UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

 OPEN MEETING ON FIVE FINAL RULE PROPOSALS 

 UNDER THE DODD-FRANK ACT 

 Washington, D.C. 

 Thursday, July 7, 2011 
 2 

 1 PARTICIPANTS: 

 2 Commission Members: 

 3 GARY GENSLER, Chairman 

 4 BART CHILTON, Commissioner 

 5 MICHAEL V. DUNN, Commissioner 

 6 JILL SOMMERS, Commissioner 

 7 SCOTT D. O'MALIA, Commissioner 

 8 Presentation No. 1: Consideration of Final Rule 

 on Prohibition on the Employment, or Attempted 

 9 Employment, of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices 

 on Price Manipulation 

 10 

 MARK HIGGINS, Office of General Counsel 

 11 

 DAVID MEISTER, Enforcement Division 

 12 

 DAN BERKOVITZ, Office of General Counsel 

 13 

 Presentation No. 2: Consideration of Final Rule 

 14 on Agricultural Commodity Definition 

 15 DON HEITMAN, Division of Market Oversight 

 16 RYNE MILLER, Division of Market Oversight 

 17 RICK SHILTS, Division of Market Oversight 

 18 Presentation No. 3: Consideration of Final Rules 

 on Business Affiliate Marketing and Disposal Rules 

 19 under FCRA 

 20 CARL KENNEDY, Office of General Counsel 

 21 GAIL SCOTT, Office of General Counsel 

 22 
 3 

 1 Presentation No. 4: Consideration of Final Rule 

 on Conforming Amendments to Part 160, Privacy of 

 2 Consumer Financial Information under GLBA 

 3 CARL KENNEDY, Office of General Counsel 

 4 GAIL SCOTT, Office of General Counsel 

 5 Presentation No. 5: Consideration of Final Rule 

 on Position Reports for Physical Commodities. 

 6 

 BRUCE FEKRAT, Division of Market Oversight 

 7 

 ALI HOSSEINI, Division of Market Oversight 

 8 

 RICK SHILTS, Division of Market Oversight 

 9 

 DAN BERKOVITZ, Office of General Counsel 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 * * * * * 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 
 4 

 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 

 2 (9:36 a.m.) 

 3 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Good morning. This 

 4 meeting will come to order. It's a Public Meeting 

 5 of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to 

 6 consider issuance of Final Rulemakings under the 

 7 Dodd-Frank Act. I'd like to welcome members of 

 8 the public, market participants and members of the 

 9 media to today's meeting, as well as welcome those 

 10 listening to the meeting by phone and watching 

 11 live on webcast. 

 12 During today's meeting the Commission 

 13 will embark on the final rulemaking phase is 

 14 implementing the Dodd- Frank Act. Specifically, 

 15 we'll consider final rules related to enhancing 

 16 the Commission's ability to protect against fraud 

 17 and manipulation, large trader reporting for swaps 

 18 on physical commodities and the definition of 

 19 agricultural commodities. And then two related 

 20 rules related to privacy and preventing certain 

 21 business affiliate marketing and establishing 

 22 other consumer information protection under the 
 5 

 1 Fair Credit Reporting Act, and expanding the scope 

 2 of privacy protections under financial law called 

 3 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. 

 4 Before we hear from staff, I'd like to 

 5 thank the dedicated staff themselves for their 

 6 tireless efforts to implement the Dodd-Frank Act 

 7 while also enforcing the agency's existing 

 8 statutory authority. Staff has taken on the many 

 9 challenges of bringing oversight to the swaps 

 10 market that is more than seven times the size and 

 11 far more complex than the futures market we've 

 12 historically regulated, and they're doing that 

 13 with limited funding and limited staff resources. 

 14 I think they should be commended for their 

 15 contributions to the agency, to the financial 

 16 markets, to the economy and the American public. 

 17 And I'd also like to thank my fellow Commissioners 

 18 for doing the same, Commissioners Dunn, Sommers, 

 19 Chilton and O'Malia, for their significant 

 20 contributions in fulfilling the mission of our 

 21 agency in the rule-writing process as well. 

 22 It's important to remember why we're 
 6 

 1 doing all of this and why we're moving forward to 

 2 finalize these rules. The financial crisis of 

 3 2008 was very real. Millions of Americans are out 

 4 of work today because of the financial crisis. 

 5 Millions of homeowners now have homes worth less 

 6 than their mortgages. Millions of people have had 

 7 to dig into their savings, and millions more have 

 8 seen their investments not regain the value they 

 9 once had. There remains significant uncertainty 

 10 in the economy as we all know too well. And 

 11 though the crisis had many causes, it's clear that 

 12 the financial system and our regulatory system 

 13 failed and that the swaps marketplace played a 

 14 central role in that. They added leverage to the 

 15 financial system where there was more risk than 

 16 otherwise there would be. 

 17 They also contributed particularly 

 18 through credit default swaps to the bubble in the 

 19 housing markets and helped accelerate the 

 20 financial crisis itself and contributed to a 

 21 system where large financial institutions which 

 22 had been once thought to be too big to fail also 
 7 

 1 ended up being too interconnected to fail. So 

 2 swaps which initially were developed to help 

 3 manage and lower risk and still for most American 

 4 companies help manage and lower risk actually 

 5 concentrated and heightened risk in the economy 

 6 and to the public in the crisis. 

 7 Today's public Commission meeting is the 

 8 first of many to fulfill implementing the 

 9 Dodd-Frank Act. This spring we substantially 

 10 completed the proposal phase of the rule writing, 

 11 we further benefited with a 30-day period for 

 12 public comment that ended in early June, and the 

 13 staff and Commissioners are now turning toward 

 14 final rules and today we're taking up five very 

 15 important rules. I envision over the coming 

 16 months that we'll continue to take other final 

 17 rules. We'll have additional public meetings. We 

 18 have another one later in July that's been 

 19 scheduled, one in August and a couple in 

 20 September. As examples of what we might be taking 

 21 up in July and August, the whistleblower rule, a 

 22 rule with regard to the process to review swaps 
 8 

 1 for mandatory clearing and the registration 

 2 requirements for swap data repositories. There is 

 3 much on our agenda past today as move into the 

 4 fall and try to move through public comments and 

 5 finalize rules. Each of these rules is an 

 6 essential component of fulfilling the requirements 

 7 of Dodd- Frank to bring essential protections to 

 8 the swaps markets and to the broader economy. 

 9 Before we hear from staff on the 

 10 rulemaking that we'll consider today, I'll 

 11 recognize my fellow Commissioners for their 

 12 opening statements. I believe that Commissioner 

 13 Dunn is with us from Chicago. I'm hoping that the 

 14 technology is working from our Chicago office. 

 15 COMMISSIONER DUNN: It's working on this 

 16 side, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of you 

 17 for joining us today in our first meeting to 

 18 consider final rules promulgated pursuant to the 

 19 Dodd-Frank Act. 

 20 I have spent much of the last 30 years 

 21 either writing regulations or trying to adhere to 

 22 them, and I'm amazed at the work that this 
 9 

 1 Commission has been able to accomplish in less 

 2 than a year. I'm also acutely aware of the work 

 3 that lies before us as we move to finalizing all 

 4 of our proposed rules and then implementing them. 

 5 As I have stated before, this has been the most 

 6 transparent rulemaking process I have ever been 

 7 engaged in and I credit Chairman Gensler for 

 8 seeking public comment at almost every opportunity 

 9 and in a variety of venues to ensure that 

 10 commenters have had ample opportunity to provide 

 11 feedback on the proposed rules. 

 12 While the public side of the rulemaking 

 13 process has been extremely transparent, I have 

 14 been fairly quiet regarding my thoughts and 

 15 deliberations during the proposed rule phase of 

 16 this undertaking. I have acted this way 

 17 consciously, mindful of the important role that 

 18 the public should play in this process. I was 

 19 purposely liberal in voting on proposed rules 

 20 because I felt it was more important to get public 

 21 comment than to nitpick the rules at their 

 22 formative stages. 
 10 

 1 As we begin to finalize Dodd-Frank rules 

 2 and after having reviewed the volumes of comments 

 3 we have received from the public and read the 

 4 transcripts from our public roundtables, the one 

 5 and tenor of the questions I have for rulemaking 

 6 teams will be different. Before even considering 

 7 any final rules, I've asked each rule-writing team 

 8 to answer a set of questions that ask three 

 9 things. Number one, whether or not the proposed 

 10 rule adheres to the agency's principle regulatory 

 11 approach and if not, why. Number two, whether 

 12 staff has the resources both human and fiscal to 

 13 implement the proposed final rule as drafted. And 

 14 three, if there are insufficient resources, how 

 15 would staff prioritize the work they're currently 

 16 doing with the work that the Dodd-Frank rules 

 17 require. 

 18 I've asked these questions because I 

 19 truly believe that the innovation and growth that 

 20 I have witnessed in the commodities industry 

 21 during my tenure on the Commission was due in no 

 22 small part to the nimbleness of the Commission as 
 11 

 1 a principle-based regulator. If we are going to 

 2 stray from this rule, I want to hear good reasons 

 3 why. While my preference is for rules that adhere 

 4 to our principle-based model to the CFTC's 

 5 well-documented lack of proper funding, I may be 

 6 forced to accept rules that are more prescriptive 

 7 than I would generally favor. If we do not have 

 8 the necessary resources to be a principle-based 

 9 regulatory, we must still enforce the law even if 

 10 we do so in a prescriptive or even restrictive 

 11 fashion that have consequences of the growth of 

 12 the futures industry. 

 13 I am also interested in how staff will 

 14 prioritize the work in the post-Dodd world. While 

 15 it is important to meet all new mandates in the 

 16 Dodd-Frank Act, I think it is equally important 

 17 that the commodities markets continue to function 

 18 as effectively and efficiently as they always 

 19 have. 

 20 Regarding the rules we will consider 

 21 today, I would again like to thank Chairman 

 22 Gensler for working collaboratively with my office 
 12 

 1 to get rules to a point where I feel comfortable 

 2 supporting them. It is very hard for every rule 

 3 to satisfy every Commissioner when it is initially 

 4 drafted. I had concerns and questions with 

 5 today's final rules that I brought to the 

 6 Chairman's attention. To his credit, the 

 7 Chairman, when I raised these concerns and 

 8 questions, instructed staff to work with me to 

 9 address my issues. This has truly been a 

 10 collaborative process and I thank the Chairman for 

 11 that. I would also like to express my thanks to 

 12 the staff of the CFTC for their hard work on these 

 13 very important proposed final rules and I look 

 14 forward to their presentations. 

 15 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, 

 16 Commissioner Dunn. Thank you for those personal 

 17 words. I really appreciate all of your input on 

 18 these rules and I think they're better for it. 

 19 Commissioner Sommers? 

 20 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Thank you, Mr. 

 21 Chairman. Good morning. I want to thank the five 

 22 teams who have final rules before us today. We 
 13 

 1 are all well aware that over the past year you 

 2 have been under an incredible amount of pressure 

 3 to meet certain deadlines for drafts, that you 

 4 have worked late nights and weekends and we are 

 5 all very grateful to you for everything that you 

 6 have done, your dedication to your work and to 

 7 this agency because obviously we could never do 

 8 all of this without you. So, thank you. 

 9 We're starting the process of finalizing 

 10 rules today with a group of rules that do not 

 11 relate to the structural or broader issues of 

 12 trading and clearing swap transactions. 

 13 Nonetheless, we are beginning without a plan. 

 14 There have been no Commission decisions regarding 

 15 the internal process or the implementation 

 16 schedule for this very important and complicated 

 17 task we have in front of us to finalize the rules 

 18 and regulations required by the Dodd-Frank Act. 

 19 We've been discussing the appropriate 

 20 sequencing of final rules as well as an 

 21 implementation plan for many months, and at this 

 22 point I am still hopeful that the Commission will 
 14 

 1 move forward to adopt a reasonable, phased- in 

 2 approach supported by market participants. A 

 3 tentative calendar for consideration of final 

 4 rules has been provided to Commissioners. That 

 5 schedule would require the Commission to vote on 

 6 no less than 17 rules during July and August, 20 

 7 rules in September and October and nine rules in 

 8 November and December. And while a few of these 

 9 rules will be relatively straightforward and 

 10 noncontroversial, the vast majority are based on 

 11 extremely complex proposals for which staff has 

 12 yet to even complete a comment summary. 

 13 If we stick to such a schedule, I 

 14 foresee a process that haphazardly requires votes 

 15 to be taken when the Commission has not had time 

 16 to sufficiently consider all of the implications 

 17 of final rules. This schedule would also make it 

 18 very difficult to coordinate with regulators 

 19 domestically and internationally. As I've said on 

 20 a number of occasions, while we were proposing 

 21 last fall, there was room for error. When we 

 22 finalize rules this fall, we do not have that 
 15 

 1 luxury. I reiterate yet again that we should 

 2 adopt a plan that starts with finalizing the 

 3 entity and product definitions and build from 

 4 there driven by a logical progression rather than 

 5 arbitrary deadlines. 

 6 I believe another issue that we as the 

 7 Commission need to address is the consideration of 

 8 material changes to our proposed rules. I am 

 9 comfortable admitting that we probably did get 

 10 everything right in our proposals. That is why 

 11 the notice and comment period required by the 

 12 Administrative Procedures Act is so critical to 

 13 the rulemaking process. Through that process we 

 14 have received many excellent and very helpful 

 15 comment letters that go a long way toward helping 

 16 us get it right. It is apparent to us that market 

 17 participants, trade associations and law firms 

 18 have spent many long hours developing detailed 

 19 comments and alternative solutions to our 

 20 proposals. In my view, if we truly consider and 

 21 take into account the merits of these excellent 

 22 comment letters, we will have no choice but to 
 16 

 1 re-propose a number of the rules from last fall 

 2 and I believe it's important for us to do just 

 3 that. We need to plan for this inevitability and 

 4 start discussing internally which rules need to be 

 5 re-proposed. Our goal should be to promulgate the 

 6 best final rules possible without regard to 

 7 whether that requires us to re-propose. Our 

 8 objective should never be to reject valid comments 

 9 in order to avoid re-proposing a rule. 

 10 With regard to the rules we have before 

 11 us today, I am supportive of all of them but have 

 12 lingering questions and concerns about the 

 13 anti-manipulation rules. Prior to the enactment 

 14 of Dodd-Frank, the Commission had broad anti- 

 15 fraud, false-reporting and anti-manipulation 

 16 authority. Section 753 expands that authority by 

 17 amending CEA Section 6(c) to among other things 

 18 include the concept of fraud- based manipulation. 

