55 East 52nd Street

New York, NY 10055

October 5, 2023

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

Assistant Secretary of the Commission 

FOIA, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre, 8th Fl.

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 2058

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request 

Dear FOIA Compliance Staff:

ICE Futures U.S., Inc. ("Exchange" or “IFUS”) Submission No. 23-133 (“Submission”), selfcertification of amendments to spot month position limits and single and all-months-combined accountability 

levels for four Financial Power futures contracts, which will be effective November 1, 2023, or such other date 

as the Exchange shall determine which shall be no sooner than the tenth business day following the business 

day on which the submissions were received by the Commission, was filed with the Secretary of the 

Commission on October 5, 2023. As discussed more fully below, Appendix A to the Submission (“Appendix 

A”) contains confidential and proprietary commercial and financial information of the Exchange which is 

exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 552(b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and 

Commission Regulation 145.9(d). Copies of the Submissions and Appendix A accompany this request. Pursuant 

to Commission Regulation 145.9(d)(1)(ii), the Exchange requests that Appendix A and its contents receive 

confidential treatment in perpetuity. IFUS further requests that the Commission notify the Exchange upon 

receiving any FOIA request, or any other court order, subpoena or summons for Appendix A. The 

Exchange also requests that it be notified if the Commission intends to disclose Appendix A to Congress 

or to any other governmental agency or unit pursuant to Section 8 of the Commodity Exchange Act 

(“CEA”).

DETAILED WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION

Section 552(b)(4) of the FOIA exempts from the disclosure requirements of the FOIA “trade secrets 

and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential”. The FOIA 

contains no definition of “privileged” or “confidential”. Some courts have found there to be a presumption 

of confidentiality for commercial information that is (1) provided voluntarily and (2) is of a kind the provider 

would not customarily make available to the public. See Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, 975 F.2d 871, 878 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (en banc); see also Center for Auto Safety v. National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 244 F.3d 144, 147 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (applying tests from Critical 

Mass). Even if there were no presumption of confidentiality, the information in Appendix A still would 

be considered "confidential" because the Exchange would not ordinarily disclose it to the public and 

disclosure would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the Exchange. In Gulf & Western 

Industries, Inc. v. U.S., 615 F.2d 527 (D.C. Cir. 1979), the Court of Appeals concluded that information is 
- 2 -

confidential for purposes of the FOIA if (i) it is not of the type normally released to the public by the 

submitter and (ii) the information is of the type that would cause substantial competitive harm if released. 

There is no requirement that “competitive harm" be established by a showing of actual competitive harm. 

Rather, "actual competition and the likelihood of substantial competitive injury is all that needs to be 

shown." Gulf & Western Indus., Inc. v. U.S., 615 F.2d at 530. Thus, in National Parks and Conservation 

Association v. Kleppe, 547 F.2d 673 (D.C. Cir. 1976), the Court of Appeals concluded that the disclosure 

of certain financial information, including costs and price-related items, was likely to cause substantial 

harm to the disclosing party’s competitive position. Such disclosure, if required, would provide competitors 

with valuable information relating to the operational strengths and weaknesses of the disclosing company. 

Such competitive harm may result from the use of such information either by direct competitors or by 

persons with whom one is negotiating. See American Airlines, Inc. v. National Mediation Board, 588 F.2d 

863, 868 n.13 (2d Cir.1978). It is also clear that the exemption was intended to prevent the fundamental 

unfairness that can result from one side having confidential information about the other in a business 

context. Cf. National Parks, supra, at 678 n.18. 

The deliverable supply analysis set forth in Appendix A was voluntarily provided to the 

Commission to support the Exchange’s self-certification that the speculative position limits for the four 

Financial Power contracts are in compliance with applicable provisions of the CEA and the regulations 

thereunder. This information is not of a type customarily made available to the public by the Exchange. 

The deliverable supply analysis took significant time, analysis and expense to develop and is an integral 

part of the Exchange’s contracts. Consequently, disclosure of the salient terms holds the potential for 

significant competitive harm to the Exchange. Additionally, it should be noted that there is no regulatory 

requirement that such information be disclosed.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Exchange requests that the Commission grant the Exchange’s 

request for confidential treatment for Appendix A and the information contained therein. If you have any 

questions or need further information, please contact me at 312-836-6745 or at patrick.swartzer@ice.com.

Sincerely,

Patrick Swartzer

Director

Market Regulation

Enc.

cc: Secretary of the Commission

Division of Market Oversight

New York Regional Office