting Requirements
Exchanges would have weekly and
monthly reporting obligations for spread
exemptions under proposed § 150.10(c).
This is similar to the reporting
obligations of exchanges for positions
recognized as NEBFHs.
b. Baseline
For the proposed spread exemption
process for positions subject to federal
limits, the baseline is CEA section
4a(a)(1). In that statutory section, the
Commission is authorized to recognize
certain spread positions. That statutory
provision is currently implemented in a
limited calendar-month spread
exemption in § 150.3(a)(3). For
exchange-set position limits, the
baseline for spreads is the guidance in
current § 150.5(a), which provides
generally that exchanges may recognize
exemptions for positions that are
normally known to the trade as spreads.
c. Benefits
CEA section 4a(a)(1) authorizes the
Commission to exempt certain spreads
from speculative position limits. In
exercising this authority, the
Commission recognizes that spreads can
have considerable benefits for market
participants and markets. The
Commission now proposes a spread
exemption framework that utilizes
existing exchanges-resources and
exchanges-expertise so that fair access
and liquidity are promoted at the same
time market manipulations, squeezes,
corners, and any other conduct that
would disrupt markets are deterred and
prevented. Building on existing
exchange processes preserves the ability
of the Commission and exchanges to
monitor markets and trading strategies
while reducing burdens on exchanges
that will administer the process, and
market participants, who will utilize the
process.
In addition to these benefits, there are
other benefits related to proposed
§ 150.10 that would inure to markets
and market participant. Yet, there is
difficulty in quantifying these benefits
because benefits are dependent on the
characteristics, such as operation size
and needs, of the market participants
that would seek spread exemptions, and
the markets in which the participants
trade. Accordingly, the Commission
considers the qualitative benefits of
proposed § 150.10.
For both exchanges and market
participants, proposed § 150.10 would
likely alleviate compliance burdens to
the status quo. Exchanges would be able
to build on established procedures and

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

infrastructure. As stated earlier, many
exchanges already have rules in place to
process and grant applications for
spread exemptions from exchange-set
position limits pursuant to Part 38 of the
Commission’s regulations (in particular,
current § 38.300 and § 38.301) and
current § 150.5. In addition, exchanges
may be able to use the same staff and
electronic resources that would be used
for proposed § 150.9 and § 150.11.
Market participants also may benefit
from spread-exemption reviews by
exchanges that are familiar with the
commercial needs and practices of
market participants seeking exemptions.
Market participants also might gain
legal and regulatory clarity and
consistency that would help in
developing trading strategies.
Proposed § 150.10 would authorize
exchanges to approve spread
exemptions that permit market
participants to continue to enhance
liquidity, rather than being restricted by
a position limit. For example, by
allowing speculators to execute
intermarket and intramarket spreads in
accordance with proposed
§ 150.3(a)(1)(iv) and § 150.10,
speculators would be able to hold a
greater amount of open interest in
underlying contract(s), and, therefore,
bona fide hedgers may benefit from any
increase in market liquidity. Spread
exemptions might lead to better price
continuity and price discovery if market
participants who seek to provide
liquidity (for example, through entry of
resting orders for spread trades between
different contracts) receive a spread
exemption and, thus, would not
otherwise be constrained by a position
limit.
Here are two examples of positions
that could benefit from the spread
exemption in proposed § 150.10:
• Reverse crush spread in soybeans
on the CBOT subject to an intermarket
spread exemption. In the case where
soybeans are processed into two
different products, soybean meal and
soybean oil, the crush spread is the
difference between the combined value
of the products and the value of
soybeans. There are two actors in this
scenario: The speculator and the
soybean processor. The spread’s value
approximates the profit margin from
actually crushing (or mashing) soybeans
into meal and oil. The soybean
processor may want to lock in the
spread value as part of its hedging
strategy, establishing a long position in
soybean futures and short positions in
soybean oil futures and soybean meal
futures, as substitutes for the processor’s
expected cash market transactions
(purchase of the anticipated inputs for

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38493

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
processing and sale of the anticipated
products). On the other side of the
processor’s crush spread, a speculator
takes a short position in soybean futures
against long positions in soybean meal
futures and soybean oil futures. The
soybean processor may be able to lock
in a higher crush spread, because of
liquidity provided by such a speculator
who may need to rely upon a spread
exemption. It is important to understand
that the speculator is accepting basis
risk represented by the crush spread,
and the speculator is providing liquidity
to the soybean processor. The crush
spread positions may result in greater
correlation between the futures prices of
soybeans and those of soybean oil and
soybean meal, which means that prices
for all three products may move up or
down together in a closer manner.
• Wheat spread subject to intermarket
spread exemptions. There are two actors
in this scenario: The speculator and the
wheat farmer. In this example, a farmer
growing hard wheat would like to
reduce the price risk of her crop by
shorting a MGEX wheat futures. There,
however, may be no hedger, such as a
mill, that is immediately available to
trade at a desirable price for the farmer.
There may be a speculator willing to
offer liquidity to the hedger; the
speculator may wish to reduce the risk
of an outright long position in MGEX
wheat futures through establishing a
short position in CBOT wheat futures
(soft wheat). Such a speculator, who
otherwise would have been constrained
by a position limit at MGEX or CBOT,
may seek exemptions from MGEX and
CBOT for an intermarket spread, that is,
for a long position in MGEX wheat
futures and a short position in CBOT
wheat futures of the same maturity. As
a result of the exchanges granting an
intermarket spread exemption to such a
speculator, who otherwise may be
constrained by limits, the farmer might
be able to transact at a higher price for
hard wheat than might have existed
absent the intermarket spread
exemptions. Under this example, the
speculator is accepting basis risk
between hard wheat and soft wheat,

reducing the risk of a position on one
exchange by establishing a position on
another exchange, and potentially
providing liquidity to a hedger. Further,
spread transactions may aid in price
discovery regarding the relative protein
content for each of the hard and soft
wheat contracts.
Finally, the Commission is no longer
proposing to prohibit recognizing and
exempting spreads during the spot and
non-spot month as explained in the
preamble. There may be considerable
benefits that evolve from spreads
exempted during the spot month, in
particular. Besides enhancing the
opportunity for market participants to
use strategies involving spread trades
into the spot month, this proposed relief
may improve price discovery in the spot
month for market participants. And, as
in the intermarket wheat example
above, the proposed spread relief in the
spot month may better link prices
between two markets, e.g., the price of
MGEX wheat futures and the price of
CBOT wheat futures. Put another way,
the prices in two different but related
markets for substitute goods may be
more highly correlated, which benefits
market participants with a price
exposure to the underlying protein
content in wheat generally, rather than
that of a particular commodity.
d. Costs
Similar to proposed § 150.9,
exchanges and market participants may
have made already many of the financial
outlays for administering the
application process and applying for
spread exemptions, respectively.
Because of that history, the Commission
is able to quantify some of the costs that
will arise from proposed § 150.10 in
Tables A3 through E3, below. Like the
costs for proposed § 150.9, the
Commission estimates that six entities
would elect to process spreadexemption applications and file new
rules or rule amendments pursuant to
part 40 of the Commission’s regulations,
and the number of spread exemption
applicants and applications will likely
vary based on the referenced contract.

Relying on its past experience, the
Commission forecasts the number of
applicants and breaks down the annual
costs in the tables below. Most of the
monetary costs are related to the time,
effort, and materials spent for
administering and retaining records for
spread exemptions.
Although the Commission is able to
quantify some costs, other costs related
to proposed § 150.10 are not easily
quantifiable. As previously stated, other
costs are more dependent on individual
markets and market participants seeking
a spread exemption, and are more
readily considered qualitatively.
Because costs, quantitative or
qualitative, can be particular, the
Commission believes that market
participants will determine whether
costs associated with seeking a
proposed § 150.10 spread exemption are
worth the benefits. If the costs are too
high, then market participants may
choose not to apply for a spread
exemption and not to execute a spread
transaction that would exceed position
limits. For instance, speculators that
execute exempted spreads would bear
the risk of adverse price changes in the
spread, but a speculator who does not
receive an exemption may be unwilling
to bear the higher risk of an outright
position, if a position limit would
restrict her ability to establish a risk
reducing position in another contract. In
general, the Commission believes that
proposed § 150.10 should provide
exchanges and market participants
greater regulatory and administrative
certainty and that costs will be small
relative to the benefits of having an
additional trading tool under proposed
§ 150.10.
Note: The activities that are priced in
the following Tables A2 to G2 are
similar, if not the same types of
activities discussed in the section
affiliated with Tables A1 through G1, for
proposed § 150.9. Unless there is a
significant difference in the anticipated
acts to implement proposed § 150.10,
the Commission will not re-describe the
activities valued in Tables A2 through
G2.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

TABLE A2—COSTS TO CREATE OR AMEND EXCHANGE RULES FOR SPREAD-EXEMPTION APPLICATION REVIEWS
Proposed regulation/
file or amend rules

Total average labor
hours

Total average labor
costs per hour

Total average annual
cost per exchange

§ 150.10(a)(1)

5

$122

$610
[5 × $122]

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38494

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE B2—COSTS TO REVIEW SPREAD-EXEMPTION APPLICATIONS

Proposed regulation/
review applications

Total average
applications
processed
per exchange

Total average
labor
hours per
application

§ 150.10(a)(2) .......................................................................

50

5

Average total
hours for
total
applications
reviewed
per exchange
250
[50 × 5]

Total average
labor
costs per hour

Total average
annual
cost per
exchange

$122

$30,500
[$122 × 250]

Total average
labor costs
per hour

Total average
annual cost
per exchange

$122

$6,100
[50 × $122]

TABLE C2—COST TO POST SPREAD-EXEMPTION SUMMARIES

Proposed regulation/web-posting

Total average
summaries
per exchange

Total average
labor
hours per
application

§ 150.10(a) ...........................................................................

10

5

Regarding the following Table D2,
note that reports are also required to be
sent to the Commission in the case of

Average total
hours for
total
applications
reviewed
per exchange
50
[10 × 5]

exempt spread positions under
§ 150.10(a)(5).

TABLE D2—COSTS TO MARKET PARTICIPANTS WHO WOULD SEEK SPREAD-EXEMPTION RELIEF FROM POSITION LIMITS

Proposed regulation/market participants
seeking relief from position limits

Number
of market
participants

Total average
applications
per market
participant

Total average
labor
hours per
application

§ 150.10(a)(3), (6) ....................................

25

2

3

Average
total hours
for each
application
filed per
exchange
6
[2 × 3]

Total average
labor costs
per hour

Total average
annual cost
per market
participant

$122

$732
[6 × $122]

TABLE E2—COSTS FOR SPREAD-EXEMPT RECORDKEEPING
Proposed
regulation/
recordkeeping

Number of
DCMs

Total average
labor
hours for
recordkeeping

Total average
labor costs
per hour

§ 150.10(b) .......................................................................................................

6

30

$122

Total average
annual
recordkeeping
cost per
exchange
$3,660
[30 × $122]

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

TABLE F2—COSTS FOR WEEKLY SPREAD-EXEMPTION REPORTING

Proposed regulation/reporting

Estimated
number of
DCMs

Estimated
number of
hours per
response

Average
reports
annually by
each
exchange

Total average
labor costs
per hour

§ 150.10(c) [weekly] .............................................................

6

3

52

$122

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Total average
annual
reporting
cost per
exchange
$19,032
[3 × 52 ×
$122]

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

38495

TABLE G2—COSTS FOR MONTHLY SPREAD-EXEMPTION REPORTING

Proposed regulation/monthly reporting

Estimated
number of
DCMs

Estimated
number of
hours per
response

Average
reports
annually by
each
exchange

Total average
labor costs
per hour

§ 150.10(c) ...........................................................................

6

2

12

$122

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Exchanges would have additional
surveillance costs and duties that the
Commission believes would be
integrated with their existing selfregulatory organization surveillance
activities as an exchange. For example,
exchanges that elect to grant spread
exemptions will have to adapt and
develop procedures to determine
whether a particular spread exemption
furthers the goals of CEA section
4a(a)(3)(B) as well as monitor whether
applicant speculators are, in fact,
providing liquidity to other market
participants.
Other costs could arise from proposed
§ 150.11 if the Commission disagrees
with an exchanges’ disposition of a
spread application, or costs from a
Commission request or review under
proposed § 150.11(d) or (e). These costs
are not easily quantified because they
depend on the specifics of the
Commission’s request or review.
e. Request for Comment
RFC 47. The Commission requests
comment on its considerations of the
benefits of proposed § 150.10. Are there
additional benefits that the Commission
should consider? Has the Commission
misidentified any benefits? Commenters
are encouraged to include both
quantitative and qualitative assessments
of benefits as well as data or other
information of support such
assessments.
RFC 48. The Commission requests
comment on its considerations of the
costs of proposed § 150.10. Are there
additional costs that the Commission
should consider? Has the Commission
misidentified any costs? What other
relevant cost information or data,
including alternative cost estimates,
should the Commission consider and
why? Commenters are encouraged to
include both quantitative and
qualitative assessments of costs as well
as data or other information of support
such assessments.
RFC 49. The Commission recognizes
that there exist alternatives to proposed
§ 150.10. These alternatives include: (i)
Maintaining the status quo, or (ii)
pursuing the changes in the December

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

2013 position limits proposal. The
Commission requests comment on
whether retaining the framework for
spread exemptions as proposed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal
is superior from a cost-benefit
perspective to proposed § 150.10. If yes,
please explain why. The Commission
requests comment on whether any
alternatives to proposed § 150.10 would
result in a superior cost-benefit profile,
with support for any such alternative
provided.
7. Section 150.11—Enumerated
Anticipatory Bona Fide Hedges
After reviewing comments in
response to the December 2013 position
limits proposal, the Commission is now
proposing another method by which
market participants may have
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedge positions recognized. As
proposed in the December 2013 position
limits proposal, § 150.7 would require
market participants to file statements
with the Commission regarding certain
anticipatory hedges which would
become effective absent Commission
action or inquiry ten days after
submission. The second method in
proposed § 150.11 is an exchangeadministered process to determine
whether certain enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge positions,
such as unfilled anticipated
requirements, unsold anticipated
production, anticipated royalties,
anticipated service contract payments or
receipts, or anticipatory crosscommodity hedges should be
recognized as bona fide hedge positions.
Proposed § 150.11 works in concert with
the following three proposed rules:
• Proposed § 150.3(a)(1)(i), with the
effect that recognized anticipatory
enumerated bona fide hedge positions
may exceed federal position limits;
• proposed § 150.5(a)(2), with the
effect that recognized anticipatory
enumerated bona fide hedge positions
may exceed exchange-set position limits
for contracts subject to federal position
limits; and
• proposed § 150.5(b)(5), with the
effect that recognized anticipatory

