Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations, 62418-62420 [2014-24624]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 62418 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Notices Committee’s notice of proposed addition included substantial additional explanation and description of the specific service requirements. Consequently, the Committee disagrees that the notice is vague and lacks specificity, and finds that the notice effectively describes the requirements the AbilityOne nonprofit agency will perform. In accordance with Committee regulations, Federal contracting activities assist the Committee to identify necessary products and services that are suitable for procurement by the Government and may be furnished by AbilityOne nonprofit agencies. In doing so, contracting activities define their specific contract requirements and inform the Committee if there is a contractor providing the product or service. When deliberating on a proposed PL addition, the Committee then considers whether a proposed addition would likely have a severe adverse financial impact on the current contractor for the project. Both contractors that submitted comments are awardees of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Special Operational Equipment Tailored Logistics Support (SOE TLS) contract to provide a range of commercial products and equipment to military customers. They claim the addition of the proposed 3PL service to the Procurement List could result in severe adverse financial impact to their sales under the DLA SOE TLS contract. In response to the comments, the Committee sought additional information from the contracting activity and the contactors, to ensure that appropriate information was fully considered. In its response, the Army contracting activity clearly stated it does not currently contract for the 3PL services as described in the statement of work (SOW). The contracting activity stated that through the SOW, it is seeking a complete one-stop standardized and centralized solution to address reduced budget and personnel capacity within PM FSS. DLA’s solicitation for the SOE TLS states it is an indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for equipment and ancillary services. This Procurement List addition of the 3PL requirement is a firm-fixed price contract for services explicitly identified in the SOW, including direct labor services, as is appropriate for a 3PL requirement; it is not an IDIQ contract for products and equipment. Based on these facts, the Army and the Commission concluded that the DLA prime vendor contract and the Natick contract requirements for 3PL services VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Oct 16, 2014 Jkt 235001 in this proposed PL addition are not the same. For these reasons, the contracting activity confirmed in writing and the Commission concluded that there is no current contractor providing the specific services included in the proposed PL addition. The commercial contractors are experienced DOD vendors. One contractor’s annual revenues exceed the range of revenues that the Committee determines could result in severe adverse financial impact on that contractor if the service is added to the PL. Although the Committee requested information from the contractors, they were unable to provide any contract data demonstrating they were the current contractor to the Army contracting activity (or another contracting activity) for the 3PL services required in this addition. The Committee reviews the level of impact on the ‘‘current contractor for the specific commodity or services’’ [41 CFR 51–2.4(a)(4)(i)]. The contractors in question are not current contractors for the specific service requirement; therefore, under Committee regulations, the Committee finds there is no severe adverse impact on the contractors. Further, the contractors continue to have the opportunity to sell products and equipment under the DLA SOE TLS prime vendor program. One contractor also questioned whether the project would create employment for people with severe disabilities by referring to a prior project that was deleted from the PL. The Committee conducts a deliberative review of specific proposed addition projects. To qualify for addition to the PL, the Committee must determine that the record for this project demonstrates that it has the potential to generate employment for people who are blind or significantly disabled [41 CFR 51– 2.4(a)(1)]. In their review, the Committee determined that the record supports that the 3PL services will create employment for people with significant disabilities. The record specifies the amount of direct labor hours to be provided by people with significant disabilities and discusses referral sources for these individuals, including current or previous nonprofit agency employees with the skills to perform the proposed new positions. Accordingly, after full consideration, the Committee concluded that the 3PL Service is suitable for addition to the Procurement List. Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations. [FR Doc. 2014–24720 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353–01–P PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 2014 Schedule of Fees. AGENCY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or 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 (SRO) rule enforcement programs, specifically National Futures Association (NFA), a registered futures association, and the designated contract markets. The calculation of the fee amounts charged for 2014 by this notice is based upon an average of actual program costs incurred during fiscal year (FY) 2011, FY 2012, and FY 2013. DATES: Effective date: Each SRO is required to remit electronically the applicable fee on or before December 16, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jean Buhler, Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission; (202) 418–5089; 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: SUMMARY: 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 an SRO regulated by the Commission. The Commission recalculates the fees charged each year to cover the costs of operating this Commission program.2 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, and then charges the lower of the two.3 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 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. 