55 East 52nd Street

New York, NY 10055

November 19, 2020

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. 20-147, 20-148, 20-152

(“Submissions”), self-certification of one new Oil Americas futures and two new Financial NGL futures 

contracts (the “New Contracts”), which will be listed by the Exchange on or about December 7, 2020, or such 

other date as the Exchange shall determine which shall be no sooner than the second business day 

following the business day on which the submissions were received by the Commission, was filed with the 

Secretary of the Commission on November 19, 2020. 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 Submission 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 
- 2 -

concluded that information is 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 pricerelated 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 

New 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 New 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@theice.com.

Sincerely,

Patrick Swartzer

Director

Market Regulation

Enc.

cc: Secretary of the Commission

Division of Market Oversight

New York Regional Office