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Total
average
annual
reporting
average cost
per exchange
$2,928
[2 × 12 ×
$122]

enumerated bona fide hedge positions
may exceed exchange-set position limits
for contracts not subject to federal
position limits.
a. Rule Summary
The proposed § 150.11 process is
somewhat analogous to the application
process for recognition of NEBFHs
under proposed § 150.9. The proposed
§ 150.11 recognition process for
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedge positions has five sub-parts: (a)
through (e). The first three sub-parts—
§ 150.11(a), (b), and (c)—require
exchanges that elect to have a process
for recognizing enumerated anticipatory
bona fide hedge positions, and market
participants that seek position-limit
relief for such positions, to carry out
certain duties and obligations. The
fourth and fifth sub-parts—§ 150.11(d),
and (e)—delineate the Commission’s
role and obligations in reviewing
requests for recognition of enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge positions.
i. Section 150.11(a)—ExchangeAdministered Enumerated Anticipatory
Bona Fide Hedge Process
Under proposed § 150.11(a)(1),
exchanges that voluntarily elect to
process enumerated anticipatory bonafide hedge applications are required to
notify the Commission of their intention
to do so by filing new rules or rule
amendments with the Commission
under part 40 of the Commission’s
regulations. In proposed § 150.11(a)(2),
the Commission identifies certain types
of information necessary for the
application, including information
required under proposed § 150.7(d). In
proposed § 150.11(a)(3), the
Commission states that applications
must be updated annually and that the
exchanges have ten days in which to
recognize an enumerated anticipatory
bona fide hedge. In addition, exchanges
must retain authority to revoke
recognitions. Proposed § 150.11(a)(4)
states that once an enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge has been
recognized by an exchange, the position
will be deemed to be recognized.
Proposed § 150.11(a)(5) discusses

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38496

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

reports that must be filed by applicants
holding exempted an enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge positions.
Proposed 150.11(a)(6) explains that
exchanges may choose to seek
Commission review of an application
and the Commission has ten days in
which to respond.
ii. Section 150.11(b)—Enumerated
Anticipatory Bona Fide Hedge
Recordkeeping Requirements
Exchanges must maintain complete
books and records of all activities
relating to the processing and
disposition of spread-exemption
applications under proposed
§ 150.11(b). This is similar to the recordretention obligations of exchanges for
positions recognized as NEBFHs under
proposed § 150.9, and exempted as
spreads under proposed § 150.10.
iii. Section 150.11(c)—Enumerated
Anticipatory Bona Fide Hedge
Reporting Requirements
Exchanges would have weekly
reporting obligations under proposed
§ 150.11(c). Unlike NEBFHs and
spreads, exchanges would have no
monthly reporting or web-posting
obligations for enumerated anticipatory
bona fide hedges.
b. Baseline
The baseline is the same as it was in
the December 2013 position limits
proposal: The current filing process
detailed in current § 1.48.
c. Benefits
There are significant benefits that
would likely accrue should proposed
§ 150.11 be adopted. Similar to the
benefits for recognizing positions as
NEBFH positions under § 150.9,
recognizing anticipatory positions as
bona fide hedges under § 150.11 would
provide market participants with
potentially a more expeditious
recognition process than the
Commission proposal for a 10-day
Commission recognition process under
proposed 150.7. The benefit of prompter
recognitions, though, is not readily
quantifiable, and, in most

circumstances, is subject to the
characteristics and needs of markets as
well as market participants. So while it
is challenging to quantify the benefits
that would likely be associated with
proposed § 150.11, there are qualitative
benefits that the Commission can
discuss.
For example, exchanges would be
able to use existing resources and
knowledge in the administration and
assessment of enumerated anticipatory
bona fide hedge positions. The
Commission and exchanges have
evaluated these types of positions for
years (as discussed in the December
position limits proposal). Utilizing this
experience and familiarity would likely
produce such benefits as prompt but
reasoned decision making and
streamlined procedures. In addition,
proposed § 150.11 permits exchanges to
act in less than ten days—a timeframe
that would be less than the
Commission’s process under current
§ 1.48, or under § 150.7 as proposed in
the December 2013 position limits
proposal.228 This could potentially
enable commercial market participants
to pursue trading strategies in a more
timely fashion to advance their
commercial and hedging needs to
reduce risk.
Proposed § 150.11, similar to
proposed § 150.9 and § 150.10, also
would provide the benefit of enhanced
record-retention and reporting of
positions recognized as enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedges. As
previously discussed, records retained
for specified periods would enable
exchanges to develop consistent
practices and afford the Commission
accessible information for review,
surveillance, and enforcement efforts.
Likewise, weekly reporting under
§ 150.11 would facilitate the tracking of
positions, provide transparency to the
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedge process to the public, and
improve open access and administrative
and legal certainty.
d. Costs
The costs for proposed § 150.11 are
similar to the costs for proposed

§§ 150.9 and 150.10, with many of the
cost considerations not changing. The
costs that can be quantified are in
Tables A3 through G3. Other costs
associated with proposed § 150.11, like
those for proposed §§ 150.9 and 150.10,
are more qualitative in nature and hinge
on specific market and participant
attributes. With this in mind, the
Commission believes that exchanges
and market participants will incur the
costs related to § 150.11 if they believe
that administering the process under
proposed § 150.11, or applying for
recognition under proposed § 150.11
and establishing a recognized position,
respectively, are less costly than not
administering the process under
proposed § 150.11 recognitions, or not
executing such trades, respectively.
Other costs could arise from proposed
§ 150.11 if the Commission disagrees
with an exchange’s disposition of an
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedge position application, or costs
from a Commission request or review
under proposed § 150.11(d) These costs
would include time and effort spent by
market participants associated with a
Commission review. In addition, market
participants would lose amounts that
the Commission can neither predict nor
quantify if it became necessary to
unwind trades or reduce positions were
the Commission to conclude that an
exchange’s disposition of an
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedge application is not appropriate or
is inconsistent with the Act. The
Commission believes that such
disagreements will be rare based on the
Commission’s past experience and
review of exchanges’ efforts.
Nevertheless, the Commission notes that
assessing whether a position is for the
reduction of risk arising from
anticipatory needs or excessive
speculation is complicated.
Note: For a general description of
proposed rules identified in the
following Tables A3 to E3, see Section
IIIA5, above.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

TABLE A3—COSTS TO CREATE OR AMEND EXCHANGE RULES FOR ENUMERATED ANTICIPATORY BONA FIDE HEDGE
APPLICATIONS
Proposed regulation/file or amend rules

Total average
labor hours

Total average
labor costs per
hour

Total average
annual cost
per exchange

§ 150.11(a)(1) ...............................................................................................................................

5

$122

$610
[5 × $122]

228 See discussion in December 2013 position
limits proposal at 75745–46.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38497

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE B3—COSTS TO REVIEW ENUMERATED ANTICIPATORY BONA FIDE HEDGE APPLICATIONS

Proposed regulation/review applications

Total average
applications
processed per
exchange

Total average
labor hours
per application

Average total
hours for total
applications
reviewed
per exchange

Total average
labor costs
per hour

Total average
annual cost
per exchange

§ 150.11(a)(2) .......................................................................

50

5

250

$122

$30,500
[$122 × 250]

TABLE C3—COSTS TO MARKET PARTICIPANTS WHO WOULD SEEK ENUMERATED ANTICIPATORY BONA FIDE HEDGE
RELIEF FROM POSITION LIMITS
Proposed regulation/market participants
seeking relief from
position limits

Number of
market
participants

Total average
applications
per market
participant

Total average
labor hours
per application

§ 150.11(a)(2), (6) ....................................

25

2

3

Average total
hours for each
application
filed per
exchange
6
[2 × 3]

Total average
labor costs per
hour

Total average
annual cost
per market
participant

$122

$732
[6 × $122]

TABLE D3—COSTS FOR ENUMERATED ANTICIPATORY BONA FIDE HEDGE RECORDKEEPING

Proposed regulation/recordkeeping

Number of
DCMs

Total average
labor hours for
recordkeeping

Total average
labor costs per
hour

§ 150.11(b) .................................................................................................

6

30

$122

Total average
annual
recordkeeping
cost per
exchange
$3,660
[30 × $122]

TABLE E3—COSTS FOR ENUMERATED ANTICIPATORY BONA FIDE HEDGE WEEKLY REPORTING

Proposed regulation/weekly reporting

Estimated
number of
DCMs

Estimated
number of
hours per
response

Average
reports
annually by
each
exchange

Total average
labor costs per
hour

§ 150.11(c) ...........................................................................

6

3

52

$122

Exchanges would have additional
surveillance costs and duties that the
Commission believes would be
integrated with their existing selfregulatory organization surveillance
activities as an exchange.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

f. Request for Comment
RFC 50. The Commission requests
comment on its considerations of the
benefits of proposed § 150.11. Are there
additional benefits that the Commission
should consider? Has the Commission
misidentified any benefits? Commenters
are encouraged to include both
quantitative and qualitative assessments
of these benefits, as well as data or other
information to support such
assessments.
RFC 51. The Commission requests
comment on its considerations of the
costs of proposed § 150.11. Are there
additional costs that the Commission
should consider? Has the Commission

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

misidentified any costs? What other
relevant cost information or data,
including alternative cost estimates,
should the Commission consider and
why? Commenters are encouraged to
include both quantitative and
qualitative assessments of these costs, as
well as data or other information to
support such assessments.
RFC 52. The Commission recognizes
that there may exist alternatives to
proposed § 150.11, such as maintaining
the status quo, or adopting only § 150.7
as proposed in the December 2013
position limits proposal.229 The
Commission requests comment on
whether alternatives to proposed
§ 150.11 would result in a superior costbenefit profile, with support for any
such alternative provided. The
Commission requests comment on
229 See December 2013 position limits proposal at
75776–77.

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Total average
annual
reporting cost
per
exchange
$19,032
[3 × 52 ×
$122]

whether the framework for recognizing
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedging positions as proposed in the
December 2013 position limits proposal
would be superior from a cost-benefit
perspective to proposed § 150.11. If yes,
please explain why.
8. CEA Section 15(a) Factors
CEA section 15(a) requires the
Commission to consider the costs and
benefits of its actions in light of five
factors, which it proposes to do below.
The Commission welcomes comments
on its discussion of the proposed rules
in this supplemental proposal and the
CEA 15(a) factors.
i. Protection of Market Participants and
the Public
The imposition of position limits is
intended to protect the markets and
market participants from manipulation
and excessive speculation. Yet, there are

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

38498

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

circumstances where position limits
may be exceeded by bona fide hedge
positions or spread positions, as
provided in the CEA. By proposing the
rules in this supplemental proposal, the
Commission is offering market
participants several reasonable
alternatives by which they may
establish bona fide hedge positions or
spread positions that exceed position
limits. The proposed alternatives
require, among other things, exchanges
to document and record their decisions
to recognize bona fide hedge positions
or to exempt spread positions. The
Commission believes that the discipline
of having exchanges review and
document such decisions protects
hedgers, speculators, and markets from
abuse of recognitions and exemptions.
In general, exchanges have strong
incentives, such as preserving the
revenue from trading, maintaining
credibility, and protecting markets and
market participants from excessive
speculation, manipulation, corners, and
squeezes. In addition, the proposed
rules would enable the Commission to
protect markets and market participants
because the Commission would be able
to perform second-level reviews of
exchange-administered processes
regarding exemptions from speculative
position limits, if necessary, and have
available documentation for
surveillance and enforcement actions.
RFC 53: Does permitting the
exchanges to administer application
processes for NEBFHs, spread
exemptions, and enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedges further
the goals of CEA section 4a(a)(3)(B) and
properly protect market participants and
the public? Please explain.
RFC 54: Does permitting the
exchanges to administer application
processes for NEBFHs, spread
exemptions, and enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedges affect
excess speculation? Please explain.
RFC 55: Will the ability to assume
larger positions by way of exemptions
under this supplemental proposal
facilitate effective market manipulation
by market participants availing
themselves of such exemptions? Are
existing safeguards and deterrents to
market manipulation sufficient to
prevent manipulation or does the
Commission need to impose position
limits without exchange-granted
exemptions to prevent manipulation,
prophylactically? Please explain.
ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and
Financial Integrity of Futures Markets
Market manipulation and excessive
speculation harm the efficiency,
competitiveness, and financial integrity

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

of markets. Position limits are intended
to prevent market manipulation and
excessive speculation. There are,
however, positions that may exceed
position limits, such as those permitted
by proposed §§ 150.9, 150.10, and
150.11, that promote market efficiency
and competitiveness. For example, the
proposed rules require an exchange to
consider the policy objectives of
position limits, prior to granting a
spread exemption. If a market
participant exerts market power, it
might adversely affect market integrity
because other market participants might
perceive the underlying pricing process
to be unfair. The proposed rules are
designed, in part, to give exchanges the
ability and information to guard against
accumulation and exercise of market
power that may result from excessive
speculation, and, therefore, promote
financial integrity and confidence in the
markets.
RFC 56: Is market integrity adversely
affected by the proposed rules in this
supplemental proposal? If so, how
might the Commission mitigate any
harmful impact?
RFC 57: Should the Commission
provide more guidance to exchanges on
how to assess recognitions under this
supplemental proposal, for example,
guidance on cash-and-carry spreads, or
any other spreads involving the spotmonth contract?
RFC 58: What costs and benefits
would accrue to exchanges and market
participants should the Commission
provide additional guidance to
exchanges on how to assess recognitions
under this supplemental proposal?
Please explain.
RFC 59: Are there any anticompetitive effects between exchanges,
or exchanges and SEFs, because the
rules proposed in this supplemental
proposal have the practical effect of
allowing exchanges to recognize and
grant exemptions from position limits?
If so, what are they? Please explain.
iii. Price Discovery
The Commission believes that the
recognition and exemption processes
proposed to be administered by
exchanges in this supplemental
proposal will foster liquidity and
potentially improve price discovery.
Because exchanges possess knowledge
about the commercial needs of market
participants and the needs of markets,
the proposed rules will enable
exchanges to recognize and exempt
positions in a timely and reasonable
manner to help facilitate more stable
prices. With more stable prices, market
participants will have the ability to
trade in and out of derivative positions

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

more easily and with lower costs of
execution.
RFC 60: How might the rules
proposed in this supplemental proposal
affect price discovery? Please explain.
RFC 61: How might the rules
proposed in this supplement proposal
affect liquidity?
RFC 62: Will price discovery be
improved on exchanges because of the
exemptions outlined in this
supplemental proposal?
RFC 63: How might spread
exemptions that go into the spot month
affect price discovery?
RFC 64: What price-discovery costs
and benefits would accrue for spread
exemptions that go into the spot month?
Please explain.
iv. Sound Risk Management Practices
Under the proposed rules, market
participants must explain and document
the methods behind their hedging
strategies to exchanges, and exchanges
would have to evaluate them. As a
result, the Commission believes that the
exchange-administered processes
discussed in this supplemental proposal
should help market participants,
exchanges, the Commission, and the
public to understand better the risk
management techniques and objectives
of various market participants.
RFC 65: How might the rules
proposed in this supplemental proposal
affect sound risk management practices?
v. Other Public Interest Considerations
Except as discussed above, the
Commission has not identified any
other public interest considerations.
RFC 66: Are there any other public
interest considerations that the
Commission should consider?
RFC 67: The Commission seeks
comments on all aspects of its cost and
benefit considerations. To the extent
that any of the proposed rules in this
supplemental proposal have an impact
on activities outside the United States,
the Commission requests comment on
whether the associated costs and
benefits are likely to be different from
those associated with their impact on
activities within the United States; and,
if so, in what particular ways and to
what extent. While at this point in time
the Commission does not foresee any
other costs or benefits that might be
associated with the cross-border
implications of this proposal, it seeks
further any comment on this topic. For
instance, would price discovery move to
a foreign board of trade because of this
proposed rulemaking? On all issues,
commenters are encouraged to supply
data and quantify where practical.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

