Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices 63529

Category Twelve-month restraint

limit

847 ........................... 228,662 dozen.

1 Category 338–S: only HTS numbers

6103.22.0050, 6105.10.0010, 6105.10.0030,

6105.90.8010, 6109.10.0027, 6110.20.1025,

6110.20.2040, 6110.20.2065, 6110.90.9068,

6112.11.0030 and 6114.20.0005; Category

339–S: only HTS numbers 6104.22.0060,

6104.29.2049, 6106.10.0010, 6106.10.0030,

6106.90.2510, 6106.90.3010, 6109.10.0070,

6110.20.1030, 6110.20.2045, 6110.20.2075,

6110.90.9070, 6112.11.0040, 6114.20.0010

and 6117.90.9020. 2 Category 347–T: only HTS numbers

6103.19.2015, 6103.19.9020, 6103.22.0030,

6103.42.1020, 6103.42.1040, 6103.49.8010,

6112.11.0050, 6113.00.9038, 6203.19.1020,

6203.19.9020, 6203.22.3020, 6203.42.4005,

6203.42.4010, 6203.42.4015, 6203.42.4025,

6203.42.4035, 6203.42.4045, 6203.49.8020,

6210.40.9033, 6211.20.1520, 6211.20.3810

and 6211.32.0040; Category 348–T: only HTS

numbers 6104.12.0030, 6104.19.8030,

6104.22.0040, 6104.29.2034, 6104.62.2006,

6104.62.2011, 6104.62.2026, 6104.62.2028,

6104.69.8022, 6112.11.0060, 6113.00.9042,

6117.90.9060, 6204.12.0030, 6204.19.8030,

6204.22.3040, 6204.29.4034, 6204.62.3000,

6204.62.4005, 6204.62.4010, 6204.62.4020,

6204.62.4030, 6204.62.4040, 6204.62.4050,

6204.69.6010, 6304.69.9010. 6210.50.9060,

6211.20.1550, 6211.20.6810, 6211.42.0030

and 6217.90.9050. 3 Category 369–S: only HTS number

6307.10.2005. 4 Category 369–O: all HTS numbers except

6307.10.2005 (Category 369–S);

5601.10.1000, 5601.21.0090, 5701.90.1020,

5701.90.2020, 5702.10.9020, 5702.39.2010,

5702.49.1020, 5702.49.1080, 5702.59.1000,

5702.99.1010, 5702.99.1090, 5705.00.2020

and 6406.10.7700.

The limits set forth above are subject to

adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the

ATC and administrative arrangements

notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body.

Products in the above categories exported

during 1997 shall be charged to the

applicable category limits for that year (see

directive dated December 20, 1996) to the

extent of any unfilled balances. In the event

the limits established for that period have

been exhausted by previous entries, such

products shall be charged to the limits set

forth in this directive.

Products for integration in 1998 listed in

the Federal Register notice published on

May 1, 1995 (60 FR 21075) which are

exported during 1997 shall be charged to the

applicable limits to the extent of any unfilled

balances. After January 1, 1998, should those

unfilled balances be exhausted, such

products shall no longer be charged to any

limit, due to integration of these products

into GATT 1994.

CITA has informed the United Arab

Emirates of its intent to continue the bilateral

visa arrangement for those products. An

export visa will continue to be required, if

applicable, for products integrated on and

after January 1, 1998, before entry is

permitted into the United States.

In carrying out the above directions, the

Commissioner of Customs should construe

entry into the United States for consumption

to include entry for consumption into the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The Committee for the Implementation of

Textile Agreements has determined that

these actions fall within the foreign affairs

exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 97–31434 Filed 11–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

Chicago Board of Trade Futures

Contracts in Corn and Soybeans; Draft

Proposed Revisions to Delivery

Specifications

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of, and Request for

Public Comment on, Draft Proposed

Revisions by the Chicago Board of Trade

to Delivery Specifications on Corn and

Soybean Futures Contracts.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (Commission) on

November 7, 1997, issued an Order

changing and supplementing under

section 5a(a)(10) of the Commodity

Exchange Act (Act), 7 U.S.C. 7a(a)(10),

the delivery terms of the corn and

soybean futures contracts of the Board

of Trade of the City of Chicago (CBT).