 19 This fraud-based manipulation has a lower standard 

 20 than manipulation under 9(a)(2) and does not 

 21 require an artificial price or an effect on prices 

 22 to be proven. This aspect of 753's amendment to 
 17 

 1 6(c) is clear. Where the amendments to 6(c) are 

 2 not clear and where the final rules shed no 

 3 additional light is when we will prosecute false 

 4 reporting under 9(a)(2) as opposed to the new 

 5 manipulation by false reporting prohibition under 

 6 Section 6(c)(1)(A) and Regulation 108.1(a)(4), or 

 7 what set of circumstances will give rise to a 

 8 charge under the existing manipulation prohibition 

 9 under 9(a)(2) as opposed to the new manipulation 

 10 prohibition under Section 6(c)(3) and Regulation 

 11 108.2. 

 12 In the end, we are left with Section 753 

 13 as it is written. The final rules are true to the 

 14 language of Section 753 and for that reason I 

 15 support them. However, as the Commission begins 

 16 to exercise this new authority, I want to make 

 17 sure that they are applied in a reasonable manner 

 18 that seeks to address activity that affects or 

 19 threatens the integrity of our markets and does 

 20 not result in unfair surprise to market 

 21 participants. Using this new authority in areas 

 22 with little to no connection to our markets would 
 18 

 1 not be a good use of our resources. 

 2 Again, I want to give thanks to all of 

 3 the five teams that are before us today and look 

 4 forward to the discussion. 

 5 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, 

 6 Commissioner Sommers. Commissioner Chilton? 

 7 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: Good morning. 

 8 Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

 9 Briefly I agree with Commissioner 

 10 Sommers and I certainly want to make sure that 

 11 we're not jammed with stuff at the end, I think 

 12 the Chairman has made a commitment in that regard, 

 13 but you have my commitment, Commissioner Sommers, 

 14 that if it comes in too late and we don't have the 

 15 ability to look at it thoughtfully we shouldn't be 

 16 considering it, but I think we all probably agree. 

 17 If we were in school we'd probably get an 

 18 incomplete on what we've done, and I was asked by 

 19 somebody who's fault is it? I said it's our 

 20 fault, but it's sort of like a bunch of professors 

 21 who all give you extra homework and say it's all 

 22 due in this certain time period at the same time. 
 19 

 1 So we really just couldn't do everything under the 

 2 time constraints that were out there, and as I 

 3 think we've all said, it's more important to get 

 4 it right than to just do it fast, but the waiting 

 5 has been pretty tough. For me, and I won't spend 

 6 a lot of time because I know my colleagues are 

 7 tired of hearing me talk about position limits, 

 8 but that's one issue that we should have done I 

 9 think, that we could still do. Tom Petty sings 

 10 that song, "The Waiting" because the waiting is 

 11 the hardest part. This has been a pretty hard 

 12 part for me, but we'll have that until later at 

 13 another time, hopefully soon. 

 14 The good news is that we're moving 

 15 forward on these five rules and regulations now so 

 16 that the waiting is over for them hopefully if we 

 17 get them passed. And to pick up on what 

 18 Commissioner Sommers was saying with regard to 

 19 anti-fraud and anti-manipulation, to me that's one 

 20 of the key things that we're doing and when people 

 21 talk on the Hill about delaying Dodd-Frank for 18 

 22 months or something, this is a key thing, a key 
 20 

 1 authority that we received in the law and why we 

 2 need to move forward and not wait. 

 3 All the authority that we have has been 

 4 too high a hurdle. One successful prosecution for 

 5 manipulation in 35 years is just nuts. Right? So 

 6 this new authority that we've received, and 

 7 Chairman Gensler has thanked Senator Cantwell in 

 8 the past and I've joined in thanking her for this 

 9 provision on anti-fraud and anti-manipulation, I 

 10 think it's going to help us and I agree with 

 11 Commissioner Sommers that we need to make sure 

 12 we're judicious about it, but there are things in 

 13 here, the types of things that we can go after 

 14 that are more like insider trading. It's not 

 15 exactly insider trading. It's not exactly that 

 16 like it is in the securities law. But folks that 

 17 pocket profits from the misuse of privileged 

 18 information can be prosecuted under what we're 

 19 doing today. There's a good example. We want the 

 20 free flow of information but not when you take 

 21 privileged information and use it to trade for 

 22 your own personal gain. That can be prosecuted. 
 21 

 1 And we've also moved forward, we're not 

 2 exactly the securities law reckless standard, but 

 3 we've moved in that direction as the court has 

 4 defined recklessness for securities. And 

 5 specifically, when I say reckless I don't mean 

 6 haphazard, I mean intentionally trying to 

 7 manipulate a market like driving too fast 

 8 reckless. That's the type of recklessness we're 

 9 talking about. Specifically with regard to false 

 10 reporting, false reporting specifically uses the 

 11 word reckless in it and so if somebody for example 

 12 said today and they disseminated a rumor that more 

 13 oil was going to be released by the Strategic 

 14 Petroleum Reserve and they acted on that and tried 

 15 to move the market and act on that, that's also 

 16 something that could be prosecuted here. So this 

 17 is really important stuff that shouldn't be 

 18 delayed. The waiting has been the hardest part, 

 19 but I'll take a cue from Petty, "Don't let it kill 

 20 you, baby. Don't let it get to you," and we'll 

 21 move forward. Thank you. 

 22 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, 
 22 

 1 Commissioner Chilton. Commission O'Malia, you 

 2 always get the honor of going after Commissioner 

 3 Chilton. Do you have some more of Mr. Petty to 

 4 quote? 

 5 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: I never liked Tom 

 6 Petty, but I do appreciate following, Bart. 

 7 Commissioner Chilton always raises the bar. 

 8 Today we are voting on a major tranche 

 9 of regulations to be finalized under the 

 10 Dodd-Frank Act. Before we start I'd like to thank 

 11 each of the teams for their hard work. Moving 

 12 from the proposed rules to the final rules has not 

 13 been an easy task. It has been very involved and 

 14 the teams have been very willing and able to work 

 15 with us, include our comments and concerns and 

 16 walk us through all the comments we've received. 

 17 With the Commission's approval, the 

 18 regulations before us today will become not only 

 19 the law of the land, but the Commission's official 

 20 statement as to the interpretation of the Act it 

 21 is charged with administering so it is appropriate 

 22 that we consider our duties to market participants 
 23 

 1 and the public generally before issuing final 

 2 regulations. Our duties can be characterized in 

 3 two words, transparency and clarity. 

 4 With regard to transparency, first we 

 5 should provide greater insight into our process 

 6 before finalizing these regulations. Last week I 

 7 requested from the Chairman and each of the 

 8 Commissioners to consider posting the drafts of 

 9 the final regulations on the Commission website 7 

 10 days before the public hearing in order to provide 

 11 the greatest possible transparency into these 

 12 final rulemakings. I have not received an answer 

 13 as to whether the Commission will adopt this 

 14 proposal. Such transparency is valuable because 

 15 it is likely to lead to informed Commission 

 16 decisions as the public receives one last chance 

 17 to identify unintended consequences. Considering 

 18 the speed at which the Commission will make policy 

 19 decisions through the rest of the year and the 

 20 impact that these decisions will have on the 

 21 markets, this last and final check will improve 

 22 the quality of our final regulations. I'm not 
 24 

 1 asking for an extension of time, just an 

 2 additional layer of transparency. 

 3 With regard to clarity, market 

 4 participants deserve clear and straightforward 

 5 regulations to readily identify first their legal 

 6 obligations and when they need to begin complying 

 7 with such legal obligations. Failure to provide 

 8 clear guidance will not only general market 

 9 uncertainty, but it may prevent us from 

 10 effectively enforcing our own regulations. Two of 

 11 the final regulations before us today, the large 

 12 trader report and the anti-manipulation proposal, 

 13 demonstrate the strides has made toward issuing 

 14 clear and enforceable regulations in what we have 

 15 yet to do. 

 16 Last October, I expressed concerns as to 

 17 how the Commission would interpret its 

 18 anti-manipulation authority. I was concerned that 

 19 the Commission would fail to provide clarity as to 

 20 how the new genre of manipulation would be defined 

 21 in relation to the prohibition to price 

 22 manipulation under 9(a)(2) of the Commodity 
 25 

 1 Exchange Act which was specifically preserved in 

 2 the Dodd-Frank Act and relation to the new 

 3 anti-disruptive practices. In spite of receiving 

 4 comments from 27 parties, the Commission has 

 5 determined that the proposed regulatory text was 

 6 neither vague nor susceptible to due process 

 7 challenge and has only changed a single word from 

 8 the proposal. 

 9 I have concerns that the 

 10 anti-manipulation rule has not provided adequate 

 11 clarity, and such vagueness as to the course of 

 12 action taken by the Commission in enforcing this 

 13 rule will add to confusion in the markets. The 

 14 wholesale incorporation of standards and case law 

 15 developed under 10(b)(5) of the Securities 

 16 Exchange Act of 1934 run the risk of disregarding 

 17 the unique qualities of the futures and 

 18 derivatives markets in an attempt to apply 

 19 concepts developed in the securities markets for 

 20 insider trading based on misappropriation. It is, 

 21 therefore, essential for the Commission to be 

 22 clear as to how judicial precedents under 10(b)(5) 
 26 

 1 guide our judgment and decision making as we 

 2 exercise authority under our rule. 

 3 More generally, the preamble could be 

 4 clear as to how the Commission will use new 

 5 authorities in 6(c) in conjunction with new 

 6 authorities such as those over anti- disruptive 

 7 trading practices and insider trading. I believe 

 8 the Commission could have been more responsive to 

 9 requests for guidance through the provision of 

 10 examples of violative conduct. This is especially 

 11 so with regard to relatively new concepts of 

 12 liability in our markets such as insider trading 

 13 and fraud in the market. 

 14 By implementation of the rule, the duty 

 15 will fall primarily on Enforcement staff to pursue 

 16 those cases that ultimately define and distinguish 

 17 reckless and intent-based behavior as manipulative 

 18 or fraudulent and sort of the confusing new 

 19 penalty authority which this rule seems to 

 20 purposefully avoid. It will be up to the 

 21 Commission to guide the Enforcement staff as they 

 22 begin to pursue these new areas of authority and 
 27 

 1 I'm confident that my colleagues will take this 

 2 particular role very seriously. Make no mistake. 

 3 The rule will give the Commission clear authority 

 4 to pursue cases of intentional conduct designed to 

 5 deceive or defraud market participants without the 

 6 heavy burden of proving such conduct ultimately 

 7 resulted in an artificial price. Such authority 

 8 not only furthers the goals and purposes of the 

 9 Commodity Exchange Act, but brings greater 

 10 consistency to legal standards of manipulation 

 11 across all financial markets. 

 12 I support the Large Trader Reporting 

 13 Rule because obtaining data is fundamental to our 

 14 oversight responsibilities. The large trader rule 

 15 has made a number of changes to address public 

 16 comments. Certain of these changes allow the 

 17 Commission to fulfill its market surveillance 

 18 goals without proposing extraneous costs on end 

 19 users. 

 20 For example, the Large Trader Reporting 

 21 Rule clarifies that end users may keep information 

 22 regarding their cash market transactions in a 
 28 

 1 format that they have developed in the normal 

 2 course of business rather than to conform to 

 3 Commission standards. However, not even the Large 

 4 Trader Reporting Rule can adequately resolve the 

 5 fundamental issues with our final regulations. 

 6 Briefly stated, the problem is how can the 

 7 Commission move forward on final regulations 

 8 implicating swap dealers when the Commission has 

 9 not determined if the term captures end users? I 

 10 recognize that the Commission will obtain the 

 11 lion's share of data from financial swap dealers. 

 12 My concern is with those end users that may be 

 13 characterized as nonfinancial swap dealers. Even 

 14 though the Commission is voting on large trader 

 15 reporting today, the Commission cannot determine 

 16 the full benefits and costs of this regulation 

 17 until we define both the dealer and swap 

 18 definitions. 

 19 I have previously stated that end users 

 20 did not cause the Financial Crisis of 2008, and we 

 21 must be mindful that every dollar that the 

 22 Commission imposes on end users may translate into 
 29 

 1 increases in energy or food costs or squeeze 

 2 farmers and industrial producers unable to pass on 

 3 these increase costs. I am also pleased that 

 4 large trader reporting has attempted to provide 

 5 some assurances to end users by mandating 

 6 compliance only after the swap dealer definition 

 7 becomes effective. However, at that point, end 

 8 users will only know whether their day-to-day 

 9 transactions constitute dealing, but not whether 

 10 those transactions implicate swaps. 

 11 For example, many end users rely on 

 12 trade options in their normal course of business 

 13 and will not know whether the Commission will 

 14 regulate those options as swaps. I know the Large 

 15 Trader Reporting Rule attempts to address this 

 16 dilemma by indicating that the Commission only 

 17 require such end users to comply with the rules 

 18 for an additional 6 months. Also the rule 

 19 indicates that end users who are not certain 

 20 whether they're swap dealers may petition the 

 21 Commission for further relief. Obviously these 

 22 solutions are not perfect but do provide some path 
 30 

 1 forward. The uncertainty surrounding swap dealer 

 2 trade options and swaps may cause end users to 

 3 divert resources from their normal energy and 

 4 agricultural businesses toward reporting 

 5 technology while waiting for the Commission to 

 6 finalize relevant definitions. 

 7 I wish we could offer more clarity, but 

 8 that is not on the table today. Given the 

 9 interdependencies of our various definitions and 

 10 the definition of both dealer and swaps, I would 

 11 encourage the Commission to provide an 

 12 implementation plan to give those end users caught 

 13 in the regulatory crosshairs some idea as to when 

 14 we should expect the Commission to ultimately 

 15 resolve whether they are swap dealers or not. 

 16 Mr. Chairman, before I close I must 

 17 renew my request that the Commission publish for 

 18 comment its schedule for consideration of final 

 19 rules and a proposed plan for implementing over 50 

 20 such regulations. As I noted in our last hearing 

 21 and at previous Commission meetings, the final 

 22 regulation schedule would permit the public to 
 31 

 1 hold the Commission accountable for its progress 

 2 under Dodd-Frank. 

 3 Additionally, in virtually every meeting 

 4 I'm in, market participants request that the 

 5 Commission propose such an implementation plan. I 

 6 believe these firms are sincerely interested in 

 7 fully complying with the final regulations if only 

 8 the Commission would inform them when they should 

 9 be prepared to do so. They have no idea if they 

 10 should be ready in 8 months or 18 months. By 

 11 providing markets a plan, it will improve 

 12 compliance with our regulations and I am certain 

 13 it will speed their compliance. 