RFC 68: The Commission requests
comment on whether there will be any
lost benefits related to position limits
because of the recognitions and
exemptions in the proposed rules in this
supplemental proposal.
9. CEA Section 15(b) Considerations
Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the
Commission to consider the public
interest to be protected by the antitrust
laws and to endeavor to take the least
anticompetitive means of achieving the
objectives, policies and purposes of the
CEA, before promulgating a regulation
under the CEA or issuing certain orders.
The Commission preliminarily believes
that the rules and guidance proposed in
this supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking are consistent with the
public interest protected by the antitrust
laws.
The Commission acknowledges that,
with respect to exchange qualifications
to recognize or grant NEBFHs, spread
exemptions, and anticipatory bona fide
hedges for federal position limit
purposes, the threshold experience
requirements that it proposes will
advantage certain more-established
incumbent DCMs (‘‘incumbent DCMs’’)
over smaller DCMs seeking to expand or
future entrant DCMs (collectively
‘‘entrant DCMs’’) or SEFs.230
Specifically, incumbent DCMs—based
on their past track records of listing
actively traded reference contracts and
setting and administering exchange-set
limits applicable to those contracts for
at least a year—will be immediately
eligible to submit rules to the
Commission under part 40 to process
trader applications for recognition of
NEBFHs, spread exemptions,231 and
anticipatory bona fide hedges; in
contrast, entrant DCMs and SEFs will be
foreclosed until such time as they have
met the eligibility criteria to do so.
However, subject to consideration of
any comments supporting a contrary
view, the Commission does not perceive
that an ability to process applications
for NEBFHs, spread exemptions and/or
anticipatory bona fide hedges is a
necessary function for a DCM or SEF to
compete effectively as a trading facility.
In the event an incumbent DCM
declines to process a trader’s request for
hedging recognition or a spread
exemption,232 the trader may seek the
230 Proposed rules §§ 150.9(a)(1), 150.10(a)(1), and
150.11(a)(1).
231 In the case of qualifications to exempt certain
spread positions, the contract may be either a
referenced contract or a component of the spread.
See proposed rule § 150.10(a)(1)(i).
232 The Commission recognizes that in certain
circumstances it might be in an exchange’s
economic interest to deny processing a particular

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

recognition or exemption directly from
the Commission in order to trade on an
entrant DCM or SEF. Accordingly, the
Commission does not view the proposed
threshold experience requirements as
establishing a barrier to entry or
competitive restraint likely to facilitate
anticompetitive effects in any relevant
antitrust market for contract trading.233
The Commission requests comment
on any considerations related to the
public interest to be protected by the
antitrust laws and potential
anticompetitive effects of the proposal,
as well as data or other information to
support such considerations. Is the
Commission correct that the proposed
threshold criteria for an exchange to
qualify to process applications for
recognition of NEBFHs, spread
exemptions, and enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedges is
unlikely to create a competitive barrier
to entry or expansion that will insulate
incumbent DCMs from competition for
contract trading or otherwise contribute
to anticompetitive effects in any
relevant antitrust market(s) for contract
trading?
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(‘‘RFA’’) requires that agencies consider
whether the rules they propose will
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
and, if so, provide a regulatory
flexibility analysis respecting the
impact. A regulatory flexibility analysis
or certification typically is required for
‘‘any rule for which the agency
publishes a general notice of proposed
rulemaking pursuant to’’ the notice-andcomment provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b). The requirements related to the
proposed amendments fall mainly on
registered entities, exchanges, FCMs,
swap dealers, clearing members, foreign
brokers, and large traders. The
trader’s application for hedge recognition or a
spread exemption. For example, this might occur in
a circumstance in which a trader has reached the
exchange-set limit and the exchange determines
that liquidity is insufficient to maintain a fair and
orderly contract market if the trader’s position
increases.
233 See, e.g., Brown Shoe Co. v. U.S., 370 U.S. 294,
324–25 (1962) (‘‘The outer boundaries of a product
market are determined by the reasonable
interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of
demand between the product itself and the
substitutes for it’’); U.S. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours
& Co., 353 U.S. 586, 593 (1957) (‘‘Determination of
the relevant market is a necessary predicate to
finding a violation’’); Rebel Oil v. Atl. Richfield Co.,
51 F. 3d 1421, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (‘‘A ‘market’ is
any grouping of sales whose sellers, if unified by
a monopolist or a hypothetical cartel would have
market power in dealing with any group of buyers,’’
quoting Phillip Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp,
Antitrust Law ¶ 518.1b, at 534 (Supp. 1993)).

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38499

Commission has previously determined
that registered DCMs, FCMs, swap
dealers, major swap participants,
eligible contract participants, SEFs,
clearing members, foreign brokers and
large traders are not small entities for
purposes of the RFA. While the
requirements under the proposed
rulemaking may impact non-financial
end users, the Commission notes that
position limits levels apply only to large
traders. Accordingly, the Chairman, on
behalf of the Commission, hereby
certifies, on behalf of the Commission,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the
actions proposed to be taken herein
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Chairman made the same
certification in the 2013 Position Limits
Proposal.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. Overview
The Paperwork Reduction Act
(‘‘PRA’’), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., imposes
certain requirements on Federal
agencies in connection with their
conducting or sponsoring any collection
of information as defined by the PRA.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control
number issued by the Office of
Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’).
Certain provisions of the proposed rules
would result in amendments to
previously-approved collection of
information requirements within the
meaning of the PRA. Therefore, the
Commission is submitting to OMB for
review in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11 the
information collection requirements
proposed in this rulemaking proposal as
an amendment to the previouslyapproved collection associated with
OMB control number 3038–0013.
If adopted, responses to this
collection of information would be
mandatory. The Commission will
protect proprietary information
according to the Freedom of Information
Act and 17 CFR part 145, titled
‘‘Commission Records and
Information.’’ In addition, the
Commission emphasizes that section
8(a)(1) of the Act strictly prohibits the
Commission, unless specifically
authorized by the Act, from making
public ‘‘data and information that
would separately disclose the business
transactions or market positions of any
person and trade secrets or names of
customers.’’ The Commission also is
required to protect certain information
contained in a government system of

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38500

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

records pursuant to the Privacy Act of
1974.
On December 12, 2013, the
Commission published in the Federal
Register a notice of proposed
modifications to parts 1, 15, 17, 19, 32,
37, 38, 140, and 150 of the
Commission’s regulations (as defined
above, the ‘‘December 2013 position
limits proposal’’). The modifications
addressed, among other things,
speculative position limits for 28
exempt and agricultural commodity
futures and options contracts and the
physical commodity swaps that are
‘‘economically equivalent’’ to such
contracts. The Commission is now
proposing revisions to the December
2013 position limits proposal.
Specifically, the Commission is now
proposing that the position limits set
forth in § 150.2 may be exceeded to the
extent that a commodity derivative
position is recognized, as an NEBFH,
exempt spread position, or enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge, by a
derivatives contract market or swap
execution facility. A designated contract
market or swap execution facility that
elects to process applications pursuant
to the proposed rules must file new
rules or rule amendments with the
Commission pursuant to Part 40. Such
new rules or rule amendments must
comply with certain conditions set forth
in proposed §§ 150.9(a), 150.10(a), and/
or 150.11(a), as applicable. Further,
such rules must state that in order to
apply for an exemption with a particular
designated contract market or swap
execution facility, a person would need
to meet certain criteria and file an
application with the relevant derivatives
contract market or swap execution
facility in accordance with proposed
§§ 150.9(a), 150.10(a), or 150.11(a), as
applicable.
2. Methodology and Assumptions
It is not possible at this time to
accurately determine the number of
respondents affected by the proposed
revisions to the December 2013 position
limits proposal. This current proposal
permits designated contract markets and
swap execution facilities to elect to
process applications for recognition of
NEBFHs, exempt spread positions, or
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedges. Accordingly, the Commission
does not know which, or how many,
designated contract markets and swap
execution facilities may elect to offer
such recognition processes, or which, or
how many market participants may
submit applications. Further, the
Commission is unsure of how many
designated contract markets, swap
execution facilities, and market

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

participants not currently active in the
market may elect to incur the estimated
burdens in the future.
These limitations notwithstanding,
the Commission has made best-effort
estimations regarding the likely number
of affected entities for the purposes of
calculating burdens under the PRA. The
Commission used data currently
provided by designated contract markets
to estimate the number of respondents
for each of the proposed obligations
subject to the PRA. The Commission
estimated the number of exchanges that
may elect to process applications for
recognition of NEBFHs, exempt spread
positions, or enumerated anticipatory
bona fide hedges, and the number of
market participants who may file for
relief from position limit requirements
under the proposed processes. The
Commission also used information from
testimony given at Commission advisory
committee meetings. Further, the
Commission asked several questions of
the five exchanges that, in the
Commission’s knowledge, currently
process applications for exemptions to
exchange-set position limits, to
ascertain the burdens on the exchanges
that may arise should such exchanges
elect to process applications under
proposed §§ 150.9, 150.10, and/or
150.11. The Commission received
responses to its questions regarding the
administration of current exchange
processes for approving exemptions
from position limits from
representatives of four exchanges. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
the burden estimates provided by these
four exchanges are sufficiently
representative of all potentially affected
entities, and is providing average
estimates in order to estimate the
potential impact on all entities,
particularly those which do not
currently process exemption
applications. Thus, the Commission
proposes to use these estimates, as well
as figures provided in testimony from
the Energy and Environmental Markets
Advisory Committee and Agricultural
Advisory Committee meetings, to
calculate burdens for the purposes of
the Paperwork Reduction Act. The
Commission welcomes comment on its
estimates and the methodology
described above.
The Commission’s estimates
concerning wage rates are based on 2013
salary information for the securities
industry compiled by the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets
Association (‘‘SIFMA’’). The
Commission is using a figure of $122
per hour, which is derived from a
weighted average of salaries across
different professions from the SIFMA

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Report on Management & Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry
2013, modified to account for an 1800hour work-year, adjusted to account for
the average rate of inflation in 2013.
This figure was then multiplied by 1.33
to account for benefits, and further by
1.5 to account for overhead and
administrative expenses. The
Commission anticipates that compliance
with the provisions would require the
work of an information technology
professional; a compliance manager; an
accounting professional; and an
associate general counsel. Thus, the
wage rate is a weighted national average
of salary for professionals with the
following titles (and their relative
weight); ‘‘programmer (average of senior
and non-senior)’’ (15% weight), ‘‘senior
accountant’’ (15%) ‘‘compliance
manager’’ (30%), and ‘‘assistant/
associate general counsel’’ (40%). All
monetary estimates below have been
rounded to the dollar.
The Commission welcomes comment
on its assumptions and estimates.
3. Collections of Information—
Information Provided by Reporting
Entities and Recordkeeping Duties
(a) Requirements for Designated
Contract Markets and Swaps Execution
Facilities Filing New or Amended Rules
Pursuant to Part 40
Proposed §§ 150.9(a), 150.10(a), and
150.11(a) require that designated
contract markets and swap execution
facilities file new rules or rule
amendments pursuant to Part 40 of this
chapter, establishing or amending its
application process for recognition of
NEBFHs, exempt spread positions, or
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedges, respectively, consistent with the
requirements of proposed §§ 150.9,
150.10, and 150.11. Further, proposed
§§ 150.9(a), 150.10(a), and 150.11(a)
require that designated contract markets
and swap execution facilities post to
their Web sites a summary describing
the type of derivative positions that are
recognized as exempt non-enumerated
hedge positions.
The Commission estimates that, at
most, 6 entities will file new rules or
rule amendments pursuant to Part 40 to
elect to process NEBFH applications.
The Commission determined this
estimate by analyzing how many
exchanges currently list actively traded
contracts for the 28 commodities for
which federal position limits will be set,
because proposed §§ 150.9(a), 150.10(a),
and 150.11(a) require a referenced
contract to be listed by and actively
traded on any exchange that elects to
process NEBHF applications for

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

recognition of positions in such
referenced contract. The Commission
anticipates that the exchanges that elect
to process NEBFH applications under
proposed § 150.9(a) are likely to have
processes for recognizing such
exemptions currently, and so would
need to file amendments to existing
exchange rules rather than adopt new
rules. This filing would be required only
once. Thus, the Commission
approximates an average per entity
burden of 5 labor hours. At an estimated
labor cost of $122, the Commission
estimates an average cost of
approximately $610 per entity for filings
under proposed § 150.9(a).
Similarly, the Commission anticipates
that the exchanges that elect to process
spread exemption applications under
proposed § 150.10(a) are likely to have
processes for recognizing such
exemptions currently, and so would
need to file amendments to existing
exchange rules rather than adopt new
rules. This filing would be required only
once. Thus, the Commission
approximates an average per entity
burden of 5 labor hours. At an estimated
labor cost of $122, the Commission
estimates an average cost of
approximately $610 per entity for filings
under proposed § 150.10(a).
In addition, the Commission
anticipates that the exchanges that elect
to process enumerated anticipatory bona
fide hedge applications under proposed
§ 150.11(a) are likely to have processes
for recognizing such exemptions
currently, and so would need to file
amendments to existing exchange rules
rather than adopt new rules. This filing
would be required only once. Thus, the
Commission approximates an average
per entity burden of 5 labor hours. At
an estimated labor cost of $122, the
Commission estimates an average cost of
approximately $610 per entity for filings
under proposed § 150.11(a).
Review and Disposition of Applications
An exchange that elects to process
applications may incur a burden related
to the review and disposition of such
applications pursuant to proposed
§§ 150.9(a), 150.10(a), and 150.11(a).
The review of an application is required
to include analysis of the facts and
circumstances of such application to
determine whether the application
meets the standards established by the
Commission. Exchanges are required to
notify the applicant regarding the
disposition of the application, including
whether the application was approved,
denied, referred to the Commission, or
requires additional information.
The Commission anticipates that the
exchanges that elect to process NEBFH

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

applications under proposed § 150.9(a)
are likely to have processes for the
review and disposition of such
applications currently in place. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
in such cases, complying with the
proposed rules is likely to be less
burdensome because the exchange
would already have staff, policies, and
procedures established to accomplish its
duties under the proposed rules. Thus,
the Commission estimates that each
exchange would process an average of
185 NEBFH applications per year and
that each application would require 5
hours to process, for an average per
entity burden of 925 labor hours
annually. At an estimated labor cost of
$122, the Commission estimates an
average cost of approximately $112,850
per entity under proposed § 150.9(a).
The Commission anticipates that the
exchanges that elect to process spread
exemption applications under proposed
§ 150.10(a) are likely to have processes
for the review and disposition of such
applications currently in place. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
in such cases, complying with the
proposed rules is likely to be less
burdensome because the exchange
would already have staff, policies, and
procedures established to accomplish its
duties under the proposed rules. Thus,
the Commission estimates that each
exchange would process about 50
spread exemption applications per year
and that each application would require
5 hours to process, for an average per
entity burden of 250 labor hours
annually. At an estimated labor cost of
$122, the Commission estimates an
average cost of approximately $30,500
per entity under proposed § 150.10(a).
The Commission anticipates that the
exchanges that elect to process
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedge applications under proposed
§ 150.11(a) are likely to have processes
for the review and disposition of such
applications currently in place. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
in such cases, complying with the
proposed rules is likely to be less
burdensome because the exchange
would already have staff, policies, and
procedures established to accomplish its
duties under the proposed rules. Thus,
the Commission estimates that each
entity would process about 50
anticipatory hedging applications per
year and that each application would
require 5 hours to process, for an
average per entity burden of 250 labor
hours annually. At an estimated labor
cost of $122, the Commission estimates
an average cost of approximately
$30,500 per entity under proposed
§ 150.11(a).

