[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24641-24648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10341]



[[Page 24641]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Order Finding That the HSC\1\ Financial Basis Contract Traded on 
the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., Performs a Significant Price 
Discovery Function
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ HSC refers to the Houston Ship Channel, a conduit for ocean 
going vessels between the city of Houston, Texas, and the Gulf of 
Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Final Order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On October 9, 2009, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
(``CFTC'' or ``Commission'') published for comment in the Federal 
Register \2\ a notice of its intent to undertake a determination 
whether the HSC Financial Basis (``HXS'') contract, traded on the 
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (``ICE''), an exempt commercial market 
(``ECM'') under sections 2(h)(3)--(5) of the Commodity Exchange Act 
(``CEA'' or the ``Act''), performs a significant price discovery 
function pursuant to section 2(h)(7) of the CEA.\3\ The Commission 
undertook this review based upon an initial evaluation of information 
and data provided by ICE as well as other available information. The 
Commission has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including all 
comments received, and has determined to issue an order finding that 
the HXS contract performs a significant price discovery function. 
Authority for this action is found in section 2(h)(7) of the CEA and 
Commission rule 36.3(c) promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 74 FR 52206 (October 9, 2009).
    \3\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(29).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: April 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory K. Price, Industry Economist, 
Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. 
Telephone: (202) 418-5515. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4b3a4a6bdb7b194b7b2a0b7fab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c1a6b1b3a8a2a481a2a7b5a2efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a>; or Susan Nathan, 
Senior Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, same address. 
Telephone: (202) 418-5133. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#30435e514458515e70535644531e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="12617c73667a737c52717466713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008 (``Reauthorization Act'') \4\ 
significantly broadened the CFTC's regulatory authority with respect to 
ECMs by creating, in section 2(h)(7) of the CEA, a new regulatory 
category--ECMs on which significant price discovery contracts 
(``SPDCs'') are traded--and treating ECMs in that category as 
registered entities under the CEA.\5\ The legislation authorizes the 
CFTC to designate an agreement, contract or transaction as a SPDC if 
the Commission determines, under criteria established in section 
2(h)(7), that it performs a significant price discovery function. When 
the Commission makes such a determination, the ECM on which the SPDC is 
traded must assume, with respect to that contract, all the 
responsibilities and obligations of a registered entity under the Act 
and Commission regulations, and must comply with nine core principles 
established by new section 2(h)(7)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Incorporated as Title XIII of the Food, Conservation and 
Energy Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-246, 122 Stat. 1624 (June 18, 
2008).
    \5\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 16, 2009, the CFTC promulgated final rules implementing 
the provisions of the Reauthorization Act.\6\ As relevant here, rule 
36.3 imposes increased information reporting requirements on ECMs to 
assist the Commission in making prompt assessments whether particular 
ECM contracts may be SPDCs. In addition to filing quarterly reports of 
its contracts, an ECM must notify the Commission promptly concerning 
any contract traded in reliance on the exemption in section 2(h)(3) of 
the CEA that averaged five trades per day or more over the most recent 
calendar quarter, and for which the exchange sells its price 
information regarding the contract to market participants or industry 
publications, or whose daily closing or settlement prices on 95 percent 
or more of the days in the most recent quarter were within 2.5 percent 
of the contemporaneously determined closing, settlement or other daily 
prices of another contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 74 FR 12178 (Mar. 23, 2009); these rules became effective on 
April 22, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission rule 36.3(c)(3) established the procedures by which the 
Commission makes and announces its determination whether a particular 
ECM contract serves a significant price discovery function. Under those 
procedures, the Commission will publish notice in the Federal Register 
that it intends to undertake an evaluation whether the specified 
agreement, contract or transaction performs a significant price 
discovery function and to receive written views, data and arguments 
relevant to its determination from the ECM and other interested 
persons. Upon the close of the comment period, the Commission will 
consider, among other things, all relevant information regarding the 
subject contract and issue an order announcing and explaining its 
determination whether or not the contract is a SPDC. The issuance of an 
affirmative order signals the effectiveness of the Commission's 
regulatory authorities over an ECM with respect to a SPDC; at that time 
such an ECM becomes subject to all provisions of the CEA applicable to 
registered entities.\7\ The issuance of such an order also triggers the 
obligations, requirements and timetables prescribed in Commission rule 
36.3(c)(4).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Public Law 110-246 at 13203; Joint Explanatory Statement of 
the Committee of Conference, H.R. Rep. No. 110-627, 110 Cong., 2d 
Sess. 978, 986 (Conference Committee Report). See also 73 FR 75888, 
75894 (Dec. 12, 2008).
    \8\ For an initial SPDC, ECMs have a grace period of 90 calendar 
days from the issuance of a SPDC determination order to submit a 
written demonstration of compliance with the applicable core 
principles. For subsequent SPDCs, ECMs have a grace period of 30 
calendar days to demonstrate core principle compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Notice of Intent To Undertake SPDC Determination

    On October 9, 2009, the Commission published in the Federal 
Register notice of its intent to undertake a determination whether the 
HXS contract performs a significant price discovery function, and 
requested comment from interested parties.\9\ Comments were received 
from the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (``IECA''), Working 
Group of Commercial Energy Firms (``WGCEF''), Platts, ICE, Economists 
Incorporated (``EI''), Natural Gas Supply Association (``NGSA''), 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (``FERC''), and Financial 
Institutions Energy Group (``FIEG'').\10\ The comment

