Retail Commodity Transactions Under Commodity Exchange Act, 52426-52429 [2013-20617]
Download as PDF
52426
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August
16, 2013.
Kip B. Johns,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern
Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013–20512 Filed 8–22–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 1
RIN 3038–AD64
Retail Commodity Transactions Under
Commodity Exchange Act
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Interpretation.
AGENCY:
On December 14, 2011, the
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or
‘‘CFTC’’) issued in the Federal Register
an interpretation (‘‘Interpretation’’)
regarding the meaning of the term
‘‘actual delivery,’’ as set forth in the
Commodity Exchange Act. The
Commission also requested public
comment on whether the Interpretation
accurately construed the statutory
language. In response to the comments
received, the Commission has
determined to clarify its Interpretation.
DATES: Effective August 23, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rosemary Hollinger, Regional Counsel,
Division of Enforcement, 312–596–0538,
rhollinger@cftc.gov, or Martin B. White,
Assistant General Counsel, Office of the
General Counsel, 202–418–5129,
mwhite@cftc.gov, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20581.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background
On July 21, 2010, President Obama
signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’).1 Title VII of the
Dodd-Frank Act 2 amended the
Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) 3 to
establish a comprehensive new
regulatory framework for swaps and
security-based swaps. The legislation
was enacted to reduce risk, increase
1 See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Public Law 111–
203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). The text of the DoddFrank Act may be accessed at https://www.cftc.gov/
LawRegulation/OTCDERIVATIVES/index.htm.
2 Pursuant to section 701 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
Title VII may be cited as the ‘‘Wall Street
Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010.’’
3 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Aug 22, 2013
Jkt 229001
transparency, and promote market
integrity within the financial system by,
among other things: (1) Providing for the
registration and comprehensive
regulation of swap dealers and major
swap participants; (2) imposing clearing
and trade execution requirements on
standardized derivative products; (3)
creating robust recordkeeping and realtime reporting regimes; and (4)
enhancing the Commission’s
rulemaking and enforcement authorities
with respect to, among others, all
registered entities and intermediaries
subject to the Commission’s oversight.
In addition, section 742(a) of the
Dodd-Frank Act amends section 2(c)(2)
of the CEA to add a new subparagraph,
section 2(c)(2)(D) of the CEA,4 entitled
‘‘Retail Commodity Transactions.’’ New
CEA section 2(c)(2)(D) broadly applies
to any agreement, contract, or
transaction in any commodity that is
entered into with, or offered to (even if
not entered into with), a non-eligible
contract participant or non-eligible
commercial entity on a leveraged or
margined basis, or financed by the
offeror, the counterparty, or a person
acting in concert with the offeror or
counterparty on a similar basis.5 New
CEA section 2(c)(2)(D) further provides
that such an agreement, contract, or
transaction shall be subject to CEA
sections 4(a),6 4(b),7 and 4b 8 as if the
agreement, contract, or transaction was
a contract of sale of a commodity for
future delivery.9
New CEA section 2(c)(2)(D) excepts
certain transactions from its application.
In particular, new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) 10 excepts a contract
of sale that results in actual delivery
within 28 days or such other longer
period as the Commission may
determine by rule or regulation based
upon the typical commercial practice in
cash or spot markets for the commodity
involved.11
On December 14, 2011, the
Commission issued an Interpretation
inviting public comment on whether its
stated interpretation of the term ‘‘actual
delivery,’’ as used in new CEA section
47
U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(D).
U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(D)(i).
6 7 U.S.C. 6(a) (prohibition against off-exchange
contracts of sale of a commodity for future
delivery).
7 7 U.S.C. 6(b) (regulation of foreign boards of
trade with United States participants).
8 7 U.S.C. 6b (prohibition against fraud).
9 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(D)(iii).
10 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa).
11 The Commission has not adopted any
regulations permitting a longer actual delivery
period for any commodity pursuant to new CEA
section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa). Accordingly, the 28day actual delivery period set forth in this provision
remains applicable to all commodities.
57
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa), accurately
construes the statutory language.12 The
Commission received several public
comments on the Interpretation. After
thoroughly reviewing those comments,
the Commission has determined to
clarify its Interpretation in response to
the comments received.
II. Summary of Comments
A. Comments Generally
The Commission received 13
comments in response to its
Interpretation.13 The comments
included 11 comment letters that
addressed the Interpretation. These 11
comment letters were submitted by
entities representing a broad range of
interests, including a self-regulatory
organization,14 precious metals dealers
and depository companies,15 law
firms,16 trade associations comprised of
energy producers and suppliers,17 and
electricity and natural gas suppliers.18
Of the 11 comment letters addressing
the Interpretation, two voiced general
support for the Interpretation. For
example, NFA stated:
NFA fully supports the Commission’s
proposed interpretation of the term [actual
delivery] and believes that it is consistent
with the statutory language.
The comment letter submitted by
DGG expressed its appreciation of the
Commission’s efforts to ‘‘curtail any
fraudulent retail commodity
transactions occurring by unscrupulous
actors.’’ DGG further urged the
Commission to consider delivery of
precious metals to affiliates of the seller,
but not to the seller itself, as
constituting actual delivery under new
CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa), stating
that ‘‘[w]hile we understand the CFTC’s
desire to ensure, among other things,
that the seller actually has the
commodity to deliver, an affiliate of one
of the limited types of depositories
described in Example 2 [of the
Interpretation] are unlikely to be the
12 Retail Commodity Transactions Under
Commodity Exchange Act, 76 FR 77670 (Dec. 14,
2011).