The CBT previously had submitted

proposed changes to the delivery

specifications of its corn and soybean

futures contracts in response to a

December 19, 1996 notification to the

CBT by the Commission that the CBT

corn and soybean futures contracts no

longer accomplish the objectives of that

section of the Act. The Commission in

its November 7 Order changed and

supplemented the CBT proposal for its

soybean futures contract by making

changes relating to the delivery

locations proposed by the CBT and for

both its soybean and corn futures

contracts by making changes relating to

the locational price differentials

proposed by the CBT, to a contingency

rule proposed by the CBT and to a

minimum net worth requirement for

eligibility to issue shipping certificates

proposed by the CBT. The November 7

Order also provided that the CBT was

not precluded ‘‘from submitting for

Commission review and approval under

sections 5a(a)(10) and 5a(a)(12) of the

Act any alternative proposed delivery

specifications for its corn or soybean

futures contracts.’’

The CBT on November 18, 1997,

provided to the Commission draft

proposed revisions to the corn and

soybean futures contracts which,

although approved by the CBT Board of

Directors, have not yet been presented

to the CBT membership for its approval.

Those draft proposed revisions contain

delivery specifications different from

those contained in the Commission’s

November 7 Order.

The Commission is providing notice

of the CBT’s draft proposed revisions in

order to provide the public with an

opportunity to comment to the

Commission on them. The Commission

has determined that publication of the

CBT’s draft proposed revisions for

public comment is in the public

interest, will assist the Commission in

considering the views of interested

persons, and is consistent with the

purposes of the Commodity Exchange

Act.

DATES: Comments must be received by

January 15, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to the Commodity Futures

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette

Centre, 1155 21st Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20581, attention:

Office of the Secretariat; transmitted by

facsimile at (202) 418–5521; or

transmitted electronically at

[secretary@cftc.gov]. Reference should

be made to ‘‘Corn and Soybean Delivery

Points; Draft Proposed Revisions.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Mielke, Acting Director, or Paul M.

Architzel, Chief Counsel, Division of

Economic Analysis, Commodity Futures

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette

Centre, 1155 21st Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20581, (202) 418–

5260, or electronically, Mr. Architzel at

[PArchitzel@cftc.gov].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 5a(a)(10) of the Act provides

that, as a condition of contract market

designation, boards of trade are required

to:

Permit the delivery of any commodity, on

contracts of sale thereof for future delivery,

of such grade or grades, at such point or

points and at such quality and locational

price differentials as will tend to prevent or

diminish price manipulation, market

congestion, or the abnormal movement of

such commodity in interstate commerce. If

the Commission after investigation finds that

the rules and regulations adopted by a

contract market permitting delivery of any

commodity on contracts of sale thereof for

future delivery, do not accomplish the

objectives of this subsection, then the

Commission shall notify the contract market

of its finding and afford the contract market
63530 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices

1A shipping certificate is a negotiable instrument

that represents a commitment by the issuer to

deliver (e.g., load into a barge) corn or soybeans to

the certificate holder, pursuant to terms specified

by the CBT, whenever the holder decides to

surrender the certificate to the issuer.

an opportunity to make appropriate changes

in such rules and regulations. If the contract

market within seventy-five days of such

notification fails to make the changes which

in the opinion of the Commission are

necessary to accomplish the objectives of this

subsection, then the Commission after

granting the contract market an opportunity

to be heard, may change or supplement such

rules and regulations of the contract market

to achieve the above objectives * * *.

The Commission, by letter dated

December 19, 1996, commenced a

proceeding under section 5a(a)(10) of

the Act by issuing to the CBT a

notification that the delivery

specifications of its corn and soybean

futures contracts no longer accomplish

the statutory objectives of ‘‘permit[ting]

the delivery of any commodity * * * at

such point or points and at such quality

and locational price differentials as will

tend to prevent or diminish price

manipulation, market congestion, or the

abnormal movement of such commodity

in interstate commerce.’’ Letter of

December 19, 1996, to Patrick Arbor

from the Commission, 61 FR 67998

(December 26, 1996) (section 5a(a)(10)

notification).

The CBT, on April 16, 1997,

submitted its response to the section

5a(a)(10) notification in the form of

proposed exchange rule amendments.