[[Page 24642]]

letters from FERC \11\ and Platts did not directly address the issue of 
whether or not the HXS contract is a SPDC; IECA concluded that the HXS 
contract is a SPDC, but did not provide a basis for its conclusion.\12\ 
The other parties' comments raised substantive issues with respect to 
the applicability of section 2(h)(7) to the HXS contract, generally 
asserting that the HXS contract is not a SPDC as it does not meet the 
material liquidity, material price reference and price linkage criteria 
for SPDC determination. Those comments are more extensively discussed 
below, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission's Part 36 rules establish, among other 
things, procedures by which the Commission makes and announces its 
determination whether a specific ECM contract serves a significant 
price discovery function. Under those procedures, the Commission 
publishes a notice in the Federal Register that it intends to 
undertake a determination whether a specified agreement, contract or 
transaction performs a significant price discovery function and to 
receive written data, views and arguments relevant to its 
determination from the ECM and other interested persons.
    \10\ IECA describes itself as an ``association of leading 
manufacturing companies'' whose membership ``represents a diverse 
set of industries including: plastics, cement, paper, food 
processing, brick, chemicals, fertilizer, insulation, steel, glass, 
industrial gases, pharmaceutical, aluminum and brewing.'' WGCEF 
describes itself as ``a diverse group of commercial firms in the 
domestic energy industry whose primary business activity is the 
physical delivery of one or more energy commodities to customers, 
including industrial, commercial and residential consumers'' and 
whose membership consists of ``energy producers, marketers and 
utilities.'' McGraw-Hill, through its division Platts, compiles and 
calculates monthly natural gas price indices from natural gas trade 
data submitted to Platts by energy marketers. Platts includes those 
price indices in its monthly Inside FERC's Gas Market Report 
(``Inside FERC''). ICE is an ECM, as noted above. EI is an economic 
consulting firm with offices located in Washington, DC, and San 
Francisco, CA. NGSA is an industry association comprised of natural 
gas producers and marketers. FERC is an independent federal 
regulatory agency that, among other things, regulates the interstate 
transmission of natural gas, oil and electricity. FIEG describes 
itself as an association of investment and commercial banks who are 
active participants in various sectors of the natural gas markets, 
``including acting as marketers, lenders, underwriters of debt and 
equity securities, and proprietary investors.'' The comment letters 
are available on the Commission's Web site: http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/federalregister/federalregistercomments/2009/09-019.html
    \11\ FERC stated that the HXS contract is cash settled and does 
not contemplate actual physical delivery of natural gas. 
Accordingly, FERC expressed the opinion that a determination by the 
Commission that a contract performs a significant price discovery 
function ``would not appear to conflict with FERC's exclusive 
jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) over certain sales of 
natural gas in interstate commerce for resale or with its other 
regulatory responsibilities under the NGA'' and further that, ``the 
FERC staff will continue to monitor for any such conflict * * * 
[and] advise the CFTC'' should any such potential conflict arise. CL 
07.
    \12\ IECA stated that the subject ICE contract should ``be 
required to come into compliance with core principles mandated by 
Section 2(h)(7) of the Act and with other statutory provisions 
applicable to registered entities. [This contract] should be subject 
to the Commission's position limit authority, emergency authority 
and large trader reporting requirements, among others.'' CL 01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Section 2(h)(7) of the CEA

    The Commission is directed by section 2(h)(7) of the CEA to 
consider the following criteria in determining a contract's significant 
price discovery function:
    <bullet> Price Linkage--the extent to which the agreement, contract 
or transaction uses or otherwise relies on a daily or final settlement 
price, or other major price parameter, of a contract or contracts 
listed for trading on or subject to the rules of a designated contract 
market (``DCM'') or derivatives transaction execution facility 
(``DTEF''), or a SPDC traded on an electronic trading facility, to 
value a position, transfer or convert a position, cash or financially 
settle a position, or close out a position.
    <bullet> Arbitrage--the extent to which the price for the 
agreement, contract or transaction is sufficiently related to the price 
of a contract or contracts listed for trading on or subject to the 
rules of a DCM or DTEF, or a SPDC traded on or subject to the rules of 
an electronic trading facility, so as to permit market participants to 
effectively arbitrage between the markets by simultaneously maintaining 
positions or executing trades in the contracts on a frequent and 
recurring basis.
    <bullet> Material price reference--the extent to which, on a 
frequent and recurring basis, bids, offers or transactions in a 
commodity are directly based on, or are determined by referencing or 
consulting, the prices generated by agreements, contracts or 
transactions being traded or executed on the electronic trading 
facility.
    <bullet> Material liquidity--the extent to which the volume of 
agreements, contracts or transactions in a commodity being traded on 
the electronic trading facility is sufficient to have a material effect 
on other agreements, contracts or transactions listed for trading on or 
subject to the rules of a DCM, DTEF or electronic trading facility 
operating in reliance on the exemption in section 2(h)(3).
    Not all criteria must be present to support a determination that a 
particular contract performs a significant price discovery function, 
and one or more criteria may be inapplicable to a particular 
contract.\13\ Moreover, the statutory language neither prioritizes the 
criteria nor specifies the degree to which a SPDC must conform to the 
various criteria. In Guidance issued in connection with the Part 36 
rules governing ECMs with SPDCs, the Commission observed that these 
criteria do not lend themselves to a mechanical checklist or formulaic 
analysis. Accordingly, the Commission has indicated that in making its 
determinations it will consider the circumstances under which the 
presence of a particular criterion, or combination of criteria, would 
be sufficient to support a SPDC determination.\14\ For example, for 
contracts that are linked to other contracts or that may be arbitraged 
with other contracts, the Commission will consider whether the price of 
the potential SPDC moves in such harmony with the other contract that 
the two markets essentially become interchangeable. This co-movement of 
prices would be an indication that activity in the contract had reached 
a level sufficient for the contract to perform a significant price 
discovery function. In evaluating a contract's price discovery role as 
a price reference, the Commission will consider the extent to which, on 
a frequent and recurring basis, bids, offers or transactions are 
directly based on, or are determined by referencing, the prices 
established for the contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In its October 9, 2009, Federal Register release, the 
Commission identified material price reference, price linkage and 
material liquidity as the possible criteria for SPDC determination 
of the HXS contract. Arbitrage was not identified as a possible 
criterion and will not be discussed further in this document or the 
associated Order.
    \14\ 17 CFR part 36, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Findings and Conclusions