13 The comment file may be accessed at https://
comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/
CommentList.aspx?id=1124.
14 National Futures Association (NFA).
15 Dillon Gage Group (DGG) and Monex Deposit
Company and its affiliate (MDC).
16 J.B. Grossman P.A. (JBG), Greenberg Traurig,
LLP (GBT), and Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP
(RJL).
17 National Energy Markets Association (NEM),
Retail Energy Supply Association (RESA), and
Commercial Energy Working Group (CEWG).
18 Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., Green
Mountain Energy Company, Direct Energy Services,
LLC, Exelon Energy Company, Reliant Energy Retail
Holdings, LLC, Liberty Power Corporation, and
Champion Energy Services, LLC.
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
seller ‘fraudsters’ Senator Lincoln had
in mind.’’
Two of the comment letters submitted
by law firms generally did not support
the Interpretation. GBT stated that
neither the Dodd-Frank Act nor its
legislative history indicated Congress’s
desire to limit the depositories to which
actual delivery could be made, and JBG
voiced its view that delivery in the
context of precious and industrial
metals requires only transfer of title to
metal, not physical delivery of metal.
The third comment letter submitted
by a law firm, RJL, was submitted on
behalf of precious metals dealers. RJL
requested clarification of when the
Commission will consider the 28 days
in new CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa)
to begin and urged the Commission to
allow for delivery of precious metals to
additional depositories beyond those
described in the Interpretation. RJL also
requested clarification, as did MDC, a
retail precious metals dealer, of whether
the offset of a precious metals purchase
prior to transfer of title to the customer
and delivery of the precious metals to a
depository within 28 days would cause
the original purchase to become a
prohibited transaction under new CEA
section 2(c)(2)(D).
Finally, four of the comment letters
were submitted by energy suppliers or
trade associations comprised of energy
producers and suppliers, and they
generally requested clarification of
whether new CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)
and/or its exceptions apply to the sale
and delivery of physical energy
commodities, such as electricity and
natural gas, to industrial, commercial,
and/or retail customers on a recurring
basis. For example, NEMA requested:
that the Commission clarify that the type of
transactions which its retail energy marketer
members typically enter into with residential
and commercial customers, in which they
contract with the customer to provide
physical energy supply (electricity or natural
gas) for terms that regularly in the course of
business contemplate delivery of the physical
energy commodity in excess of 28 days, were
not intended and should not be interpreted
to constitute ‘retail commodity transactions’
under the Act.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Specific Comments
1. Functional Approach and Relevant
Factors
Significantly, no commenters
criticized, expressed disagreement with,
or questioned the underlying foundation
for the Commission’s approach in
determining whether ‘‘actual delivery’’
has occurred, as set forth in the
Interpretation: ‘‘The determination of
whether ‘actual delivery’ has occurred
within the meaning of new CEA section
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Aug 22, 2013
Jkt 229001
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) requires
consideration of evidence regarding
delivery beyond the four corners of
contract documents;’’ and ‘‘in
determining whether actual delivery has
occurred within 28 days, the
Commission will employ a functional
approach and examine how the
agreement, contract, or transaction is
marketed, managed, and performed,
instead of relying solely on language
used by the parties in the agreement,
contract, or transaction.’’ 19 Further, no
comment letters criticized, expressed
disagreement with, or questioned the
relevant factors the Commission
enumerated in the Interpretation:
Ownership, possession, title, and
physical location of the commodity
purchased or sold, both before and after
execution of the agreement, contract, or
transaction; the nature of the
relationship between the buyer, seller,
and possessor of the commodity
purchased or sold; and the manner in
which the purchase or sale is recorded
and completed.20 Accordingly, the
Commission will assess whether any
given transaction results in actual
delivery within the meaning of new
CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) by
employing the functional approach and
considering the factors set forth in the
Interpretation.
2. When the 28-Day Period Begins
In response to the comment from RJL,
the Commission is clarifying when it
will consider the 28-day period in new
CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) to
begin. The Commission has determined
that the most practical point at which to
begin counting the 28 days is the date
on which the agreement, contract, or
transaction is entered into. This
approach is consistent with the
functional approach the Commission
will take in determining whether actual
delivery has occurred, and it should
provide industry participants and the
public with a readily ascertainable date
for determining whether actual delivery
has occurred within the meaning of new
CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa).
3. Interpretation Examples
The Interpretation included five
examples to illustrate how the
Commission would determine whether
actual delivery has occurred within the
meaning of new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa), and several
comment letters urged the Commission
to allow for delivery of commodities to
depositories beyond those described in
Example 2 or expressed disagreement
19 76
FR 77670, 77672 (Dec. 14, 2011).
20 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52427
with any limitation imposed on
acceptable depositories or the precise
form of delivery. The Commission has
considered these comments and has
determined to clarify the intent behind
these examples.