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38501

Publication of Summaries
Further, exchanges that elect to
process the applications under proposed
§§ 150.9 and 150.10 may incur burdens
to publish on their Web sites summaries
of the unique types of NEBFH positions
and spread positions, respectively.
Although this requirement is new even
for exchanges that already have a
similar process under exchange-set
limits, the Commission preliminarily
believes that the proposed summaries
will not be overly burdensome in part
because they are anticipated to be
concise.
The Commission preliminarily
believes that complying with the
requirements under proposed § 150.9(a)
for summaries of recognized NEBFHs
would require the work of an analyst to
write and a supervisor to approve a
summary. The summary would also
need to be published on the exchange’s
Web site. The Commission estimates
that a single summary would require 5
hours to write, approve, and post. The
Commission notes that exchanges likely
would need to post more summaries in
the first year of the process, as over time
the applications may become more
routine. The Commission thus estimates
that each exchange would post
approximately 30 summaries per year,
for an average per entity burden of 5
labor hours annually. At an estimated
labor cost of $122, the Commission
estimates an average cost of
approximately $18,300 per entity under
proposed § 150.9(a).
The Commission preliminarily
believes that complying with the
requirements under proposed
§ 150.10(a) for summaries of recognized
spread exemptions would require the
work of an analyst to write and a
supervisor to approve the summary. The
summary would also need to be
published on the exchange’s Web site.
The Commission estimates that a single
summary would require 5 hours to
write, approve, and post. The
Commission notes that exchanges likely
would need to post more summaries in
the first year of the process, as over time
the applications may become more
routine. The Commission thus estimates
that each entity would post
approximately 10 summaries per year,
for an average per entity burden of 50
labor hours annually. At an estimated
labor cost of $122, the Commission
estimates an average cost of
approximately $6,100 per entity under
proposed § 150.10(a).
(b) Requirements for Market Participants
Proposed §§ 150.9(a)(3), 150.10(a)(3),
and 150.11(a)(2), would require electing

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

38502

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

designated contract markets and swap
execution facilities to establish an
application process that elicits sufficient
information to allow the designated
contract market or swap execution
facility to determine, and the
Commission to verify, whether it is
appropriate to recognize a commodity
derivative position as an NEBFH,
exempt spread position or enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge. Pursuant
to §§ 150.9(a)(4)(i), 150.10(a)(4), and
150.11(a)(3), an applicant would be
required to update an application at
least on an annual basis. Further,
§§ 150.9(a)(6), 150.10(a)(6), and
150.11(a)(5) require that any such
applicant file a report with the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility (and with the
Commission in the case of 150.10(a)(5))
when such applicant owns or controls a
derivative position that such has been
recognized as an NEBFH, exempt
spread, or enumerated anticipatory bona
fide hedge, respectively.
The Commission anticipates that
market participants would be mostly
familiar with the NEBFH application
provided by exchanges that currently
process such applications, and thus
preliminarily believes that the burden
for applying to an exchange would be
minimal. Information included in the
application is required to be sufficient
to allow the exchange to determine, and
the Commission to verify, whether the
position meets the requirements of CEA
section 4a(c), but specific data fields are
left to the exchanges to determine. The
Commission believes that there would
be a slight additional burden for market
participants to submit the notice that
must be filed when such participant
owns or controls the position that has
been recognized as a NEBFH.
The Commission estimates that 222
entities will file an average of 5
applications each year to obtain
recognition of certain positions as
NEBFHs and that each application,
including the notice filing when the
participant owns or controls such
positions, would require approximately
4 burden hours to complete and file.
Thus, the Commission estimates an
average per entity burden of 20 labor
hours annually. At an estimated labor
cost of $122, the Commission estimates
an average cost of approximately $2,440
per entity for applications under
proposed § 150.9(a)(3).
The Commission anticipates that
market participants would be mostly
familiar with the spread exemption
application provided by exchanges that
currently process such applications, and
thus preliminarily believes that the
burden for applying to an exchange

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

would be minimal. Information
included in the application is required
to be sufficient to allow the exchange to
determine, and the Commission to
verify, whether the position fulfills the
objectives of CEA section 4a(a)(3)(B),
but specific data fields are left to the
exchanges to determine. The
Commission believes that there would
be a slight additional burden for market
participants to submit the notice that
must be filed when such participant
owns or controls the spread position
that has been exempted from position
limits. The Commission estimates that
25 entities will file an average of 2
applications each year to obtain an
exemption for certain spread positions
and that each application, including the
notice filing when the participant owns
or controls such positions, would
require approximately 3 burden hours to
complete and file. Thus, the
Commission approximates an average
per entity burden of 6 labor hours
annually. At an estimated labor cost of
$122, the Commission estimates an
average cost of approximately $732 per
entity for applications under proposed
§ 150.10(a)(2).
The Commission anticipates that
market participants would be mostly
familiar with the enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge application
provided by exchanges that currently
process such applications, and thus
preliminarily believes that the burden
for applying to an exchange would be
minimal. The application is required to
include, at minimum, the information
required under proposed § 150.7(d). The
Commission estimates that 25 entities
will file an average of 2 applications
each year to obtain recognition that
certain positions are enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedges and that
each application would require
approximately 3 burden hours to
complete and file. Thus, the
Commission estimates an average per
entity burden of 6 labor hours annually.
At an estimated labor cost of $122, the
Commission estimates an average cost of
approximately $732 per entity for
applications under proposed
§ 150.11(a)(2).
(c) Recordkeeping and Reporting
Proposed §§ 150.9(b), 150.10(b), and
150.11(b), would require electing
designated contract markets and swap
execution facilities to keep full,
complete, and systematic records,
which include all pertinent data and
memoranda, of all activities relating to
the processing and disposition of
applications for recognition of NEBFHs,
exempt spread positions, and
enumerated anticipatory bona fide

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

hedges. Further, proposed §§ 150.9(c),
150.10(c), and 150.11(c), would require
designated contract markets and swap
execution facilities that elect to process
NEBFH applications to submit to the
Commission a report for each week as
of the close of business on Friday
showing various information concerning
the derivative positions that have been
recognized by the designated contract
market or swap execution facility as an
NEBFH, exempt spread position, or
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedge position, and for any revocation,
modification or rejection of such
recognition. Finally, proposed
§§ 150.9(c) and 150.10(c) also require a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility that elects to process
applications for NEBFHs and exempt
spread positions to submit to the
Commission (i) a summary of any
NEBFH and exempt spread position
newly published on the designated
contract market or swap execution
facility’s Web site; and (ii) no less
frequently than monthly, any report
submitted by an applicant to such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility pursuant to rules
required under proposed
§§ 150.9(a)(6)and 150.10(a)(6),
respectively.
The Commission preliminarily
believes that exchanges that currently
process applications for recognition of
NEBFHs, exempt spread positions, and
enumerated anticipatory bona fide
hedges maintain records of such
applications as required pursuant to
other Commission regulations,
including § 1.31. However, the
Commission also believes that the
proposed rules may confer additional
recordkeeping obligations on exchanges
that elect to process applications for
recognition of NEBFHs, exempt spread
positions, and enumerated anticipatory
bona fide hedges. The Commission
estimates that 6 entities will have
recordkeeping obligations pursuant to
proposed § 150.9. Thus, the Commission
approximates an average per entity
burden of 30 labor hours annually. At
an estimated labor cost of $122, the
Commission estimates an average cost of
approximately $3,660 per entity for
records and filings under proposed
§ 150.9.
The Commission estimates that 6
entities will have recordkeeping
obligations pursuant to proposed
§ 150.10. Thus, the Commission
estimates an average per entity burden
of 30 labor hours annually. At an
estimated labor cost of $122, the
Commission estimates an average cost of
approximately $3,660 per entity for

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
records and filings under proposed
§ 150.10.
The Commission estimates that 6
entities will have recordkeeping
obligations pursuant to proposed
§ 150.11. Thus, the Commission
estimates an average per entity burden
of 30 labor hours annually. At an
estimated labor cost of $122, the
Commission estimates an average cost of
approximately $3,660 per entity for
records and filings under proposed
§ 150.11.
Finally, the Commission anticipates
that exchanges that elect to process
applications for recognition of NEBFHs,
spread exemptions, and enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedges will be
required to file two types of reports, as
stated above. The Commission
understands that 5 exchanges currently
submit reports, on a voluntary basis
each month, which provide information
regarding exchange-recognized
exemptions of all types. The
Commission preliminarily believes that
the content of such reports is similar to
the information required of the reports
in proposed §§ 150.9(c), 150.10(c), and
150.11(c), but the frequency of such
reports would increase under the
proposed rules.
The Commission estimates that 6
entities will have weekly reporting
obligations pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9(c). The Commission also
estimates that the weekly report will
require a burden of approximately 3

hours to complete and submit. Thus, the
Commission estimates an average per
entity burden of 156 labor hours
annually. At an estimated labor cost of
$122, the Commission estimates an
average cost of approximately $19,032
per entity for weekly reports under
proposed rules 150.9(c).
The Commission estimates that 6
entities will have weekly reporting
obligations pursuant to proposed
§ 150.10(c). The Commission also
estimates that the weekly report will
require a burden of approximately 3
hours to complete and submit. Thus, the
Commission estimates an average per
entity burden of 156 labor hours
annually. At an estimated labor cost of
$122, the Commission estimates an
average cost of approximately $19,032
per entity for weekly reports under
proposed § 150.10(c).
The Commission estimates that 6
entities will have weekly reporting
obligations pursuant to proposed
§ 150.11(c). The Commission also
estimates that the weekly report will
require a burden of approximately 3
hours to complete and submit. Thus, the
Commission approximates an average
per entity burden of 156 labor hours
annually. At an estimated labor cost of
$122, the Commission estimates an
average cost of approximately $19,032
per entity for weekly reports under
proposed § 150.11(c).
For the monthly report, the
Commission anticipates a minor burden

for exchanges because the proposed
rules require exchanges essentially to
forward to the Commission notices
received from applicants who own or
control the positions that have been
recognized or exempted.
The Commission estimates that 6
entities will have monthly reporting
obligations pursuant to proposed
§ 150.9(c). The Commission also
estimates that the monthly report will
require a burden of approximately 2
hours to complete and submit. Thus, the
Commission approximates an average
per entity burden of 24 labor hours
annually. At an estimated labor cost of
$122, the Commission estimates an
average cost of approximately $2,928
per entity for monthly reports under
proposed § 150.9(c).
The Commission estimates that 6
entities will have monthly reporting
obligations pursuant to proposed
§ 150.10(c). The Commission also
estimates that the monthly report will
require a burden of approximately 2
hours to complete and submit. Thus, the
Commission approximates an average
per entity burden of 24 labor hours
annually. At an estimated labor cost of
$122, the Commission estimates an
average cost of approximately $2,928
per entity for monthly reports under
proposed § 150.10(c). The above
estimates are summarized in the
following table:

Type of respondent

Estimated number of
respondents

Report or record

Average
reports annually by each
respondent

Total annual
responses

Estimated number of
hours per response

Annual burden
in fiscal year

a

b

c

d

e 234

f

g 235

Exchanges .........................

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................

6 .......................................
6 .......................................
6 .......................................
6 .......................................

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

38503

6 .......................................
6 .......................................
Market Participants ............

222 ...................................
25 .....................................
25 .....................................

Total ...........................

VerDate Sep<11>2014

§ 150.9(a) Rule Filing .......
§ 150.10(a) Rule Filing .....
§ 150.11(a) Rule Filing .....
§ 150.9(a) Review ............
§ 150.10(a) Review ..........
§ 150.11(a) Review ..........
§ 150.9(a) Summaries ......
§ 150.10(a) Summaries ....
§ 150.9(a) Recordkeeping
§ 150.10(a) Recordkeeping.
§ 150.11(a) Recordkeeping.
§ 150.9(a) Weekly Report
§ 150.10(a) Weekly Report.
§ 150.11(a) Weekly Report.
§ 150.9(a) Monthly Report
§ 150.10(a) Monthly Report.
§ 150.9(a)(3) Application &
Notice.
§ 150.10(a)(3) Application
& Notice.
§ 150.11(a)(2) Application
& Notice.

1
1
1
185
50
50
30
10
1
1

6
6
6
1,110
300
300
180
60
6
6

5 .......................................
5 .......................................
5 .......................................
5 .......................................
5 .......................................
5 .......................................
5 .......................................
5 .......................................
30 .....................................
30 .....................................

30
30
30
5,550
1,500
1,500
900
300
180
180

1

6

30 .....................................

180

52
52

312
312

3 .......................................
3 .......................................

936
936

52

312

3 .......................................

936

12
12

72
72

2 .......................................
2 .......................................

144
144

5

1,110

4 .......................................

4,440

2

50

3 .......................................

150

2

50

3 .......................................

150

..........................................

........................

4,276

278 (distinct entities or
persons).

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

4.26 (average number of
hours per response).