a. The HSC Financial Basis (HXS) Contract and the SPDC Indicia

    The HXS contract is cash settled based on the difference between 
the price of natural gas at the HSC for the month of delivery, as 
published in Platts' Inside FERC's Gas Market Report, and the final 
settlement price of the New York Mercantile Exchange's (``NYMEX's'') 
Henry Hub physically-delivered natural gas futures contract for the 
same specified calendar month. The Platts bidweek price, which is 
published monthly, is based on a survey of cash market traders who 
voluntarily report to Platts data on fixed-price transactions for 
physical delivery of natural gas at the HSC conducted during the last 
five business days of the month; such bidweek transactions specify the 
delivery of natural gas on a uniform basis throughout the following 
calendar month at the agreed upon rate. The Platt's bidweek index is 
published on the first business day of the calendar month in which the 
natural gas is to be delivered. The size of the HXS contract is 2,500 
million British thermal units (``mmBtu''), and the unit of trading is 
any multiple of 2,500 mmBtu. The HXS contract is listed for up to 84 
calendar months commencing with the next calendar month.
    The Henry Hub,\15\ which is located in Erath, Louisiana, is the 
primary cash market trading and distribution center for natural gas in 
the United States. It also is the delivery point and pricing basis for 
the NYMEX's actively traded, physically-delivered natural gas futures 
contract, which is the most important pricing reference for natural gas 
in the United States. The Henry Hub, which is operated by Sabine Pipe 
Line, LLC, serves as a juncture for 13 different

[[Page 24643]]

pipelines. These pipelines bring in natural gas from fields in the Gulf 
Coast region and ship it to major consumption centers along the East 
Coast and Midwest. The throughput shipping capacity of the Henry Hub is 
1.8 trillion mmBtu per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The term ``hub'' refers to a juncture where two or more 
natural gas pipelines are connected. Hubs also serve as pricing 
points for natural gas at the particular locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the Henry Hub, there are a number of other locations 
where natural gas is traded. In 2008, there were 33 natural gas market 
centers in North America.\16\ Some of the major trading centers include 
Alberta, Northwest Rockies, Southern California border and the HSC. For 
locations that are directly connected to the Henry Hub by one or more 
pipelines and where there typically is adequate shipping capacity, the 
price at the other locations usually directly tracks the price at the 
Henry Hub, adjusted for transportation costs. However, at other 
locations that are not directly connected to the Henry Hub or where 
shipping capacity is limited, the prices at those locations often 
diverge from the Henry Hub price. Furthermore, one local price may be 
significantly different than the price at another location even though 
the two markets' respective distances from the Henry Hub are the same. 
The reason for such pricing disparities is that a given location may 
experience supply and demand factors that are specific to that region, 
such as differences in pipeline shipping capacity, unusually high or 
low demand for heating or cooling or supply disruptions caused by 
severe weather. As a consequence, local natural gas prices can differ 
from the Henry Hub price by more than the cost of shipping and such 
price differences can vary in an unpredictable manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2009/ngmarketcenter/ngmarketcenter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The HSC is part of the Port of Houston and, as noted above, serves 
as a conduit between the Gulf of Mexico and the city of Houston, Texas, 
which is one of the largest industrial natural gas consuming areas in 
the United States. The 4,200-mile Houston Pipeline, with a capacity of 
approximately 2.4 billion cubic feet per day, connects local gas 
distribution companies, electric generation plants and industrial 
consumers to one of the largest domestic supply basins in Texas.\17\ 
The Houston Pipeline Company serves the HSC market, the city of 
Houston, the Katy Hub, Beaumont/Port Arthur complex, Texas City and 
Corpus Christi and includes the Bammel Gas Storage Facility, one of the 
largest underground reservoir storage fields in North America with 118 
billion cubic feet of natural gas storage capacity.\18\ The cash market 
transactions included in the Platts index are those for fixed-price gas 
deliveries extending from the east side of Houston to Galveston Bay and 
northeastward to the Port Arthur/Beaumont, Texas, area. While the HSC 
shares some of the same market fundamentals as the Henry Hub, prices at 
the HSC are reflective of the local market, which is driven by 
Houston's industrial consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ http://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=952.
    \18\ http://www.energytransfer.com/midstream_ops.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The local price at the HSC typically differs from the price at the 
Henry Hub. Thus, the price of the Henry Hub physically-delivered 
futures contract is an imperfect proxy for the HSC price. Moreover, 
despite the proximity of the HSC to the Henry Hub, exogenous factors 
such as severe weather events can cause the HXS gas price to differ 
from the Henry Hub price by an amount that is more or less than the 
cost of shipping, making the NYMEX Henry Hub futures contract even less 
precise as a hedging tool than desired by market participants. Basis 
contracts \19\ allow traders to more accurately discover prices at 
alternative locations and hedge price risk that is associated with 
natural gas at such locations. In this regard, a position at a local 
price for an alternative location can be established by adding the 
appropriate basis swap position to a position taken in the NYMEX 
physically-delivered Henry Hub contract (or in the NYMEX or ICE Henry 
Hub look-alike contract, which cash settle based on the NYMEX 
physically-delivered natural gas contract's final settlement price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Basis contracts denote the difference in the price of 
natural gas at a specified location minus the price of natural gas 
at the Henry Hub. The differential can be either a positive or 
negative value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its October 9, 2009, Federal Register notice, the Commission 
identified material price reference, price linkage and material 
liquidity as the potential SPDC criteria applicable to the HXS 
contract. Each of these criteria is discussed below.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As noted above, the Commission did not find an indication 
of arbitrage in connection with this contract; accordingly, that 
criterion was not discussed in reference to the HXS contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Material Price Reference Criterion.
    The Commission's October 9, 2009, Federal Register notice 
identified material price reference as a potential basis for an SPDC 
determination with respect to this contract. The Commission considered 
the fact that ICE sells its price data to market participants in a 
number of different packages which vary in terms of the hubs covered, 
time periods, and whether the data are daily only or historical. For 
example, ICE offers ``Gulf Gas End of Day'' and ``OTC Gas End of Day'' 
\21\ with access to all price data or just current prices plus a 
selected number of months (i.e., 12, 24, 36 or 48 months) of historical 
data. These two packages include price data for the HXS contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The OTC Gas End of Day dataset includes daily settlement 
prices for natural gas contracts listed for all points in North 
America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also noted that its October 2007 Report on the 
Oversight of Trading on Regulated Futures Exchanges and Exempt 
Commercial Markets (``ECM Study'') \22\ found that in general, market 
participants view the ICE as a price discovery market for certain 
natural gas contracts. The study did not specify which markets 
performed this function; nevertheless, the Commission determined that 
the HXS contract, while not mentioned by name in the ECM Study, might 
warrant further study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/pr5403-07_ecmreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission will rely on one of two sources of evidence--direct 
or indirect--to determine that the price of a contract was being used 
as a material price reference and therefore, serving a significant 
price discovery function.\23\ With respect to direct evidence, the 
Commission will consider the extent to which, on a frequent and 
recurring basis, cash market bids, offers or transactions are directly 
based on or quoted at a differential to, the prices generated on the 
ECM in question. Direct evidence may be established when cash market 
participants are quoting bid or offer prices or entering into 
transactions at prices that are set either explicitly or implicitly at 
a differential to prices established for the contract in question. Cash 
market prices are set explicitly at a differential to the section 
2(h)(3) contract when, for instance, they are quoted in dollars and 
cents above or below the reference contract's price. Cash market prices 
are set implicitly at a differential to a section 2(h)(3) contract 
when, for instance, they are arrived at after adding to, or subtracting 
from the section 2(h)(3) contract, but then quoted or reported at a 
flat price. With respect to indirect evidence, the Commission will 
consider the extent to which the price of the contract in question is 
being routinely disseminated in widely distributed industry 
publications--or offered by the ECM itself for some form of 
remuneration--and consulted on a frequent and recurring basis by 
industry