The examples are non-exclusive and
are included to provide the public with
guidance on how the Commission will
apply the relevant factors enumerated in
the Interpretation in making its
determination of whether actual
delivery has occurred within the
meaning of new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa). Examples 1 and 2
do not encompass all scenarios in which
the Commission may determine that
actual delivery has occurred, nor do
Examples 3, 4, and 5 encompass all
scenarios in which the Commission may
determine that actual delivery has not
occurred. Specifically, with regard to
Example 2, the Commission may
determine that actual delivery has
occurred if a commodity is delivered to
an affiliate of the seller or is already
physically located at a depository, so
long as the commodity is otherwise
delivered in accordance with the
methods described in Example 2, if a
careful consideration of the other
relevant factors enumerated in the
Interpretation demonstrates that the
purported delivery is not simply a sham
and that actual delivery has occurred
within the meaning of new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa). Conversely, the
Commission may determine that actual
delivery has not occurred if a
commodity is purportedly delivered to
an affiliate of the seller, but the
Commission is unable to obtain
sufficient assurances within a
reasonable period of time that the
purported delivery is not simply a
sham.
4. Offsetting of Transactions
Two commenters, in response to
Example 5 of the Interpretation,
requested clarification of whether the
offset of a precious metals purchase
prior to transfer of title to the customer
and delivery of the precious metals to a
depository within 28 days would cause
the original purchase to become a
prohibited transaction under new CEA
section 2(c)(2)(D). After careful
consideration of this comment, the
Commission has determined that
Example 5 accurately illustrates the
Commission’s views of whether actual
delivery will have occurred under the
circumstances described in Example 5.
However, the Commission recognizes
that a customer may request to cancel a
purchase of a commodity prior to actual
delivery of the commodity within 28
days due to extraordinary market
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
52428
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
circumstances. Accordingly, the
Commission will not prosecute a seller
for permitting such a cancellation,
provided that the seller does so only on
limited occasions and at the customer’s
request, and further provided that the
customer does not enter into a
subsequent transaction within three
business days of such cancellation.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
5. Energy Producers and Suppliers
Four comment letters requested
clarification of whether new CEA
section 2(c)(2)(D) and/or any of its
exceptions apply to the sale and
delivery of physical energy commodities
to industrial, commercial, and/or retail
customers on a recurring basis.
Specifically, under the scenario
described in these comment letters,
energy firms enter into fixed price
contracts with customers to supply
electricity or natural gas to the
customer’s residence or business for a
period of one or more years. The
customer consumes the electricity or
natural gas and subsequently pays for
that usage, along with all applicable
taxes, on a periodic basis. The
Commission is not of the view that new
CEA section 2(c)(2)(D) applies to this
scenario, particularly in light of the fact
that the customer regularly receives
delivery of and consumes the physical
energy commodity over the term of the
contract and periodically pays for that
usage.
III. Commission Interpretation of
‘‘Actual Delivery’’
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Commission issues the following
interpretation to inform the public of
the Commission’s views as to the
meaning of the term ‘‘actual delivery’’ as
used in new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) and to provide the
public with guidance on how the
Commission intends to assess whether
any given transaction results in actual
delivery within the meaning of the
statute. This interpretation does not
address the meaning or scope of new
CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(bb) 21 or
any exception to new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D) other than new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa). Similarly, this
interpretation does not address the
meaning or scope of contracts of sale of
a commodity for future delivery, the
forward contract exclusion from the
term ‘‘future delivery’’ set forth in CEA
section 1a(27),22 or the forward contract
exclusion from the term ‘‘swap’’ set
forth in CEA section 1a(47)(B)(ii).23 Nor
21 7
U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(bb).
U.S.C. 1a(27).
23 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(B)(ii).
16:22 Aug 22, 2013
Example 1: Actual delivery will have
occurred if, within 28 days, the seller has: (1)
Physically delivered the entire quantity of
24 See, e.g., Statutory Interpretation Concerning
Forward Transactions, 55 FR 39188 (Sept. 25, 1990)
(‘‘Brent Interpretation’’).
22 7
VerDate Mar<15>2010
does this interpretation alter any
statutory interpretation or statement of
Commission policy relating to the
forward contract exclusion.24
In the view of the Commission, the
determination of whether ‘‘actual
delivery’’ has occurred within the
meaning of new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) requires
consideration of evidence regarding
delivery beyond the four corners of
contract documents. This interpretation
of the statutory language is based on
Congress’s use of the word ‘‘actual’’ to
modify ‘‘delivery’’ and on the legislative
history of new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) described above.
Consistent with this interpretation of
the statutory language, in determining
whether actual delivery has occurred
within 28 days of the date the
agreement, contract, or transaction is
entered into, the Commission will
employ a functional approach and
examine how the agreement, contract, or
transaction is marketed, managed, and
performed, instead of relying solely on
language used by the parties in the
agreement, contract, or transaction. This
approach best accomplishes Congress’s
intent when it enacted section 742(a) of
the Dodd-Frank Act and gives full
meaning to Congress’s term ‘‘actual
delivery.’’
Relevant factors in this determination
include the following: Ownership,
possession, title, and physical location
of the commodity purchased or sold,
both before and after execution of the
agreement, contract, or transaction,
including all related documentation; the
nature of the relationship between the
buyer, seller, and possessor of the
commodity purchased or sold; and the
manner in which the purchase or sale is
recorded and completed. The
Commission provides the following
non-exclusive examples to illustrate
how it will determine whether actual
delivery has occurred within the
meaning of new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa). The Commission
may also determine that actual delivery
has occurred in circumstances beyond
those described in the first two
examples if it can readily determine
within a reasonable period of time that
the purported delivery is not simply a
sham and that actual delivery has
occurred within 28 days within the
meaning of new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa).
