Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations, 52907-52909 [2013-20772]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
https://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
