Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations, 52907-52909 [2013-20772]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2013 / Notices Article 3.25(4)–(5), when the President of the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely Dated: August 26, 2013. manner in the territory of any Party. See Ronald K. Lorentzen, Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA–DR Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Agreement; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) Administration. of the CAFTA–DR Implementation Act. [FR Doc. 2013–20899 Filed 8–26–13; 8:45 am] The CAFTA–DR Implementation Act BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for COMMITTEE FOR THE interested entities to submit comments IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE and supporting evidence before a AGREEMENTS commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamations Determination Under the Textile and 7987 and 7996, the President delegated Apparel Commercial Availability to CITA the authority under section Provision of the Dominican Republic203(o)(4) of CAFTA–DR Implementation Central America-United States Free Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. Trade Agreement (‘‘CAFTA–DR Pursuant to this authority, on September Agreement’’) 15, 2008, CITA published modified procedures it would follow in AGENCY: The Committee for the considering requests to modify the Implementation of Textile Agreements. Annex 3.25 list of products determined ACTION: Determination to add a product in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 to be not commercially available in the territory of any Party to CAFTA–DR of the CAFTA–DR agreement. (Modifications to Procedures for Considering Requests Under the SUMMARY: The Committee for the Commercial Availability Provision of Implementation of Textile Agreements the Dominican Republic-Central (‘‘CITA’’) has determined that certain America-United States Free Trade polyester/nylon cut corduroy fabric, as Agreement, 73 FR 53200) (‘‘CITA’s specified below, is not available in procedures’’). commercial quantities in a timely On July 25, the Chairman of CITA manner in the CAFTA–DR countries. received a request for a Commercial The product will be added to the list in Availability determination (‘‘Request’’) Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA–DR from Alston & Bird, LLP on behalf of Agreement in unrestricted quantities. SPC Global, LLC, for certain polyester/ DATES: Effective August 27, 2013. nylon cut corduroy fabric, as specified FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: below. On July 29, 2013, in accordance Maria Dybczak, Office of Textiles and with CITA’s procedures, CITA notified Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, interested parties of the Request, which (202) 482–3651. was posted on the dedicated Web site For Further Information Online: for CAFTA–DR Commercial Availability http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/ proceedings. In its notification, CITA CaftaReqTrack.nsf under ‘‘Approved advised that any Response with an Offer Requests,’’ Referencen number: 184.2013. to Supply (‘‘Response’’) must be 07.25.Fabric.Alston&BirdforSPCGlobal submitted by August 8, 2013, and any SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Rebuttal Comments to a Response must Authority: The CAFTA–DR Agreement; be submitted by August 14, 2013, in Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic- accordance with sections 6 and 7 of Central America-United States Free Trade CITA’s procedures. No interested entity Agreement Implementation Act (‘‘CAFTA– submitted a Response to the Request DR Implementation Act’’), Public Law 109– advising CITA of its objection to the 53; the Statement of Administrative Action, Request and its ability to supply the accompanying the CAFTA–DR subject product. Implementation Act; and Presidential In accordance with section Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA–DR 7996 (March 31, 2006). Implementation Act, and section 8(c)(2) Background: The CAFTA–DR Agreement provides of CITA’s procedures, as no interested a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, entity submitted a Response to object to and fibers that the Parties to the the Request with an offer to supply the CAFTA–DR Agreement have subject product, CITA has determined to determined are not available in add the specified fabric to the list in commercial quantities in a timely Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA–DR manner in the territory of any Party. The Agreement. The subject product has been added CAFTA–DR Agreement provides that to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA– this list may be modified pursuant to tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:54 Aug 26, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52907 DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. A revised list has been posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA–DR Commercial Availability proceedings. Specifications: Certain Polyester/ Nylon Cut Corduroy Fabric. HTS: 5801.32.0000. Fiber Content: 80–95% polyester, 5–20% nylon. Yarn Size: Warp: Polyester filament between 111–222 decitex (English: 100–200 denier). Fill: Polyester filament 111–278 decitex (English: 100–250 denier) and bi-constituent polyester-nylon filament between 222–389 decitex (English: 200–350 denier). NOTE 1: In the bi-constituent yarn, the polyester and nylon are mixed prior to extrusion. NOTE 2: The yarn size designations describe a range of specifications for yarn in its greige condition. They are intended as specifications to be followed by the mill in sourcing yarn used to produce the fabric. Weaving, dyeing, and finishing can alter the characteristics of the yarn as it appears in the finished fabric. This specification therefore includes yarns appearing in the finished fabric as finer or coarser than the designated yarn sizes provided that the variation occurs after processing of the greige yarn and production of the fabric. Thread count: 20–34 warp ends x 50–67 fill picks per centimeter (English: 50–86 warp ends x 127–170 fill picks per inch). Weight: 220–290 grams per sq. meter (English: 6.48–8.55 oz per sq. yard). Width: 142–162 cm (English: 56–64 inches). Weave: Cut corduroy with 3–6 wales per cm (English: 8–16 wales per inch). Finishing: Piece dyed or of yarns of different colors. Kim Glas, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. 