Those proposed rule amendments

would have replaced the existing

delivery system involving delivery of

warehouse receipts representing stocks

of grain stored at terminal elevators in

Chicago, Toledo, and St. Louis with

delivery of shipping certificates.1 A

shipping certificate would have

provided for corn or soybeans to be

loaded into a barge at one of the

shipping stations located along a 153-

mile segment of the Illinois River from

Chicago (including Burns Harbor,

Indiana) to Pekin, Illinois and

additionally to be delivered in Chicago

by rail or vessel. Delivery at all eligible

locations would have been at par. The

CBT’s proposal would have eliminated

the current delivery points on its corn

and soybean futures contracts at Toledo,

Ohio and St. Louis, Missouri and would

have restricted firms eligible to issue

shipping certificates to those meeting a

minimum net worth requirement of $40

million, in addition to a number of other

requirements.

The Commission published the

substance of the CBT’s proposed

amendments in the Federal Register for

public comment, receiving almost 700

comments, the largest number of

comments ever received by the

Commission on any issue before it. In

addition, at the request of the CBT, the

Commission held a public meeting on

June 12, 1997, to accept oral and written

statements by the CBT and interested

members of the public. 62 FR 29107

(May 29, 1997).

On September 15, 1997, the

Commission issued a proposed order,

publishing its text in the Federal

Register with a request for public

comment. 62 FR 49474 (September 22,

1997). Over 230 commenters submitted

comments to the Commission on the

proposed order. In addition, the

Commission held a public meeting on

October 15, 1997, at which the CBT was

afforded an opportunity to appear before

the Commission and to be heard.

Subsequently, the CBT filed written

exceptions to the proposed order.

On November 7, 1997, the

Commission issued a final Order to the

CBT under section 5a(a)(10) of the Act.

62 FR 60831 (November 13, 1997)

(November 7 Order or Order). The

Commission’s Order found that the

CBT’s proposal failed to meet the

requirements of sections 5a(a)(10),

5a(a)(12), 8a(7), and 15 of the Act

because of (1) an inadequate amount of

deliverable supplies of soybeans; (2) the

failure to include required locational

differentials; (3) the failure to provide

an adequate rule for alternative

deliveries if river transportation were

obstructed; and (4) the substantial

impediment to eligibility for issuing

corn and soybean shipping certificates

imposed by the CBT’s proposed $40

million minimum net worth

requirement.

Based on these findings, the

Commission changed and supplemented

the delivery locations for CBT’s soybean

futures contract by retaining the Toledo,

Ohio switching district and the St.

Louis/East St. Louis/Alton areas as

delivery locations, with Toledo priced

at par and the St. Louis/East St. Louis/

Alton area priced at a premium over

contract price of 150 percent of the

difference between the Waterways

Freight Bureau Tariff No. 7 rate

applicable to that location and the rate

applicable to Chicago, Illinois. The

Commission also required that both

corn and soybeans from shipping

locations on the northern Illinois River

be deliverable at a premium over

contract price of 150 percent of the

difference between the Waterways

Freight Bureau Tariff No. 7 rate

applicable to that location and the rate

applicable to Chicago, Illinois, with

Chicago at contract price. With respect

to both the CBT corn and soybean

futures contracts, the Commission

ordered that the contingency plan for

alternative delivery procedures when

traffic on the northern Illinois River is

obstructed be changed and

supplemented and that the $40 million

minimum net worth eligibility

requirement for issuers of shipping

certificates be eliminated. The

Commission ordered that the contract

terms as changed and supplemented

would apply beginning with contract

months in the year 2000 and that the

preexisting contract terms would apply

to contract months in the year 1999.

The Commission’s Order did not

‘‘preclude( ) the CBT from submitting

for Commission review and approval

under sections 5a(a)(10) and 5a(a)(12) of

the Act any alternative proposed

delivery specifications for its corn or

soybean futures contracts.’’ 62 FR

60833. To the contrary, the Order

provided that the CBT—

Will continue to be free to propose

revisions of the new terms to the Commission

for its consideration under sections 5a(a)(10)

and 5a(a)(12) or to submit a petition to the

Commission to reconsider or to amend this

Order. If the CBT believes that an alternative

to the new terms and to its original proposal

would better serve its business interests and

would also meet the statutory requirements,

the CBT should submit such a proposed rule

revision or petition.

Id. at 60834.