 14 Last month in testimony before the House 

 15 Financial Services Committee, Chairman Shapiro 

 16 indicated that the SEC is working on an 

 17 implementation plan that include opportunity for 

 18 public comment. She stated, "After proposing all 

 19 of the key rules under Title VII, we intend to 

 20 consider seeking public comment on a detailed 

 21 implementation plan that will permit a rollout of 

 22 the new securities-based swap requirements in an 
 32 

 1 efficient manner while minimizing unnecessary 

 2 disruption and cost to the market. Let me assure 

 3 you that the implementation plan is not a 

 4 mechanism for delay. Instead, it should help 

 5 facilitate the important and necessary form of the 

 6 OTC derivative markets." 

 7 I completely agree with Chairman Shapiro 

 8 and it's time we end the rulemaking mystery and 

 9 pull back the curtains so that the market has the 

 10 opportunity to review the implementation plan and 

 11 provide comment on its feasibility. It's 

 12 imperative that we develop a transparent process 

 13 by previewing our final rules and to provide 

 14 market participants with a rulemaking schedule and 

 15 implementation plan so that they can prepare for 

 16 their necessary investments, reorganize their 

 17 businesses and hire staff in order to comply with 

 18 the rules. 

 19 Let me close where I began by thanking 

 20 staff for their hard work, their patience and 

 21 their utmost cooperation with the Commission. 

 22 Thank you very much. 
 33 

 1 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, 

 2 Commissioner O'Malia. Thank you to all of the 

 3 Commissioners. 

 4 The staff will make presentations 

 5 concerning their recommendations on the 

 6 implementation of the Dodd- Frank Act. After 

 7 presentations the floor will be open for 

 8 statements, questions or comments from each of the 

 9 Commissioners, and then following those 

 10 discussions the Commissioners will take a vote on 

 11 the recommendations. To that end I ask for 

 12 unanimous consent that all final votes for 

 13 publishing final rules to implement the Dodd-Frank 

 14 Act conducted in this public meeting of the 

 15 Commission be recorded votes and that the results 

 16 of those votes be included in the record for 

 17 Federal Register releases. Without objection so 

 18 ordered. 

 19 I turn it over at this time to David 

 20 Meister, the director of the Division of 

 21 Enforcement; Mark Higgins of the Office of General 

 22 Counsel; and I see Dan Berkovitz, the general 
 34 

 1 counsel himself, is here to discuss the anti- 

 2 manipulation rule. Mr. Meister? 

 3 MR. MEISTER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman 

 4 and Commissioners. In the Dodd-Frank law, 

 5 Congress gave the Commission important new 

 6 anti-manipulation and anti-fraud authority by 

 7 amending the Commodity Exchange Act to include a 

 8 new Section numbered 6(c)(1). Section 6(c)(1) 

 9 makes it unlawful to employ manipulative or 

 10 deceptive devices or contrivances in connection 

 11 with swaps, commodity contracts and futures in 

 12 violation of Commission rules. In my opinion, 

 13 Section 6(c)(1) is one of the most important 

 14 provisions of Dodd-Frank. It enhances our ability 

 15 to promote market integrity and protect market 

 16 participants from all manner of fraud and 

 17 manipulation. 

 18 Our markets serve important functions. 

 19 They allow participants to hedge risk and they 

 20 play a critical role in price discovery. Market 

 21 participants must be confident that the markets 

 22 are based on legitimate forces of supply and 
 35 

 1 demand and are free of fraud and manipulation. A 

 2 Commission vote today to promulgate new Final Rule 

 3 180.1 will implement this new authority. Your 

 4 vote will provide the Division of Enforcement with 

 5 a new and powerful tool that will substantially 

 6 assist us in discharging our core 

 7 responsibilities. The rule will greatly advance 

 8 the Commission's ability to bring successful 

 9 enforcement actions and deter serious misconduct. 

 10 The staff's recommendation to adopt Rule 

 11 180.1 reflects our careful review of the comments 

 12 we received and our study of the statutory and 

 13 regulatory models upon which the new law is based. 

 14 These models include Section 10(b) of the 

 15 Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 

 16 10(b)(5), as well as more recent congressional 

 17 grants and exercises of similar authority by the 

 18 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the 

 19 Federal Trade Commission. We have been guided by 

 20 these models and we have adapted them where 

 21 appropriate to fit our legal construct. 

 22 Let me briefly summarize Final Rule 
 36 

 1 180.1. The rule makes is unlawful for any person 

 2 directly or indirectly in connection with any 

 3 swap, contract of sale of a commodity in 

 4 interstate commerce or futures contract on a 

 5 registered entity, to intentionally or recklessly 

 6 engage in any of the following four categories of 

 7 conduct. First, to use or employ or attempt to 

 8 use or employ any manipulative device, scheme or 

 9 artifice to defraud. Second, to make or attempt 

 10 to make material false statements or omissions. 

 11 Third, to engage or attempt to engage in any act, 

 12 practice or course of business which operates or 

 13 would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any 

 14 person. Or fourth, to deliver or attempt to 

 15 deliver any false report that affects or tends to 

 16 affect the price of any commodity in interstate 

 17 commerce except if mistakenly submitted in good 

 18 faith to a price- reporting service. 

 19 For example, under Section 6(c)(1) and 

 20 Rule 180.1, the Commission will have the authority 

 21 to bring enforcement actions against and sanction 

 22 defendants who recklessly employ manipulative 
 37 

 1 schemes. In such cases, the Commission will not 

 2 bear the added burden of proving that the 

 3 defendant in fact caused an artificial price. The 

 4 rule recognizes that the manipulative scheme in 

 5 and of itself is harmful to the proper functioning 

 6 of markets. Prosecuting such activity will better 

 7 markets and market participants and send a strong 

 8 message of deterrence. 

 9 Under Section 6(c)(1) and Rule 180.1, 

 10 the Commission will also have the authority to 

 11 bring enforcement actions against and sanction 

 12 defendants who recklessly engage in acts of fraud 

 13 and deception in connection with swaps, commodity 

 14 and futures transactions. In this regard, we will 

 15 have advantage of looking through the lens of a 

 16 substantial body of well-settled precedent, 

 17 applying comparable laws and rules in the 

 18 securities context. We fully recognize that the 

 19 securities markets differ in important respects 

 20 from the futures and derivatives markets and so 

 21 should the interpretation and application of our 

 22 new authority. 
 38 

 1 For example, the SEC and the federal 

 2 courts have long interpreted and applied Rule 

 3 10(b)(5) to prohibit trading in a company's stock 

 4 by a company insider who is lawfully in possession 

 5 of material nonpublic information. This 

 6 prohibition in the securities markets rests on the 

 7 corporate insider's duty to disclose the 

 8 information before he is permitted to trade the 

 9 stock. The futures and derivatives markets, on 

 10 the other hand, do not impose the same legal duty 

 11 and the final rule before you expressly states 

 12 that it does not impose a duty of disclosure. 

 13 But let me be clear. Section 6(c)(1) 

 14 and Rule 180.1 do prohibit fraud in connection 

 15 with trading in futures and derivatives markets. 

 16 For example, a person who engages in fraudulent or 

 17 deceptive conduct by trading on the basis of 

 18 material nonpublic information that he has 

 19 misappropriated in breach of a preexisting duty 

 20 will now be subject to a Commission enforcement 

 21 action. 

 22 The second new provision created by 
 39 

 1 Dodd-Frank that is relevant to today's proposed 

 2 order is Commodity Exchange Act Section 6(c)(3) 

 3 entitled "Other Manipulation." The second rule 

 4 presently before the Commission, Rule 180.2, 

 5 mirrors the text of Section 6(c)(3). The purpose 

 6 of this rulemaking is to affirm and clarify 

 7 certain legal principles of the Commodity Exchange 

 8 Act's longstanding prohibition against price 

 9 manipulation. 

 10 Before concluding my remarks, I would 

 11 like to extend a special thanks to Mark Higgins 

 12 who sits on my left for his work on this 

 13 rulemaking. I would also like to thank General 

 14 Counsel Dan Berkovitz, as well as members of his 

 15 team including Steve Seitz, Mary Connolly, Ralph 

 16 Avery and Jonathan Marcus; and also Kirsten 

 17 Sonnensen and Michael Penet from the Office of the 

 18 Chief Economist for their very hard work on the 

 19 rule's cost- benefit analyses. I also would like 

 20 to acknowledge you, Commissioners, and your legal 

 21 assistants for all of your very thoughtful 

 22 comments on these rules. I am now prepared to 
 40 

 1 respond to any questions that you may have. 

 2 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, Mr. 

 3 Meister. The Chair will now entertain a motion to 

 4 accept the staff recommendation in consideration 

 5 of this final rule. 

 6 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: So moved. 

 7 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: Second. 

 8 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: I support the final 

 9 rulemaking to enhance the Commission's ability to 

 10 protect against manipulation. I think effective 

 11 regulation requires an effective enforcement 

 12 program and the Dodd-Frank Act enhances the 

 13 Commission's enforcement authorities in the 

 14 futures market and expands it in the swaps 

 15 marketplace. This rule implements Dodd-Frank 

 16 authorities to police against fraud and 

 17 fraud-based manipulative schemes based upon 

 18 similar authorities that the Securities and 

 19 Exchange Commission has long had and the Federal 

 20 Energy Regulatory Commission and the Federal Trade 

 21 Commission have had in more recent years for 

 22 securities and certain energy commodities. In the 
 41 

 1 past the CFTC has had the ability to prosecute 

 2 manipulation, but to prevail it had to prove the 

 3 specific intent of the accused to create an 

 4 artificial price. Under the new law in one of the 

 5 rules before us today, the Commission's 

 6 anti-manipulation reach is extended to prohibit 

 7 the reckless use of fraud-based manipulative 

 8 schemes. This closes a significant gap as it will 

 9 broaden the types of cases we can pursue and 

 10 improve the chances of prevailing over wrongdoers. 

 11 For the listening public, that's the key. There's 

 12 a gap right now and this helps close that gap. I 

 13 think that's what Congress intended here. 

 14 The rule also implements the Dodd-Frank 

 15 Act's price-based manipulation authority to police 

 16 against corners and squeezes. These new 

 17 authorities expand the CFTC's arsenal of 

 18 enforcement tools and strengthens the Commission's 

 19 ability to effectively deal with threats to market 

 20 integrity, and we will use the tools to be a more 

 21 effective cop on the beat to promote market 

 22 integrity and protect market participants. 
 42 

 1 I want to thank Senator Maria Cantwell 

 2 for her work to secure this important authority 

 3 for the CFTC. As the Senator explained in 

 4 proposing this authority when she did back I guess 

 5 it would have been last year about this time and 

 6 including it in the Commodity Exchange Act, "It is 

 7 a strong and clear legal standard that allows 

 8 regulators to successfully to after reckless and 

 9 manipulative behavior." 

 10 With that I don't have any questions. I 

 11 do plan to support this very important rule. 

 12 Commissioner Dunn? 

 13 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. 

 14 Chairman, and thank you to the folks that worked 

 15 so hard on this particular rule. 

 16 We got a lot of comments about examples: 

 17 Tell us what's going to be prohibited. I can 

 18 understand folks wanting to know how much can we 

 19 do before we step over the line of the law? But I 

 20 have also problems with putting our examples 

 21 because if you miss something, they'll say we can 

 22 do everything else. 
 43 

 1 David, and maybe Mark might have to help 

 2 you on this, could you go through the process that 

 3 we've had in the past of when Enforcement makes a 

 4 decision to prosecute a case, what goes into that 

 5 and what are the decision levels? And most 

 6 importantly for the public, describe when it is 

 7 presented to the Commission and what the 

 8 Commission's responsibilities are. 

 9 MR. MEISTER: Sure, Commissioner Dunn. 

 10 As a general matter, the Division of Enforcement 

 11 during the course of an investigation will review 

 12 all available evidence and obtain evidence in 

 13 order to determine whether in the division's view 

 14 the evidence rises to the level that will meet the 

 15 elements of the particular offense that we're 

 16 considering. We look at available information 

 17 like documents and witness statements and then 

 18 reach our own conclusion based on our experience 

 19 with the laws, based on our experience as trial 

 20 attorneys and we make a conclusion internally as 

 21 to whether or not we want to recommend to the 

 22 Commission to bring an enforcement action based on 
 44 

 1 the facts and the law. We then go to the 

 2 Commission with that recommendation and explain 

 3 all of the facts and law that is relevant to make 

 4 sure that the Commission is fully informed and 

 5 make the recommendation that we make. 

 6 COMMISSIONER DUNN: The point being is 

 7 it's the Commission that ultimately makes the 

 8 decision. In the past as a Commissioner I've been 

 9 concerned that when cases were presented to us on 

 10 whether or not to make a decision and we ask staff 

 11 why didn't we go after this particular incident or 

 12 this particular case, and were told that that 

 13 doesn't meet our high level that we have 

 14 established over the years in case law. These 

 15 particular rules, both 180.1 and 180.2, will give 

 16 us a greater leeway in taking action when clearly 

 17 there has been a disruption to the marketplace, 

 18 but it hasn't reached the high standards of what 

 19 we had been considering in the past. Is that 

 20 correct? 

 21 MR. MEISTER: Commissioner, particularly 

 22 Rule 180.1 will. When you're referring to a high 
 45 

 1 standard, I think what you're referring to is the 

 2 prior obligation in all manipulation cases to 

 3 prove that the defendant acted with specific 

 4 intent to create an artificial price, and under 

 5 Rule 180.1. we will now be obligated to prove that 

 6 the defendant acted with reckless intent or with 

 7 reckless scienter I should say in such a 

 8 manipulation case. I think that's what you're 

 9 getting at and I think that that's accurate. 

 10 COMMISSIONER DUNN: I believe that in 

 11 the future as future Commissions get 

 12 recommendations from staff on prosecuting 

 13 enforcement matters that regardless of what the 

 14 examples are that we're putting in here, case law 

 15 will develop that will be a clear signal to the 

 16 industry of what will be tolerated and what will 

 17 not be tolerated. And I also hasten to add that 

 18 the makeup of Commissions change over a period of 

 19 time. Some Commissions may say we want to enforce 

 20 this more than other actions and there will be a 

 21 continuum and a build up of case law that will 

 22 begin sending a very clear signal to the industry 
 46 

 1 of what will be accepted by the Commission. 

 2 David, the second real question that 

 3 I've had with you and was part of the nine 

 4 questions that I had sent to you concerns me a 

 5 great deal in the fact that are we going to have 

 6 the resources both human and fiscal to implement 

 7 this? And if we're not going to be able to 

 8 implement this, how does this hamper the 

 9 Enforcement Division on some of its current 

 10 duties? 

 11 MR. MEISTER: Yes, Commissioner. In my 

 12 view the agency is in need of additional resources 

 13 agency-wide as reflected in our budget and of 

 14 course in the President's budget. In addition, 

 15 the Division of Enforcement needs additional 

 16 resources. I would say that this rule in and of 

 17 itself will be a priority for the Division of 

 18 Enforcement for sure and we will look to 

 19 investigate and bring cases under this new 

 20 authority and I would expect that that would 

 21 remain the case for Divisions of Enforcement to 

 22 come. 
 47 

 1 In the event that we get the funding 

 2 that we seek, I think that we will be fine. In 

 3 the event we do not, Commissioner Dunn, I think 

 4 that we will have to look at our priorities and we 

 5 may have to reallocate some of the resources that 

 6 we currently have. As you and I have discussed, 

 7 Commissioner, if we're talking about reallocating 

 8 priorities within the Division of Enforcement, we 

 9 will of course consult with the Commissioners to 

 10 make sure that we are aligned with your views and 

 11 interests. 

