Position Limits for Derivatives and Aggregation of Positions; Correction

timber purchased through stewardship contracts. Specifically, SBA invites comments and supporting data in response to the following questions. Stewardship Contracting Questions

1. How should the FS include the saw timber volume on stewardship contracts awarded to small business in the computation of small business market share?
2. How might including stewardship saw timber volume impact future market share calculations for small business concerns that participate in stewardship contracts and/or conventional timber sales?
3. What are the potential impacts (costs and benefits) if SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.506 were to include the saw timber volume from IRTCs and IRSCs in the calculation of small business market share? a. What is the anticipated impact of the inclusion of saw timber volume from stewardship contracts on stumpage prices? b. If inclusion of saw timber volume from stewardship contracts leads to lower stumpage prices, what is the impact to land management activities (paid for by stumpage prices) and retained receipts? c. What is the anticipated impact on sale values both from an agency perspective and a treasury perspective?
4. What would be the most efficient and effective way to account for actual saw timber volume from stewardship contracts awarded to small business?
5. Would an increase in the utilization of stewardship contracts in a market area result in a lower representation of small businesses successfully bidding for timber sales in that market area? Should this lead to lowering the market share for small business set-aside sales in that market area when the FS and SBA compute small business participation?
6. Would including stewardship saw timber volume on contracts awarded to small business in the calculation result in more accurate representation of small business participation in the market area? Unrelated to stewardship contracting, SBA is also seeking public comments on potential amendments to its current regulations at 13 CFR 121.507(a)(4)(i), which provides that on a set-aside timber sale, the small business may not resell more than 30% of the saw timber volume to a large business concern. When the FS offers any timber sale, it appraises the sale for its potential market value and sets the minimum bid that it will accept based on that appraisal. One factor in the appraisal is the haul cost that the purchaser (small or large) will absorb to bring the timber to a manufacturing facility. Currently, all appraisals are made to the nearest mill. In timber sales set aside for small businesses, large mills are ineligible to bid. In the context of a set-aside, if the nearest mill is a large mill, the appraisal will not accurately capture the haul cost to eligible bidders. As such, SBA is seeking public comment on whether the appraisal for a small business set-aside sale should be made to the nearest, small mill. Set-aside Sale Appraisal Point Questions
7. How can the actual haul costs to eligible small business timber set-aside purchasers be better reflected in the appraisal process?
8. Should there be considerations for keeping the appraisal point to the nearest mill on a small business timber set-aside sale in those market areas that do not have mills that would qualify as ‘‘small’’ under the SBA criteria?
9. How should the prohibition against small businesses reselling more than 30% of the saw timber volume to a large business concern be taken into account when making appraisals for small business timber set-aside sales?
10. What is the financial impact to the Forest Service if the 30% rule is included in the appraisal point haul cost calculation of a small business timber set-aside sale?
11. What is the anticipated impact on trust funds (e.g., Knutson-Vandenberg), if any, if appraisals are made to a small mill rather than the closest processer.
12. SBA is also requesting data on mill size and location. The SBA welcomes comments and any available data to help substantiate recommendations made in response to the foregoing general questions, or other potential policy options—including status quo—that should be considered for the Small Business Timber Sales Set￾Aside Program. Dated: March 16, 2015. Maria Contreras-Sweet, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2015–06557 Filed 3–24–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025–01–P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 1, 15, 17, 19, 32, 37, 38, 140, and 150 RIN 3038–AD99; 3038–AD82 Position Limits for Derivatives and Aggregation of Positions; Correction AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; provision of Table 11a; and reopening of comment periods; correction. SUMMARY: This is a correction to the preamble of a document published by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) in the Federal Register of February 25, 2015, regarding the reopening of the comment periods for proposed rulemakings to establish speculative position limits for 28 exempt and agricultural commodity futures and options contracts and the physical commodity swaps that are economically equivalent to such contracts (the ‘‘Position Limits Proposal’’) and to amend existing regulations setting out the Commission’s policy for aggregation under its position limits regime (the ‘‘Aggregation Proposal’’). This correction clarifies the closing date for the reopened comment periods, which was inadvertently set to fall on a non-business day. DATES: The comment periods for the Aggregation Proposal published November 15, 2013, at 78 FR 68946, and for the Position Limits Proposal published December 12, 2013, at 78 FR 75680, which reopened on February 26, 2015, will close on March 30, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Sherrod, Senior Economist, Division of Market Oversight, (202) 418– 5452, ssherrod@cftc.gov; or Riva Spear Adriance, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, (202) 418– 5494, radriance@cftc.gov; Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. Correction In the Federal Register of February 25, 2015, in proposed rule FR Doc. 2015–03834, on page 10023, in the first column, correct the DATES caption to read: DATES: The comment periods for the Aggregation Proposal published November 15, 2013, at 78 FR 68946, and for the Position Limits Proposal published December 12, 2013, at 78 FR 75680, will reopen on February 26, 2015, and will close on March 30, 2015.

1 18 CFR 385.508. 2 44 U.S.C. 3504. 3Electronic Filing of Documents, Order No. 619, 65 FR 57088 (Sept. 21, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶31,107 (2000). 4 44 U.S.C. 3504. 5 18 CFR 385.2001(a). 6See Electronic Registration, Order No. 891, 67 FR 52,406 (Aug. 12, 2002), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,132 (2002); Electronic Filing of FERC Form 1, and Elimination of Certain Designated Schedules in Form Nos. 1 and 1F, Order No. 626, 67 FR 36,093 (May 23, 2002), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,130 (2002); Electronic Service of Documents, 66 FR 50,591 (Oct. 4, 2001), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 35,539 (2001); Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001, 67 FR 31,043 (May 8, 2002), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,127 (2002); Filing Via the Internet, Order No. 703, 72 FR 65,659 (Nov. 23, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,259 (2007). 7Electronic Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,276 (2008). Dated: March 19, 2015. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 2015–06688 Filed 3–19–15; 04:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6351–01–P