2013–20765 Filed 8–26–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Notice of FY 2013 Schedule of Fees. AGENCY: The Commission charges fees to designated contract markets and registered futures associations to recover the costs incurred by the Commission in the operation of its program of oversight of self-regulatory organization rule enforcement programs, specifically National Futures Association, a SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM 27AUN1 52908 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2013 / Notices registered futures association, and the designated contract markets. The calculation of the fee amounts charged for FY 2013 by this notice is based upon an average of actual program costs incurred during FY 2010, 2011, and 2012. DATES: Effective date: Each SRO is required to remit electronically the fee applicable to it on or before October 28, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Carney, Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418–5477, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. For information on electronic payment, contact Jennifer Fleming, (202) 418–5034, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Information A. General This notice relates to fees for the Commission’s review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations 1 and designated contract markets (DCM) each of which is a self-regulatory organization (SRO) regulated by the Commission. The Commission recalculates the fees charged each year to cover the costs of operating this Commission program.2 All costs are accounted for by the Commission’s Budget Program Activity Codes (BPAC) system, formerly the Management Accounting Structure Codes (MASC) system, which records each employee’s time for each pay period. The fees are set each year based on direct program costs, plus an overhead factor. The Commission calculates actual costs, then calculates an alternate fee taking volume into account, then charges the lower of the two.3 B. Overhead Rate The fees charged by the Commission to the SROs are designed to recover program costs, including direct labor costs and overhead. The overhead rate is calculated by dividing total Commission-wide overhead direct program labor costs into the total amount of the Commission-wide overhead pool. For this purpose, direct program labor costs are the salary costs of personnel working in all Commission programs. Overhead costs consist generally of the following Commissionwide costs: indirect personnel costs (leave and benefits), rent, communications, contract services, utilities, equipment, and supplies. This formula has resulted in the following overhead rates for the most recent three years (rounded to the nearest whole percent): 153 percent for fiscal year 2010, 145 percent for fiscal year 2011, and 161 percent for fiscal year 2012. C. Conduct of SRO Rule Enforcement Reviews Under the formula adopted by the Commission in 1993, the Commission calculates the fee to recover the costs of its rule enforcement reviews and examinations, based on the three-year average of the actual cost of performing such reviews and examinations at each SRO. The cost of operation of the Commission’s SRO oversight program varies from SRO to SRO, according to the size and complexity of each SRO’s program. The three-year averaging computation method is intended to smooth out year-to-year variations in cost. Timing of the Commission’s Actual total costs reviews and examinations may affect costs—a review or examination may span two fiscal years and reviews and examinations are not conducted at each SRO each year. As noted above, adjustments to actual costs may be made to relieve the burden on an SRO with a disproportionately large share of program costs. The Commission’s formula provides for a reduction in the assessed fee if an SRO has a smaller percentage of United States industry contract volume than its percentage of overall Commission oversight program costs. This adjustment reduces the costs so that, as a percentage of total Commission SRO oversight program costs, they are in line with the pro rata percentage for that SRO of United States industry-wide contract volume. The calculation is made as follows: The fee required to be paid to the Commission by each DCM is equal to the lesser of actual costs based on the three-year historical average of costs for that DCM or one-half of average costs incurred by the Commission for each DCM for the most recent three years, plus a pro rata share (based on average trading volume for the most recent three years) of the aggregate of average annual costs of all DCMs for the most recent three years. The formula for calculating the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt = current fee. In this formula, ‘‘a’’ equals the average annual costs, ‘‘v’’ equals the percentage of total volume across DCMs over the last three years, and ‘‘t’’ equals the average annual costs for all DCMs. NFA has no contracts traded; hence, its fee is based simply on costs for the most recent three fiscal years. This table summarizes the data used in the calculations of the resulting fee for each entity: 3-year average actual costs FY 2011 CBOE Futures ........................................ Chicago Board of Trade ........................ Chicago Mercantile Exchange ............... ELX Futures ........................................... ICE Futures U.S. .................................... Kansas City Board of Trade .................. Minneapolis Grain Exchange ................. NADEX North American ........................ New York Mercantile Exchange ............ New York LIFFE .................................... One Chicago .......................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES FY 2010 $ 87,953 882,542 .................... 94,043 227,296 .................... .................... 596,767 .................... .................... $98,556 5,260 422,837 .................... 17,624 30,976 88,790 .................... 136,565 416,069 .................... 29,278 238,392 757,347 34,593 221,813 34,335 60,897 11,293 7,411 71,317 55,755 Subtotal ........................................... National Futures Association ................. 1,888,601 1,206,393 1,216,678 416,615 1,522,431 487,328 1,542,570 703,445 3-year % of volume Volume adjusted costs FY 2013 assessed fee 0.34 29.25 50.14 0.341 3.20 0.18 0.05 0.000 15.93 0.42 0.141 $23,914 280,868 730,502 8,397 80,237 50,133 25,321 1,882 246,340 84,495 10,382 $23,914 110,535 687,575 8,397 80,237 50,133 25,321 1,882 246,340 84,495 10,382 100 ...................... 1,542,470 .................... 1,329,210 703,445 $42,611 110,535 687,575 11,531 111,160 97,536 49,896 3,764 246,915 162,462 18,585 1 NFA is the only registered futures association. section 237 of the Futures Trading Act of 1982, 7 U.S.C. 16a, and 31 U.S.C. 9701. For a 2 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:54 Aug 26, 2013 Jkt 229001 FY 2012 broader discussion of the history of Commission fees, see 52 FR 46070, Dec. 4, 1987. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3 58 FR 42643, Aug. 11, 1993, and 17 CFR part 1, app. B. E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM 27AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2013 / Notices Actual total costs 3-year average actual costs FY 2010 Total ......................................... FY 2011 FY 2012 3,094,994 1,633,293 2,009,759 An example of how the fee is calculated for one exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade, is set forth here: a. Actual three-year average costs equal 110,535. b. The alternative computation is: (.5) (110,535) + (.5) (.292) (1,542,570) = 280,868. c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case 110,535. As noted above, the alternative calculation based on contracts traded is not applicable to NFA because it is not a DCM and has no contracts traded. The Commission’s average annual cost for conducting oversight review of the NFA rule enforcement program during fiscal years 2010 through 2012 was 708,424 (one-third of 2,125,273). The fee to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is 708,424. II. Schedule of Fees Therefore, fees for the Commission’s review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations and DCMs regulated by the Commission are as follows: 2013 fee lesser of actual or calculated fee $23,914 110,535 687,575 8,397 80,237 50,133 25,321 1,882 246,340 84,495 10,382 Subtotal ............................. National Futures Association .... 1,329,210 703,445 Total ........................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES CBOE Futures .......................... Chicago Board of Trade ........... Chicago Mercantile Exchange .. ELX Futures .............................. ICE Futures U.S. ...................... Kansas City Board of Trade ..... Minneapolis Grain Exchange ... NADEX North American ........... New York Mercantile Exchange New York LIFFE ....................... One Chicago ............................. 2,032,655 III. Payment Method The Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to the government by electronic transfer of funds. See 31 U.S.C. 3720. For information about electronic payments, please contact Jennifer Fleming at (202) 418–5034 or jfleming@cftc.gov, or see the CFTC Web site at www.cftc.gov, specifically, www.cftc.gov/cftc/ cftcelectronicpayments.htm. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 16a. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:54 Aug 26, 2013 Jkt 229001 2,246,015 Issued in Washington, DC, on August 21, 2013, by the Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Deputy Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–20772 Filed 8–26–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351–01–P CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment (FINAL EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Renovation and Modernization of the Organization Headquarters Building, Washington, DC Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment (FINAL EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Renovation and Modernization of the organization headquarters building located at 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC. AGENCY: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is issuing this notice to advise the public that, on January 3, 2013, the CFPB prepared and completed, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on the Final Environmental Assessment (FINAL EA) for the project at 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC is to modernize the interior and courtyard space of the building. The building is currently used as the headquarters for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Originally built in 1976, the building has three below ground levels that extend beneath a large public courtyard (two of which include secured parking) and seven floors above ground with the highest reserved for mechanical equipment. Storefront retail is located at the ground level. The CFPB prepared the final EA, dated July 2013, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DATES: Comments must be received no later than September 25, 2013. The FONSI and/or Final EA are available as of the publication date of this notice. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may request copies of the FONSI and/or Final EA, from: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Facilities Office— SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 52909 3-year % of volume Volume adjusted costs FY 2013 assessed fee ...................... .................... 2,032,655 Projects, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC, 20552. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • Electronic: michael.davis@cfpb.gov. • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Michael Davis, Project Manager, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552. All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Davis, Project Manager, Office of Administrative Operations, at (202) 435–9405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final EA evaluated the future project at 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC to modernize the interior and courtyard space of the building. The building is currently used as the headquarters for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Originally built in 1976, the building has three below ground levels that extend beneath a large public courtyard (two of which include secured parking) and seven floors above ground with the highest reserved for mechanical equipment. Storefront retail is located at the ground level. The Final EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Based on the results of the EA, the CFPB has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) indicating that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment. Minimization and mitigating measures will include: Compliance with applicable regulatory laws, procedures, and permits for all construction activities; site review by state historic preservation office before construction to avoid disturbance of any site with the potential for historical significance; and the application of best management practices (BMP) to minimize short term air quality and noise impact during construction activities. Dated: August 21, 2013. Christopher D’Angelo, Chief of Staff, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. [FR Doc. 2013–20896 Filed 8–26–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM 27AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52907-52909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20772]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated 
Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Notice of FY 2013 Schedule of Fees.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission charges fees to designated contract markets and 
registered futures associations to recover the costs incurred by the 
Commission in the operation of its program of oversight of self-
regulatory organization rule enforcement programs, specifically 
National Futures Association, a