 12 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Thank you very much. 

 13 Mr. Chairman, I intend to support this proposal. 

 14 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, 

 15 Commissioner Dunn. Commissioner Sommers? 

 16 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Thank you. I 

 17 have a couple of different questions, first with 

 18 regard to insider trading. In the history of us 

 19 implementing the Commodity Exchange Act, insiders 

 20 have been defined as CFTC Commissions and 

 21 employees and exchange staff and personnel. But 

 22 Dodd-Frank changed that or expanded that 
 48 

 1 definition of insider to include all federal 

 2 employees. As you were giving your presentation, 

 3 we do discuss in the preamble of the final rule 

 4 trading on the basis of this material nonpublic 

 5 information by insiders and that it's a breach of 

 6 a preexisting duty. My questions are all 

 7 surrounding this duty. 

 8 I'm assuming that there is not a general 

 9 duty to not trade on material nonpublic 

 10 information, but that there are more specific 

 11 duties that you're referring to with regard to 

 12 this rule and thought maybe you could give us some 

 13 examples of what specific duties we are referring 

 14 to. 

 15 MR. MEISTER: Let me address one thing 

 16 that you said in your question. You referred to 

 17 the preamble. In the preamble we say that trading 

 18 by any person in breach of a preexisting duty and 

 19 trading on the basis of material nonpublic 

 20 information that was misappropriated could rise to 

 21 the level of a fraud under the rule and under the 

 22 statute, so I just wanted to clarify. We didn't 
 49 

 1 say trading by an insider. 

 2 The duty that that I'm referring to is a 

 3 duty that could arise under the law based upon 

 4 relationships, based upon for example 

 5 confidentiality agreements, based upon some 

 6 preexisting duty that would exist and that is 

 7 recognized very clearly in the law that would 

 8 obligate a person not to trade or obligate a 

 9 person to keep information confidential, for 

 10 example. Those are duties that exist in the law 

 11 that are separate from the rule that we propose 

 12 and the rule we propose very clearly says that it 

 13 does not create such a duty. 

 14 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Thank you. My 

 15 other question is with regard to false reporting. 

 16 Over the years we've brought a number of 

 17 false-reporting cases and false reporting under 

 18 9(a)(2) has always been a separate offense apart 

 19 from manipulation or attempted manipulation, and 

 20 now Section 753 and Rule 180.1(a)(4) make 

 21 reporting in and of itself manipulation. If you 

 22 could walk us through your recommendations for 
 50 

 1 when false reporting is a separate offense and 

 2 when false reporting is manipulation. 

 3 MR. MEISTER: Generally speaking, in 

 4 various statutory schemes there are types of 

 5 conduct that might violate two statutes. That's 

 6 not uncommon. In this case, it's very difficult 

 7 to come up with any particular facts and 

 8 circumstances of course and I know that's not what 

 9 you're asking me to do, but I can envision a 

 10 circumstance where there would be a false report 

 11 for which we would recommend an action under 

 12 9(a)(2) as we have always done, and also recommend 

 13 an action under Section 6(c)(1) and Rule 180.1, so 

 14 my point is that there are times where we may well 

 15 recommend an action under both statutes at the 

 16 same time. It is new however that false reporting 

 17 is specifically defined as a manipulation under 

 18 Section 6(c)(1). 

 19 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Thank you. I 

 20 think that's helpful. 

 21 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Commissioner Chilton? 

 22 Thank you, Commissioner Sommers. 
 51 

 1 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: I don't have any 

 2 questions. I just want to thank staff for all of 

 3 your work and say this is a serious and 

 4 significant new ammo in our enforcement arsenal 

 5 and I look forward to us using it in a judicious 

 6 way. Thank you. 

 7 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, 

 8 Commissioner Chilton. Commissioner O'Malia? 

 9 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Thank you. There 

 10 is no doubt that it does provide more ammo and we 

 11 will use it. I'm certain of that. The Act uses 

 12 terms like manipulative device, manipulative 

 13 contrivance, a deceptive device and deceptive 

 14 contrivance. I'm unclear as to how we define 

 15 these terms and is there any significance to the 

 16 difference in the statutory language as it's 

 17 applied in our rule? 

 18 MR. MEISTER: The terms manipulative or 

 19 deceptive device or contrivance are terms of art 

 20 that the Supreme Court has considered and 

 21 interpreted for many years and they generally 

 22 capture fraud. In Section 10(b) law, there is 
 52 

 1 case law that says that Section 10(b) is a broad 

 2 catchall statute but what it must capture is 

 3 fraud. As I said, we look to the long line of 

 4 precedent and well- settled authority in the 

 5 securities context to assist us in making 

 6 recommendations to you and to make sure that you 

 7 are fully informed before asking you to bring any 

 8 enforcement action. 

 9 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: In your opinion, 

 10 which of these schemes is considered fraud and 

 11 which is considered fraud-based manipulation? Is 

 12 there a difference or distinction that you're 

 13 going to use here? 

 14 MR. MEISTER: I guess I can't think of a 

 15 particular hypothetical off the top of head, but 

 16 again the design of the rule and I think the 

 17 design of the statute is to broadly capture 

 18 fraudulent conduct. So you used the term 

 19 fraud-based manipulative schemes. I think you 

 20 used that earlier today. Fraud and fraud-based 

 21 manipulative schemes would be within the same 

 22 sphere. 
 53 

 1 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: The essence of 

 2 the question is to try to separate some of this 

 3 stuff and have a better understanding. 

 4 MR. MEISTER: Again the idea is to 

 5 capture fraudulent conduct without trying to draw 

 6 a line between any particular -- or without trying 

 7 to bring up an example of this would be fraudulent 

 8 conduct and this would be fraud-based 

 9 manipulation. Frankly, I do think it is clear as 

 10 to the type of conduct that we are talking about. 

 11 Again, the securities laws and securities 

 12 prosecutors and enforcement lawyers and people in 

 13 the Department of Justice as well have been 

 14 applying these statutes in the securities context 

 15 in exactly these same words for years and years 

 16 and the Supreme Court has concluded that these 

 17 words are sufficiently clear to give notice to 

 18 people who are accused of violating them. 

 19 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Let me go on to 

 20 my next question. We talk about filing with the 

 21 SEC regarding 10(b) authority, but we seem to be 

 22 selectively following different precedent. One of 
 54 

 1 the concerns I bring to your attention and it's 

 2 referenced in a footnote here is the Supreme Court 

 3 Hochfelder case. The Supreme Court said that, 

 4 "The use of manipulative is especially significant 

 5 and it was virtually a term of art when used in 

 6 connection with the securities market. It 

 7 connotes intentional or willful conduct designed 

 8 to deceive or defraud investors by controlling or 

 9 artificially affecting the price of securities." 

 10 That seems to indicate that the 

 11 securities markets meant that the conduct is 

 12 designed to defraud investors by impacting the 

 13 price of a security. However, I think our rule 

 14 says in spite of that, 6(c)(1) does not require 

 15 that the conduct was designed to impact a price in 

 16 any of our jurisdictional markets or otherwise 

 17 impact the market itself. Is that accurate? Do I 

 18 have it wrong the way our rule is being 

 19 interpreted that it does not have to have an 

 20 impact on price in our markets or it does have to 

 21 an impact on price? 

 22 MR. MEISTER: It does not have to have 
 55 

 1 an impact on price. The reference I think, and I 

 2 don't have the case in front of me, the Supreme 

 3 Court was talking about just the word manipulative 

 4 in your quote there and of course the statute that 

 5 we're talking about talks about manipulative or 

 6 deceptive devices or contrivances. But just going 

 7 to your question, Commissioner O'Malia, we do not 

 8 have to prove a price impact for Rule 180.1. 

 9 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: The Brattle Group 

 10 submitted a lengthy comment letter and proposal to 

 11 define manipulation as a form of fraud where 

 12 anomalous behavior "noneconomic, standalone 

 13 transactions for the actor to inject false or 

 14 misleading information into a market and 

 15 consequently impairs its integrity." We are not 

 16 using this definition in our rule. Why not? 

 17 MR. MEISTER: I think my own view is 

 18 that definition is narrower than the authority 

 19 that Congress gave to the Commission. 

 20 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Can you tell me 

 21 how fraud under 6(c)(1) in the File Rule 180.1 

 22 differ from the fraud under 4(b) and 4)(O)? 
 56 

 1 MR. MEISTER: Talking about 4(b), one 

 2 example is, and I think you're referring to 

 3 Section 4(b) of the Commodity Exchange Act. 

 4 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Correct. 

 5 MR. MEISTER: Under Section 4(b), it 

 6 requires proof of a fraud I believe on the 

 7 defendant's customer or counterparty and Section 

 8 6(c)(1) has no such limitation. And Section 4(o) 

 9 of the Commodity Exchange Act relates to commodity 

 10 pool operators only. Mr. Higgins points out quite 

 11 correctly that that conduct would still be covered 

 12 by Section 6(c)(1) and Rule 180.1. It's just that 

 13 those provisions that you are referring to are 

 14 narrower than Section 6(c)(1) and Rule 180.1. 

 15 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: In promulgating 

 16 the final rules under its anti-manipulation 

 17 authority to prohibit the use or employment of any 

 18 device, scheme or artifice to defraud, the FERC 

 19 defined fraud generally "to include any action, 

 20 transaction or conspiracy for the purposes of 

 21 feeding a well-functioning market." How does your 

 22 definition of fraud compare to the FERC 
 57 

 1 definition? 

 2 MR. MEISTER: I think it's tough to make 

 3 a word- to-word comparison. What I would go back 

 4 to is that under Section 6(c)(1), we would look to 

 5 apply that to all manner of fraud. It has to be 

 6 fraud and we have to prove recklessness, but the 

 7 idea is to not apply this statute restrictively 

 8 but to apply it flexively, and that's what we 

 9 would recommend doing. 

 10 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Would the 

 11 Commission involve itself in private contracts 

 12 between employers and employees in regard to a 

 13 misappropriation of information? I raise this in 

 14 connection with the FERC because I believe the 

 15 FERC declined to use its anti-fraud authority in 

 16 this area. 

 17 MR. MEISTER: I guess it would depend 

 18 upon the facts and circumstances and I think that 

 19 your question goes to my comments about the 

 20 misappropriation of material nonpublic information 

 21 in breach of a preexisting duty. Sometimes that 

 22 duty could be created by a person's contract with 
 58 

 1 another party and by breaching that contract may 

 2 rise to the level of a break of a duty which would 

 3 then trigger liability under the Act. As far as 

 4 getting involved in a particular contract, I don't 

 5 think we would get more involved than what I just 

 6 said. 

 7 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Would it have to 

 8 have an impact on the market before we got 

 9 involved or pursued these cases? 

 10 MR. MEISTER: We don't have to prove a 

 11 price impact in such a case. 

 12 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Not a price 

 13 impact. 

 14 MR. MEISTER: We don't have to prove a 

 15 market impact in the case. We would not be 

 16 recommending that that would be an element for 

 17 example of an offense. 

 18 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: One last 

 19 question. Several of the commenters raised the 

 20 concern that Rule 180.1 would apply the 

 21 Commission's fraud authority to "apply to 

 22 virtually every commercial transaction in the 
 59 

 1 economy" rather than those transactions that 

 2 impact our jurisdictional markets. The preamble 

 3 seems to dismiss this concern as "misplaced." The 

 4 preamble offers that the Commission expects to 

 5 exercise its authority under 6(c)(1) to cover 

 6 transactions related to the futures or swaps 

 7 markets or prices of commodities in interstate 

 8 commerce or where the fraud or manipulation has a 

 9 potential to affect cash commodity, futures or 

 10 swaps markets or participants in these markets. 

 11 Can you explain what's meant by that language? 

 12 MR. MEISTER: What is meant by that 

 13 language is that we would recommend actions where 

 14 appropriate and where the evidence calls for it 

 15 very mindful of the Commission's mission as 

 16 spelled out in the Act. What we were trying to 

 17 capture in the sentence or sentences that you were 

 18 referring to is just that, that we will be mindful 

 19 of the Commission's mission when we recommend 

 20 actions and I'm sure you're going to mindful of 

 21 the Commission's mission if you choose to adopt 

 22 them. 
 60 

 1 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: What is the 

 2 jurisdictional significance of the phrase "on or 

 3 subject to the rules of any registered entity?" 

 4 Is this a phrase useful in defining the 

 5 Commission's case market authority or does the 

 6 phrase only apply to futures contracts? 

 7 MR. MEISTER: I think you're referring 

 8 to a phrase in Section 6(c)(1). 

 9 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Correct. 

 10 MR. MEISTER: That's the last part of a 

 11 sentence in Section 6(c)(1) and if I am thinking 

 12 of the right phrase -- 

 13 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Let me read the 

 14 whole thing. 

 15 MR. MEISTER: Okay. 

 16 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: It says, "In 

 17 connection with any swap or contract or sale of 

 18 any commodity in interstate commerce or for the 

 19 future delivery on or subject to the rules of any 

 20 registered entity." 

 21 MR. MEISTER: I believe, my own personal 

 22 opinion, is that applies to modify just futures, 
 61 

 1 so futures contracts traded on a registered 

 2 entity. 

 3 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Are there 

 4 contracts of sale for any commodity in interstate 

 5 commerce on or subject to the rules of a 

 6 registered entity? 

 7 MR. MEISTER: I don't think that 

 8 sentence or phrase appears in the statute. 

 9 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Thank you very 

 10 much. 

 11 MR. MEISTER: Thank you. 

 12 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, 

 13 Commissioner O'Malia. I guess at this point, if 

 14 the Commissioners are prepared to vote, I would 

 15 turn to Mr. Stawick if you will call the roll. 

 16 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner O'Malia? 

 17 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Aye. 

 18 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner O'Malia, aye. 

 19 Commissioner Chilton? 

 20 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: Aye. 

 21 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Chilton, aye. 

 22 Commissioner Sommers? 
 62 

 1 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Aye. 

 2 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Sommers, aye. 

 3 Commissioner Dunn? 

 4 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Aye. 

 5 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Dunn, aye. 

 6 Mr. Chairman? 

 7 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Aye. 

 8 MR. STAWICK: Mr. Chairman, aye. Mr. 

 9 Chairman, on this matter the yeas are five, the 

 10 nays are zero. 

 11 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, Mr. 