13JNP3

18216

38504

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

4. Information Collection Comments
The Commission invites the public
and other federal agencies to comment
on any aspect of the reporting and
recordkeeping burdens discussed above.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the
Commission solicits comments in order
to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Commission, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) evaluate the
accuracy of the Commission’s estimate
of the burden of the proposed
collections of information; (3) determine
whether there are ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
minimize the burden of the collections
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted directly
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, by fax at (202) 395–
6566 or by email at OIRA-submissions@
omb.eop.gov. Please provide the
Commission with a copy of comments
submitted so that all comments can be
summarized and addressed in the final
regulation preamble. Refer to the
Addresses section of this notice for
comment submission instructions to the
Commission. A copy of the supporting
statements for the collection of
information discussed above may be
obtained by visiting RegInfo.gov. OMB
is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this release.
Consequently, a comment to OMB is
most assured of being fully considered
if received by OMB (and the
Commission) within 30 days after the
publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking.
List of Subjects
17 CFR Part 37
Registered entities, Registration
application, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Swaps,
Swap execution facilities.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

17 CFR Part 38
Block transaction, Commodity
futures, Designated contract markets,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transactions off the
centralized market.
234 Column

b times column d.
e times column f. Burdens have been
rounded to the nearest whole number where
appropriate.
235 Column

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

17 CFR Part 150
Bona fide hedging, Commodity
futures, Cotton, Grains, Position limits,
Referenced Contracts, Swaps.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission proposes to amend
17 CFR chapter I as follows:

information, this guidance is no longer
applicable. At such time, a swap execution
facility is required to demonstrate
compliance with Core Principle 6(B).
(b) Acceptable practices. [Reserved]

PART 37—SWAP EXECUTION
FACILITIES

■

1. The authority citation for part 37
continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6c, 6d, 6e,
6f, 6g, 6i, 6j, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a–2, 7b, 7b–
1, 7b–3, 8, 9, 15, and 21, as amended by the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111–203,
124 Stat. 1376.

■

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6c, 7, 7a–
2, 7b–3, and 12a, as amended by Titles VII
and VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L.
111–203, 124 Stat. 1376.

2. In Appendix B to part 37, under the
heading Core Principle 6 of Section 5h
of the Act—Position Limits or
Accountability, revise paragraphs (A)
and (B) to read as follows:

■

Appendix B to Part 37—Guidance on,
and Acceptable Practices in,
Compliance With Core Principles
*

*

*

*

*

Core Principle 6 of Section 5h of the Act—
Position Limits or Accountability
(A) In general. To reduce the potential
threat of market manipulation or congestion,
especially during trading in the delivery
month, a swap execution facility that is a
trading facility shall adopt for each of the
contracts of the facility, as is necessary and
appropriate, position limitations or position
accountability for speculators.
(B) Position limits. For any contract that is
subject to a position limitation established by
the Commission pursuant to section 4a(a),
the swap execution facility shall:
(1) Set its position limitation at a level not
higher than the Commission limitation; and
(2) Monitor positions established on or
through the swap execution facility for
compliance with the limit set by the
Commission and the limit, if any, set by the
swap execution facility.
(a) Guidance. (1) Until a swap execution
facility has access to sufficient swap position
information, a swap execution facility that is
a trading facility need not demonstrate
compliance with Core Principle 6(B). A swap
execution facility has access to sufficient
swap position information if, for example:
(i) It has access to daily information about
its market participants’ open swap positions;
or
(ii) It knows, including through knowledge
gained in surveillance of heavy trading
activity occurring on or pursuant to the rules
of the swap execution facility, that its market
participants regularly engage in large
volumes of speculative trading activity that
would cause reasonable surveillance
personnel at a swap execution facility to
inquire further about a market participant’s
intentions or open swap positions.
(2) When a swap execution facility has
access to sufficient swap position

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

*

*

*

*

*

PART 38—DESIGNATED CONTRACT
MARKETS
3. The authority citation for part 38
continues to read as follows:

4. In Appendix B to part 38, under the
heading Core Principle 5 of section 5(d)
of the Act: Position Limitations or
Accountability, revise paragraphs (A)
and (B) to read as follows:

■

Appendix B to Part 38—Guidance on,
and Acceptable Practices in,
Compliance With Core Principles
*

*

*

*

*

Core Principle 5 of section 5(d) of the Act:
POSITION LIMITATIONS OR
ACCOUNTABILITY
(A) IN GENERAL.—To reduce the potential
threat of market manipulation or congestion
(especially during trading in the delivery
month), the board of trade shall adopt for
each contract of the board of trade, as is
necessary and appropriate, position
limitations or position accountability for
speculators.
(B) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE POSITION
LIMITATION.—For any contract that is
subject to a position limitation established by
the Commission pursuant to section 4a(a),
the board of trade shall set the position
limitation of the board of trade at a level not
higher than the position limitation
established by the Commission.
(a) Guidance. (1) Until a board of trade has
access to sufficient swap position
information, a board of trade need not
demonstrate compliance with Core Principle
5(B) with respect to swaps. A board of trade
has access to sufficient swap position
information if, for example:
(i) It has access to daily information about
its market participants’ open swap positions;
or
(ii) It knows, including through knowledge
gained in surveillance of heavy trading
activity occurring on or pursuant to the rules
of the designated contract market, that its
market participants regularly engage in large
volumes of speculative trading activity that
would cause reasonable surveillance
personnel at a board of trade to inquire
further about a market participant’s
intentions or open swap positions.
(2) When a board of trade has access to
sufficient swap position information, this
guidance is no longer applicable. At such
time, a board of trade is required to
demonstrate compliance with Core Principle
5(B) with respect to swaps.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(b) Acceptable Practices. [Reserved]

*

*

*

*

*

PART 150—LIMITS ON POSITIONS
5. The authority citation for part 150
is revised to read as follows:

■

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6c, 6f,
6g, 6t, 12a, 19, as amended by Title VII of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111–203,
124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
■

6. Revise § 150.1 to read as follows:

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

§ 150.1

Definitions.

As used in this part—
Bona fide hedging position means—
(1) Hedges of an excluded commodity.
For a position in commodity derivative
contracts in an excluded commodity, as
that term is defined in section 1a(19) of
the Act:
(i) Such position is economically
appropriate to the reduction of risks in
the conduct and management of a
commercial enterprise; and
(ii)(A) Is enumerated in paragraph (3),
(4) or (5) of this definition; or
(B) Is recognized as a bona fide
hedging position by the designated
contract market or swap execution
facility that is a trading facility,
pursuant to such market’s rules
submitted to the Commission, which
rules may include risk management
exemptions consistent with Appendix A
of this part; and
(2) Hedges of a physical commodity.
For a position in commodity derivative
contracts in a physical commodity:
(i) Such position:
(A) Represents a substitute for
transactions made or to be made, or
positions taken or to be taken, at a later
time in a physical marketing channel;
(B) Is economically appropriate to the
reduction of risks in the conduct and
management of a commercial enterprise;
(C) Arises from the potential change
in the value of—
(1) Assets which a person owns,
produces, manufactures, processes, or
merchandises or anticipates owning,
producing, manufacturing, processing,
or merchandising;
(2) Liabilities which a person owes or
anticipates incurring; or
(3) Services that a person provides,
purchases, or anticipates providing or
purchasing; and
(D) Is—
(1) Enumerated in paragraph (3), (4) or
(5) of this definition; or
(2) Recognized as shown to be a nonenumerated bona fide hedges by either
a designated contract market or swap
execution facility, each in accordance
with § 150.9(a); or by the Commission;
or

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

(ii)(A) Pass-through swap offsets.
Such position reduces risks attendant to
a position resulting from a swap in the
same physical commodity that was
executed opposite a counterparty for
which the position at the time of the
transaction would qualify as a bona fide
hedging position pursuant to paragraph
(2)(i) of this definition (a pass-through
swap counterparty), provided that no
such risk-reducing position is
maintained in any physical-delivery
commodity derivative contract during
the lesser of the last five days of trading
or the time period for the spot month in
such physical-delivery commodity
derivative contract; and
(B) Pass-through swaps. Such swap
position was executed opposite a passthrough swap counterparty and to the
extent such swap position has been
offset pursuant to paragraph (2)(ii)(A) of
this definition.
(3) Enumerated hedging positions. A
bona fide hedging position includes any
of the following specific positions:
(i) Hedges of inventory and cash
commodity purchase contracts. Short
positions in commodity derivative
contracts that do not exceed in quantity
ownership or fixed-price purchase
contracts in the contract’s underlying
cash commodity by the same person.
(ii) Hedges of cash commodity sales
contracts. Long positions in commodity
derivative contracts that do not exceed
in quantity the fixed-price sales
contracts in the contract’s underlying
cash commodity by the same person and
the quantity equivalent of fixed-price
sales contracts of the cash products and
by-products of such commodity by the
same person.
(iii) Hedges of unfilled anticipated
requirements. Provided that such
positions in a physical-delivery
commodity derivative contract, during
the lesser of the last five days of trading
or the time period for the spot month in
such physical-delivery contract, do not
exceed the person’s unfilled anticipated
requirements of the same cash
commodity for that month and for the
next succeeding month:
(A) Long positions in commodity
derivative contracts that do not exceed
in quantity unfilled anticipated
requirements of the same cash
commodity, and that do not exceed
twelve months for an agricultural
commodity, for processing,
manufacturing, or use by the same
person; and
(B) Long positions in commodity
derivative contracts that do not exceed
in quantity unfilled anticipated
requirements of the same cash
commodity for resale by a utility that is
required or encouraged to hedge by its

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38505

public utility commission on behalf of
its customers’ anticipated use.
(iv) Hedges by agents. Long or short
positions in commodity derivative
contracts by an agent who does not own
or has not contracted to sell or purchase
the offsetting cash commodity at a fixed
price, provided that the agent is
responsible for merchandising the cash
positions that are being offset in
commodity derivative contracts and the
agent has a contractual arrangement
with the person who owns the
commodity or holds the cash market
commitment being offset.
(4) Other enumerated hedging
positions. A bona fide hedging position
also includes the following specific
positions, provided that no such
position is maintained in any physicaldelivery commodity derivative contract
during the lesser of the last five days of
trading or the time period for the spot
month in such physical-delivery
contract:
(i) Hedges of unsold anticipated
production. Short positions in
commodity derivative contracts that do
not exceed in quantity unsold
anticipated production of the same
commodity, and that do not exceed
twelve months of production for an
agricultural commodity, by the same
person.
(ii) Hedges of offsetting unfixed-price
cash commodity sales and purchases.
Short and long positions in commodity
derivative contracts that do not exceed
in quantity that amount of the same
cash commodity that has been bought
and sold by the same person at unfixed
prices:
(A) Basis different delivery months in
the same commodity derivative
contract; or
(B) Basis different commodity
derivative contracts in the same
commodity, regardless of whether the
commodity derivative contracts are in
the same calendar month.
(iii) Hedges of anticipated royalties.
Short positions in commodity derivative
contracts offset by the anticipated
change in value of mineral royalty rights
that are owned by the same person,
provided that the royalty rights arise out
of the production of the commodity
underlying the commodity derivative
contract.
(iv) Hedges of services. Short or long
positions in commodity derivative
contracts offset by the anticipated
change in value of receipts or payments
due or expected to be due under an
executed contract for services held by
the same person, provided that the
contract for services arises out of the
production, manufacturing, processing,
use, or transportation of the commodity

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

38506

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

underlying the commodity derivative
contract, and which may not exceed one
year for agricultural commodities.
(5) Cross-commodity hedges.
Positions in commodity derivative
contracts described in paragraphs (2)(ii),
(3)(i) through (iv), and (4)(i) through (iv)
of this definition may also be used to
offset the risks arising from a
commodity other than the same cash
commodity underlying a commodity
derivative contract, provided that the
fluctuations in value of the position in
the commodity derivative contract, or
the commodity underlying the
commodity derivative contract, are
substantially related to the fluctuations
in value of the actual or anticipated cash
position or pass-through swap and no
such position is maintained in any
physical-delivery commodity derivative
contract during the lesser of the last five
days of trading or the time period for the
spot month in such physical-delivery
contract.
Futures-equivalent means—
(1) An option contract, whether an
option on a future or an option that is
a swap, which has been adjusted by an
economically reasonable and
analytically supported risk factor, or
delta coefficient, for that option
computed as of the previous day’s close
or the current day’s close or
contemporaneously during the trading
day, and converted to an economically
equivalent amount of an open position
in a core referenced futures contract;
(2) A futures contract which has been
converted to an economically equivalent
amount of an open position in a core
referenced futures contract; and
(3) A swap which has been converted
to an economically equivalent amount
of an open position in a core referenced
futures contract.
Intermarket spread position means a
long (short) position in one or more
commodity derivative contracts in a
particular commodity, or its products or
its by-products, at a particular
designated contract market or swap
execution facility, and a short (long)
position in one or more commodity
derivative contracts in that same, or
similar, commodity, or its products or
its by-products, away from that
particular designated contract market or
swap execution facility.
Intramarket spread position means a
long position in one or more commodity
derivative contracts in a particular
commodity, or its products or its byproducts, and a short position in one or
more commodity derivative contracts in
the same, or similar, commodity, or its
products or its by-products, on the same
designated contract market or swap
execution facility.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

■

7. Revise § 150.3 to read as follows:

§ 150.3

Exemptions.

(a) Positions which may exceed limits.
The position limits set forth in § 150.2
may be exceeded to the extent that:
(1) Such positions are:
(i) Bona fide hedging positions that
either:
(A) Comply with the definition in
§ 150.1; or
(B) Are recognized by a designated
contract market or swap execution
facility as:
(1) Non-enumerated bona fide hedges
in accordance with the general
definition in § 150.1 and the process in
§ 150.9(a), provided that the person has
not otherwise been notified by the
Commission under § 150.9(d)(4) or by
the designated contract market or swap
execution facility under rules adopted
pursuant to § 150.9(a)(4)(iv)(B); or
(2) Anticipatory bona fide hedge
positions under paragraphs (3)(iii),
(4)(i), (4)(iii), (4)(iv) and (5) of the bona
fide hedging position definition in
§ 150.1, provided that for anticipatory
bona fide hedge positions under this
paragraph the person complies with the
filing requirements found in § 150.7 or
the filing requirements adopted by a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility in accordance with
§ 150.11(a)(3), as applicable;
(ii) [Reserved];
(iii) [Reserved];
(iv) Spread positions recognized by a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility in accordance with
§ 150.10(a), provided that the person has
not otherwise been notified by the
Commission under § 150.10(d)(4) or by
the designated contract market or swap
execution facility under rules adopted
pursuant to § 150.10(a)(4)(iv)(B); or
(v) Other positions exempted under
paragraph (e) of this section; and that
(2) [Reserved]
(3) [Reserved]
(b) through (j) [Reserved]
■ 8. Revise § 150.5 to read as follows:
§ 150.5
limits.