[[Page 24644]]

participants in pricing cash market transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR part 36, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The HSC is a major trading center for natural gas in the United 
States. Traders, including producers, keep abreast of the prices of the 
HXS contract when conducting cash deals. These traders look to a 
competitively determined price as an indication of expected values of 
natural gas at the HSC when entering into cash market transaction for 
natural gas, especially those trades providing for physical delivery in 
the future. Traders use the ICE HXS contract, as well as other ICE 
basis swap contracts, to hedge cash market positions and transactions--
activities which enhance the HXS contract's price discovery utility. 
The substantial volume of trading and open interest \24\ in the HXS 
contract appears to attest to its use for this purpose. While the HXS 
contract's settlement prices may not be the only factor influencing 
spot and forward transactions, natural gas traders consider the ICE 
price to be a critical factor in conducting OTC transactions.\25\ As a 
result, the HXS contract satisfies the direct price reference test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Source: ICE filings dated July 27, 2009, and November 13, 
2009.
    \25\ In addition to referencing ICE prices, natural gas market 
firms participating in the HSC market may rely on other cash market 
quotes as well as industry publications and price indices that are 
published by third-party price reporting firms in entering into 
natural gas transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of indirect price reference, ICE sells the HXS contract's 
prices as part of a broad package. The Commission notes that the HSC is 
a major natural gas trading point, and the HXS contract's prices are 
well regarded in the industry as indicative of the value of natural gas 
at the HSC. Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is reasonable 
to conclude that market participants are purchasing the data packages 
that include the HXS contract's prices in substantial part because the 
HXS contract prices have particular value to them. Moreover, such 
prices are consulted on a frequent and recurring basis by industry 
participants in pricing cash market transactions. In light of the 
above, the HXS contract meets the indirect price reference test.
    NYMEX lists a futures contract that is comparable to the ICE HXS 
contract on its ClearPort platform called the Houston Ship Channel 
Natural Gas Basis Swap (Platts IFERC) futures contract. However, unlike 
the ICE HXS contract, none of the trades in the NYMEX version of the 
contract are executed in NYMEX's centralized marketplace; instead, all 
of the transactions originate as bilateral swaps that are submitted to 
NYMEX for clearing. The daily settlement prices of the NYMEX HSC basis 
swap contract are influenced, in part, by the daily settlement prices 
of the ICE HXS contract. This is because NYMEX determines the daily 
settlement prices for its natural gas basis swap contracts through a 
survey of cash market voice brokers. Voice brokers, in turn, refer to 
the ICE HXS price, among other information, as an important indicator 
as to where the market is trading. Therefore, the ICE HXS price 
influences the settlement price for the NYMEX HSC basis swap contract. 
This is supported by an analysis of the daily settlement prices for the 
NYMEX HSC basis swap contract and the ICE HXS contract. In this regard, 
96 percent of the daily settlement prices for the NYMEX HSC basis swap 
contract are within one standard deviation of the HXS contract's price 
settlement prices.
    Lastly, the fact that the HXS contract does not meet the price 
linkage criterion (discussed below) bolsters the argument for material 
price reference. As noted above, the Henry Hub is the pricing reference 
for natural gas in the United States. However, regional market 
conditions may cause the price of natural gas in another area of the 
country to diverge by more than the cost of transportation, thus making 
the Henry Hub price an imperfect proxy for the local gas price. The 
more variable the local natural gas price is, the more traders need to 
accurately hedge their price risk. Basis swap contracts provide a means 
of more accurately pricing natural gas at a location other than the 
Henry Hub. An analysis of HSC natural gas prices (based on the HXS 
contract's settlement prices) showed that 64.6 percent of the 
observations were more than 2.5 percent different that the 
contemporaneous Henry Hub prices. The average HSC basis value between 
January 2008 and September 2009 was -$0.26 per mmBtu with a variance of 
$0.03 per mmBtu.
i. Federal Register Comments
    ICE stated in its comment letter that the HXS contract does not 
meet the material price reference criterion for SPDC determination. ICE 
argued that the Commission appeared to base the case that the HXS 
contract is potentially a SPDC on what it characterizes as a disputable 
assertion. In issuing its notice of intent to determine whether the HXS 
contract is a SPDC, the CFTC cited a general conclusion in its ECM 
study ``that certain market participants referred to ICE as a price 
discovery market for certain natural gas contracts.'' \26\ ICE stated 
that CFTC's reason is ``hard to quantify as the ECM report does not 
mention'' this contract as a potential SPDC. ``It is unknown which 
market participants made this statement in 2007 or the contracts that 
were referenced.'' \27\ In response to the above comment, the 
Commission notes that it cited the ECM study's general finding that 
some ICE natural gas contracts appear to be regarded as price discovery 
markets merely as indicia that an investigation of certain ICE 
contracts may be warranted, and were not intended to serve as the sole 
basis for determining whether or not a particular contract meets the 
material price reference criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ CL 04.
    \27\ CL 04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WGCEF,\28\ NGSA,\29\ EI \30\ and FIEG \31\ all stated that the HXS 
contract does not satisfy the material price reference criterion. The 
commenters argued that other contracts (physical or financial) are not 
indexed based on the ICE HXS contract price, but rather are indexed 
based on the underlying cash price series against which the ICE HXS 
contract is settled. Thus, they contend that the underlying cash price 
series is the authentic reference price and not the ICE contract 
itself. The Commission believes that this interpretation of price 
reference is too limiting in that it only considers the final index 
value on which the contract is cash settled after trading ceases. 
Instead, the Commission believes that a cash-settled derivatives 
contract could meet the price reference criterion if market 
participants ``consult on a frequent and recurring basis'' the 
derivatives contract when pricing forward, fixed-price commitments or 
other cash-settled derivatives that seek to ``lock in'' a fixed price 
for some future point in time to hedge against adverse price movements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ CL 02.
    \29\ CL 06.
    \30\ CL 05.
    \31\ CL 08
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the HSC is a major trading center for natural gas 
in North America. Traders, including producers, keep abreast of the 
prices of the HXS contract when conducting cash deals. These traders 
look to a competitively determined price as an indication of expected 
values of natural gas at the HSC when entering into cash market 
transaction for natural gas, especially those trades that provide for 
physical delivery in the future. Traders use the ICE HXS contract to 
hedge cash market positions and transactions, which enhances the HXS 
contract's price discovery utility. While the HXS