 12 Stawick. Thank you to the Commissioners for that 

 13 vote in support of this rule and thank you, Mr. 

 14 Meister, Mr. Higgins and Mr. Berkovitz and all of 

 15 the hardworking folks who worked on this. With 

 16 the unanimous vote we'll be sending it to the 

 17 Federal Register. 

 18 I'm going to take a 5-minute recess 

 19 because that went a little longer than we thought 

 20 and so that Bruce Fekrat and others can come up to 

 21 the table, but we'll start very quickly here. 

 22 (Recess) 
 63 

 1 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: The Commission will 

 2 come back to order. We have Rich Shilts, Don 

 3 Heitman and Ryne Miller, who are going to fill us 

 4 in on the staff recommendation on the Staff 

 5 Recommendation on the Final Rule on the Definition 

 6 of Agricultural Commodity, and I turn it over to 

 7 Mr. Heitman. 

 8 MR. HEITMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 9 I'd like to at the outset thank the member of my 

 10 team, particularly Ryne who is really doing most 

 11 of the heavy lifting for the team. I'm hopeful 

 12 that this is one of those simple and 

 13 straightforward rules that Commissioner Sommers 

 14 mentioned. One of the commenters actually 

 15 referred to it as straightforward and common 

 16 sense. 

 17 The Dodd-Frank Act includes provisions 

 18 applicable to a swap in an agricultural commodity 

 19 as defined by the CFTC. Up to this point, neither 

 20 Congress now the Commission has ever promulgated a 

 21 definition of agricultural commodity for purposes 

 22 of the Commodity Exchange Act or CFTC regulations 
 64 

 1 and the final rules before the Commission today 

 2 will establish for the first time such a 

 3 regulatory definition. The definition is needed 

 4 primarily in the context of Section 723(c)(3) of 

 5 Dodd-Frank which provides that swaps in an 

 6 agricultural commodity are prohibited unless 

 7 permitted under the Commission's 4(c) general 

 8 exemptive authority. In fact, the next time the 

 9 ag swaps team comes before the Commission it will 

 10 be to present a proposed final rule pursuant to 

 11 Section 4(c) regarding the treatment of 

 12 agricultural swaps. 

 13 The proposed definition was published 

 14 for comment on October 26, 2010, and the vast 

 15 majority of the commenters supported the 

 16 definition as proposed. The final definition 

 17 before you today is identical to the proposed 

 18 rules with the exception of minor changes in 

 19 Category 4 which I will discuss in a moment. The 

 20 definition is broken down into four categories. 

 21 First, the enumerated commodities listed in 

 22 Section 1(a)(4) of the Act such as wheat, cotton, 
 65 

 1 corn, the soybean complex and livestock. Then 

 2 second, a general operational definition that 

 3 covers "all other commodities that are or once 

 4 were or are derived from living organisms 

 5 including plant, animal and aquatic life which are 

 6 generally fungible within their respective classes 

 7 and are used primarily for human food, shelter, 

 8 animal feed or natural fiber." The third category 

 9 is a catchall for commodities that would generally 

 10 be recognized as agricultural in nature but which 

 11 don't fit within the general operational 

 12 definition: Tobacco products or horticulture and 

 13 such other commodities used or consumed by animals 

 14 or humans as the Commission may by rule, 

 15 regulation or order designate after notice and 

 16 opportunity for hearing. And the fourth element 

 17 of the definition a provision applicable to 

 18 commodity-based, index-based wholly or principally 

 19 on underlying agricultural commodities. 

 20 Looking more closely at the four 

 21 categories, Category 1, the enumerated 

 22 commodities, is self- explanatory. Congress has 
 66 

 1 already said that these are ag commodities. 

 2 Category 2, the operational definition, 

 3 seeks to draw a line between products derived from 

 4 living organisms that are used for human food, 

 5 shelter, animal feed or natural fiber which would 

 6 fall within the definition, and products that are 

 7 produced through processing plant- or animal-based 

 8 inputs to create products largely used as 

 9 industrial inputs which would be outside the 

 10 definition. To give a simple example, polylactic 

 11 acid, a corn derivative, is used in biodegradable 

 12 packing and that falls outside the definition. So 

 13 if you buy a bag of corn chips in a biodegradable 

 14 bag, the chips are an agricultural commodity, but 

 15 the package is not. Also, as requested by several 

 16 commenters, the preamble to the final rule makes 

 17 clear that Category 2 is self-executing, i.e., it 

 18 doesn't require any additional Commission action 

 19 to apply the definition. Something is either in 

 20 the definition or out regardless of whether it's 

 21 traded for future delivery or not. 

 22 Category 3, as I noted, includes 
 67 

 1 commodities that don't readily fit within the 

 2 first two categories but would generally be 

 3 recognized as agricultural in nature, and the 

 4 examples in the definition are tobacco and 

 5 products or horticulture, for example, ornamental 

 6 plants. Anything else used or consumed by humans 

 7 or animals that doesn't fit within Categories 1 or 

 8 2 the Commission could deal with under this 

 9 category on a case-by-case basis as questions 

 10 arise in the context of specific markets or 

 11 products. 

 12 Category 4 is the only category that has 

 13 been amended. First, we replaced the references 

 14 to contracts with references to indexes to make it 

 15 clear that this category applies to 

 16 commodity-based indexes rather than 

 17 commodity-based contracts on an index. Secondly, 

 18 in response to concerns raised by commenters, we 

 19 revised the category to apply to indexes based 

 20 wholly or principally on underlying agricultural 

 21 commodities, commodities generally rather than 

 22 based wholly or principally on a single 
 68 

 1 agricultural commodity which is what the original 

 2 proposal had said. 

 3 For example, if you had an index that 

 4 was composed of 25 percent each wheat, corn, 

 5 soybeans and gold, that would fall under the 

 6 definition now. Should the Commission sometime in 

 7 the future impose limitations on agricultural 

 8 swaps, this fourth provision would prevent anyone 

 9 from using agricultural-based commodity indexes to 

 10 replicate the terms of otherwise restricted 

 11 agricultural swaps. In fact, however, the 

 12 proposed agricultural swaps rules recommended 

 13 treating agricultural swaps exactly like every 

 14 other kind of swap and virtually all of the 

 15 commenters supported that approach. Therefore, 

 16 assuming that those final rules are consistent 

 17 with the Commission's proposal and the commenters' 

 18 views, the index provision would have no 

 19 substantial effect or no substantive effect, 

 20 excuse me. There would be no incentive for 

 21 regulatory arbitrage between an agricultural swap 

 22 and some kind of economically equivalent 
 69 

 1 index-based swap because both transactions would 

 2 be subject to the same regulatory scheme, and the 

 3 same would hold true for agricultural swaps 

 4 subject to the other three categories of the 

 5 definition. They would be regulated no 

 6 differently than swaps in any other commodity. 

 7 Similarly, with respect to position 

 8 limits these rules would have no substantive 

 9 effect. The position limits as proposed would 

 10 apply to positions in specific reference 

 11 contracts, to the relevant question becomes 

 12 whether a contact on an index is economically 

 13 equivalent to a reference contract, not whether an 

 14 index is or is not an agricultural commodity. In 

 15 the last analysis, therefore, this definition will 

 16 provide legal certainly regarding whether any 

 17 given commodity or is not an agricultural 

 18 commodity, but it will not have any significant 

 19 practical effect because those commodities will be 

 20 regulated in exactly the same manner regardless 

 21 whether they fall inside or outside the 

 22 definition. 
 70 

 1 I'll be happy to answer any questions 

 2 that the Commission has. 

 3 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Don, thank you very 

 4 much. I'll entertain on the staff recommendation 

 5 on the final rule on agricultural commodities. 

 6 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: So moved. 

 7 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: Second. 

 8 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you. I support 

 9 the final rulemaking to define the term 

 10 agricultural commodity. The Dodd-Frank Act 

 11 requires that agricultural commodities be defined 

 12 in a separate rulemaking and the Commission will 

 13 then determine the requirements to apply to swaps 

 14 on agricultural commodities which I look forward 

 15 to doing and I know that we put that proposal out 

 16 separately and got public, but today is just doing 

 17 the workaday thing of defining agricultural 

 18 commodity and I think Don, Rick and Ryne and the 

 19 rest of the staff has done an excellent job, we 

 20 did get public comment and I will be supporting 

 21 this rule. 

 22 Commissioner Dunn, a statement or 
 71 

 1 questions from Chicago? 

 2 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Mr. Chairman, I'd 

 3 like to thank staff for working on this and in 

 4 particular their interaction with the Agricultural 

 5 Advisory Committee, and I intend to support this 

 6 proposal. 

 7 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Commissioner Sommers? 

 8 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: I don't have any 

 9 questions, but just want to thank Don and his team 

 10 for a good job. Thanks. 

 11 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Commissioner Chilton? 

 12 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: I don't have any 

 13 questions. Thank you, Don. And I also want to 

 14 thank one of our former colleagues, David Johnson, 

 15 who's not here today and is back at Senate ag, but 

 16 he worked on this rule, too, and you all did a 

 17 good job. Thank you. 

 18 MR. HEITMAN: Dave was invaluable while 

 19 he was here and we miss him. 

 20 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: He's still 

 21 invaluable. He's serving in a different way. 

 22 MR. HEITMAN: He's invaluable to the 
 72 

 1 country now. He's not doing me any good. 

 2 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Hopefully he will. 

 3 Commissioner O'Malia? 

 4 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: No questions. 

 5 Thank you very much for your hard work on this 

 6 one. Good rule. 

 7 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Mr. Stawick? 

 8 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner O'Malia? 

 9 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Aye. 

 10 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner O'Malia, aye. 

 11 Commissioner Chilton? 

 12 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: Aye. 

 13 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Chilton, aye. 

 14 Commissioner Sommers? 

 15 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Aye. 

 16 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Sommers, aye. 

 17 Commissioner Dunn? 

 18 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Aye. 

 19 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Dunn? 

 20 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Aye. Commissioner 

 21 Dunn, aye. Mr. Chairman? 

 22 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Aye. 
 73 

 1 MR. STAWICK: Mr. Chairman, aye. Mr. 

 2 Chairman, on this matter the yeas are five, the 

 3 nays are zero. 

 4 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Then Mr. Stawick, I 

 5 thank you with the vote to send this on. We'll be 

 6 sending it to the Federal Register and I want to 

 7 thank the entire team. 

 8 I think Carl Kennedy, you're going to be 

 9 up next. I don't know where the rest of your team 

 10 is, but we'll give them a few minutes to get up 

 11 here. Carl Kennedy and Gail Scott, I guess you're 

 12 presenting both of these rules on privacy matters. 

 13 MR. KENNEDY: Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. 

 14 Good morning, Commissioners, and thank you, 

 15 Chairman Gensler, for the opportunity to present 

 16 today. Before I begin I would like to thank my 

 17 team for their assistance in preparing two final 

 18 rulemakings that we present today for your 

 19 consideration and vote. 

 20 The first rulemaking that I present 

 21 today is required under Section 1088 of the 

 22 Dodd-Frank Act. Section 1088 amends certain 
 74 

 1 provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and 

 2 the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 

 3 1993 by requiring the CFTC to establish two new 

 4 requirements. Essentially these two requirements 

 5 are intended to provide privacy protections to 

 6 customers of CFTC regulated entities. One 

 7 requirement establishes a regime for consumer to 

 8 opt out of receiving affiliate marketing 

 9 solicitations. The other requirement mandates 

 10 CFTC-regulated entities to develop and implement 

 11 written disposal plans with respect to any 

 12 nonpublic consumer information in their 

 13 possession. 

 14 Prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank 

 15 Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other acts 

 16 related to consumer privacy required other federal 

 17 regulators to jointly promulgate affiliate 

 18 marketing disposal rules. The FTC, SEC, FDIC and 

 19 other federal regulators all have prescribed final 

 20 rules to date. Staff believes that many of our 

 21 regulated entities already may be complying with 

 22 the affiliate marketing and disposal rules of 
 75 

 1 other federal regulators. As a result, we do not 

 2 believe that this rulemaking will create a 

 3 significant cost burden on our regulated entities. 

 4 Following the publication of the CFTC's 

 5 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 27, 2010, 

 6 the Commission received a total of four comment 

 7 letters in response to the Proposed Affiliate 

 8 Marketing and Disposal Rules. All the comments 

 9 received can be characterized as minor. The final 

 10 rule under consideration today is substantially 

 11 similar to what the CFTC proposed. Based on the 

 12 comment that we did receive, staff has revised the 

 13 final rule text in a few places so that the text 

 14 is more consistent with the rule texts of the 

 15 other federal agencies' rules. In addition, staff 

 16 has revised the definition of consumer to ensure 

 17 that it does cover individuals who are not 

 18 intended to be protected under the Fair Credit 

 19 Reporting Act. Staff has made changes to its 

 20 cost-benefit consideration sections as well as its 

 21 Paperwork Reduction Act analysis also in response 

 22 to comments. Lastly, staff has staggered and 
 76 

 1 extended the effective date of the Affiliate 

 2 Marketing and Disposal Rules in a way that I'll 

 3 describe shortly. 

 4 I'll now briefly describe the scope and 

 5 the effective date of the new Part 162 which will 

 6 include both the requirements related to affiliate 

 7 marketing and the disposal information held by 

 8 CFTC regulated entities. This rulemaking will 

 9 apply to the following types of CFTC regulated 

 10 entities because of the increased likelihood that 

 11 these entities come in contact with nonpublic 

 12 consumer information, futures commission 

 13 merchants, retail foreign exchange dealers, 

 14 commodity trading advisers, commodity pool 

 15 operators, introducing brokers, swap dealers and 

 16 major swap participants. 

 17 Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act does not 

 18 create a deadline for this rulemaking. Commenters 

 19 to the proposal request that the new Part 162 have 

 20 an effective date of 9 months following the 

 21 publication on the Federal Register instead of 

 22 what we proposed which was July 21, 2011. Staff 
 77 

 1 disagreed with commenters in that, as I mentioned 

 2 previously, staff does not believe that many of 

 3 its existing regulated entities will need 9 months 

 4 to comply with the regulation since we believe 

 5 that many of these entities are already complying 

 6 with the other federal agencies' Fair Credit 

 7 Reporting Act rules. Staff recommends that the 

 8 new Part 162 become effective 120 days following 

 9 the date of publication in the Federal Register 

 10 for existing regulated entities. With respect to 

 11 swap dealers and major swap participants, we 

 12 recommend that the new Part 162 becomes effective 

 13 60 days from the date of publication of the final 

 14 entities' definition rules which will be voted on 

 15 later this year. 

 16 I will now briefly describe the 

 17 requirements regarding affiliate marketing. 