[[Page 52908]]

registered futures association, and the designated contract markets. 
The calculation of the fee amounts charged for FY 2013 by this notice 
is based upon an average of actual program costs incurred during FY 
2010, 2011, and 2012.

DATES: Effective date: Each SRO is required to remit electronically the 
fee applicable to it on or before October 28, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Carney, Chief Financial Officer, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5477, Three Lafayette 
Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. For information on 
electronic payment, contact Jennifer Fleming, (202) 418-5034, Three 
Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

A. General

    This notice relates to fees for the Commission's review of the rule 
enforcement programs at the registered futures associations \1\ and 
designated contract markets (DCM) each of which is a self-regulatory 
organization (SRO) regulated by the Commission. The Commission 
recalculates the fees charged each year to cover the costs of operating 
this Commission program.\2\ All costs are accounted for by the 
Commission's Budget Program Activity Codes (BPAC) system, formerly the 
Management Accounting Structure Codes (MASC) system, which records each 
employee's time for each pay period. The fees are set each year based 
on direct program costs, plus an overhead factor. The Commission 
calculates actual costs, then calculates an alternate fee taking volume 
into account, then charges the lower of the two.\3\


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NFA is the only registered futures association.
    \2\ See section 237 of the Futures Trading Act of 1982, 7 U.S.C. 
16a, and 31 U.S.C. 9701. For a broader discussion of the history of 
Commission fees, see 52 FR 46070, Dec. 4, 1987.
    \3\ 58 FR 42643, Aug. 11, 1993, and 17 CFR part 1, app. B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Overhead Rate

    The fees charged by the Commission to the SROs are designed to 
recover program costs, including direct labor costs and overhead. The 
overhead rate is calculated by dividing total Commission-wide overhead 
direct program labor costs into the total amount of the Commission-wide 
overhead pool. For this purpose, direct program labor costs are the 
salary costs of personnel working in all Commission programs. Overhead 
costs consist generally of the following Commission-wide costs: 
indirect personnel costs (leave and benefits), rent, communications, 
contract services, utilities, equipment, and supplies. This formula has 
resulted in the following overhead rates for the most recent three 
years (rounded to the nearest whole percent): 153 percent for fiscal 
year 2010, 145 percent for fiscal year 2011, and 161 percent for fiscal 
year 2012.