Exchange-set speculative position

(a) Requirements and acceptable
practices for futures and futures option
contracts subject to federal position
limits. (1) For any commodity derivative
contract that is subject to a speculative
position limit under § 150.2, a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility that is a trading
facility shall set a speculative position
limit that is no higher than the level
specified in § 150.2.
(2) Exemptions under § 150.3—(i)
Grant of exemption. Any designated
contract market or swap execution

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

facility that is a trading facility may
grant exemptions from any speculative
position limits it sets under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, provided that such
exemptions conform to the requirements
specified in § 150.3.
(ii) Application for exemption. Any
designated contract market or swap
execution facility that grants
exemptions under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
this section:
(A) Must require traders to file an
application requesting such exemption;
(B) Must require, for any exemption
granted, that the trader reapply for the
exemption at least on an annual basis;
and
(C) May deny any such application, or
limit, condition, or revoke any such
exemption, at any time, including if it
determines such positions would not be
in accord with sound commercial
practices, or would exceed an amount
that may be established and liquidated
in an orderly fashion.
(3) through (6) [Reserved]
(b) Requirements and acceptable
practices for futures and future option
contracts that are not subject to the
limits set forth in § 150.2, including
derivative contracts in a physical
commodity as defined in § 150.1 and in
an excluded commodity as defined in
section 1a(19) of the Act—
(1) through (4) [Reserved]
(5) Exemptions—(i) Hedge exemption.
Any hedge exemption rules adopted by
a designated contract market or swap
execution facility that is a trading
facility must conform to the definition
of bona fide hedging position in § 150.1
or provide for recognition as a nonenumerated bona fide hedge in a
manner consistent with the process
described in § 150.9(a).
(ii) Other exemptions. A designated
contract market or swap execution
facility may grant exemptions for:
(A) [Reserved];
(B) [Reserved].
(C) Intramarket spread positions and
intermarket spread positions, each as
defined in § 150.1, provided that the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility, in considering
whether to grant an application for such
exemption, should take into account
whether exempting the spread position
from position limits would, to the
maximum extent practicable, ensure
sufficient market liquidity for bona fide
hedgers, and not unreasonably reduce
the effectiveness of position limits to:
(1) Diminish, eliminate, or prevent
excessive speculation;
(2) Deter and prevent market
manipulation, squeezes, and corners;
and

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(3) Ensure that the price discovery
function of the underlying market is not
disrupted.
(D) For excluded commodities, a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility may grant, in addition
to the exemptions under paragraphs
(b)(5)(i) and (b)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of
this section, a limited risk management
exemption pursuant to rules submitted
to the Commission, consistent with the
guidance in Appendix A of this part.
(iii) [Reserved]
(6) through (9) [Reserved]
(c) [Reserved]
■ 9. Add § 150.9 to read as follows:

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

§ 150.9 Process for recognition of
positions as non-enumerated bona fide
hedges.

(a) Requirements for a designated
contract market or swap execution
facility to recognize non-enumerated
bona fide hedge positions. (1) A
designated contract market or swap
execution facility that elects to process
non-enumerated bona fide hedge
applications to demonstrate why a
derivative position satisfies the
requirements of section 4a(c) of the Act
shall maintain rules, submitted to the
Commission pursuant to part 40 of this
chapter, establishing an application
process for recognition of nonenumerated bona fide hedges consistent
with the requirements of this section
and the general definition of bona fide
hedging position in § 150.1. A
designated contract market or swap
execution facility may elect to process
non-enumerated bona fide hedge
applications for positions in commodity
derivative contracts only if, in each
case:
(i) The commodity derivative contract
is a referenced contract;
(ii) Such designated contract market
or swap execution facility lists such
commodity derivative contract for
trading;
(iii) Such commodity derivative
contract is actively traded on such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility;
(iv) Such designated contract market
or swap execution facility has
established position limits for such
commodity derivative contract; and
(v) Such designated contract market
or swap execution facility has at least
one year of experience and expertise
administering position limits for such
commodity derivative contract. A
designated contract market or swap
execution facility shall not recognize a
non-enumerated bona fide hedge
involving a commodity index contract
and one or more referenced contracts.
(2) A designated contract market or
swap execution facility may establish

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

different application processes for
persons to demonstrate why a derivative
position constitutes a non-enumerated
bona fide hedge under novel facts and
circumstances and under facts and
circumstances substantially similar to a
position for which a summary has been
published on such designated contract
market’s or swap execution facility’s
Web site, pursuant to paragraph (a)(7) of
this section.
(3) Any application process that is
established by a designated contract
market or swap execution facility shall
elicit sufficient information to allow the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility to determine, and the
Commission to verify, whether the facts
and circumstances in respect of a
derivative position satisfy the
requirements of section 4a(c) of the Act
and the general definition of bona fide
hedging position in § 150.1, and
whether it is appropriate to recognize
such position as a non-enumerated bona
fide hedge, including at a minimum:
(i) A description of the position in the
commodity derivative contract for
which the application is submitted and
the offsetting cash positions;
(ii) Detailed information to
demonstrate why the position satisfies
the requirements of section 4a(c) of the
Act and the general definition of bona
fide hedging position in § 150.1;
(iii) A statement concerning the
maximum size of all gross positions in
derivative contracts to be acquired by
the applicant during the year after the
application is submitted;
(iv) Detailed information regarding
the applicant’s activity in the cash
markets for the commodity underlying
the position for which the application is
submitted during the past three years;
and
(v) Any other information necessary
to enable the designated contract market
or swap execution facility to determine,
and the Commission to verify, whether
it is appropriate to recognize such
position as a non-enumerated bona fide
hedge.
(4) Under any application process
established under this section, a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility shall:
(i) Require each person intending to
exceed position limits to submit an
application, to reapply at least on an
annual basis by updating that
application, and to receive notice of
recognition from the designated contract
market or swap execution facility of a
position as a non-enumerated bona fide
hedge in advance of the date that such
position would be in excess of the limits
then in effect pursuant to section 4a of
the Act;

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38507

(ii) Notify an applicant in a timely
manner if a submitted application is not
complete. If an applicant does not
amend or resubmit such application
within a reasonable amount of time after
such notice, a designated contract
market or swap execution facility may
reject the application;
(iii) Determine in a timely manner
whether a derivative position for which
a complete application has been
submitted satisfies the requirements of
section 4a(c) of the Act and the general
definition of bona fide hedging position
in § 150.1, and whether it is appropriate
to recognize such position as a nonenumerated bona fide hedge;
(iv) Have the authority to revoke, at
any time, any recognition issued
pursuant to this section if it determines
the recognition is no longer in accord
with section 4a(c) of the Act and the
general definition of bona fide hedging
position in § 150.1; and
(v) Notify an applicant in a timely
manner:
(A) That the derivative position for
which a complete application has been
submitted has been recognized by the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility as a non-enumerated
bona fide hedge under this section, and
the details and all conditions of such
recognition;
(B) That its application is rejected,
including the reasons for such rejection;
or
(C) That the designated contract
market or swap execution facility has
asked the Commission to consider the
application under paragraph (a)(8) of
this section.
(5) An applicant’s derivatives position
shall be deemed to be recognized as a
non-enumerated bona fide hedge
exempt from federal position limits at
the time that a designated contract
market or swap execution facility
notifies an applicant that such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility will recognize such
position as a non-enumerated bona fide
hedge.
(6) A designated contract market or
swap execution facility that elects to
process non-enumerated bona fide
hedge applications shall file new rules
or rule amendments pursuant to part 40
of this chapter, establishing or
amending requirements for an applicant
to file a report with such designated
contract market or swap execution
facility when such applicant owns or
controls a derivative position that such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility has recognized as a
non-enumerated bona fide hedge, and
for such applicant to report the
offsetting cash positions. Such rules

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

38508

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

shall require an applicant to update and
maintain the accuracy of any such
report.
(7) After recognition of each unique
type of derivative position as a nonenumerated bona fide hedge, based on
novel facts and circumstances, a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility shall publish on its
Web site, on at least a quarterly basis,
a summary describing the type of
derivative position and explaining why
it was recognized as a non-enumerated
bona fide hedge.
(8) If a non-enumerated bona fide
hedge application presents novel or
complex issues or is potentially
inconsistent with section 4a(c) of the
Act and the general definition of bona
fide hedging position in § 150.1, a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility may ask the
Commission to consider the application
under the process set forth in paragraph
(d) of this section. The Commission
may, in its discretion, agree to or reject
any such request by a designated
contract market or swap execution
facility.
(b) Recordkeeping. (1) A designated
contract market or swap execution
facility that elects to process nonenumerated bona fide hedge
applications shall keep full, complete,
and systematic records, which include
all pertinent data and memoranda, of all
activities relating to the processing of
such applications and the disposition
thereof, including the recognition by the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility of any derivative
position as a non-enumerated bona fide
hedge, the revocation or modification of
any such recognition, the rejection by
the designated contract market or swap
execution facility of an application, or
the withdrawal, supplementation or
updating of an application by the
applicant. Included among such records
shall be:
(i) All information and documents
submitted by an applicant in connection
with its application;
(ii) Records of oral and written
communications between such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility and such applicant in
connection with such application; and
(iii) All information and documents in
connection with such designated
contract market’s or swap execution
facility’s analysis of and action on such
application.
(2) All books and records required to
be kept pursuant to this section shall be
kept in accordance with the
requirements of § 1.31 of this chapter.
(c) Reports to the Commission. (1) A
designated contract market or swap

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

execution facility that elects to process
non-enumerated bona fide hedge
applications shall submit to the
Commission a report for each week as
of the close of business on Friday
showing the following information:
(i) For each commodity derivative
position that has been recognized by the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility as a non-enumerated
bona fide hedge, and for any revocation
or modification of such a recognition:
(A) The date of disposition,
(B) The effective date of the
disposition,
(C) The expiration date of any
recognition,
(D) Any unique identifier assigned by
the designated contract market or swap
execution facility to track the
application,
(E) Any unique identifier assigned by
the designated contract market or swap
execution facility to a type of recognized
non-enumerated bona fide hedge,
(F) The identity of the applicant,
(G) The listed commodity derivative
contract to which the application
pertains,
(H) The underlying cash commodity,
(I) The maximum size of the
commodity derivative position that is
recognized by the designated contract
market or swap execution facility as a
non-enumerated bona fide hedge,
(J) Any size limitation established for
such commodity derivative position on
the designated contract market or swap
execution facility, and
(K) A concise summary of the
applicant’s activity in the cash markets
for the commodity underlying the
commodity derivative position; and
(ii) The summary of any nonenumerated bona fide hedge published
pursuant to paragraph (a)(7) of this
section, or revised, since the last
summary submitted to the Commission.
(2) Unless otherwise instructed by the
Commission, a designated contract
market or swap execution facility that
elects to process non-enumerated bona
fide hedge applications shall submit to
the Commission, no less frequently than
monthly, any report submitted by an
applicant to such designated contract
market or swap execution facility
pursuant to rules required under
paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
(3) Unless otherwise instructed by the
Commission, a designated contract
market or swap execution facility that
elects to process non-enumerated bona
fide hedge applications shall submit to
the Commission the information
required by paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of
this section, as follows:
(i) As specified by the Commission on
the Forms and Submissions page at
www.cftc.gov;

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

(ii) Using the format, coding structure,
and electronic data transmission
procedures approved in writing by the
Commission; and
(iii) Not later than 9:00 a.m. Eastern
time on the third business day following
the date of the report.
(d) Review of applications by the
Commission. (1) The Commission may
in its discretion at any time review any
non-enumerated bona fide hedge
application submitted to a designated
contract market or swap execution
facility, and all records required to be
kept by such designated contract market
or swap execution facility pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this section in
connection with such application, for
any purpose, including to evaluate
whether the disposition of the
application is consistent with section
4a(c) of the Act and the general
definition of bona fide hedging position
in § 150.1.
(i) The Commission may request from
such designated contract market or
swap execution facility records required
to be kept by such designated contract
market or swap execution facility
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section
in connection with such application.
(ii) The Commission may request
additional information in connection
with such application from such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility or from the applicant.
(2) If the Commission preliminarily
determines that any non-enumerated
bona fide hedge application or the
disposition thereof by a designated
contract market or swap execution
facility presents novel or complex issues
that require additional time to analyze,
or that an application or the disposition
thereof by such designated contract
market or swap execution facility is
potentially inconsistent with section
4a(c) of the Act and the general
definition of bona fide hedging position
in § 150.1, the Commission shall:
(i) Notify such designated contract
market or swap execution facility and
the applicable applicant of the issues
identified by the Commission; and
(ii) Provide them with 10 business
days in which to provide the
Commission with any supplemental
information.
(3) The Commission shall determine
whether it is appropriate to recognize
the derivative position for which such
application has been submitted as a
non-enumerated bona fide hedge, or
whether the disposition of such
application by such designated contract
market or swap execution facility is
consistent with section 4a(c) the Act
and the general definition of bona fide
hedging position in § 150.1.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(4) If the Commission determines that
the disposition of such application is
inconsistent with section 4a(c) of the
Act and the general definition of bona
fide hedging position in § 150.1, the
Commission shall notify the applicant
and grant the applicant a commercially
reasonable amount of time to liquidate
the derivative position or otherwise
come into compliance. This notification
will briefly specify the nature of the
issues raised and the specific provisions
of the Act or the Commission’s
regulations with which the application
is, or appears to be, inconsistent.
(e) Review of summaries by the
Commission. The Commission may in
its discretion at any time review any
summary of a type of non-enumerated
bona fide hedge required to be
published on a designated contract
market’s or swap execution facility’s
Web site pursuant to paragraph (a)(7) of
this section for any purpose, including
to evaluate whether the summary
promotes transparency and fair and
open access by all market participants to
information regarding bona fide hedges.
If the Commission determines that a
summary is deficient in any way, the
Commission shall notify such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility, and grant to the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility a reasonable amount
of time to revise the summary.
(f) Delegation of authority to the
Director of the Division of Market
Oversight. (1) The Commission hereby
delegates, until it orders otherwise, to
the Director of the Division of Market
Oversight or such other employee or
employees as the Director may designate
from time to time, the authority:
(i) In paragraph (a)(8) of this section
to agree to or reject a request by a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility to consider a nonenumerated bona fide hedge
application;
(ii) In paragraph (c) of this section to
provide instructions regarding the
submission to the Commission of
information required to be reported by
a designated contract market or swap
execution facility, to specify the manner
for submitting such information on the
Forms and Submissions page at
www.cftc.gov, and to determine the
format, coding structure, and electronic
data transmission procedures for
submitting such information;
(iii) In paragraph (d)(1) of this section
to review any non-enumerated bona fide
hedge application and all records
required to be kept by a designated
contract market or swap execution
facility in connection with such
application, to request such records

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

from such designated contract market or
swap execution facility, and to request
additional information in connection
with such application from such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility or from the applicant;
(iv) In paragraph (d)(2) of this section
to preliminarily determine that a nonenumerated bona fide hedge application
or the disposition thereof by a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility presents novel or
complex issues that require additional
time to analyze, or that such application
or the disposition thereof is potentially
inconsistent with section 4a(c) of the
Act and the general definition of bona
fide hedging position in § 150.1, to
notify the designated contract market or
swap execution facility and the
applicable applicant of the issues
identified, and to provide them with 10
business days in which to file
supplemental information; and
(v) In paragraph (e) of this section to
review any summary of a type of nonenumerated bona fide hedge required to
be published on a designated contract
market’s or swap execution facility’s
Web site, to determine that any such
summary is deficient, to notify a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility of a deficient
summary, and to grant such designated
contract market or swap execution
facility a reasonable amount of time to
revise such summary.
(2) The Director of the Division of
Market Oversight may submit to the
Commission for its consideration any
matter which has been delegated in this
section.
(3) Nothing in this section prohibits
the Commission, at its election, from
exercising the authority delegated in
this section.
■ 10. Add § 150.10 to read as follows:
§ 150.10 Process for designated contract
market or swap execution facility exemption
from position limits for certain spread
positions.