 18 CFTC's Affiliated Marketing Rule gives consumers 

 19 the right to block CFTC-regulated entities from 

 20 using certain nonpublic consumer information 

 21 obtained from an affiliate to make solicitations 

 22 to those consumers. The purpose of the Affiliated 
 78 

 1 Marketing Rule is to help consumers deal with 

 2 solicitations from businesses with which they have 

 3 no prior business relationship. The General 

 4 Notice requirement under this rule provides that 

 5 affiliates can only make solicitations to a 

 6 consumer based on that consumer's information if, 

 7 one, the consumer is given clear, conspicuous and 

 8 concise notice; two, the consumer is given a 

 9 reasonable opportunity to opt out of the use of 

 10 their information for marketing purposes; and 

 11 three, the consumer does not opt out. 

 12 It is important to note that this rule 

 13 does not prohibit the sharing of information with 

 14 or among affiliates but, instead, only prohibits 

 15 the use of that information for marketing 

 16 purposes. The final Affiliated Marketing Rule 

 17 sets out which party has the responsibility for 

 18 providing notice, exceptions to the General Notice 

 19 requirement, the required contents of the notice, 

 20 what constitutes a reasonable opportunity to opt 

 21 out and finally what constitutes a reasonable and 

 22 simple method of opting out. 
 79 

 1 I'll now provide a brief description of 

 2 the requirements related to the disposal of 

 3 consumer information. Section 1088 of the 

 4 Dodd-Frank Act also directs the Commission to 

 5 promulgate rules dealing with the disposal of 

 6 consumer information. Our final rule requires 

 7 CFTC-related entities to reasonably dispose of 

 8 consumer report information in their possession 

 9 related to their business activities. This rule 

 10 is meant to prevent the unauthorized access to 

 11 consumer information. The final disposal rules do 

 12 not define what reasonable disposal measures are. 

 13 Instead, the final rules set forth a list of 

 14 examples. Staff believes that the final rule 

 15 provides our regulated entities with a sufficient 

 16 amount of flexibility to develop and implement a 

 17 plan that fits the size and complexity of their 

 18 businesses. 

 19 This concludes my summary of the two 

 20 requirements that are included in the new Part 

 21 162. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to 

 22 answer any questions. 
 80 

 1 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you very much. 

 2 I'll entertain a motion to accept the staff 

 3 recommendation. 

 4 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: So moved. 

 5 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: I'll second it. 

 6 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: Second. 

 7 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: I support the final 

 8 rulemaking to extend to consumers of 

 9 CFTC-regulated entities protections preventing 

 10 certain business affiliating marketing and 

 11 establishing other consumer information 

 12 protections under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

 13 The rulemaking protects consumers by providing 

 14 privacy protections to nonpublic consumer 

 15 information held by entities that are not subject 

 16 to the jurisdiction of the Commission, and the 

 17 final rulemaking provides consumers of 

 18 CFTC-regulated entities with the same privacy 

 19 protections now enjoyed by consumers of entities 

 20 regulated by other federal agencies. I gather we 

 21 weren't included many years ago under the Fair 

 22 Credit Reporting Act. 
 81 

 1 MR. KENNEDY: We were not. 

 2 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: So this just brings 

 3 us into a regime and consumers then or consumers 

 4 of regulated entities of the CFTC will get those 

 5 similar protections. The rulemaking has two 

 6 important features. First, it allows consumers to 

 7 prohibit Commission-related entities from using 

 8 certain consumer information obtained from 

 9 affiliates and to make solicitations to them 

 10 unless the consumer wants that to happen and they 

 11 can certainly get, and this will be done through 

 12 an opt out. Second, it requires 

 13 Commission-regulated entities to develop and 

 14 implement written programs and procedures for the 

 15 proper disposal of consumer information, and the 

 16 rulemaking will help prevent the unauthorized use 

 17 and disclosure of nonpublic information. 

 18 I'm going to support the rule. I don't 

 19 have any questions. I turn to Commissioner Dunn. 

 20 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. 

 21 Chairman. I, too, will be supporting this. I 

 22 appreciate the work of the team and the follow-up 
 82 

 1 information that I had asked from them and from 

 2 the division director. 

 3 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: I don't have any 

 4 questions. Thank you, Carl, to you and your whole 

 5 team. 

 6 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: I don't any 

 7 questions, and thank you for your work. I 

 8 appreciate the work on the rule. Thank you. 

 9 MR. KENNEDY: Thank you. 

 10 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Carl, in your 

 11 statement you'd indicated that you ignored the 

 12 commenters' request for additional time because 

 13 you believed that they were already complying with 

 14 other federally regulated entities or regulatory 

 15 bodies, and the Chairman said we're kind of 

 16 bringing the CFTC into this new regulatory regime. 

 17 Is all of that correct? 

 18 MR. KENNEDY: Yes. 

 19 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: So we've got all 

 20 these other regulators already doing this, looking 

 21 at these firms, et cetera, we're going to be a 

 22 little new to this so I see where we have some 
 83 

 1 additional requirements. But your team has told 

 2 us that the estimate is an additional six FTEs 

 3 will be needed for the CFTC to fulfill its 

 4 regulatory responsibilities in relation to the two 

 5 rules you talked about including four for the 

 6 Division of Enforcement. Six people to do 

 7 something? Really? 

 8 MR. KENNEDY: In consultation with DCIO 

 9 and other staff, we believe that that's what we'll 

 10 need. 

 11 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: It will take six 

 12 people full-time doing these two little rules? 

 13 MR. KENNEDY: Correct. 

 14 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: I find that hard 

 15 to believe. I have no further questions. 

 16 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Mr. Stawick? 

 17 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner O'Malia? 

 18 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Aye. 

 19 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner O'Malia, aye. 

 20 Commissioner Chilton? 

 21 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: Aye. 

 22 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Chilton, aye. 
 84 

 1 Commissioner Sommers? 

 2 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Aye. 

 3 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Sommers, aye. 

 4 Commissioner Dunn? 

 5 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Aye. 

 6 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Dunn, aye. 

 7 Mr. Chairman? 

 8 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Aye. 

 9 MR. STAWICK: Mr. Chairman, aye. Mr. 

 10 Chairman, on this matter the yeas are five and the 

 11 nays are zero. 

 12 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, Mr. 

 13 Stawick and thank you, Commissioners. Carl and 

 14 Gail are about to give us another presentation, 

 15 but we'll send this one to the Federal Register as 

 16 well. 

 17 MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Chairman. This 

 18 rulemaking is promulgated under Section 1093 of 

 19 the Dodd- Frank Act. This section amends Title 5 

 20 of the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act to affirm the 

 21 Commission's authority to promulgate privacy rules 

 22 protecting consumer information. I think it's 
 85 

 1 important to note that this rule primarily covers 

 2 non-affiliate sharing of information, whereas the 

 3 final rulemaking under the Fair Credit Reporting 

 4 Act relates to an affiliate's use of consumer 

 5 information for marketing purposes. 

 6 The Commission's rules under Title V of 

 7 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act presently are found in 

 8 Part 160 of our regulations. In general, Part 160 

 9 requires a financial institution to provide 

 10 initial and annual notices to consumers about its 

 11 privacy policies and practices. Part 160 also 

 12 describes the conditions under which a financial 

 13 institution may disclose nonpublic personal 

 14 information about consumers to nonaffiliated third 

 15 parties. And lastly, it provides a method for 

 16 consumers to prevent a financial institution from 

 17 disclosing this information to most nonaffiliated 

 18 third parties by opting out of that disclosure. 

 19 Currently the term financial institution 

 20 includes futures commission merchants, commodity 

 21 trading advisers, commodity pool operators, 

 22 introducing brokers and retail foreign exchange 
 86 

 1 dealers. This final rule under consideration 

 2 today simply seeks to amend Part 160 to expand the 

 3 scope to include swap dealers and major swap 

 4 participants. In Part 160 and the amendments, 

 5 it's important to note that staff statutory 

 6 definitions of these terms as they may be further 

 7 defined by the Commission. 

 8 In addition, the final rule does make a 

 9 number of small textual changes to Part 160. For 

 10 instance, Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act created 

 11 the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and 

 12 transferred a number of consumer protection 

 13 authorities away from several federal agencies to 

 14 the new bureau. The final rule, accordingly, 

 15 removes all references to the FTC in our Part 160 

 16 rules and changes those references to the bureau. 

 17 Following the publication of our proposed 

 18 rulemaking on October 27 of last year, we received 

 19 a total of six comment letters. However, only two 

 20 were substantive and all the comments can 

 21 basically characterize as being minor. 

 22 The commenters' main comment was that 
 87 

 1 they sought clarification to some of the 

 2 statements that were made in the Paperwork 

 3 Reduction Act calculations. Staff considered 

 4 these comments and has accordingly amended its 

 5 final Paperwork Reduction Act accordingly. Like 

 6 in the previous rule presented and voted on today, 

 7 commenters also requested that amendments to Part 

 8 160 have an effective date of 9 months from the 

 9 date of publication. Staff again disagrees and 

 10 believes that for our existing regulated entities, 

 11 they will not need 9 months so we have tied the 

 12 effective date of the amendments to Part 160 to 

 13 the effective date with respect to the Part 162 

 14 rules that you voted on today. 

 15 Then with respect to swap dealers and 

 16 major swap participants, similarly we've 

 17 recommended that the effective date with respect 

 18 to those entities become effective 60 days after 

 19 the date of publication of the final entities' 

 20 definition rules which will be voted on later this 

 21 year. 

 22 This concludes my presentation of the 
 88 

 1 rulemaking under Section 1093. Again, I thank you 

 2 for your time and I'm happy to answer to any 

 3 questions that you have. 

 4 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: I'll entertain a 

 5 motion for the staff recommendation on the final 

 6 rule on the privacy pieces of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. 

 7 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: So moved. 

 8 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: Second. 

 9 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: I also will be 

 10 supporting the final rulemaking to expand the 

 11 scope of privacy protections for consumer 

 12 financial information under the Gramm-Leach- 

 13 Bliley Act. The rulemaking expands the scope of 

 14 the Commission's existing privacy protections 

 15 afforded to consumer information under the 

 16 Commission's current existing Part 160 rules to 

 17 swap dealers and major swap participants. Of 

 18 course it would go effective later when we've 

 19 finished those definitions. 

 20 So I'll be supporting this rule, and 

 21 turn to Commissioner Dunn for any questions, 

 22 statements or comments. 
 89 

 1 COMMISSIONER DUNN: I will be supporting 

 2 this, Mr. Chairman, but, once again, it points out 

 3 the need for definitions to be out. 

 4 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Agreed. 

 5 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: I do have one 

 6 quick question. Because what this rule does is 

 7 just extend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley provisions to 

 8 FCMs, IBs, CPOs, CTAs and RFEDs that already 

 9 comply with this, it extends it to swap dealers 

 10 and major swap participants, are there any 

 11 provisions that are in this rule that are changes 

 12 to what's currently in place for our current 

 13 registrants so that it would change anything for 

 14 FCMs, IBs, CPOs, CTAs or RFEDs? 

 15 MR. KENNEDY: There is one, again, minor 

 16 change to a section that talks about the way that 

 17 state laws interact with the provisions in Part 

 18 160, and says that to the extent that state law 

 19 conflicts with the provisions in Part 160 that 

 20 state law should prevail. The language was 

 21 changed. We changed the language. Title X 

 22 Dodd-Frank amended the language in 
 90 

 1 Gramm-Leach-Bliley, so we did amend the language 

 2 accordingly. But in terms of it being an actual 

 3 change, it's more textual than any sort of 

 4 substantive change. 

 5 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: We conform with 

 6 what Dodd- Frank said, but it really is no change 

 7 for our registrants? 

 8 MR. KENNEDY: Absolutely. It's still 

 9 that our registrants should defer to state law. 

 10 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Thank you. 

 11 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Commissioner Chilton? 

 12 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: No questions. 

 13 Thank you for your work. 

 14 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Commissioner O'Malia? 

 15 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Let me just come 

 16 back to this budget question. What will be keep 

 17 our people doing in surveilling and enforcing on 

 18 this rule if we're relying on other regulators, 

 19 are you just indicated to Commissioner Sommers 

 20 that will rely on state laws? What are going to 

 21 keep our six new FTEs so busy with in surveilling 

 22 for this? 
 91 

 1 MR. KENNEDY: It's my understanding, 

 2 again, in consultation with DCIO staff, that the 

 3 persons who currently have experience with these 

 4 rules, someone who is on my team, some of their 

 5 pre-Dodd-Frank functions, they would have to start 

 6 working on that in order to focus on monitoring 

 7 NFA or any SROs' administration of these rules. 

 8 So it was the recommendation in consultation with 

 9 DCIO staff to request additional staff to manage 

 10 NFA and/or an SRO. And in terms of DOE staff, it 

 11 was also the recommendation that we increase 

 12 staffing there. 

 13 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: I realize you're 

 14 not the budget guy on this one and I don't want to 

 15 put you on the spot too much here, but we're going 

 16 to watch NFA watching the registrants? 

 17 MR. KENNEDY: Yes. 

 18 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Exactly what are 

 19 we watching for watching NFA watch the 

 20 registrants? 

 21 MR. KENNEDY: In terms of managing their 

 22 administration of these rules to make sure that 
 92 

 1 when they're conducting audits to make sure that 

 2 they are in fact ensuring that our registrants are 

 3 complying with these rules. Just having staff on 

 4 hand to make sure that the inspections are taking 

 5 place and that they're in accordance with our 

 6 rules and regulations. 

 7 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Thank you. 

 8 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Mr. Stawick. It 

 9 might be a long roll call because Commissioner 

 10 Chilton may have gotten coffee or something, but 

 11 why don't you try to do it and then we'll pause? 

 12 MR. STAWICK: Yes, sir. Commissioner 

 13 O'Malia? 

 14 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Aye. 

 15 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner O'Malia, aye. 

 16 Commissioner Chilton? 

 17 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: Aye. 

 18 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Chilton, aye. 

 19 Commissioner Sommers? 

 20 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Aye. 

 21 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Sommers, aye. 

 22 Commissioner Dunn? 
 93 

 1 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Aye. 

 2 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Dunn, aye. 

 3 Mr. Chairman? 

 4 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Aye. 

 5 MR. STAWICK: Mr. Chairman, aye. Mr. 

 6 Chairman, on this matter the yeas are five, the 

 7 nays are zero. 

 8 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, Mr. 

 9 Stawick. Thank you Commissioners, Carl and Gail. 

 10 With that I think we'll be sending this to the 

 11 Federal Register. 

 12 Next is large-trader reporting. Mr. 

 13 Fekrat, why don't you walk us through, Ali, Rick 

 14 and Dan, large-trader reporting, and we'll look 

 15 forward to the staff recommendation here? 