[[Page 24645]]

contract's settlement prices may not be the only factor influencing 
spot and forward transactions, natural gas traders consider the ICE 
price to be a crucial factor in conducting OTC transactions.
    Both EI and WGCEF stated that publication of price data in a 
package format is a weak justification for material price reference. 
These commenters argue that market participants generally do not 
purchase ICE data sets for one contract's prices, so the fact that ICE 
sells the HXS prices as part of a broad package is not conclusive 
evidence that market participants are buying the ICE data sets because 
they find the HXS prices have substantial value to them. The Commission 
notes that the HSC is a major natural gas trading point, and the HXS 
contract's prices are well regarded in the industry as indicative of 
the value of natural gas at the HSC. Accordingly, the Commission 
believes that it is reasonable to conclude that market participants are 
purchasing the data packages that include the HXS contract's prices in 
substantial part because the HXS contract prices have particular value 
to them.
ii. Conclusion Regarding Material Price Reference
    Based on the above, the Commission finds that the HXS contract 
meets the material price reference criterion because cash market 
transactions are being priced on a frequent and recurring basis at a 
differential to the HXS contract's price (direct evidence). Moreover, 
the ECM sells the HXS contract's price data to market participants and 
it is reasonable to conclude that market participants are purchasing 
the data packages that include the HXS contract's prices in substantial 
part because the HXS contract prices have particular value to them. 
Furthermore, such prices are consulted on a frequent and recurring 
basis by industry participants in pricing cash market transactions 
(indirect evidence).
2. Price Linkage Criterion.
    In its October 9, 2009, Federal Register notice, the Commission 
identified price linkage as a potential basis for a SPDC determination 
with respect to the HXS contract. In this regard, the final settlement 
of the HXS contract is based, in part, on the final settlement price of 
the NYMEX's physically-delivered natural gas futures contract, where 
the NYMEX is registered with the Commission as a DCM.
    The Commission's Guidance on Significant Price Discovery Contracts 
\32\ notes that a ``price-linked contract is a contract that relies on 
a contract traded on another trading facility to settle, value or 
otherwise offset the price-linked contract.'' Furthermore, the Guidance 
notes that, ``[f]or a linked contract, the mere fact that a contract is 
linked to another contract will not be sufficient to support a 
determination that a contract performs a significant price discovery 
function. To assess whether such a determination is warranted, the 
Commission will examine the relationship between transaction prices of 
the linked contract and the prices of the referenced contract. The 
Commission believes that where material liquidity exists, prices for 
the linked contract would be observed to be substantially the same as 
or move substantially in conjunction with the prices of the referenced 
contract.'' Furthermore, the Guidance proposes a threshold price 
relationship such that prices of the ECM linked contract will fall 
within a 2.5 percent price range for 95 percent of contemporaneously 
determined closing, settlement or other daily prices over the most 
recent quarter. Finally, the Commission also stated in the Guidance 
that it would consider a linked contract that has a trading volume 
equivalent to 5 percent of the volume of trading in the contract to 
which it is linked to have sufficient volume potentially to be deemed a 
SPDC (``minimum threshold'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Appendix A to the Part 36 rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess whether the HXS contract meets the price linkage 
criterion, Commission staff obtained price data from ICE and performed 
the statistical tests cited above. Staff found that while the HXS 
contract's price is determined, in part, by the final settlement price 
of the NYMEX physically-delivered natural gas futures contract (a DCM 
contract), the natural gas price at the HSC is not within 2.5 percent 
of the settlement price of the corresponding NYMEX Henry Hub natural 
gas futures contract on 95 percent of the days. Specifically, during 
the third quarter of 2009, only 35.4 percent of the HSC natural gas 
prices derived from the ICE basis values were within 2.5 percent of the 
daily settlement price of the NYMEX Henry Hub futures contract. In 
addition, staff found that the HXS contract fails to meet the volume 
threshold requirement. In particular, the total trading volume in the 
NYMEX Natural Gas contract during the third quarter of 2009 was 
14,022,963 contracts, with 5 percent of that number being 701,148 
contracts. The number of trades on the ICE centralized market in the 
HXS contract during the same period was 271,056 contracts (equivalent 
to 67,764 NYMEX contracts, given the size difference).\33\ Thus, 
centralized-market trades in the HXS contract amounted to less than the 
minimum threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The HXS contract is one-quarter the size of the NYMEX Henry 
Hub physically-delivered futures contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the specific criteria that a given ECM contract must meet to 
fulfill the price linkage criterion, the requirements, for all intents 
and purposes, exclude ECM contracts that are not near facsimiles of DCM 
contracts. That is, even though an ECM contract may specifically use a 
DCM's contract's settlement price to value a position, which is the 
case of the HXS contract, a substantive difference between the two 
price series would rule out the presence of price linkage. In this 
regard, an ECM contract that is priced and traded as if it is a 
functional equivalent of a DCM contract likely will have a price series 
that mirrors that of the corresponding DCM contract. In contrast, for 
contracts that are not look-alikes of DCM contracts, it is reasonable 
to expect that the two price series would be divergent. The HSC and the 
Henry Hub are both located in Gulf Coast region of the United States. 
The Henry Hub and the HSC are both primarily supply centers, but the 
latter point is affected by heavy commercial demand in the local area. 
In contrast, the Henry Hub mainly serves as a distribution point for 
natural gas that will be consumed at various locations throughout the 
United States. These differences contribute to the divergence between 
the two price series and, as discussed below, increase the likelihood 
that the ``basis'' contract is used for material price reference.
i. Federal Register Comments
    NGSA \34\ stated that the HXS contract does not meet the price 
linkage criterion because basis contracts, including the HXS contract, 
are not equivalent to the NYMEX physically-delivered Henry Hub 
contract. EI \35\ also noted that the HXS and NYMEX natural gas 
contracts are not economically equivalent and that the HXS contract's 
volume is too low to affect the NYMEX natural gas futures contract. 
WGCEF \36\ stated that the HXS contract's price is determined, in part, 
by the final settlement price of the NYMEX Henry Hub futures contract. 
However, WGCEF goes on to state that the HXS contract ``(a) is not 
substantially the same as the NYMEX [natural gas

