Font Size: AAA // Print // Bookmark

Comment for Proposed Rule 76 FR 33066

  • From: Jeff Schnell
    Organization(s):
    Agribusiness Association of Iowa

    Comment No: 48058
    Date: 8/11/2011

    Comment Text:

    August 11, 2011


    Mr. David A. Stawick
    Secretary
    Commodity Futures Trading Commission
    Three Lafayette Centre
    1155 21st Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20581

    RE: Adaptation of Regulations to Incorporate Swaps, Federal Register, Vol. 76,
    No. 10, June 7, 2011

    Dear Mr. Stawick:

    The Agribusiness Association of Iowa appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this proposed rule. We respectfully request that the Commission narrow and clarify its proposal, specifically with regard to amendments to Regulation 1.35, to avoid unnecessary regulation of cash grain transactions that explicitly have been exempted from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). As an Affiliate of the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), we would like to associate our organization with NGFA’s comment letter and urge the Commission to revise its proposal along those lines.

    The element of the proposal of greatest concern would require all members of a designated contract market (DCM) to “…record all oral communications that lead to the execution of transactions in a commodity interest or cash commodity.” Further, the proposal would require that these records be maintained for five years and be identifiable by counterparty and transaction.

    Many grain companies, feed manufacturers, processors and other commercial firms are members of DCMs where grain and oilseed contracts are traded like the Chicago Board of Trade, Kansas City Board of Trade and Minneapolis Grain Exchange. Some of these firms own and operate networks of country grain elevators, feed mills or processing facilities that purchase grains and oilseeds directly from their farmer-customers. Taken as written, this proposal would extend broadly into cash grain markets and would require that employees at hundreds of such
    facilities record telephone conversations with producers from whom they are purchasing cash grain. These same country elevators and facilities would be required to preserve and maintain e-mail, facsimile and other communications with agricultural producers.

    We believe strongly that such regulation of the cash marketplace was not intended by Congress nor, perhaps, by the Commission. Cash transactions, including cash forward contracts, explicitly have been exempted from CFTC regulation, but a literal reading of the proposal would seem to contradict this well-established concept. In addition, burdening facilities owned by companies that are members of a DCM with the new rules would create a highly undesirable bifurcation of the cash grain marketplace into facilities required to comply with new recording and recordkeeping requirements and facilities owned and operated by companies not members of DCMs whose facilities would not be required to comply. We urge the Commission to reconsider and amend the wording of the proposed rule to fully recognize the regulatory-exempt status of cash commodity sales and cash forward contracts. We would be happy to provide the Commission with additional information.

    Thank you in advance for considering out comments.

    Sincerely,

    Jeff Schnell
    CEO
    Agribusiness Association of Iowa