(a) Requirements for a designated
contract market or swap execution
facility to exempt from position limits
certain positions normally known to the
trade as spreads. (1) A designated
contract market or swap execution
facility that elects to process
applications for exemptions from
position limits for certain positions
normally known to the trade as spreads
shall maintain rules, submitted to the
Commission pursuant to part 40 of this
chapter, establishing an application
process for exempting positions
normally known to the trade as spreads
consistent with the requirements of this
section. A designated contract market or

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38509

swap execution facility may elect to
process applications for such spread
exemptions only if, in each case:
(i) Such designated contract market or
swap execution facility lists for trading
at least one contract that is either a
component of the spread or a referenced
contract that is a component of the
spread; and
(ii) The contract in paragraph (a)(1)(i)
of this section is actively traded and has
been subject to position limits of the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility for at least one year.
A designated contract market or swap
execution facility shall not approve a
spread exemption involving a
commodity index contract and one or
more referenced contracts.
(2) Spreads that a designated contract
market or swap execution facility may
approve under this section include:
(i) Calendar spreads;
(ii) Quality differential spreads;
(iii) Processing spreads; and
(iv) Product or by-product differential
spreads.
(3) Any application process that is
established by a designated contract
market or swap execution facility under
this section shall elicit sufficient
information to allow the designated
contract market or swap execution
facility to determine, and the
Commission to verify, whether the facts
and circumstances demonstrate that it is
appropriate to exempt a spread position
from position limits, including at a
minimum:
(i) A description of the spread
position for which the application is
submitted;
(ii) Detailed information to
demonstrate why the spread position
should be exempted from position
limits, including how the exemption
would further the purposes of section
4a(a)(3)(B) of the Act;
(iii) A statement concerning the
maximum size of all gross positions in
derivative contracts to be acquired by
the applicant during the year after the
application is submitted; and
(iv) Any other information necessary
to enable the designated contract market
or swap execution facility to determine,
and the Commission to verify, whether
it is appropriate to exempt such spread
position from position limits.
(4) Under any application process
established under this section, a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility shall:
(i) Require each person requesting an
exemption from position limits for its
spread position to submit an
application, to reapply at least on an
annual basis by updating that
application, and to receive approval in

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

38510

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

advance of the date that such position
would be in excess of the limits then in
effect pursuant to section 4a of the Act;
(ii) Notify an applicant in a timely
manner if a submitted application is not
complete. If an applicant does not
amend or resubmit such application
within a reasonable amount of time after
such notice, a designated contract
market or swap execution facility may
reject the application;
(iii) Determine in a timely manner
whether a spread position for which a
complete application has been
submitted satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (a)(4)(vi) of this section, and
whether it is appropriate to exempt such
spread position from position limits;
(iv) Have the authority to revoke, at
any time, any spread exemption issued
pursuant to this section if it determines
the spread exemption no longer satisfies
the requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(vi)
of this section and it is no longer
appropriate to exempt the spread from
position limits;
(v) Notify an applicant in a timely
manner:
(A) That a spread position for which
a complete application has been
submitted has been exempted by the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility from position limits,
and the details and all conditions of
such exemption;
(B) That its application is rejected,
including the reasons for such rejection;
or
(C) That the designated contract
market or swap execution facility has
asked the Commission to consider the
application under paragraph (a)(8) of
this section; and
(vi) Determine whether exempting the
spread position from position limits
would, to the maximum extent
practicable, ensure sufficient market
liquidity for bona fide hedgers, and not
unreasonably reduce the effectiveness of
position limits to:
(A) Diminish, eliminate or prevent
excessive speculation;
(B) Deter and prevent market
manipulation, squeezes, and corners;
and
(C) Ensure that the price discovery
function of the underlying market is not
disrupted.
(5) An applicant’s derivatives position
shall be deemed to be recognized as a
spread position exempt from federal
position limits at the time that a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility notifies an applicant
that such designated contract market or
swap execution facility will exempt
such spread position.
(6) A designated contract market or
swap execution facility that elects to

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

process applications to exempt spread
positions from position limits shall file
new rules or rule amendments pursuant
to part 40 of this chapter, establishing or
amending requirements for an applicant
to file a report with such designated
contract market or swap execution
facility when such applicant owns,
holds, or controls a spread position that
such designated contract market or
swap execution facility has exempted
from position limits, including for such
applicant to report each component of
the spread. Such rules shall require
such applicant to update and maintain
the accuracy of any such report.
(7) After exemption of each unique
type of spread position, a designated
contract market or swap execution
facility shall publish on its Web site, on
at least a quarterly basis, a summary
describing the type of spread position
and explaining why it was exempted.
(8) If a spread exemption application
presents complex issues or is potentially
inconsistent with the purposes of
section 4a(a)(3)(B) of the Act, a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility may ask the
Commission to consider the application
under the process set forth in paragraph
(d) of this section. The Commission
may, in its discretion, agree to or reject
any such request by a designated
contract market or swap execution
facility.
(b) Recordkeeping. (1) A designated
contract market or swap execution
facility that elects to process spread
exemption applications shall keep full,
complete, and systematic records,
which include all pertinent data and
memoranda, of all activities relating to
the processing of such applications and
the disposition thereof, including the
exemption of any spread position, the
revocation or modification of any
exemption, the rejection by the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility of an application, or
the withdrawal, supplementation or
updating of an application by the
applicant. Included among such records
shall be:
(i) All information and documents
submitted by an applicant in connection
with its application:
(ii) Records of oral and written
communications between such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility and such applicant in
connection with such application; and
(iii) All information and documents in
connection with such designated
contract market’s or swap execution
facility’s analysis of and action on such
application.
(2) All books and records required to
be kept pursuant to this section shall be

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

kept in accordance with the
requirements of § 1.31 of this chapter.
(c) Reports to the Commission. (1) A
designated contract market or swap
execution facility that elects to process
spread exemption applications shall
submit to the Commission a report for
each week as of the close of business on
Friday showing the following
information:
(i) The disposition of any spread
exemption application, including the
exemption of any spread position, the
revocation or modification of any
exemption, or the rejection of any
application, as well as the following
details:
(A) The date of disposition,
(B) The effective date of the
disposition,
(C) The expiration date of any
exemption,
(D) Any unique identifier assigned by
the designated contract market or swap
execution facility to track the
application,
(E) Any unique identifier assigned by
the designated contract market or swap
execution facility to a type of exempt
spread position,
(F) The identity of the applicant,
(G) The listed commodity derivative
contract to which the application
pertains,
(H) The underlying cash commodity,
(I) The size limitations on any exempt
spread position, specified by contract
month if applicable, and
(J) Any conditions on the exemption;
and
(ii) The summary of any exempt
spread position newly published
pursuant to paragraph (a)(7) of this
section, or revised, since the last
summary submitted to the Commission.
(2) Unless otherwise instructed by the
Commission, a designated contract
market or swap execution facility that
elects to process applications to exempt
spread positions from position limits
shall submit to the Commission, no less
frequently than monthly, any report
submitted by an applicant to such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility pursuant to rules
required by paragraph (a)(6) of this
section.
(3) Unless otherwise instructed by the
Commission, a designated contract
market or swap execution facility that
elects to process applications to exempt
spread positions from position limits
shall submit to the Commission the
information required by paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section, as follows:
(i) As specified by the Commission on
the Forms and Submissions page at
www.cftc.gov;
(ii) Using the format, coding structure,
and electronic data transmission

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
procedures approved in writing by the
Commission; and
(iii) Not later than 9:00 a.m. Eastern
time on the third business day following
the date of the report.
(d) Review of applications by the
Commission. (1) The Commission may
in its discretion at any time review any
spread exemption application submitted
to a designated contract market or swap
execution facility, and all records
required to be kept by such designated
contract market or swap execution
facility pursuant to paragraph (b) of this
section in connection with such
application, for any purpose, including
to evaluate whether the disposition of
the application is consistent with the
purposes of section 4a(a)(3)(B) of the
Act.
(i) The Commission may request from
such designated contract market or
swap execution facility records required
to be kept by such designated contract
market or swap execution facility
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section
in connection with such application.
(ii) The Commission may request
additional information in connection
with such application from such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility or from the applicant.
(2) If the Commission preliminarily
determines that any application to
exempt a spread position from position
limits, or the disposition thereof by a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility, presents novel or
complex issues that require additional
time to analyze, or that an application
or the disposition thereof by such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility is potentially
inconsistent with the Act, the
Commission shall:
(i) Notify such designated contract
market or swap execution facility and
the applicable applicant of the issues
identified by the Commission; and
(ii) Provide them with 10 business
days in which to provide the
Commission with any supplemental
information.
(3) The Commission shall determine
whether it is appropriate to exempt the
spread position for which such
application has been submitted from
position limits, or whether the
disposition of such application by such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility is consistent with the
purposes of section 4a(a)(3)(B) of the
Act.
(4) If the Commission determines that
it is not appropriate to exempt the
spread position for which such
application has been submitted from
position limits, or that the disposition of
such application is inconsistent with

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

the Act, the Commission shall notify the
applicant and grant the applicant a
commercially reasonable amount of
time to liquidate the spread position or
otherwise come into compliance. This
notification will briefly specify the
nature of the issues raised and the
specific provisions of the Act or the
Commission’s regulations with which
the application is, or appears to be,
inconsistent.
(e) Review of summaries by the
Commission. The Commission may in
its discretion at any time review any
summary of a type of spread position
required to be published on a
designated contract market’s or swap
execution facility’s Web site pursuant to
paragraph (a)(7) of this section for any
purpose, including to evaluate whether
the summary promotes transparency
and fair and open access by all market
participants to information regarding
spread exemptions. If the Commission
determines that a summary is deficient
in any way, the Commission shall notify
such designated contract market or
swap execution facility, and grant to the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility a reasonable amount
of time to revise the summary.
(f) Delegation of authority to the
Director of the Division of Market
Oversight. (1) The Commission hereby
delegates, until it orders otherwise, to
the Director of the Division of Market
Oversight or such other employee or
employees as the Director may designate
from time to time, the authority:
(i) In paragraph (a)(8) of this section
to agree to or reject a request by a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility to consider a spread
exemption application;
(ii) In paragraph (c) of this section to
provide instructions regarding the
submission to the Commission of
information required to be reported by
a designated contract market or swap
execution facility, to specify the manner
for submitting such information on the
Forms and Submissions page at
www.cftc.gov, and to determine the
format, coding structure, and electronic
data transmission procedures for
submitting such information;
(iii) In paragraph (d)(1) of this section
to review any spread exemption
application and all records required to
be kept by a designated contract market
or swap execution facility in connection
with such application, to request such
records from such designated contract
market or swap execution facility, and
to request additional information in
connection with such application from
such designated contract market or
swap execution facility, or from the
applicant;

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38511

(iv) In paragraph (d)(2) of this section
to preliminarily determine that a spread
exemption application or the
disposition thereof by a designated
contract market or swap execution
facility presents complex issues that
require additional time to analyze, or
that such application or the disposition
thereof is potentially inconsistent with
the Act, to notify the designated
contract market or swap execution
facility and the applicable applicant of
the issues identified, and to provide
them with 10 business days in which to
file supplemental information; and
(v) In paragraph (e) of this section to
review any summary of a type of spread
exemption required to be published on
a designated contract market’s or swap
execution facility’s Web site, to
determine that any such summary is
deficient, to notify a designated contract
market or swap execution facility of a
deficient summary, and to grant such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility a reasonable amount
of time to revise such summary.
(2) The Director of the Division of
Market Oversight may submit to the
Commission for its consideration any
matter which has been delegated in this
section.
(3) Nothing in this section prohibits
the Commission, at its election, from
exercising the authority delegated in
this section.
■ 11. Add § 150.11 to read as follows:
§ 150.11 Process for recognition of
positions as bona fide hedges for unfilled
anticipated requirements, unsold
anticipated production, anticipated
royalties, anticipated service contract
payments or receipts, or anticipatory crosscommodity hedge positions.

(a) Requirements for a designated
contract market or swap execution
facility to recognize certain enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedge positions.
(1) A designated contract market or
swap execution facility that elects to
process applications for recognition of
positions as hedges of unfilled
anticipated requirements, unsold
anticipated production, anticipated
royalties, anticipated service contract
payments or receipts, or anticipatory
cross-commodity hedges under the
provisions of paragraphs (3)(iii), (4)(i),
(iii), (iv), or (5), respectively, of the
definition of bona fide hedging position
in § 150.1 shall maintain rules,
submitted to the Commission pursuant
to part 40 of this chapter, establishing
an application process for such
anticipatory bona fide hedges consistent
with the requirements of this section. A
designated contract market or swap
execution facility may elect to process

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

38512

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

such anticipatory hedge applications for
positions in commodity derivative
contracts only if, in each case:
(i) The commodity derivative contract
is a referenced contract;
(ii) Such designated contract market
or swap execution facility lists such
commodity derivative contract for
trading;
(iii) Such commodity derivative
contract is actively traded on such
derivative contract market;
(iv) Such designated contract market
or swap execution facility has
established position limits for such
commodity derivative contract; and
(v) Such designated contract market
or swap execution facility has at least
one year of experience and expertise
administering position limits for such
commodity derivative contract.
(2) Any application process that is
established by a designated contract
market or swap execution facility shall
require, at a minimum, the information
required under § 150.7(d).
(3) Under any application process
established under this section, a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility shall:
(i) Require each person intending to
exceed position limits to submit an
application, and to reapply at least on
an annual basis by updating that
application, to file the supplemental
reports required under § 150.7(e), and to
receive notice of recognition from the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility of a position as a bona
fide hedge in advance of the date that
such position would be in excess of the
limits then in effect pursuant to section
4a of the Act;
(ii) Notify an applicant in a timely
manner if a submitted application is not
complete. If the applicant does not
amend or resubmit such application
within a reasonable amount of time after
notification from the designated
contract market or swap execution
facility, the designated contract market
or swap execution facility may reject the
application;
(iii) Inform an applicant within ten
days of receipt of such application by
the designated contract market or swap
execution facility that:
(A) The derivative position for which
a complete application has been
submitted has been recognized by the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility as a bona fide hedge,
and the details and all conditions of
such recognition;
(B) The application is rejected,
including the reasons for such rejection;
or
(C) The designated contract market or
swap execution facility has asked the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