[[Page 24646]]

futures contract] * * * nor (b) does it move substantially in 
conjunction'' with the NYMEX natural gas futures contract. ICE \37\ 
pronounced that the HXS contract's trading volume is too low to affect 
the price discovery process for the NYMEX natural gas futures contract. 
In addition, ICE stated that the HXS contract simply reflects a price 
differential between Houston Ship Channel and the Henry Hub; ``there is 
no price linkage as contemplated by Congress or the CFTC in its 
rulemaking.'' FIEG \38\ acknowledged that the HXS contract is a 
locational spread that is based in part on the NYMEX natural gas 
futures price, but also questioned the significance of this fact 
relative to the price linkage criterion since the key component of the 
spread is the price at the HSC and not the NYMEX physically-delivered 
natural gas futures price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ CL 06.
    \35\ CL 05.
    \36\ CL 02.
    \37\ CL 04.
    \38\ CL 08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Conclusion Regarding the Price Linkage Criterion
    Based on the above, the Commission finds that the HXS contract does 
not meet the price linkage criterion because it fails the price 
relationship and volume tests provided for in the Commission's 
Guidance.
3. Material Liquidity Criterion
    To assess whether the HXS contract meets the material liquidity 
criterion, the Commission first examined volume and open interest data 
provided to it by ICE as a general measurement of the HXS contract's 
size and potential importance, and second performed a statistical 
analysis to measure the effect that changes to HXS prices potentially 
may have on prices for the NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas (a DCM 
contract), the ICE AECO Financial Basis contract (an ECM contract) and 
the Socal Border Financial Basis contract (an ECM contract).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ As noted above, the material liquidity criterion speaks to 
the effect that transactions in the potential SPDC may have on 
trading in ``agreements, contracts and transactions listed for 
trading on or subject to the rules of a designated contract market, 
a derivatives transaction execution facility, or an electronic 
trading facility operating in reliance on the exemption in section 
2(h)(3) of the Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's Guidance (Appendix A to Part 36) notes that 
``[t]raditionally, objective measures of trading such as volume or open 
interest have been used as measures of liquidity.'' In this regard, the 
Commission in its October 9, 2009, Federal Register notice referred to 
second quarter 2009 trading statistics that ICE had submitted for its 
HXS contract. Based upon on a required quarterly filing made by ICE on 
July 27, 2009, the total number of HXS trades executed on ICE's 
electronic trading platform was 2,524 in the second quarter of 2009, 
resulting in a daily average of 39.4 trades. During the same period, 
the HXS contract had a total trading volume on ICE's electronic trading 
platform of 209,010 contracts and an average daily trading volume of 
3,265.8 contracts.\40\ Moreover, the open interest as of June 30, 2009, 
was 313,594 contracts, which includes trades executed on ICE's 
electronic trading platform, as well as trades executed off of ICE's 
electronic trading platform and then brought to ICE for clearing.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The volume of trading was comparable to that of the Chicago 
Mercantile Exchange Feeder Cattle futures contract and the NYMEX 
Platinum futures contract for the same period.
    \41\ ICE does not differentiate between open interest created by 
a transaction executed on its trading platform versus that created 
by a transaction executed off its trading platform. The size of the 
HXS open interest was comparable to that of the NYMEX No. 2 Heating 
Oil futures and the CME Live Cattle futures contracts for the same 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the October 9, 2009, Federal Register notice, ICE 
submitted another quarterly notification filed on November 13, 2009 
\42\ with updated trading statistics. Specifically, with respect to its 
HXS contract, 2,894 separate trades occurred on its electronic platform 
in the third quarter of 2009, resulting in a daily average of 43.8 
trades. During the same period, the HXS contract had a total trading 
volume on its electronic platform of 271,056 contracts (which was an 
average of 4,107 contracts per day). As of September 30, 2009, open 
interest in the HXS contract was 309,740 contracts. Reported open 
interest included positions resulting from trades that were executed on 
ICE's electronic platform, as well as trades that were executed off of 
ICE's electronic platform and brought to ICE for clearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Commission Rule 36.3(c)(2), 17 CFR 36.3(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Guidance, the Commission stated that material liquidity can 
be identified by the impact liquidity exhibits through observed prices. 
Thus, to make a determination whether the HXS contract has such 
material impact, the Commission reviewed the relevant trading 
statistics (noted above). In this regard, the average number trades per 
day in the second and third quarters of 2009 were well above the 
minimum reporting level (5 trades per day). Moreover, trading activity 
in the HXS contract, as characterized by total quarterly volume, 
indicates that the HXS contract experiences greater trading activity 
than in thinly-traded contracts.\43\ Thus, it is reasonable to infer 
that the HXS contract could have a material effect on other ECM 
contracts or on DCM contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Staff has advised the Commission that in its experience, a 
thinly-traded contract is, generally, one that has a quarterly 
trading volume of 100,000 contracts or less. In this regard, in the 
third quarter of 2009, physical commodity futures contracts with 
trading volume of 100,000 contracts or fewer constituted less than 
one percent of total trading volume of all physical commodity 
futures contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To measure the effect that the HXS contract potentially could have 
on a DCM contract, or on another ECM contract, Commission staff 
performed a statistical analysis \44\ using daily settlement prices 
(between January 2, 2008, and September 30, 2009) for the ICE HXS 
contract, as well as for the NYMEX Henry Hub natural gas contract (a 
DCM contract), the ICE AECO Financial Basis and Socal Financial Basis 
contracts (ECM contracts). The simulation results suggest that, on 
average over the sample period, a one percent rise in the HXS 
contract's price elicited a nearly equivalent increase in each of the 
NYMEX Henry Hub, ICE AECO and ICE Socal Border prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Specifically, the Commission econometrically estimated a 
vector autoregression (VAR) model using daily settlement prices. A 
vector autoregression model is an econometric model used to capture 
the evolution and the interdependencies between multiple time 
series, generalizing the univariate autoregression models. The 
estimated model displays strong diagnostic evidence of statistical 
adequacy. In particular, the model's impulse response function was 
shocked with a one-time rise in HXS contract's price. The simulation 
results suggest that, on average over the sample period, a one 
percent rise in the HXS contract's price elicited a 0.98 percent 
increase in the NYMEX Henry Hub and Socal Border prices, as well as 
0.91 percent increase in the AECO price. These multipliers of 
response emerge with noticeable statistical strength or 
significance. Based on such long run sample patterns, if the HXS 
contract's price rises by 10 percent, then the prices of NYMEX Henry 
Hub natural gas futures contract and Socal Border Financial Basis 
contract would each rise by 9.1 percent, and the price of the AECO 
Financial Basis contract would rise by 9.8 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Federal Register Comments
    As noted above, comments were received from seven individuals and 
organizations, with five comments being directly applicable to the SPDC 
determination of the ICE HXS contract. WGCEF, EI, FIEG, ICE and NGSA 
generally agreed that the HXS contract does not meet the material 
liquidity criterion.
    WGCEF \45\ and NGSA \46\ both stated that the HXS contract does not 
materially affect other contracts that are listed for trading on DCMs 
or ECMs, as well as other over-the-counter contracts. Instead, the HXS 
contract is influenced by the underlying HSC cash price index