 16 MR. FEKRAT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman 

 17 and Commissioners. Before beginning I would like 

 18 to take a moment to thank all of you and your 

 19 legal assistants for your direction and guidance 

 20 throughout the whole process. I would also take a 

 21 moment to thank some staff members who were a very 

 22 important part of this rulemaking: Carlene Kim, 
 94 

 1 Neil Kumar, Steve Sherrod, Ali Hosseini, Salman 

 2 Banai and Tom Littlefield. 

 3 The Commission today is considering the 

 4 adoption of large swaps trader reporting rules. 

 5 The reporting rules that are before the Commission 

 6 if they are adopted will be the first systematic 

 7 and comprehensive collection of swaps and swaption 

 8 data by any financial regulatory body domestically 

 9 or internationally. The new rules if adopted will 

 10 require clearing organizations, clearing members 

 11 and swap dealers to provide principal and 

 12 counterparty position reports on physical 

 13 commodity swaps linked to a discrete set of listed 

 14 futures contracts. The new rules will also apply 

 15 recordkeeping and production requirements to 

 16 reportable swaps traders. When fully implemented, 

 17 the rules will enable the Commission to meet its 

 18 regulatory responsibilities by serving as the 

 19 cornerstone of an effective surveillance program 

 20 providing value insight into the size and 

 21 complexity of a vital but previously opaque 

 22 marketplace in futures-linked physical commodity 
 95 

 1 swaps. The reporting rules will also support the 

 2 Commission's transparency initiatives such as its 

 3 commitments of trader reports and index and 

 4 investment reports and will allow for the 

 5 monitoring and compliance with any trading 

 6 requirements or limits that may be established by 

 7 the Commission. 

 8 The regulations will collect data on 

 9 swaps and swaptions linked to 46 physical 

 10 commodity futures contracts listed on designated 

 11 contract markets. A swaps position would be 

 12 deemed reportable if it is in any one futures 

 13 equivalent month comprised of 50 or more 

 14 economically equivalent swaps on a futures 

 15 equivalent basis based on the same commodity 

 16 underlying the contracts covered by the 

 17 regulation. In order to obviate potential burdens 

 18 associated with mapping systems to identify 

 19 reportable positions as described earlier, 

 20 reporting entities would have the discretion to 

 21 deem one economically equivalent swap to be a 

 22 reportable position. The final regulations 
 96 

 1 contemplate staggered compliance dates for 

 2 different categories of reporting firms. Clearing 

 3 organization and members and persons with books 

 4 and records obligations would be required to 

 5 comply with the regulations 60 days after their 

 6 publication in the Federal Register. Swap dealers 

 7 that are not clearing members would comply upon 

 8 the effective date of final regulations further 

 9 defining the term swap dealer. 

 10 In addition, the Commission may permit a 

 11 risk- free reporting period for up to 6 months 

 12 from the effective date of the rulemaking whereby 

 13 data elements that are reported or the frequency 

 14 of reporting may be different than those 

 15 prescribed by the regulations. The Commission is 

 16 contemplating also extending compliance dates by 

 17 additional months for certain swap dealers that 

 18 may not be financial entities. 

 19 At this time I'm happy to answer any of 

 20 your questions. 

 21 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you very much, 

 22 Bruce. I need to entertain a motion first to 
 97 

 1 accept the staff recommendation. 

 2 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: So moved. 

 3 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Second. 

 4 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you for that 

 5 motion and second to take the staff 

 6 recommendation. I guess I was supposed to say as 

 7 amended. I support the final rulemaking to 

 8 establish large-trader reporting for physical 

 9 commodity swaps. I think this is one of the 

 10 significant rulemakings that we'll have as Bruce 

 11 said because it gives us for the first time and 

 12 enables the CFTC to receive data from large 

 13 traders in the commodity swaps marketplace. The 

 14 American public has benefited for decades in that 

 15 we've had similar authority in the futures 

 16 marketplace and the Commission's ability to gather 

 17 that large-trader reporting in the futures 

 18 marketplace helps us to oversee the markets, to 

 19 police the markets, but also every Friday the 

 20 American public can see the results because we 

 21 aggregate that data and put it out in Commitments 

 22 and Trader Reports and I think markets have 
 98 

 1 greater transparency just because we collect that 

 2 data. 

 3 Today's large trader reporting 

 4 rulemaking establishes that clearinghouses and 

 5 swap dealers will have to report to the CFTC about 

 6 swap activities of large traders in the physical 

 7 swaps market, and we'll have the similar ability 

 8 to aggregate data, to look at the markets and 

 9 police those markets. Over time as a result of 

 10 the Dodd-Frank Act, the markets will benefit from 

 11 swap data repositories, but we don't have them 

 12 yet. So today's rulemaking will enable the 

 13 Commission to gather important swaps data until 

 14 these swap data repositories are robust, 

 15 well-regulated swap data repositories. This data 

 16 will be useful for the Commission to monitor and 

 17 police the markets, and as I say, potentially 

 18 aggregate date and put it out on our website so 

 19 the market can benefit from that. And including 

 20 hopefully establishing with support of the 

 21 Commission, enforcing position limits ultimately 

 22 with the use of this data. 
 99 

 1 So I will be supporting this rule. 

 2 Commissioner Dunn? 

 3 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. 

 4 Chairman. I have some concerns on getting the 

 5 data and how we're going to store it, but I'll 

 6 leave those questions for later on as they do the 

 7 implementation. But I do have a series of 

 8 questions that I want to ask. When the contract 

 9 becomes effective presuming we don't have swap 

 10 dealers definitions at the time, the only people 

 11 who will be required to comply are clearinghouses, 

 12 clearing members and persons with books and 

 13 records obligations. Looking at just this subset, 

 14 can we estimate what percentage of 

 15 over-the-counter markets we will be seeing? 

 16 MR. FEKRAT: It's very difficult to 

 17 answer that right now because we don't collect 

 18 comprehensive data. This is a question we could 

 19 probably answer much more intelligently once we 

 20 actually do collect the data for several months. 

 21 One thing to note, however, is that there is a 

 22 special call requirement that is effective 60 days 
 100 

 1 after the rulemaking and that applies to any 

 2 person with a reportable position. So if we 

 3 determine that we need to do something to get 

 4 additional information to answer a question like 

 5 that, we have the authority to do that. 

 6 MR. SHILTS: And, Commissioner, I might 

 7 add that I think it also might vary a little bit 

 8 by commodity group or even asset type because I 

 9 think a lot of the -- through the work of 

 10 ClearPort and ICE, many in the energy swaps are 

 11 being cleared now is our understanding, but maybe 

 12 in some other agricultural areas you don't have as 

 13 many that are cleared. But as Bruce said, that's 

 14 something we'll get more information on and then 

 15 if we need to supplement the information we get we 

 16 can use the special call authority. 

 17 COMMISSIONER DUNN: I'm a little 

 18 concerned because this data is what we will be 

 19 basing position limits on and if we don't have a 

 20 clear idea of what the total universe is out 

 21 there, won't it be difficult for us to be 

 22 establishing these position limits based on that 
 101 

 1 proposed rule? 

 2 MR. SHILTS: As we go to make a proposal 

 3 on limits, the idea is that we would be getting 

 4 this information and/or have this available. And 

 5 I think as Bruce said, as this starts coming in 

 6 and as we do further work working with the 

 7 potential swap data repositories, we should be 

 8 getting a much better feel for the scope of the 

 9 information that we're getting. And as I said, I 

 10 think in some areas I think we do have a pretty 

 11 good feel for roughly the amount of swaps that 

 12 potentially would be captured because, as I said, 

 13 for some commodity areas there is a significant 

 14 amount that's already being cleared through the 

 15 various initiatives of the clearinghouses, but 

 16 it's something that we'll have to continue to 

 17 focus on and see how as we get the information and 

 18 as we do further with the swap data repositories, 

 19 we should get a much better handle on that. 

 20 COMMISSIONER DUNN: The reality is we 

 21 probably won't begin seeing some of that 

 22 information then until 60 days after the adoption 
 102 

 1 of the definition of swap dealers. 

 2 MR. FEKRAT: We'll be getting data on 

 3 cleared swaps and the requirements also extend to 

 4 clearing members. Some of the clearing members 

 5 may also be swap dealers and they may also engage 

 6 in activities that involve uncleared swaps. So 

 7 we're not clearing on the quality of the data or 

 8 the quantity of the data that we would be getting 

 9 and that may vary from market to market. We 

 10 certainly have the special call authority to use 

 11 if we need to refine the data that we're getting 

 12 or we want to target a specific collection of data 

 13 to allow us to see the size of the market. So we 

 14 do have tools to work with and we're going to be 

 15 dedicated to getting this rulemaking system up and 

 16 running and we are confident that the industry is 

 17 going to be working with us to do this as well. 

 18 We anticipate that although we don't 

 19 have a definition for swap dealer, we do have 

 20 statutory definitions that are out there and 

 21 regardless of their effectiveness, many people do 

 22 know or should know where they stand, what side of 
 103 

 1 the line they are, and we anticipate that they 

 2 will be anxious to report to us regardless of 

 3 being designated as a swap dealer conclusively. 

 4 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Does the division 

 5 then contemplate doing a special call concurrent 

 6 with the implementation data of this final 

 7 regulation? 

 8 MR. FEKRAT: Yes. We can do a special 

 9 call on anyone with a reportable position and that 

 10 doesn't matter whether they're registered with us, 

 11 not registered with us, cleared swaps, uncleared 

 12 swaps, a swap dealer or not. We can collect data 

 13 from anyone with a reportable position. 

 14 COMMISSIONER DUNN: I didn't ask if we 

 15 could do it. I asked do we anticipate doing it? 

 16 MR. SHILTS: I think at this time we 

 17 don't have a specific plan, but as Bruce said, 

 18 that is a tool in our arsenal that we can use as 

 19 we start getting the information to kind of 

 20 supplement our knowledge of what individual 

 21 traders or clearing members have with respect to 

 22 their swaps positions. But that's not part of 
 104 

 1 what we have now, a specific timetable for issuing 

 2 those, but it's something we will be considering 

 3 as we get closer to the effective date. 

 4 MR. FEKRAT: And it will be up to our 

 5 staff in surveillance and the Commission to 

 6 determine whether we need to collect that data and 

 7 whether it will have utility in terms of providing 

 8 information to other rulemakings. I think at that 

 9 time the team members and the Commission will 

 10 decide whether they need to do that. 

 11 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Let me thank the 

 12 staff for the tremendous job they did on this. 

 13 Mr. Chairman, I have commended these folks on the 

 14 format they used. I found it most helpful for me 

 15 in understanding the comments that came in and I 

 16 would like to see the rest of them use this same 

 17 type of format. They did an excellent job on it 

 18 and I intend to support this proposal. 

 19 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, 

 20 Commissioner Dunn. Message to team leads yet to 

 21 go in July through the end of this year, 

 22 Commissioner Dunn likes the large-trader format so 
 105 

 1 that it might be used by others. I wanted to do 

 2 something before I turn to Commissioner Sommers. 

 3 Rick, if we go final on this rule, this has some 

 4 delegations in this rule. 

 5 MR. SHILTS: Yes. 

 6 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: But one delegation is 

 7 under 20.10 about compliance dates and if this 

 8 rule is supported it rests on you to do some of 

 9 this, but I'm directing you as Chairman to consult 

 10 with the Commissioners' offices, all five 

 11 Commissioners' offices, as you consider any such 

 12 determinations under 20.10. 

 13 MR. SHILTS: Yes, I will. 

 14 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Commissioner Sommers? 

 15 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Thank you, Mr. 

 16 Chairman. I am supportive of moving forward with 

 17 collecting these position reports from swap 

 18 dealers and anyone who has swaps on their books. 

 19 I do think that what makes this very complicated 

 20 for us and what has made it very complicated for 

 21 this team to put together a rule on this issue is 

 22 because we have not done the definitions. So 
 106 

 1 because we are trying to move forward to get data 

 2 to help us and to inform us for decisions and 

 3 moving forward with position limits, this is going 

 4 to be very helpful for us. But until we know who 

 5 a swap dealer is and until we know what a swap is, 

 6 it's very difficult for who is able to report and 

 7 who is captured in this rulemaking. So although I 

 8 am supportive of the rule, I have a lot of 

 9 reservations about moving forward with final 

 10 rulemakings because we have not done the 

 11 definitions first. 

 12 I have one question with regard to swap 

 13 dealers who may be classified as limited-purpose 

 14 swap dealers in specific commodities. How will we 

 15 treat those swap dealers with regard to their 

 16 reporting requirements? 

 17 MR. FEKRAT: A reporting entity in the 

 18 rulemaking is defined as a swap dealer. It 

 19 actually does say in the final draft that a 

 20 reporting entity is a swap dealer with respect to 

 21 any one of the 46 paired commodities which would 

 22 be swaps that are linked to any of the 46 
 107 

 1 physically delivered contracts. So you would have 

 2 to be a swap dealer in one of the 46. At that 

 3 point you would be a reporting entity and you 

 4 would be subject to reporting all of your swaps 

 5 positions in those 46 regardless of what made you 

 6 a limited designation swap dealer. The reason we 

 7 recommended this to the Commission was at that 

 8 point the entity would have a regulated status. 

 9 They would have had to map their systems to 

 10 provide reports to us at least -- the limited 

 11 designation, at least in one commodity, and once 

 12 you do that for one commodity, you have the same 

 13 code and the same procedures and methods in place 

 14 to extend that to others, and obviously we would 

 15 get much, much greater data. So those were the 

 16 policy reason behind making that recommendation. 

 17 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Thank you. 

 18 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, 

 19 Commissioner Sommers. Commissioner Chilton? 

 20 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: I don't have a 

 21 question. I just want to make a point and not 

 22 specifically with regard to this rule. A lot of 
 108 

 1 these things, we've gotten the comments, we're 

 2 doing the best we can given the time constraints 

 3 and staff is working hard. That doesn't mean that 

 4 there's not going to be some outlier on one rule 

 5 or another that we learn something in the future. 

 6 You don't want to ever change final rules going 

 7 into them, but if we discover something in the 

 8 future, we not only have the plenary authority to 

 9 do so, we have a responsibility to do so. I'm not 

 10 suggesting there's anything on this one. I'm just 

 11 sort of trying to let market participants and 

 12 others know that if we see some problem with 

 13 something we've done in the future that we have to 

 14 address, I think all of us understand that we will 

 15 have to address it. 

 16 Thank you. I support this rule. 

 17 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Thank you, 

 18 Commissioner Chilton. I agree with what you just 

 19 said. It's part of the funding issue too, but if 

 20 we're funded and we have the staff analysts and 

 21 accountants and economists and lawyers, it's also 

 22 to work with the market participants on their 
 109 

 1 questions. 