Commission to consider the application
under paragraph (a)(6) of this section;
and
(iv) Have the authority to revoke, at
any time, any recognition issued
pursuant to this section if it determines
the position no longer complies with the
filing requirements under paragraph
(a)(2) of this section.
(4) An applicant’s derivatives position
shall be deemed to be recognized as a
bona fide hedge at the time that a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility notifies an applicant
that such designated contract market or
swap execution facility will recognize
such position as a bona fide hedge.
(5) A designated contract market or
swap execution facility that elects to
process bona fide hedge applications
shall file new rules or rule amendments
pursuant to part 40 of this chapter,
establishing or amending requirements
for an applicant to file a report with the
Commission pursuant to § 150.7, and
file a copy of such report with such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility when such applicant
owns or controls a derivative position
that such designated contract market or
swap execution facility has recognized
as a bona fide hedge, and for such
applicant to report the offsetting cash
positions. Such rules shall require an
applicant to update and maintain the
accuracy of any such report.
(6) A designated contract market or
swap execution facility may ask the
Commission to consider any application
made under this section. The
Commission may, in its discretion, agree
to or reject any such request by a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility; provided that, if the
Commission agrees to the request, it will
have 10 business days from the time of
the request to carry out its review.
(b) Recordkeeping. (1) A designated
contract market or swap execution
facility that elects to process bona fide
hedge applications under this section
shall keep full, complete, and
systematic records, which include all
pertinent data and memoranda, of all
activities relating to the processing of
such applications and the disposition
thereof, including the recognition of any
derivative position as a bona fide hedge,
the revocation or modification of any
recognition, the rejection by the
designated contract market or swap
execution facility of an application, or
withdrawal, supplementation or
updating of an application. Included
among such records shall be:
(i) All information and documents
submitted by an applicant in connection
with its application;

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

(ii) Records of oral and written
communications between such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility and such applicant in
connection with such application; and
(iii) All information and documents in
connection with such designated
contract market’s or swap execution
facility’s analysis of and action on such
application.
(2) All books and records required to
be kept pursuant to this section shall be
kept in accordance with the
requirements of § 1.31 of this chapter.
(c) Reports to the Commission. (1) A
designated contract market or swap
execution facility that elects to process
bona fide hedge applications under this
section shall submit to the Commission
a report for each week as of the close of
business on Friday showing the
following information:
(i) The disposition of any application,
including the recognition of any
position as a bona fide hedge, the
revocation or modification of any
recognition, as well as the following
details:
(A) The date of disposition,
(B) The effective date of the
disposition,
(C) The expiration date of any
recognition,
(D) Any unique identifier assigned by
the designated contract market or swap
execution facility to track the
application,
(E) Any unique identifier assigned by
the designated contract market or swap
execution facility to a bona fide hedge
recognized under this section;
(F) The identity of the applicant,
(G) The listed commodity derivative
contract to which the application
pertains,
(H) The underlying cash commodity,
(I) The maximum size of the
commodity derivative position that is
recognized by the designated contract
market or swap execution facility as a
bona fide hedge,
(J) Any size limitation established for
such commodity derivative position on
the designated contract market or swap
execution facility, and
(K) A concise summary of the
applicant’s activity in the cash market
for the commodity underlying the
position for which the application was
submitted.
(2) Unless otherwise instructed by the
Commission, a designated contract
market or swap execution facility that
elects to process bona fide hedge
applications shall submit to the
Commission the information required
by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, as
follows:

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(i) As specified by the Commission on
the Forms and Submissions page at
www.cftc.gov;
(ii) Using the format, coding structure,
and electronic data transmission
procedures approved in writing by the
Commission; and
(iii) Not later than 9:00 a.m. Eastern
time on the third business day following
the date of the report.
(d) Review of applications by the
Commission. (1) The Commission may
in its discretion at any time review any
bona fide hedge application submitted
to a designated contract market or swap
execution facility under this section,
and all records required to be kept by
such designated contract market or
swap execution facility pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this section in
connection with such application, for
any purpose, including to evaluate
whether the disposition of the
application is consistent with the Act.
(i) The Commission may request from
such designated contract market or
swap execution facility records required
to be kept by such designated contract
market or swap execution facility
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section
in connection with such application.
(ii) The Commission may request
additional information in connection
with such application from such
designated contract market or swap
execution facility or from the applicant.
(2) If the Commission preliminarily
determines that any anticipatory hedge
application is inconsistent with the
filing requirements of § 150.11(a)(2), the
Commission shall:
(i) Notify such designated contract
market or swap execution facility and
the applicable applicant of the
deficiencies identified by the
Commission; and
(ii) Provide them with 10 business
days in which to provide the
Commission with any supplemental
information.
(3) If the Commission determines that
the anticipatory hedge application is
inconsistent with the filing
requirements of § 150.11(a)(2), the
Commission shall notify the applicant
and grant the applicant a commercially
reasonable amount of time to liquidate
the derivative position or otherwise
come into compliance. This notification
will briefly specify the specific
provisions of the filing requirements of
§ 150.11(a)(2), with which the
application is, or appears to be,
inconsistent.
(e) Delegation of authority to the
Director of the Division of Market
Oversight. (1) The Commission hereby
delegates, until it orders otherwise, to
the Director of the Division of Market

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

Oversight or such other employee or
employees as the Director may designate
from time to time, the authority:
(i) In paragraph (a)(6) of this section
to agree to or reject a request by a
designated contract market or swap
execution facility to consider a bona
fide hedge application;
(ii) In paragraph (c) of this section to
provide instructions regarding the
submission to the Commission of
information required to be reported by
a designated contract market or swap
execution facility, to specify the manner
for submitting such information on the
Forms and Submissions page at
www.cftc.gov, and to determine the
format, coding structure, and electronic
data transmission procedures for
submitting such information;
(iii) In paragraph (d)(1) of this section
to review any bona fide hedge
application and all records required to
be kept by a designated contract market
or swap execution facility in connection
with such application, to request such
records from such designated contract
market or swap execution facility, and
to request additional information in
connection with such application from
such designated contract market or
swap execution facility or from the
applicant; and
(iv) In paragraph (d)(2) of this section
to determine that it is not appropriate to
recognize a derivative position for
which an application for recognition has
been submitted as a bona fide hedge, or
that the disposition of such application
by a designated contract market or swap
execution facility is inconsistent with
the Act, and, in connection with such a
determination, to grant the applicant a
reasonable amount of time to liquidate
the derivative position or otherwise
come into compliance.
(2) The Director of the Division of
Market Oversight may submit to the
Commission for its consideration any
matter which has been delegated in this
section.
(3) Nothing in this section prohibits
the Commission, at its election, from
exercising the authority delegated in
this section.
Appendices A Through D to Part 150
[Reserved]
12. Add reserved appendices A
through D to part 150.
■ 13. Add appendix E to part 150 to
read as follows:
■

Appendix E to Part 150—Guidance
Regarding Exchange-Set Speculative
Position Limits
This appendix provides guidance
regarding § 150.5, as follows:

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38513

Guidance for designated contract
markets. (1) Until a board of trade has
access to sufficient swap position
information, a board of trade need not
demonstrate compliance with Core
Principle 5(B) with respect to swaps. A
board of trade has access to sufficient
swap position information if, for
example:
(i) It has access to daily information
about its market participants’ open swap
positions; or
(ii) It knows, including through
knowledge gained in surveillance of
heavy trading activity occurring on or
pursuant to the rules of the designated
contract market, that its market
participants regularly engage in large
volumes of speculative trading activity,
that would cause reasonable
surveillance personnel at an exchange to
inquire further about a market
participant’s intentions or open swap
positions.
(2) When a board of trade has access
to sufficient swap position information,
this guidance is no longer applicable. At
such time, a board of trade is required
to demonstrate compliance with Core
Principle 5(B) with respect to swaps.
Guidance for swap execution
facilities. (1) Until a swap execution
facility that is a trading facility has
access to sufficient swap position
information, the swap execution facility
need not demonstrate compliance with
Core Principle 6(B). A swap execution
facility has access to sufficient swap
position information if, for example:
(i) It has access to daily information
about its market participants’ open swap
positions; or
(ii) If it knows, including through
knowledge gained in surveillance of
heavy trading activity occurring on or
pursuant to the rules of the swap
execution facility, that its market
participants regularly engage in large
volumes of speculative trading activity
that would cause reasonable
surveillance personnel at an exchange to
inquire further about a market
participant’s intentions or open swap
positions.
(2) When a swap execution facility
has access to sufficient swap position
information, this guidance is no longer
applicable. At such time, a swap
execution facility that is a trading
facility is required to file rules with the
Commission to demonstrate compliance
with Core Principle 6 (B).

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3

38514

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27,
2016, by the Commission.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.

Note: The following appendices will
not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Appendices To Position Limits for
Derivatives: Certain Exemptions and
Guidance—Commission Voting
Summary, Chairman’s Statement, and
Commissioner’s Statement

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Appendix 1—Commission Voting Summary
On this matter, Chairman Massad and
Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo voted
in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in
the negative.
Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman
Timothy G. Massad
Today, the CFTC has taken a significant
step toward finalizing its rules on position
limits this year.
The supplemental rule we have
unanimously proposed today would ensure
that commercial end-users can continue to
engage in bona fide hedging efficiently for
risk management and price discovery. It
would permit the exchanges to recognize
certain positions as bona fide hedges, subject
to CFTC oversight.
For years, exchanges have worked with the
CFTC’s general definition of a ‘‘bona fide
hedging position’’ to grant these exemptions
to exchange-set limits. Under this
supplemental proposal, they would do so for
federal limits, subject to strict oversight by
the CFTC. Today’s action comes after
listening closely to the concerns of market
participants, and in particular commercialend users, who use these markets every day
to hedge commercial risk. Today’s proposal
would also make some helpful clarifications
to definitions used in our earlier proposal,
including the definition of ‘‘bona fide
hedging position,’’ to conform it to the
statutory language.
This proposal is a critical piece of our
effort to complete the position limits rule this
year. Another key piece of that effort was the
Commission’s 2015 proposal to streamline
the process for waiving aggregation
requirements when one entity does not
control another’s trading, even if they are
under common ownership. We are also
working to review exchange estimates of
deliverable supply so that spot month limits
may be set based on current data.
Federal position limits for agricultural
contracts have been in place in our markets
for decades, and exchange-set position limits
for most other physical commodity contracts
have been in place for years. It is critical that
we fulfill our statutory responsibility to
adopt a position limits rule. As I have said
previously, we appreciate the importance
and complexity of the issues surrounding the
position limits rule. No current

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:29 Jun 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

Commissioner was in office when these rules
were proposed, and therefore we have taken
the time to listen to market participants and
consider the proposals very carefully.
I thank our staff for their excellent work on
this proposal. I also thank my fellow
Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo for
their input and support. And I look forward
to hearing the views of market participants
and to completing a position limits rule this
year.
Appendix 3—Statement of Commissioner J.
Christopher Giancarlo
I support issuing for public comment
today’s proposal to supplement and revise
the Commission’s 2013 proposed rule to
establish federal position limits for certain
core referenced futures, options and swaps
contracts. The supplemental proposal
appears responsive to a broad range of public
comments. I believe it is a positive step
forward in devising a final rule that will take
into account certain practical realities
associated with administering a workable
position limits regime.
The proposal appropriately recognizes that
most exchanges do not have access to
sufficient swap positon information to
effectively monitor swap position limits. If
adopted, it would seem to relieve designated
contract markets (DCMs) and swap execution
facilities (SEFs) from setting and monitoring
exchange limits on swaps until such time as
DCMs and SEFs have access to data that is
necessary to be able to do so. Position limits
for swaps would still be set and monitored
by the CFTC. The proposal simply
acknowledges that the Commission cannot
require exchanges to do the impossible.
The proposal also recommends changes to
the definitions of ‘‘bona fide hedging
position,’’ ‘‘futures equivalent,’’ ‘‘intermarket
spread position’’ and ‘‘intramarket spread
position.’’ The elimination of the incidental
test and the orderly trading requirement from
the general definition of bona fide hedging
position makes sense as the incidental test is
already included in the economically
appropriate test and the orderly trading
requirement is addressed in other provisions
of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).1
Further, as discussed in the preamble,
because the meaning of the orderly trading
requirement in the context of over-thecounter swaps markets is unclear, those
markets will benefit from greater precision by
its removal. The proposed amendments to
the definitions of ‘‘futures equivalent,’’
‘‘intermarket spread positon’’ and
‘‘intramarket spread position’’ appear to be
helpful clarifications. I look forward to
public comment on whether the proposed
changes are appropriate.
Importantly, the proposal would also allow
certain spread exemptions from federal
position limits. It would establish a process
to permit exchanges to recognize exemptions
from exchange and federal position limits for
non-enumerated bona fide hedging positions
1 See

PO 00000

CEA sections 4c(a)(5) and 4c(a)(6).

Frm 00058

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

(NEBFH) and spread positions. The proposal
would also provide an expedited process for
exchange recognition of enumerated
anticipatory bona fide hedges.
Exchanges are in the best position to
initially recognize the foregoing exemptions
from position limits. They have both the
expertise and the resources 2 to perform this
task in a responsible way as demonstrated by
the long history of DCMs analyzing and
granting requests for NEBFH exemptions in
the context of exchange-set limits. Moreover,
the CFTC has a long history of overseeing the
performance of DCMs in doing so. In
addition, DCMs already have a long-existing
framework in place for recognizing
exemptions from exchange-set limits with
which market participants are well familiar.
The supplemental proposal, when
incorporated into a final rule, would build
upon the existing framework for exchange-set
limits. It also would lower unreasonable
burdens on market participants under the
Commission’s 2013 proposal, including
provisions that would have required hedge
exemption applicants to file duplicative
requests with both the CFTC and the
exchanges.
In short, the supplemental proposal
leverages exchange expertise and resources to
enable exemptions to be granted in an
efficient and timely manner without
sacrificing market integrity. The Commission
would remain the ultimate arbiter of
exemptions from position limits by retaining
the authority to review and reverse any
exchange-granted exemption.
I commend Commission staff for their
responsiveness to broad-based concerns of
market participants. I appreciate the
professionalism of my fellow commissioners
in persevering to make this rule more
workable. I look forward to taking additional
steps to ensure that the practical issues raised
by the agricultural and end-user communities
are addressed in the final rule.
Now and always, prosperity requires
durable and vibrant markets. We must
balance regulatory burdens with clear
economic benefits if we are to maintain
liquid commodity hedging markets that
support our American way of life.
[FR Doc. 2016–12964 Filed 6–10–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
2 As noted in footnote 127 of the preamble, from
June 15, 2011 to June 15, 2012 ICE Futures U.S.
received 142 exemption applications, 92 of which
were granted. From November 1, 2010 to October
31, 2011 the Market Surveillance Group from the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Regulation
Department approved 420 exemption applications
for products traded on the CME and the Chicago
Board of Trade. This is old data, but one could
reasonably predict that the number of applications
have increased over time and will continue to
increase in the future as trading levels increase.
Given its current resources, the CFTC is not in a
position to timely process the hundreds of
applications that likely will be filed with the
exchanges each year.

E:\FR\FM\13JNP3.SGM

13JNP3