2 See E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 62419 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Notices 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 generally consist 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): 145 Percent for FY 2011, 161 percent for FY 2012, and 181 percent for FY 2013. 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 Actual total costs FY 2011 FY 2013 3-year % of volume Volume adjusted costs FY 2014 assessed fee $98,556 5,260 $29,278 238,392 $235,567 164,974 $121,134 136,209 0.66 29.85 $65,672 298,837 $65,672 136,209 422,837 ........................ 17,624 757,347 34,593 221,813 391,917 134,267 360,223 524,034 56,287 199,886 46.88 0.212 6.08 624,386 29,782 146,957 524,034 29,782 146,957 30,976 34,335 559 21,957 0.17 12,331 12,331 88,790 ........................ 60,897 11,293 220,975 101,252 123,554 37,515 0.04 0.000 62,122 18,758 62,122 18,758 136,565 416,069 ........................ 7,411 71,317 55,755 135,316 24,802 128,599 93,098 170,729 61,452 15.41 0.50 0.176 165,638 89,232 32,085 93,098 89,232 32,085 Subtotal ................. 1,216,678 1,522,431 1,898,452 1,545,854 100 1,545,799 1,210,279 National Futures Association ....................... 416,615 487,328 186,499 363,480 ........................ ........................ 363,480 Total ...................... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD 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 .................. NYSE LIFFE US .......... One Chicago ................ FY 2012 3-year average actual costs 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: 1,633,293 2,009,759 2,084,950 1,909,334 ........................ ........................ 1,573,760 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 $136,209. b. The alternative computation is: (.5) ($136,209) + (.5) (.298) ($1,545,854) = $298,837. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Oct 16, 2014 Jkt 235001 c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case $136,209. 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 2011 through 2013 was $363,480 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (one-third of $1,090,441). The fee to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is $363,480. II. Schedule of Fees 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: E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 62420 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Notices 3-year average actual cost 2014 fee lesser of actual or calculated fee 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 ...................................................................................................................... NYSE LIFFE US .............................................................................................................................................. One Chicago .................................................................................................................................................... $ 121,134 136,209 524,034 56,287 199,886 21,957 123,554 37,515 93,098 170,729 61,452 $ 65,672 136,209 524,034 29,782 146,957 12,331 62,122 18,758 93,098 89,232 32,085 Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,545,854 1,210,279 National Futures Association ........................................................................................................................... 363,480 363,480 Total .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,909,334 1,573,760 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 October 10, 2014, by the Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 2014–24624 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351–01–P BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFPB–2014–0027] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. AGENCY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is proposing a new information collection titled, ‘‘Bridges to Financial Security: A Multisite Demonstration Project.’’ DATES: Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before December 16, 2014 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Oct 16, 2014 Jkt 235001 below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods: • Electronic: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002. Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435–9575, or email: PRA@cfpb.gov. Please do not submit comments to this mailbox. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title of Collection: Bridges to Financial Security: A Multi-site Demonstration Project. OMB Control Number: 3170–XXXX. Type of Review: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number). Affected Public: Individuals or households. Estimated Number of Respondents: 15,000. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 42,386. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Abstract: The Bureau, beginning in the winter of 2015, will launch a multisite financial education demonstration project to provide one-on-one and group financial counseling/coaching services to individuals with disabilities transitioning into the workplace or already employed. The goal is twofold: (1) To improve the financial skills of approximately 15,000 individuals across the spectrum of disability to effectively navigate the financial marketplace, resulting in improved credit, reduced debt, and increased savings; and (2) to build the capacity of diverse multisector systems (non-disability and disability) in up to 14 cities to unite around the common purpose of building financial security for individuals with disabilities. Monthly qualitative reports and quantitative aggregated individual data will be collected from participating sites to document the design, growth and impact of up to 14 integrated diverse delivery models serving primarily low-income populations with disabilities. Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62418-62420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24624]