By letter dated November 17, 1997,

the CBT on November 18, 1997, notified

the Commission that it would be

submitting for Commission review such

an alternative for contract months in the

year 2000 and thereafter. Proposed

revisions of the CBT corn and soybean

futures contracts will be submitted to

the CBT membership for its approval in

mid-December 1997, and the CBT

expects to submit the proposed

revisions for Commission review and

action upon membership approval.

However, the CBT has requested that

the Commission seek public comment at

this time on the draft proposed revisions

in anticipation of the CBT’s receiving

the requisite approval of its membership

in order to expedite the Commission’s

consideration and review of them. The

Commission has determined that

publication of the draft proposed

revisions at this time is in the public

interest and will assist the Commission

in its consideration of these issues.

II. CBT’s Draft Proposed Revisions

CBT’s draft proposed revisions for

contract months in the year 2000 and

thereafter would have the following

terms. The soybean futures contract

would call for shipping certificate
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices 63531

delivery from shipping stations located

along the entire Illinois River (extending

from Chicago and including Burns

Harbor, Indiana, to Grafton, Illinois at

the river’s mouth) and that portion of

the upper Mississippi River from the

mouth of the Illinois River to St. Louis.

Delivery at Chicago/Burns Harbor

would be at par, and delivery at other

locations would be at the following

premiums: shipping stations located

along the Illinois River from river mile

304 at the junction of the Calumet Sag

Channel and the Chicago Sanitary &

Ship Canal to river mile 170 between

Chillicothe and Peoria would be priced

at a premium of 2 cents per bushel;

shipping stations located from river

mile 170 to the mouth of the Illinois

River at Grafton would be priced at a

premium of 3 cents per bushel; and

shipping stations located at the St.

Louis/East St. Louis/Alton delivery area

would be priced at a premium of 5 cents

per bushel.

The corn futures contract would

retain the delivery locations contained

in the Commission’s November 7 Order:

shipping stations located along that

portion of the northern Illinois River

from Chicago (including Burns Harbor,

Indiana) to Pekin, Illinois. Delivery at

Chicago/Burns Harbor would be at par;

delivery from shipping stations located

along the Illinois River from river mile

304 at the junction of the Calumet Sag

Channel and the Chicago Sanitary &

Ship Canal to river mile 170 between

Chillicothe and Peoria would be priced

at a premium of 2 cents per bushel; and

delivery from river mile 170 to river

mile 151 at Pekin would be at a

premium of 3 cents per bushel.

To qualify for regularity, a shipping

certificate issuer would have to register

to load a minimum of 3 barges per day

at Chicago/Burns Harbor and at St.

Louis/East St. Louis/Alton (for

soybeans) and one barge per day at all

other locations. In addition, a regular

issuer would have to be capable of

registering a minimum number of

certificates equivalent to 30 barges

(1,650,000 bushels) of corn or soybeans.

A shipper would also have to have a net

worth equivalent to four times the value

of the certificates issued and could not

issue certificates for an amount greater

than 30 times its registered daily bargeloading capacity or, in the case of

Chicago, its registered storage capacity.

The contracts would also provide a

contingency plan in case of obstructions

to river traffic that would require a

shipper to make the product available in

a loaded barge with freight pre-paid to

New Orleans at an Illinois or

Mississippi River location below the

obstruction. The receiver would be

obligated to reimburse the shipper at a

flat specified rate (detailed below)

intended to cover the cost of shipping

from the original shipping station to

New Orleans.

The quality specifications, unit of

trading, delivery months, last trading

day, price basis, price fluctuation limits,

and speculative position limits for the

corn and soybean futures contracts

would be the same as those for the

respective existing futures contracts.

The terms of CBT’s draft proposed

revisions differ in a number of ways

from the contract terms contained in the

Commission’s November 7 Order. In

particular, for soybeans the draft

proposed revisions would delete

Toledo, Ohio as a delivery point, but

add shipping stations on the Illinois

River from Pekin to the river’s mouth.

In addition, for both corn and soybeans

the draft proposed revisions would

establish a fixed cents per bushel price

differentials for all non-par locations

within a specified ‘‘region,’’ in contrast

to the Commission’s Order which

established separate price differentials

for each non-par location based on the

difference between 150% of tariff rate

applicable to that shipping station and

150% of tariff rate applicable to

Chicago.