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the commodity purchased by the buyer,
including any portion of the purchase made
using leverage, margin, or financing, into the
possession of the buyer; and (2) has
transferred title to that quantity of the
commodity to the buyer.
Example 2: Actual delivery will have
occurred if, within 28 days, the seller has: (1)
Physically delivered the entire quantity of
the commodity purchased by the buyer,
including any portion of the purchase made
using leverage, margin, or financing, whether
in specifically segregated or fungible bulk
form, into the possession of a depository
other than the seller and its parent company,
partners, agents, and other affiliates, that is:
(a) A financial institution as defined by the
CEA; (b) a depository, the warrants or
warehouse receipts of which are recognized
for delivery purposes for any commodity on
a contract market designated by the
Commission; or (c) a storage facility licensed
or regulated by the United States or any
United States agency; and (2) has transferred
title to that quantity of the commodity to the
buyer.25
Example 3: Actual delivery will not have
occurred if, within 28 days, a book entry is
made by the seller purporting to show that
delivery of the commodity has been made to
the buyer and/or that a sale of a commodity
has subsequently been covered or hedged by
the seller through a third party contract or
account, but the seller has not, in accordance
with the methods described in Example 1 or
2, physically delivered the entire quantity of
the commodity purchased by the buyer,
including any portion of the purchase made
using leverage, margin, or financing, and
transferred title to that quantity of the
commodity to the buyer, regardless of
whether the agreement, contract, or
transaction between the buyer and seller
purports to create an enforceable obligation
on the part of the seller, or a parent company,
partner, agent, or other affiliate of the seller,
to deliver the commodity to the buyer.
Example 4: Actual delivery will not have
occurred if, within 28 days, the seller has
purported to physically deliver the entire
quantity of the commodity purchased by the
buyer, including any portion of the purchase
made using leverage, margin, or financing, in
accordance with the method described in
Example 2, and transfer title to that quantity
of the commodity to the buyer, but the title
document fails to identify the specific
financial institution, depository, or storage
facility with possession of the commodity,
the quality specifications of the commodity,
the identity of the party transferring title to
25 Based on Examples 1 and 2, an agreement,
contract, or transaction that results in ‘‘physical
delivery’’ within the meaning of section
1.04(a)(2)(i)–(iii) of the Model State Commodity
Code would ordinarily result in ‘‘actual delivery’’
under new CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa), absent
other evidence indicating that the purported
delivery is a sham. See Model State Commodity
Code § 1.04(a)(2)(i)–(iii), Comm. Fut. L. Rep.
Archive (CCH) ¶ 22,568 (Apr. 5, 1985). Conversely,
an agreement, contract, or transaction that does not
result in ‘‘physical delivery’’ within the meaning of
section 1.04(a)(2)(i)–(iii) of the Model State
Commodity Code is highly unlikely to result in
‘‘actual delivery’’ under new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa).
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
the commodity to the buyer, and the
segregation or allocation status of the
commodity.
Example 5: Actual delivery will not have
occurred if, within 28 days, an agreement,
contract, or transaction for the purchase or
sale of a commodity is rolled, offset, or
otherwise netted with another transaction or
settled in cash between the buyer and the
seller, but the seller has not, in accordance
with the methods described in Example 1 or
2, physically delivered the entire quantity of
the commodity purchased by the buyer,
including any portion of the purchase made
using leverage, margin, or financing, and
transferred title to that quantity of the
commodity to the buyer, regardless of
whether the agreement, contract, or
transaction between the buyer and seller
purports to create an enforceable obligation
on the part of the seller, or a parent company,
partner, agent, or other affiliate of the seller,
to deliver the commodity to the buyer.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 20,
2013, by the Commission.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
Appendix to Retail Commodity
Transactions Under Commodity
Exchange Act—Commission Voting
Summary
On this matter, Chairman Gensler and
Commissioners Chilton, O’Malia, and Wetjen
voted in the affirmative. No Commissioners
voted in the negative.
[FR Doc. 2013–20617 Filed 8–22–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 175
Indirect Food Additives: Adhesives
and Components of Coatings
CFR Correction
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
In Title 21 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 170 to 199, revised as
of April 1, 2013, on page 196, in
§ 175.320, in paragraph (c), in the first
sentence, revise ‘‘tables 1 and 2 of
§ 176.17(c)’’ to read ‘‘tables 1 and 2 of
§ 176.170(c)’’.
[FR Doc. 2013–20702 Filed 8–22–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Aug 22, 2013
Jkt 229001
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 510, 520, and 558
[Docket No. FDA–2013–N–0839]
New Animal Drugs; Withdrawal of
Approval of New Animal Drug
Applications; Diethylcarbamazine;
Nicarbazin; Penicillin
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final rule.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is amending the
animal drug regulations to reflect the
withdrawal of approval of three new
animal drug applications (NADAs) at
the sponsors’ request because the
products are no longer manufactured or
marketed.