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

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 2014 Schedule of Fees.

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

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or 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 
(SRO) rule enforcement programs, specifically National Futures 
Association (NFA), a registered futures association, and the designated 
contract markets. The calculation of the fee amounts charged for 2014 
by this notice is based upon an average of actual program costs 
incurred during fiscal year (FY) 2011, FY 2012, and FY 2013.

DATES: Effective date: Each SRO is required to remit electronically the 
applicable fee on or before December 16, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jean Buhler, Chief Financial 
Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission; (202) 418-5089; 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 an SRO regulated by 
the Commission. The Commission recalculates the fees charged each year 
to cover the costs of operating this Commission program.\2\ 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, and 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.

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

[[Page 62419]]

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 generally consist 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): 145 Percent for FY 2011, 
161 percent for FY 2012, and 181 percent for FY 2013.

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 2014
                                              FY 2011         FY 2012         FY 2013      actual costs       volume      adjusted costs   assessed fee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBOE Futures............................         $98,556         $29,278        $235,567        $121,134            0.66         $65,672         $65,672
Chicago Board of Trade..................           5,260         238,392         164,974         136,209           29.85         298,837         136,209
Chicago Mercantile Exchange.............         422,837         757,347         391,917         524,034           46.88         624,386         524,034
ELX Futures.............................  ..............          34,593         134,267          56,287           0.212          29,782          29,782
ICE Futures U.S.........................          17,624         221,813         360,223         199,886            6.08         146,957         146,957
Kansas City Board of Trade..............          30,976          34,335             559          21,957            0.17          12,331          12,331
Minneapolis Grain Exchange..............          88,790          60,897         220,975         123,554            0.04          62,122          62,122
NADEX North American....................  ..............          11,293         101,252          37,515           0.000          18,758          18,758
New York Mercantile Exchange............         136,565           7,411         135,316          93,098           15.41         165,638          93,098
NYSE LIFFE US...........................         416,069          71,317          24,802         170,729            0.50          89,232          89,232
One Chicago.............................  ..............          55,755         128,599          61,452           0.176          32,085          32,085
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal............................       1,216,678       1,522,431       1,898,452       1,545,854             100       1,545,799       1,210,279
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Futures Association............         416,615         487,328         186,499         363,480  ..............  ..............         363,480
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................       1,633,293       2,009,759       2,084,950       1,909,334  ..............  ..............       1,573,760
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 $136,209.
    b. The alternative computation is: (.5) ($136,209) + (.5) (.298) 
($1,545,854) = $298,837.
    c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case $136,209.
    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 2011 through 2013 was $363,480 (one-third of $1,090,441). The fee 
to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is $363,480.

II. Schedule of Fees

    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:

[[Page 62420]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2014 fee lesser
                                       3-year  average    of actual or
                                         actual cost     calculated fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBOE Futures........................         $ 121,134          $ 65,672
Chicago Board of Trade..............           136,209           136,209
Chicago Mercantile Exchange.........           524,034           524,034
ELX Futures.........................            56,287            29,782
ICE Futures U.S.....................           199,886           146,957
Kansas City Board of Trade..........            21,957            12,331
Minneapolis Grain Exchange..........           123,554            62,122
NADEX North American................            37,515            18,758
New York Mercantile Exchange........            93,098            93,098
NYSE LIFFE US.......................           170,729            89,232
One Chicago.........................            61,452            32,085
                                     -----------------------------------
    Subtotal........................         1,545,854         1,210,279
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Futures Association........           363,480           363,480
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................         1,909,334         1,573,760
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 October 10, 2014, by the 
Commission.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-24624 Filed 10-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P