C. Conduct of SRO Rule Enforcement Reviews

    Under the formula adopted by the Commission in 1993, the Commission 
calculates the fee to recover the costs of its rule enforcement reviews 
and examinations, based on the three-year average of the actual cost of 
performing such reviews and examinations at each SRO. The cost of 
operation of the Commission's SRO oversight program varies from SRO to 
SRO, according to the size and complexity of each SRO's program. The 
three-year averaging computation method is intended to smooth out year-
to-year variations in cost. Timing of the Commission's reviews and 
examinations may affect costs--a review or examination may span two 
fiscal years and reviews and examinations are not conducted at each SRO 
each year.
    As noted above, adjustments to actual costs may be made to relieve 
the burden on an SRO with a disproportionately large share of program 
costs. The Commission's formula provides for a reduction in the 
assessed fee if an SRO has a smaller percentage of United States 
industry contract volume than its percentage of overall Commission 
oversight program costs. This adjustment reduces the costs so that, as 
a percentage of total Commission SRO oversight program costs, they are 
in line with the pro rata percentage for that SRO of United States 
industry-wide contract volume.
    The calculation is made as follows: The fee required to be paid to 
the Commission by each DCM is equal to the lesser of actual costs based 
on the three-year historical average of costs for that DCM or one-half 
of average costs incurred by the Commission for each DCM for the most 
recent three years, plus a pro rata share (based on average trading 
volume for the most recent three years) of the aggregate of average 
annual costs of all DCMs for the most recent three years. The formula 
for calculating the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt = current fee. In 
this formula, ``a'' equals the average annual costs, ``v'' equals the 
percentage of total volume across DCMs over the last three years, and 
``t'' equals the average annual costs for all DCMs. NFA has no 
contracts traded; hence, its fee is based simply on costs for the most 
recent three fiscal years. This table summarizes the data used in the 
calculations of the resulting fee for each entity:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Actual total costs              3-year
                                                             ---------------------------------------   average     3-year % of     Volume      FY 2013
                                                                                                        actual       volume       adjusted     assessed
                                                                FY 2010      FY 2011      FY 2012       costs                      costs         fee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBOE Futures................................................            $      $98,556       29,278      $42,611         0.34       $23,914      $23,914
Chicago Board of Trade......................................       87,953        5,260      238,392      110,535        29.25       280,868      110,535
Chicago Mercantile Exchange.................................      882,542      422,837      757,347      687,575        50.14       730,502      687,575
ELX Futures.................................................  ...........  ...........       34,593       11,531         0.341        8,397        8,397
ICE Futures U.S.............................................       94,043       17,624      221,813      111,160         3.20        80,237       80,237
Kansas City Board of Trade..................................      227,296       30,976       34,335       97,536         0.18        50,133       50,133
Minneapolis Grain Exchange..................................  ...........       88,790       60,897       49,896         0.05        25,321       25,321
NADEX North American........................................  ...........  ...........       11,293        3,764         0.000        1,882        1,882
New York Mercantile Exchange................................      596,767      136,565        7,411      246,915        15.93       246,340      246,340
New York LIFFE..............................................  ...........      416,069       71,317      162,462         0.42        84,495       84,495
One Chicago.................................................  ...........  ...........       55,755       18,585         0.141       10,382       10,382
 
    Subtotal................................................    1,888,601    1,216,678    1,522,431    1,542,570       100        1,542,470    1,329,210
National Futures Association................................    1,206,393      416,615      487,328      703,445  ............  ...........      703,445
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 52909]]

 
        Total...............................................    3,094,994    1,633,293    2,009,759    2,246,015  ............  ...........    2,032,655
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An example of how the fee is calculated for one exchange, the 
Chicago Board of Trade, is set forth here:
    a. Actual three-year average costs equal 110,535.
    b. The alternative computation is: (.5) (110,535) + (.5) (.292) 
(1,542,570) = 280,868.
    c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case 110,535.
    As noted above, the alternative calculation based on contracts 
traded is not applicable to NFA because it is not a DCM and has no 
contracts traded. The Commission's average annual cost for conducting 
oversight review of the NFA rule enforcement program during fiscal 
years 2010 through 2012 was 708,424 (one-third of 2,125,273). The fee 
to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is 708,424.

II. Schedule of Fees

    Therefore, fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement 
programs at the registered futures associations and DCMs regulated by 
the Commission are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2013 fee
                                                              lesser of
                                                              actual or
                                                              calculated
                                                                 fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBOE Futures...............................................      $23,914
Chicago Board of Trade.....................................      110,535
Chicago Mercantile Exchange................................      687,575
ELX Futures................................................        8,397
ICE Futures U.S............................................       80,237
Kansas City Board of Trade.................................       50,133
Minneapolis Grain Exchange.................................       25,321
NADEX North American.......................................        1,882
New York Mercantile Exchange...............................      246,340
New York LIFFE.............................................       84,495
One Chicago................................................       10,382
                                                            ------------
    Subtotal...............................................    1,329,210
National Futures Association...............................      703,445
                                                            ------------
        Total..............................................    2,032,655
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Payment Method

    The Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) requires deposits of 
fees owed to the government by electronic transfer of funds. See 31 
U.S.C. 3720. For information about electronic payments, please contact 
Jennifer Fleming at (202) 418-5034 or jfleming@cftc.gov, or see the 
CFTC Web site at www.cftc.gov, specifically, www.cftc.gov/cftc/cftcelectronicpayments.htm.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 16a.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 21, 2013, by the Commission.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-20772 Filed 8-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P