DATES: This rule is effective September
3, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Alterman, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV–212), Food and Drug
Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 240–453–6843,
email: david.alterman@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Phibro
Animal Health Corp., 65 Challenger Rd.,
3d Floor, Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 has
requested that FDA withdraw approval
of NADA 098–371 for use of nicarbazin,
penicillin, and roxarsone in 3-way,
combination drug Type C medicated
feeds for broiler chickens and NADA
098–374 for use of nicarbazin and
penicillin in 2-way, combination drug
Type C medicated feeds for broiler
chickens because the products are no
longer manufactured or marketed.
Accordingly, 21 CFR 558.366 and
558.460 are being amended to reflect the
withdrawal of approval.
R. P. Scherer North America, P.O. Box
5600, Clearwater, FL 33518 has
requested that FDA withdraw approval
of NADA 123–116 for
Diethylcarbamazine Citrate Capsules
used in dogs for the prevention of
heartworm disease because the product
is no longer manufactured or marketed.
Accordingly, 21 CFR 520.622d is being
amended to reflect the withdrawal of
approval.
Following this withdrawal of
approval, R. P. Scherer North America
is no longer the sponsor of an approved
application. Accordingly, 21 CFR
510.600(c) is being amended to remove
the entries for these firms.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, FDA gave notice that approval
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
of NADA 098–371, NADA 098–374, and
NADA 123–116, and all supplements
and amendments thereto, is withdrawn.
As provided in the regulatory text of
this document, the animal drug
regulations are amended to reflect these
voluntary withdrawals of approval.
This rule does not meet the definition
of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because
it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’
Therefore, it is not subject to the
congressional review requirements in 5
U.S.C. 801–808.
List of Subjects
21 CFR Part 510
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
52429
Sfmt 4700
Administrative practice and
procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
21 CFR Part 520
Animal drugs.
21 CFR Part 558
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs and redelegated to
the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
CFR parts 510, 520, and 558 are
amended as follows:
PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 510 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,
353, 360b, 371, 379e.
§ 510.600
[Amended]
2. In § 510.600, in the table in
paragraph (c)(1), remove the entry for
‘‘R. P. Scherer North America’’; and in
the table in paragraph (c)(2), remove the
entry for ‘‘011014’’.
■
PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM
NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 520 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.
§ 520.622d
■
[Removed]
4. Remove § 520.622d.
PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR
USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS
5. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 558 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.
§ 558.366
[Amended]
6. In § 558.366, in the table in
paragraph (d), in the entry for ‘‘90.8 to
181.6 (0.01 to 0.02 pct)’’, remove the
■
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52426-52429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20617]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 1
RIN 3038-AD64
Retail Commodity Transactions Under Commodity Exchange Act
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 14, 2011, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``Commission'' or ``CFTC'') issued in the Federal Register an
interpretation (``Interpretation'') regarding the meaning of the term
``actual delivery,'' as set forth in the Commodity Exchange Act. The
Commission also requested public comment on whether the Interpretation
accurately construed the statutory language. In response to the
comments received, the Commission has determined to clarify its
Interpretation.
DATES: Effective August 23, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemary Hollinger, Regional Counsel,
Division of Enforcement, 312-596-0538, rhollinger@cftc.gov, or Martin
B. White, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,
202-418-5129, mwhite@cftc.gov, Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act'').\1\ Title VII
of the Dodd-Frank Act \2\ amended the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'')
\3\ to establish a comprehensive new regulatory framework for swaps and
security-based swaps. The legislation was enacted to reduce risk,
increase transparency, and promote market integrity within the
financial system by, among other things: (1) Providing for the
registration and comprehensive regulation of swap dealers and major
swap participants; (2) imposing clearing and trade execution
requirements on standardized derivative products; (3) creating robust
recordkeeping and real-time reporting regimes; and (4) enhancing the
Commission's rulemaking and enforcement authorities with respect to,
among others, all registered entities and intermediaries subject to the
Commission's oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act of 2010, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). The text of
the Dodd-Frank Act may be accessed at https://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/OTCDERIVATIVES/index.htm.
\2\ Pursuant to section 701 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Title VII may
be cited as the ``Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of
2010.''
\3\ 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, section 742(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act amends section
2(c)(2) of the CEA to add a new subparagraph, section 2(c)(2)(D) of the
CEA,\4\ entitled ``Retail Commodity Transactions.'' New CEA section
2(c)(2)(D) broadly applies to any agreement, contract, or transaction
in any commodity that is entered into with, or offered to (even if not
entered into with), a non-eligible contract participant or non-eligible
commercial entity on a leveraged or margined basis, or financed by the
offeror, the counterparty, or a person acting in concert with the
offeror or counterparty on a similar basis.\5\ New CEA section
2(c)(2)(D) further provides that such an agreement, contract, or
transaction shall be subject to CEA sections 4(a),\6\ 4(b),\7\ and 4b
\8\ as if the agreement, contract, or transaction was a contract of
sale of a commodity for future delivery.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(D).
\5\ 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(D)(i).
\6\ 7 U.S.C. 6(a) (prohibition against off-exchange contracts of
sale of a commodity for future delivery).
\7\ 7 U.S.C. 6(b) (regulation of foreign boards of trade with
United States participants).
\8\ 7 U.S.C. 6b (prohibition against fraud).