The CBT’s draft proposed revisions

would also establish a new regularity

requirement on shipping certificate

issuers which is not contained in the

Commission’s Order. Specifically,

issuers would have to register a

minimum number of shipping

certificates equivalent to 30 barges

(1,650,000 bushels) of corn or soybeans.

In addition, the CBT’s draft proposed

revisions for soybeans would require

issuers at St. Louis/East St. Louis/Alton

to load three barges per day, rather than

one barge per day as provided in the

Commission’s Order.

Finally, the reimbursement method

for makers of delivery under the draft

proposed revisions to the contingency

rule would be different from that

established in the Commission’s Order.

In particular, the draft proposed

revisions would require shippers

affected by a river obstruction to make

the product available in a loaded barge

with freight pre-paid to New Orleans at

an Illinois or Mississippi river location

below the obstruction. Under the Order,

the shipper is merely required to

provide the product at a shipping

station below the obstruction. In

addition, under the CBT’s draft

proposed revisions, the receiver would

be obligated to reimburse the shipper at

a fixed rate intended to cover the full

cost of shipping the product from the

original shipping station to New

Orleans, set at 20 cents per bushel for

Chicago/Burns Harbor issuers, 16 cents

per bushel for northern Illinois River

issuers, 12 cents per bushel for southern

Illinois River issuers, and for soybeans

only, 7 cents per bushel for St. Louis/

East St. Louis/Alton issuers. Under the

Commission’s Order, reimbursement is

made based on the difference in barge

freight to New Orleans from the original

shipping station and the alternative

shipping station, calculated at 150% of

the tariff rate applicable to the

respective stations, and thus is the same

as the method of establishing locational

differentials between delivery locations

under normal (non-contingency)

situations.

The complete text of the CBT’s draft

proposed revisions for the corn and

soybean futures contracts can be

accessed through the Commission’s

internet web site, at http://

www.cftc.gov., ‘‘What’s Pending,’’ and

is also available by request from the

Commission’s Office of the Secretariat at

the address noted above.

III. Procedure for Commission Review

The CBT’s letter of November 17,

1997, indicated the CBT’s intention to

file its proposed revisions as

applications for contract market

designations and to request ‘‘fast track’’

review ‘‘pursuant to Section 5a(a)(12) of

the Act and CFTC regulation rule 1.41.’’

The Commission finds that upon

submission by the CBT the proposed

revisions will be ineligible for fast track

consideration under the Commission’s

rules for the following reasons. The

Commission has issued a final Order

under section 5a(a)(10) of the Act

relating to the contract terms of the

CBT’s corn and soybean futures

contracts. The CBT’s proposed revisions

to that Order pose difficult economic

and legal issues which cannot

appropriately be addressed under the

summary fast track procedures.

Moreover, the Commission recognizes

that the broad public interest in this

issue requires that the public be given

an adequate opportunity to comment on

the proposed revisions. Therefore, the

Commission will consider the proposed

revisions, when submitted by the CBT,

under the provisions of sections

5a(a)(10), 5a(a)(12) and 6 of the Act (and

other provisions of the Act, as

applicable) and not under the fast track

procedures.

Even though the Commission finds

that the CBT’s proposed revisions will

be ineligible for fast track review when

submitted, it intends to act

expeditiously on them. Moreover, the

Commission believes that publication of

the CBT’s draft proposed revisions for a
63532 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices

comment period of forty-five days will

provide sufficient time for public

consideration of these issues and will

look with disfavor upon requests for

extension of the comment period.

Accordingly, for the above reasons,

the Commission finds that publication

of the CBT’s draft proposed revisions is

in the public interest and will assist the

Commission in its consideration of

these issues. Commenters are invited to

analyze the following issues relating to

the CBT’s draft proposed revisions and

to submit written data, views or

comments relating to the draft proposed

revisions:

1. Would available deliverable

supplies of corn and soybeans be

sufficient ‘‘to tend to prevent or

diminish price manipulation, market

congestion, or the abnormal movement

of such commodity in interstate

commerce,’’ as required by the Act?

2. Would the price differentials for

delivery at non-par locations

appropriately reflect cash market price

differentials for corn or soybeans at such

locations relative to each commodity’s

value at the par delivery point of

Chicago, Illinois?

3. Would the proposed load-out

provisions calling for three barges per

day at Chicago/Burns Harbor and at St.