 2 There is going to be a lot to interpret 

 3 in each of these rules. There might even be no 

 4 action letters that people request and 

 5 interpretive guidance and so forth. I hope that 

 6 we're working actively with market participants in 

 7 a smooth transition to a new regime and it's going 

 8 to take a lot of questions being answered, 

 9 interpretive guidance, no action letters, all of 

 10 that and I think we'll be pretty active and will 

 11 need to be active to help. Even on this 

 12 compliance date thing, we delegate some authority 

 13 but you consult with us because I think we have to 

 14 give people some time on compliance as well. 

 15 Commissioner O'Malia? 

 16 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Thank you, Mr. 

 17 Chairman. Thank you for your cooperation and 

 18 assistance to improve this rule here at the table, 

 19 and to all of my colleagues, frankly, for their 

 20 cooperation as well. 

 21 Bruce, can you talk to me a little bit? 

 22 We've been collecting some special call data on 
 110 

 1 swap markets and this new rule makes a distinction 

 2 between financial and nonfinancial swap dealers. 

 3 Do you have a sense today of how much of the trade 

 4 volume related to swaps is being done by financial 

 5 swap dealers as a percentage? 

 6 MR. FEKRAT: I think we would have an 

 7 idea about the percentages once we get some data 

 8 flowing. Right now that's very difficult to say. 

 9 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Maybe, Rick, 

 10 you'd want to reflect on this. Even in our 

 11 special call that we've been doing on swaps for 

 12 over a year or 2 years I guess, what is your 

 13 sense? 

 14 MR. SHILTS: The special call in that 

 15 sense has a kind of different focus. We're really 

 16 focused on getting information to access index 

 17 activity. So in addition to swap dealers, we also 

 18 go out to funds which wouldn't be covered by this 

 19 rulemaking. Given the kind of different focus, 

 20 again I'm not sure I could give a really good 

 21 guess. 

 22 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Then obviously we 
 111 

 1 need to do this rule. 

 2 MR. FEKRAT: Commissioner, I'd like to 

 3 add that in thinking about your question, 

 4 personally and my colleagues on our team, I think 

 5 I probably can speak for them as well, we do think 

 6 that a significant portion do go through the 

 7 financial swap dealers. At some level or another 

 8 they are the aggregators of risk and the risk 

 9 moves to them and they offset the risk. There may 

 10 be particular commodity categories where the 

 11 nonfinancial swap dealers may play a role, but in 

 12 the major commodities, I would say that the major 

 13 and financial swap dealers account for a 

 14 substantial portion of the transactions. 

 15 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Thank you. 

 16 That's very helpful. So we do make a distinction 

 17 in this rule. Could you make sure that everybody 

 18 is clear on this? Let's walk through a couple of 

 19 these definitions and let me know when they have 

 20 to report. Financial swap dealers have to report 

 21 when? 

 22 MR. FEKRAT: Upon final definition of 
 112 

 1 the term swap dealer. 

 2 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Upon the 

 3 effective date or the compliance date? 

 4 MR. FEKRAT: Upon the effective date. 

 5 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Which is under 

 6 this rule? 

 7 MR. FEKRAT: The compliance date for 

 8 swap dealers, when they would have to comply with 

 9 the regulations that the Commission may adopt 

 10 today, the reporting rules, their compliance date 

 11 would be upon the effectiveness of the final 

 12 rulemaking further defining the term swap dealer. 

 13 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: How about 

 14 clearing organizations? 

 15 MR. FEKRAT: Clearing organizations 

 16 would have to comply 60 days after the publication 

 17 of this rulemaking. 

 18 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Clearing members? 

 19 MR. FEKRAT: Clearing members, same 

 20 thing, 60 days after publication of the 

 21 rulemaking. 

 22 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: So we have to 
 113 

 1 define the swap dealer definition. And then once 

 2 it's clear who swap dealers are, we also have some 

 3 issue with the definition of swaps. Right? For 

 4 example, the issue of trade options. I understand 

 5 that we have received multiple comments relating 

 6 to whether such contracts should or should not be 

 7 regulated as swaps. Clarity regarding this issue 

 8 would be helpful not only for this rule but for 

 9 others, obviously. Do we have any sense of when 

 10 we'll get that kind of clarity as to defining a 

 11 swap in trade options or forwards would be dealt 

 12 with? 

 13 MR. BERKOVITZ: Commissioner, the 

 14 comment period on the proposed rule for defining 

 15 swaps will close I believe in about 2 weeks. It's 

 16 on I think the 22nd or 23rd of this month. So we 

 17 are obviously aware of that issue and looking at 

 18 it and we will be examining the concept of the 

 19 definitional issue as well as in the context of 

 20 this rule and how the two relate. So we'll be 

 21 looking at it, and as the Chairman mentioned, 

 22 there are opportunities to provide interpretation, 
 114 

 1 guidance and address it in further rulemakings and 

 2 this is one of those issues that we will be 

 3 clearly looking at and following and perhaps 

 4 addressing in one of those forums. 

 5 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: What if we define 

 6 the dealer definition and it's still unclear, and 

 7 as to a nonfinancial dealer they're in a gray 

 8 area. They don't know if they qualify. What do 

 9 we do with them under this rule? 

 10 MR. FEKRAT: You mean it's unclear 

 11 whether they qualify based on the types of 

 12 transactions they engage in or whether their 

 13 conduct is dealing activity? 

 14 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Dealing activity, 

 15 yes. 

 16 MR. FEKRAT: Once we have a final rule 

 17 defining the term swap dealer, that rulemaking if 

 18 it occurs prior to a final definition for the term 

 19 swap, would be defining conduct which would render 

 20 an entity a swap dealer. At that point the 

 21 nonfinancial should know whether they are or are 

 22 not engaged in that type of conduct. And the 
 115 

 1 rulemaking, this may have been amended by what you 

 2 considered, did envision as submitted to you 

 3 without the latest amendment, but a later 

 4 compliance period. 

 5 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: It has been 

 6 amended. 

 7 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: It has been amended. 

 8 I'll help you out. It contemplates that if 

 9 somebody needs time, that the Commission may give 

 10 them another 6 months. 

 11 MR. FEKRAT: So they would get an 

 12 additional 6 months from the effective date for 

 13 the term swap dealer. That means they would have 

 14 potentially a considerable amount of time to 

 15 determine their regulatory status. 

 16 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Thank you very 

 17 much, Bruce, and maybe this is a question for 

 18 Rick. A lot of compliance and filing of this, 

 19 we've discussed having a more automated filing 

 20 system, an electronic Form 40 and an electronic 

 21 Form 102. We've contemplated greater fidelity in 

 22 understand in the futures market who owns these 
 116 

 1 contracts through an OCR rule. It would obviously 

 2 be useful to have all of this electronic reporting 

 3 automatically populate our system so we could look 

 4 at this through a very streamlined, automated way 

 5 and to avoid rekeying in and retyping in any of 

 6 these forms. What is the process? Where do we 

 7 stand today in bringing these new forms, the new 

 8 OCR rules, that will really give us the next level 

 9 of data? 

 10 MR. SHILTS: We have a team that's been 

 11 working on that. We've kind of combined a group 

 12 that's working on automating the Form 40s and 102s 

 13 with the Ownership of Control Reporting and making 

 14 some changes there so that we would hope to 

 15 capture not all but a substantial portion of the 

 16 data that we would have gotten in the other 

 17 report, the ownership and control report proposal 

 18 again trying to respond to a lot of the comments 

 19 that we got about the costs involved with that to 

 20 try to reduce the costs but still get us the 

 21 information. So we're working on that and we 

 22 would hope to have that up and running and 
 117 

 1 operational before these new forms that would be 

 2 adopted if the Commission approves these rules and 

 3 that would all be electronics which has been a 

 4 goal of ours for quite a while. It's in progress 

 5 and we hope to have that before these new forms, 

 6 the 102-S and 40-S, would have to be submitted 

 7 under this rulemaking if the Commission adopts it. 

 8 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Do you have a 

 9 sense of time in general when you're going to be 

 10 proposing a new OCR and electronic forms? 

 11 MR. SHILTS: We were hoping this summer 

 12 to complete that. It's just a balancing of 

 13 priorities with the rulemakings, but we have a 

 14 team working on that and trying to as I said 

 15 consolidate the OCR with the Form 40- 102 project. 

 16 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: How long might it 

 17 take to have electronic reporting of the lion's 

 18 share of the swaps market and the futures market 

 19 does in electronic fashion? How far away are we 

 20 from that? 

 21 MR. SHILTS: I'd have to get back to 

 22 you. I don't know off the top of my head, but I 
 118 

 1 can ask and report that. 

 2 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Fair enough. 

 3 Thank you. 

 4 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Before we go to a 

 5 vote, maybe this is more for the public and the 

 6 people from the fourth estate over there at the 

 7 desk. The clearinghouses have a lot of this 

 8 information in some of these markets. Is that 

 9 right? That's probably mostly a question for Rick 

 10 who heads the Division of Market Oversight. In 

 11 the energy markets, in oil and natural gas and 

 12 heating oil and so forth, there's been on a 

 13 voluntary basis a high level of clearing of swaps. 

 14 Is that not right, Rick? 

 15 MR. SHILTS: Yes, that's right. I think 

 16 both with NYMEX and ClearPort and then ICE, we 

 17 understand a very large percentage of those go to 

 18 clearing. I can't say exactly what the percentage 

 19 is, but it's high. 

 20 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: So if we vote this 

 21 out moments from now, 2 months from now roughly 

 22 we'll be getting significant information that we 
 119 

 1 don't currently have from those clearinghouses at 

 2 least in the energy swaps marketplace. Is that 

 3 not right? 

 4 MR. SHILTS: I believe that's so. 

 5 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: I think that's good 

 6 news for this Commission. The definition of swap 

 7 dealer is still very important, but I was just 

 8 pointing out that at least in the energy space I 

 9 think we'll get a lot from the clearinghouses. 

 10 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: I think Bruce 

 11 pointed out the fact that financial dealers also 

 12 constitute -- and they are the counterparty to 

 13 many of these commercial firms and I think the 

 14 objective is to go after the lion's share of these 

 15 and who they trade with, and these end users, 

 16 their trades will be reported. We're not putting 

 17 the burden on the end users. We're putting on the 

 18 dealer and appropriately so as they've got the 

 19 resources and will really give us the insight into 

 20 what the whole market looks like. 

 21 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: I think that's right. 

 22 We'll get the clearing piece and some of their 
 120 

 1 clearing members, and then later we'll get the 

 2 financial swap dealers once we get the dealer 

 3 definition and we all agree we need to get that 

 4 done. Then there might be a delay for some 

 5 nonfinancial dealers which I think is appropriate. 

 6 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: I greatly 

 7 appreciate the Commission's willingness to look at 

 8 this in totality because we will have the data. 

 9 There's no doubt about it. We're going to have 

 10 the data. This rule provides the data and we're 

 11 going to get it as soon as the rule -- once all 

 12 these effective dates are in place. We don't need 

 13 to worry about that. We're going to have great 

 14 insight into the market and when the data 

 15 repositories come in, additional fidelity of the 

 16 complete market. I greatly appreciate everybody's 

 17 willingness to offer some patience in staging, 

 18 phasing in if you will, to make sure that we 

 19 aren't putting a burden on the end users or on 

 20 some of these farmers who may be caught up in some 

 21 of these yet-to-be-defined definitions that may 

 22 complicate their lives. And whether they fall 
 121 

 1 into one category or another, we've given them 

 2 some flexibility at the Commission to make prudent 

 3 decisions as to who has to report immediately, et 

 4 cetera. So I do appreciate everybody's patients 

 5 and cooperation on that to get that squared away. 

 6 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: I think it's the 

 7 Commission working well together. The Commission 

 8 is now going to turn to Dave Stawick. 

 9 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner O'Malia? 

 10 COMMISSIONER O'MALIA: Aye. 

 11 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner O'Malia, aye. 

 12 Commissioner Chilton? 

 13 COMMISSIONER CHILTON: Aye. 

 14 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Chilton, aye. 

 15 Commissioner Sommers? 

 16 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: Aye. 

 17 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Sommers, aye. 

 18 Commissioner Dunn? 

 19 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Aye. 

 20 MR. STAWICK: Commissioner Dunn, aye. 

 21 Mr. Chairman? 

 22 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Aye. 
 122 

 1 MR. STAWICK: Mr. Chairman, aye. Mr. 

 2 Chairman, on this matter the yeas are five, the 

 3 nays are zero. 

 4 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Mr. Stawick, thank 

 5 you, and Bruce, Ali, Rick and Dan, thank you. So 

 6 that would send that one to the Federal Register 

 7 as well. I'm looking at my notes here to see if 

 8 I'm supposed to do anything else here. I guess 

 9 I'm supposed to at this point to ask for unanimous 

 10 consent to allow staff to make technical 

 11 corrections to the documents voted on today prior 

 12 to sending them to the Federal Register. 

 13 Sometimes technical corrections as to make it in 

 14 the style that the Federal Register wants it. Not 

 15 hearing any objection, that's moved. 

 16 Our next scheduled public meeting will 

 17 occur on July 19. The subjects of rulemaking will 

 18 be presented and the meeting will be published on 

 19 our website 7 days prior to the meeting. If there 

 20 is no other Commission business, I want to once 

 21 again thank all of the staff and I want to thank 

 22 my fellow Commissions. We were able to move five 
 123 

 1 rules forward today. I'm very thankful for the 

 2 staff work and the Commissioners all working 

 3 together. We may not always be unanimous, but 

 4 we're working hard to get all of the 

 5 Commissioners' feedback and input before we move 

 6 to these final rules, to consider all the public 

 7 comments on them. 

 8 And I want to thank all the public who 

 9 have commented on these five and who continue to 

 10 comment on the remaining ones. With that I'll 

 11 call for a motion to adjourn the meeting. 

 12 COMMISSIONER SOMMERS: So moved. 

 13 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: All in favor of 

 14 adjourning the meeting? 

 15 GROUP: Aye. 

 16 CHAIRMAN GENSLER: Any opposed? Thanks, 

 17 Mike, so much for joining us from Chicago. 

 18 COMMISSIONER DUNN: Thank you. 

 19 (Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the 

 20 PROCEEDINGS were adjourned.) 

 21 * * * * * 

 22 
 124 

 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 

 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 3 I, Christine Allen, notary public in and 

 4 for the District of Columbia, do hereby certify 

 5 that the forgoing PROCEEDING was duly recorded and 

 6 thereafter reduced to print under my direction; 

 7 that the witnesses were sworn to tell the truth 

 8 under penalty of perjury; that said transcript is a 

 9 true record of the testimony given by witnesses; 

 10 that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor 

 11 employed by any of the parties to the action in 

 12 which this proceeding was called; and, furthermore, 

 13 that I am not a relative or employee of any 

 14 attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, 

 15 nor financially or otherwise interested in the 

 16 outcome of this action. 

 17 

 18 

 19 ----------------------------------- 

 20 Notary Public, in and for the District of Columbia 

 21 My Commission Expires: January 14, 2013 

 22