\9\ 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(D)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New CEA section 2(c)(2)(D) excepts certain transactions from its
application. In particular, new CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa)
\10\ excepts a contract of sale that results in actual delivery within
28 days or such other longer period as the Commission may determine by
rule or regulation based upon the typical commercial practice in cash
or spot markets for the commodity involved.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa).
\11\ The Commission has not adopted any regulations permitting a
longer actual delivery period for any commodity pursuant to new CEA
section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa). Accordingly, the 28-day actual
delivery period set forth in this provision remains applicable to
all commodities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 14, 2011, the Commission issued an Interpretation
inviting public comment on whether its stated interpretation of the
term ``actual delivery,'' as used in new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa), accurately construes the statutory
language.\12\ The Commission received several public comments on the
Interpretation. After thoroughly reviewing those comments, the
Commission has determined to clarify its Interpretation in response to
the comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Retail Commodity Transactions Under Commodity Exchange Act,
76 FR 77670 (Dec. 14, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Comments
A. Comments Generally
The Commission received 13 comments in response to its
Interpretation.\13\ The comments included 11 comment letters that
addressed the Interpretation. These 11 comment letters were submitted
by entities representing a broad range of interests, including a self-
regulatory organization,\14\ precious metals dealers and depository
companies,\15\ law firms,\16\ trade associations comprised of energy
producers and suppliers,\17\ and electricity and natural gas
suppliers.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The comment file may be accessed at https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1124.
\14\ National Futures Association (NFA).
\15\ Dillon Gage Group (DGG) and Monex Deposit Company and its
affiliate (MDC).
\16\ J.B. Grossman P.A. (JBG), Greenberg Traurig, LLP (GBT), and
Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP (RJL).
\17\ National Energy Markets Association (NEM), Retail Energy
Supply Association (RESA), and Commercial Energy Working Group
(CEWG).
\18\ Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., Green Mountain Energy
Company, Direct Energy Services, LLC, Exelon Energy Company, Reliant
Energy Retail Holdings, LLC, Liberty Power Corporation, and Champion
Energy Services, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 11 comment letters addressing the Interpretation, two voiced
general support for the Interpretation. For example, NFA stated:
NFA fully supports the Commission's proposed interpretation of
the term [actual delivery] and believes that it is consistent with
the statutory language.
The comment letter submitted by DGG expressed its appreciation of
the Commission's efforts to ``curtail any fraudulent retail commodity
transactions occurring by unscrupulous actors.'' DGG further urged the
Commission to consider delivery of precious metals to affiliates of the
seller, but not to the seller itself, as constituting actual delivery
under new CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa), stating that ``[w]hile
we understand the CFTC's desire to ensure, among other things, that the
seller actually has the commodity to deliver, an affiliate of one of
the limited types of depositories described in Example 2 [of the
Interpretation] are unlikely to be the
[[Page 52427]]
seller `fraudsters' Senator Lincoln had in mind.''
Two of the comment letters submitted by law firms generally did not
support the Interpretation. GBT stated that neither the Dodd-Frank Act
nor its legislative history indicated Congress's desire to limit the
depositories to which actual delivery could be made, and JBG voiced its
view that delivery in the context of precious and industrial metals
requires only transfer of title to metal, not physical delivery of
metal.
The third comment letter submitted by a law firm, RJL, was
submitted on behalf of precious metals dealers. RJL requested
clarification of when the Commission will consider the 28 days in new
CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) to begin and urged the Commission
to allow for delivery of precious metals to additional depositories
beyond those described in the Interpretation. RJL also requested
clarification, as did MDC, a retail precious metals dealer, of whether
the offset of a precious metals purchase prior to transfer of title to
the customer and delivery of the precious metals to a depository within
28 days would cause the original purchase to become a prohibited
transaction under new CEA section 2(c)(2)(D).
Finally, four of the comment letters were submitted by energy
suppliers or trade associations comprised of energy producers and
suppliers, and they generally requested clarification of whether new
CEA section 2(c)(2)(D) and/or its exceptions apply to the sale and
delivery of physical energy commodities, such as electricity and
natural gas, to industrial, commercial, and/or retail customers on a
recurring basis. For example, NEMA requested:
that the Commission clarify that the type of transactions which its
retail energy marketer members typically enter into with residential
and commercial customers, in which they contract with the customer
to provide physical energy supply (electricity or natural gas) for
terms that regularly in the course of business contemplate delivery
of the physical energy commodity in excess of 28 days, were not
intended and should not be interpreted to constitute `retail
commodity transactions' under the Act.
B. Specific Comments
1. Functional Approach and Relevant Factors
Significantly, no commenters criticized, expressed disagreement
with, or questioned the underlying foundation for the Commission's
approach in determining whether ``actual delivery'' has occurred, as
set forth in the Interpretation: ``The determination of whether `actual
delivery' has occurred within the meaning of new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) requires consideration of evidence regarding
delivery beyond the four corners of contract documents;'' and ``in
determining whether actual delivery has occurred within 28 days, the
Commission will employ a functional approach and examine how the
agreement, contract, or transaction is marketed, managed, and
performed, instead of relying solely on language used by the parties in
the agreement, contract, or transaction.'' \19\ Further, no comment
letters criticized, expressed disagreement with, or questioned the
relevant factors the Commission enumerated in the Interpretation:
Ownership, possession, title, and physical location of the commodity
purchased or sold, both before and after execution of the agreement,
contract, or transaction; the nature of the relationship between the
buyer, seller, and possessor of the commodity purchased or sold; and
the manner in which the purchase or sale is recorded and completed.\20\
Accordingly, the Commission will assess whether any given transaction
results in actual delivery within the meaning of new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) by employing the functional approach and
considering the factors set forth in the Interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 76 FR 77670, 77672 (Dec. 14, 2011).