Louis/East St. Louis/Alton (for

soybeans) and one barge per day at all

other locations conform to commercial

practices?

4. Under the contingency plan for

river obstructions, the maker would be

required to provide the product in

loaded barges cif New Orleans. Would

the reimbursement to makers of delivery

reflect commercial practices? How does

the reimbursement scheme relate to the

locational price differentials for noncontingency conditions?

5. Would the minimum net worth

requirements be necessary to ensure

performance on the corn and soybean

futures contracts? Do they unduly limit

eligibility of firms to become issuers of

shipping certificates?

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 26th day

of November, 1997, by the Commodity

Futures Trading Commission.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–31534 Filed 11–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

Proposed Amendments to Minneapolis

Grain Exchange Durum Wheat Futures

Contract and an Application for

Designation as a Contract Market in

Durum Wheat Futures Options

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability of

proposed rule amendments and an

application for contract market

designation.

SUMMARY: The Minneapolis Grain

Exchange (MGE or Exchange) has

proposed amendments to the dormant

durum wheat futures contract, along

with a proposal to reactivate trading in

that futures contract pursuant to the

provisions of Commission Regulation

5.2. In addition, the Exchange submitted

an application for designation as a

contract market in durum wheat futures

options. The proposals were submitted

under the Commission’s 45-day Fast

Track procedures. The Acting Director

of the Division of Economic Analysis

(Division) of the Commission, acting

pursuant to the authority delegated by

Commission Regulation 140.96, has

determined that publication of the

proposals for comment is in the public

interest, will assist the Commission in

considering the views of interested

persons, and is consistent with the

purpose of the Commodity Exchange

Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should

submit their views and comments to

Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity

Futures Trading Commission, Three

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581. In addition,

comments may be sent by facsimile

transmission to facsimile number (202)

418–5521, or by electronic mail to

secretary@cftc.gov. Reference should be

made to MGE durum wheat.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please contact John Bird of the Division

of Economic Analysis, Commodity

Futures Trading Commission, Three

Lafayette Centre, 21st Street NW,

Washington, 20581, telephone (202)

418–5274. Facsimile number: (202) 418–

5527. Electronic mail: jbird@cftc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed amendments and the

designation application were submitted

pursuant to the Commission’s Fast

Track procedures for streamlining the

review of futures contract rule

amendments and new contract

approvals (62 FR 10434). Under those

procedures, the proposals, absent any

contrary action by the Commission, may

be deemed approved at the close of

business on January 2, 1998, 45 days

after receipt of the proposals. In view of

the limited review period provided

under the Fast Track procedures, the

Commission has determined to publish

for public comment notice of the

availability of the terms and conditions

for 15 days, rather than 30 days as

provided for proposals submitted under

the regular review procedures.

The amended durum wheat futures

contract would call for the delivery at

par of shipping certificates representing

5,000 bushels of durum wheat meeting

or exceeding specified quality

requirements, including a minimum test

weight of 60 pounds per bushel and a

minimum protein content of 13 percent.

Issuers of the proposed shipping

certificates would be required to meet

certain financial and other

requirements, and must be approved by

the MGE. Upon surrender of a shipping

certificate, the issuer would be required

to load the delivery durum wheat in rail

cars at a location specified by the

certificate issuer, with the issuer being

obligated to pay the railroad freight

costs to a point designated by the issuer

located in the Minneapolis-St. Paul

Switching District. Delivery by truck

would also be permitted under specified

conditions.

Shipping certificate receivers would

be obligated to pay a premium charge of

one-twelfth of one cent per bushel for

each calendar day that the receiver

holds the certificates.

Trading would be conducted in the

contract months of March, May, July,

September, and December. Prices would

be quoted in dollars and cents per

bushel. The minimum price fluctuation

would be one-quarter (1⁄4) cent per

bushel. A maximum daily price

fluctuation limit of 20 cents per bushel

would be applicable to trading at all

times in each contract month, except

that such price limit would not be

applicable to expiring contract months

commencing on the first business day of

such months.

Delivery of shipping certificates could

be made on any business day of the

contract month. Trading in an expiring

contract month would end on the

business day immediately preceding the

last seven business day of that month.

Durum wheat options would trade in

the same months as the futures contract.

The last trading day for expiring option

contract months would be the Friday

that precedes the first notice day of the

underlying futures contract month by at

least five business days. The options for