Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations, 62418-62420 [2014-24624]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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: https://
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