[[Page 24647]]

and the final settlement price of the NYMEX Henry Hub natural gas 
futures contract, not vice versa. FIEG \47\ stated that the HXS 
contract cannot have a material effect on NYMEX contract because the 
HXS contract trades on a differential and represents ``one leg (and not 
the relevant leg) of the locational spread.'' The Commission's 
statistical analysis shows that changes in the ICE HXS contract's price 
significantly influences the prices of other contracts that are traded 
on DCMs and ECMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ CL 02.
    \46\ CL 06.
    \47\ CL 07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE \48\ opined that the Commission ``seems to have adopted a five 
trade-per-day test to determine whether a contract is materially 
liquid. It is worth noting that ICE originally suggested that the CFTC 
use a five trades-per-day threshold as the basis for an ECM to report 
trade data to the CFTC.'' In this regard, the Commission adopted a five 
trades-per-day threshold as a reporting requirement to enable it to 
``independently be aware of ECM contracts that may develop into SPDCs'' 
rather than solely relying upon an ECM on its own to identify any such 
potential SPDCs to the Commission. Thus, any contract that meets this 
threshold may be subject to scrutiny as a potential SPDC, the threshold 
is not intended to define liquidity in a broader sense. As noted above, 
the Commission is basing a finding of material liquidity for the ICE 
HXS contract, in part, on the fact that there have been over 40 trades 
per day on average in the HXS contract during the second and third 
quarters of 2009, which is far more than the five trades-per-day that 
is cited in the ICE comment. In addition, the Commission notes that the 
number of contracts per transaction in the HXS contract is high 
(approximately 93 contracts per transaction) and thus, as noted, 
trading volume (measured in contract units) is substantial. The HXS 
contract also has significant open interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ CL 04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE implied that the statistics provided by ICE were misinterpreted 
and misapplied by the Commission. In particular, ICE stated that the 
volume figures used in the Commission's analysis (cited above) 
``include trades made in all [84] months of * * * [the] contract'' as 
well as in strips of contract months, and a ``more appropriate method 
of determining liquidity is to examine the activity in a single traded 
month or strip of a given contract.'' Furthermore, ICE noted that for 
basis swaps, ``about 25-40% of the trades occurred in the single most 
liquid, usually prompt, month of the contract.''
    It is the Commission's opinion that liquidity, as it pertains to 
the HXS contract, is typically a function of trading activity in 
particular lead months and, given sufficient liquidity in such months, 
the HXS contract itself would be considered liquid. ICE's analysis of 
its own trade data confirms this to be the case for the HXS contract, 
and thus, the Commission believes that it applied the statistical data 
cited above in an appropriate manner for gauging material liquidity.
    In addition, EI \49\ and ICE \50\ stated that the trades-per-day 
statistics that it provided to the Commission in its quarterly filing 
and which are cited above includes 2(h)(1) transactions, which were not 
completed on the electronic trading platform and should not be 
considered in the SPDC determination process. Commission staff asked 
ICE to review the data it sent in its quarterly filings. ICE confirmed 
that the volume data it provided and which the Commission cited in its 
October 9, 2009, Federal Register notice as well as the additional 
volume information it cites above includes only transaction data 
executed on ICE's electronic trading platform.\51\ The Commission 
acknowledges that the open interest information it cites above includes 
transactions made off the ICE platform. However, once open interest is 
created, there is no way for ICE to differentiate between ``on-
exchange'' versus ``off-exchange'' created positions, and all such 
positions are fungible with one another and may be offset in any way 
agreeable to the position holder regardless of how the position was 
initially created.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ CL 05.
    \50\ CL 04.
    \51\ Supplemental data supplied by the ICE confirmed that block 
trades in the third quarter of 2009 were in addition to the trades 
that were conducted on the electronic platform; block trades 
comprised 65% of all transactions in the HXS contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Conclusion Regarding Material Liquidity
    Based on the above, the Commission concludes that the HXS contract 
meets the material liquidity criterion in that there is sufficient 
trading activity in the HXS contract to have a material effect on 
``other agreements, contracts or transactions listed for trading on or 
subject to the rules of a designated contract market * * * or an 
electronic trading facility operating in reliance on the exemption in 
section 2(h)(3) of the Act'' (that is, an ECM).
4. Overall Conclusion
    After considering the entire record in this matter, including the 
comments received, the Commission has determined that the HXS contract 
performs a significant price discovery function under two of the four 
criteria established in section 2(h)(7) of the CEA. Although the 
Commission has concluded that the HXS contract does not meet the price 
linkage criterion at this time, the Commission has determined that the 
HXS contract does meet both the material liquidity and material price 
reference criteria. Accordingly, the Commission is issuing the attached 
Order declaring that the HXS contract is a SPDC.
    Issuance of this Order signals the immediate effectiveness of the 
Commission's authorities with respect to ICE as a registered entity in 
connection with its HXS contract,\52\ and triggers the obligations, 
requirements--both procedural and substantive--and timetables 
prescribed in Commission rule 36.3(c)(4) for ECMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See 73 FR 75888, 75893 (Dec. 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Related Matters

a. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'') \53\ imposes certain 
requirements on Federal agencies, including the Commission, in 
connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of 
information as defined by the PRA. Certain provisions of Commission 
rule 36.3 impose new regulatory and reporting requirements on ECMs, 
resulting in information collection requirements within the meaning of 
the PRA. OMB previously has approved and assigned OMB control number 
3038-0060 to this collection of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Cost-Benefit Analysis

    Section 15(a) of the CEA \54\ requires the Commission to consider 
the costs and benefits of its actions before issuing an order under the 
Act. By its terms, section 15(a) does not require the Commission to 
quantify the costs and benefits of an order or to determine whether the 
benefits of the order outweigh its costs; rather, it requires that the 
Commission ``consider'' the costs and benefits of its actions. 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)

[[Page 24648]]

price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other 
public interest considerations. The Commission may in its discretion 
give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas and could 
in its discretion determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a 
particular order is necessary or appropriate to protect the public 
interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or accomplish any of 
the purposes of the Act. The Commission has considered the costs and 
benefits in light of the specific provisions of section 15(a) of the 
Act and has concluded that the Order, required by Congress to 
strengthen federal oversight of exempt commercial markets and to 
prevent market manipulation, is necessary and appropriate to accomplish 
the purposes of section 2(h)(7) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 7 U.S.C. 19(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a futures contract begins to serve a significant price 
discovery function, that contract, and the ECM on which it is traded, 
warrants increased oversight to deter and prevent price manipulation or 
other disruptions to market integrity, both on the ECM itself and in 
any related futures contracts trading on DCMs. An Order finding that a 
particular contract is a SPDC triggers this increased oversight and 
imposes obligations on the ECM calculated to accomplish this goal. The 
increased oversight engendered by the issue of a SPDC Order increases 
transparency and helps to ensure fair competition among ECMs and DCMs 
trading similar products and competing for the same business. Moreover, 
the ECM on which the SPDC is traded must assume, with respect to that 
contract, all the responsibilities and obligations of a registered 
entity under the CEA and Commission regulations. Additionally, the ECM 
must comply with nine core principles established by section 2(h)(7) of 
the Act--including the obligation to establish position limits and/or 
accountability standards for the SPDC. Section 4(i) of the CEA 
authorizes the Commission to require reports for SPDCs listed on ECMs. 
These increased responsibilities, along with the CFTC's increased 
regulatory authority, subject the ECM's risk management practices to 
the Commission's supervision and oversight and generally enhance the 
financial integrity of the markets.

c. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \55\ requires that 
agencies consider the impact of their rules on small businesses. The 
requirements of CEA section 2(h)(7) and the Part 36 rules affect ECMs. 
The Commission previously has determined that ECMs are not small 
entities for purposes of the RFA.\56\ Accordingly, the Chairman, on 
behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) 
that this Order, taken in connection with section 2(h)(7) of the Act 
and the Part 36 rules, will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \56\ 66 FR 42256, 42268 (Aug. 10, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Order

a. Order Relating to the ICE HSC Financial Basis Contract

    After considering the complete record in this matter, including the 
comment letters received in response to its request for comments, the 
Commission has determined to issue the following Order:
    The Commission, pursuant to its authority under section 2(h)(7) of 
the Act, hereby determines that the HSC Financial Basis contract, 
traded on the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., satisfies the statutory 
material liquidity and material price reference criteria for 
significant price discovery contracts. Consistent with this 
determination, and effective immediately, the IntercontinentalExchange, 
Inc., must comply with, with respect to the HSC Financial Basis 
contract, the nine core principles established by new section 
2(h)(7)(C). Additionally, the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., shall be 
and is considered a registered entity \57\ with respect to the HSC 
Financial Basis contract and is subject to all the provisions of the 
Commodity Exchange Act applicable to registered entities. Further, the 
obligations, requirements and timetables prescribed in Commission rule 
36.3(c)(4) governing core principle compliance by the 
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., commence with the issuance of this 
Order.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(29).
    \58\ Because ICE already lists for trading a contract (i.e., the 
Henry Financial LD1 Fixed Price contract) that was previously 
declared by the Commission to be a SPDC, ICE must submit a written 
demonstration of compliance with the Core Principles within 30 
calendar days of the date of this Order. 17 CFR 36.3(c)(4).

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 28, 2010, by the Commission.
David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-10341 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>