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. When the 28-Day Period Begins
In response to the comment from RJL, the Commission is clarifying
when it will consider the 28-day period in new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) to begin. The Commission has determined that
the most practical point at which to begin counting the 28 days is the
date on which the agreement, contract, or transaction is entered into.
This approach is consistent with the functional approach the Commission
will take in determining whether actual delivery has occurred, and it
should provide industry participants and the public with a readily
ascertainable date for determining whether actual delivery has occurred
within the meaning of new CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa).
3. Interpretation Examples
The Interpretation included five examples to illustrate how the
Commission would determine whether actual delivery has occurred within
the meaning of new CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa), and several
comment letters urged the Commission to allow for delivery of
commodities to depositories beyond those described in Example 2 or
expressed disagreement with any limitation imposed on acceptable
depositories or the precise form of delivery. The Commission has
considered these comments and has determined to clarify the intent
behind these examples.
The examples are non-exclusive and are included to provide the
public with guidance on how the Commission will apply the relevant
factors enumerated in the Interpretation in making its determination of
whether actual delivery has occurred within the meaning of new CEA
section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa). Examples 1 and 2 do not encompass all
scenarios in which the Commission may determine that actual delivery
has occurred, nor do Examples 3, 4, and 5 encompass all scenarios in
which the Commission may determine that actual delivery has not
occurred. Specifically, with regard to Example 2, the Commission may
determine that actual delivery has occurred if a commodity is delivered
to an affiliate of the seller or is already physically located at a
depository, so long as the commodity is otherwise delivered in
accordance with the methods described in Example 2, if a careful
consideration of the other relevant factors enumerated in the
Interpretation demonstrates that the purported delivery is not simply a
sham and that actual delivery has occurred within the meaning of new
CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa). Conversely, the Commission may
determine that actual delivery has not occurred if a commodity is
purportedly delivered to an affiliate of the seller, but the Commission
is unable to obtain sufficient assurances within a reasonable period of
time that the purported delivery is not simply a sham.
4. Offsetting of Transactions
Two commenters, in response to Example 5 of the Interpretation,
requested clarification of whether the offset of a precious metals
purchase prior to transfer of title to the customer and delivery of the
precious metals to a depository within 28 days would cause the original
purchase to become a prohibited transaction under new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D). After careful consideration of this comment, the Commission
has determined that Example 5 accurately illustrates the Commission's
views of whether actual delivery will have occurred under the
circumstances described in Example 5. However, the Commission
recognizes that a customer may request to cancel a purchase of a
commodity prior to actual delivery of the commodity within 28 days due
to extraordinary market
[[Page 52428]]
circumstances. Accordingly, the Commission will not prosecute a seller
for permitting such a cancellation, provided that the seller does so
only on limited occasions and at the customer's request, and further
provided that the customer does not enter into a subsequent transaction
within three business days of such cancellation.
5. Energy Producers and Suppliers
Four comment letters requested clarification of whether new CEA
section 2(c)(2)(D) and/or any of its exceptions apply to the sale and
delivery of physical energy commodities to industrial, commercial, and/
or retail customers on a recurring basis. Specifically, under the
scenario described in these comment letters, energy firms enter into
fixed price contracts with customers to supply electricity or natural
gas to the customer's residence or business for a period of one or more
years. The customer consumes the electricity or natural gas and
subsequently pays for that usage, along with all applicable taxes, on a
periodic basis. The Commission is not of the view that new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D) applies to this scenario, particularly in light of the fact
that the customer regularly receives delivery of and consumes the
physical energy commodity over the term of the contract and
periodically pays for that usage.
III. Commission Interpretation of ``Actual Delivery''
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission issues the
following interpretation to inform the public of the Commission's views
as to the meaning of the term ``actual delivery'' as used in new CEA
section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) and to provide the public with guidance
on how the Commission intends to assess whether any given transaction
results in actual delivery within the meaning of the statute. This
interpretation does not address the meaning or scope of new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(bb) \21\ or any exception to new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D) other than new CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa).
Similarly, this interpretation does not address the meaning or scope of
contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery, the forward
contract exclusion from the term ``future delivery'' set forth in CEA
section 1a(27),\22\ or the forward contract exclusion from the term
``swap'' set forth in CEA section 1a(47)(B)(ii).\23\ Nor does this
interpretation alter any statutory interpretation or statement of
Commission policy relating to the forward contract exclusion.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(bb).
\22\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(27).
\23\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(B)(ii).
\24\ See, e.g., Statutory Interpretation Concerning Forward
Transactions, 55 FR 39188 (Sept. 25, 1990) (``Brent
Interpretation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the view of the Commission, the determination of whether
``actual delivery'' has occurred within the meaning of new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) requires consideration of evidence regarding
delivery beyond the four corners of contract documents. This
interpretation of the statutory language is based on Congress's use of
the word ``actual'' to modify ``delivery'' and on the legislative
history of new CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) described above.
Consistent with this interpretation of the statutory language, in
determining whether actual delivery has occurred within 28 days of the
date the agreement, contract, or transaction is entered into, the
Commission will employ a functional approach and examine how the
agreement, contract, or transaction is marketed, managed, and
performed, instead of relying solely on language used by the parties in
the agreement, contract, or transaction. This approach best
accomplishes Congress's intent when it enacted section 742(a) of the
Dodd-Frank Act and gives full meaning to Congress's term ``actual
delivery.''
Relevant factors in this determination include the following:
Ownership, possession, title, and physical location of the commodity
purchased or sold, both before and after execution of the agreement,
contract, or transaction, including all related documentation; the
nature of the relationship between the buyer, seller, and possessor of
the commodity purchased or sold; and the manner in which the purchase
or sale is recorded and completed. The Commission provides the
following non-exclusive examples to illustrate how it will determine
whether actual delivery has occurred within the meaning of new CEA
section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa). The Commission may also determine that
actual delivery has occurred in circumstances beyond those described in
the first two examples if it can readily determine within a reasonable
period of time that the purported delivery is not simply a sham and
that actual delivery has occurred within 28 days within the meaning of
new CEA section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa).
Example 1: Actual delivery will have occurred if, within 28
days, the seller has: (1) Physically delivered the entire quantity
of the commodity purchased by the buyer, including any portion of
the purchase made using leverage, margin, or financing, into the
possession of the buyer; and (2) has transferred title to that
quantity of the commodity to the buyer.
Example 2: Actual delivery will have occurred if, within 28
days, the seller has: (1) Physically delivered the entire quantity
of the commodity purchased by the buyer, including any portion of
the purchase made using leverage, margin, or financing, whether in
specifically segregated or fungible bulk form, into the possession
of a depository other than the seller and its parent company,
partners, agents, and other affiliates, that is: (a) A financial
institution as defined by the CEA; (b) a depository, the warrants or
warehouse receipts of which are recognized for delivery purposes for
any commodity on a contract market designated by the Commission; or
(c) a storage facility licensed or regulated by the United States or
any United States agency; and (2) has transferred title to that
quantity of the commodity to the buyer.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Based on Examples 1 and 2, an agreement, contract, or
transaction that results in ``physical delivery'' within the meaning
of section 1.04(a)(2)(i)-(iii) of the Model State Commodity Code
would ordinarily result in ``actual delivery'' under new CEA section
2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa), absent other evidence indicating that the
purported delivery is a sham. See Model State Commodity Code Sec.
1.04(a)(2)(i)-(iii), Comm. Fut. L. Rep. Archive (CCH) ] 22,568 (Apr.
5, 1985). Conversely, an agreement, contract, or transaction that
does not result in ``physical delivery'' within the meaning of
section 1.04(a)(2)(i)-(iii) of the Model State Commodity Code is
highly unlikely to result in ``actual delivery'' under new CEA
section 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 3: Actual delivery will not have occurred if, within 28
days, a book entry is made by the seller purporting to show that
delivery of the commodity has been made to the buyer and/or that a
sale of a commodity has subsequently been covered or hedged by the
seller through a third party contract or account, but the seller has
not, in accordance with the methods described in Example 1 or 2,
physically delivered the entire quantity of the commodity purchased
by the buyer, including any portion of the purchase made using
leverage, margin, or financing, and transferred title to that
quantity of the commodity to the buyer, regardless of whether the
agreement, contract, or transaction between the buyer and seller
purports to create an enforceable obligation on the part of the
seller, or a parent company, partner, agent, or other affiliate of
the seller, to deliver the commodity to the buyer.
Example 4: Actual delivery will not have occurred if, within 28
days, the seller has purported to physically deliver the entire
quantity of the commodity purchased by the buyer, including any
portion of the purchase made using leverage, margin, or financing,
in accordance with the method described in Example 2, and transfer
title to that quantity of the commodity to the buyer, but the title
document fails to identify the specific financial institution,
depository, or storage facility with possession of the commodity,
the quality specifications of the commodity, the identity of the
party transferring title to
[[Page 52429]]
the commodity to the buyer, and the segregation or allocation status
of the commodity.
Example 5: Actual delivery will not have occurred if, within 28
days, an agreement, contract, or transaction for the purchase or
sale of a commodity is rolled, offset, or otherwise netted with
another transaction or settled in cash between the buyer and the
seller, but the seller has not, in accordance with the methods
described in Example 1 or 2, physically delivered the entire
quantity of the commodity purchased by the buyer, including any
portion of the purchase made using leverage, margin, or financing,
and transferred title to that quantity of the commodity to the
buyer, regardless of whether the agreement, contract, or transaction
between the buyer and seller purports to create an enforceable
obligation on the part of the seller, or a parent company, partner,
agent, or other affiliate of the seller, to deliver the commodity to
the buyer.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 20, 2013, by the Commission.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
Appendix to Retail Commodity Transactions Under Commodity Exchange
Act--Commission Voting Summary
On this matter, Chairman Gensler and Commissioners Chilton,
O'Malia, and Wetjen voted in the affirmative. No Commissioners voted
in the negative.
[FR Doc. 2013-20617 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P