Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations, 18898-18900 [2017-08222]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18898
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 77 / Monday, April 24, 2017 / Notices
Comment 11: Whether the British
Columbia (BC) Ban on Exports of Logs
and Wood Residue Is a Countervailable
Subsidy
Comment 12: Whether the BC Ban on
Exports of Logs and Wood Residue
Provides a Financial Contribution
Comment 13: Whether the Department
Should Use Tier 1 Benchmarks in BC
Comment 14: Whether the Department
Failed To Apply Its Own Evidentiary
Standards on the BC Ban on Exports of
Logs and Wood Residue
Comment 15: Whether the Department
Needs To Conduct a Feedback Effect
Analysis
Comment 16: Whether the Department
Should Use a Transaction-ByTransaction Calculation Methodology for
the BC Ban on Exports of Logs and Wood
Residue
Comment 17: Whether the Department
Should Revise the Transportation Cost
for Logs Purchased in BC by Catalyst
Comment 18: Whether the Department
Selected the Appropriate Log
Benchmarks
Comment 19: Whether the Wood Chip
Benchmark Dataset Is Distortive
Comment 20: Whether the Department
Should Revise the Wood Chip
Benchmark Transportation Cost
Comment 21: Whether the Department
Should Revise the Transportation Cost
Applied to Catalyst’s Purchases of Wood
Chips in BC
Comment 22: Whether the Department
Should Adjust the Sawdust and Hog
Fuel Calculations Based Upon Changes
to the Wood Chip Benchmark
Comment 23: Whether the Government of
New Brunswick Provided Stumpage to
Irving for LTAR
Comment 24: Whether the Department
Should Grant an Adjustment to New
Brunswick (NB) Stumpage Rates
Comment 25: Whether the Department
Should Use a Transaction-ByTransaction Calculation Methodology for
NB Stumpage
Comment 26: Whether the Department
Should Zero Comparisons That Generate
Negative Benefits
Comment 27: Whether the Large Industrial
Renewable Energy Purchase Program
(LIREPP) Confers a Benefit on the Irving
Companies
Comment 28: The Workforce Expansion
Program Is Not Specific
Comment 29: The New Brunswick R&D
Tax Credit Is Not Specific
Comment 30: Whether the Benefit to JDIL
From the Federal Pulp and Paper Green
Transformation Program (FPPGTP) Is
Countervailable
Comment 31: Whether the GNB’s
Reimbursement of Silviculture and
License Management Expenses Is
Countervailable
Comment 32: Whether the Accelerated
Capital Cost Allowance (ACCA) for Class
29 Assets Is Specific and Whether It Is
a Tax Credit
Comment 33: Whether the Benefit
Calculation for the Atlantic Investment
Tax Credit (AITC) Must Be Adjusted for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:48 Apr 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
the Additional Taxes That Were Paid as
a Result of the Program
Comment 34: Sales Denominators for
Benfefits Received by Cross-Owned
Input Suppliers Must Include All Sales
of the Downstream Product
VII. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2017–08211 Filed 4–21–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
The Department of Commerce will
submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for clearance the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
Agency: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Title: Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species Voluntary Release Reports.
OMB Control Number: 0648–0628.
Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: Regular (extension of
a currently approved information
collection).
Number of Respondents: 7.
Average Hours per Response: 5
minutes.
Burden Hours: 1 hour (rounded up).
Needs and Uses: This request is for an
extension of a currently approved
information collection.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(MSFMCA, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) the
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) is to ensure that conservation
and management measures promote, to
the extent practicable, implementation
of scientific research programs that
include the tagging and releasing of
Atlantic highly migratory species
(HMS). The currently approved
information collection allows the public
to submit volunteered geographic and
biological information relating to HMS
releases in order to populate an
interactive Web site mapping tool. This
Web page attracts visitors who are
interested in Atlantic HMS and contains
information and links to promote HMS
tagging programs that the general public
can support or become involved with.
All submissions are voluntary.
Information is used to raise awareness
for releasing Atlantic HMS and HMS
tagging programs, and is not used as
representative results.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households; businesses or other for-
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
profit organizations; not-for-profit
institutions; Federal government; and
State, Local, or Tribal government.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
This information collection request
may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow
the instructions to view Department of
Commerce collections currently under
review by OMB.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806.
Dated: April 18, 2017.
Sarah Brabson,
NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017–08158 Filed 4–21–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–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 2016 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 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 2016 by this notice is based upon an
average of actual program costs incurred
during fiscal year (‘‘FY’’) 2013, FY 2014,
and FY 2015.
DATES: Effective: Each self-regulatory
organization is required to remit
electronically the applicable fee on or
before June 23, 2017.
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:
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
18899
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 77 / Monday, April 24, 2017 / Notices
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): 181 percent for FY 2013, and
180 percent for FY 2014, and 211
percent for FY 2015.
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
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
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
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,
Actual total costs
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
3-year
average
actual
costs
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 percent
of volume
Volume
adjusted
costs
2016
Assessed
fee
$235,567
164,974
391,917
134,267
360,223
559
220,975
101,252
135,316
24,802
128,599
..................
$55,515
225,701
..................
81,176
..................
47,648
980
225,672
..................
31,196
$158,209
17,938
540,151
..................
105,864
..................
147,983
..................
118,701
..................
289
$131,259
79,476
385,923
44,756
182,421
186
138,868
34,077
159,897
8,267
53,362
1.22
30.08
44.03
0.00
10.21
0.06
0.05
0.08
13.84
0.13
0.28
$73,074
223,017
461,189
22,378
153,429
467
69,741
17,505
164,294
4,909
28,384
$73,074
79,476
385,923
22,378
153,429
186
69,741
17,505
159,897
4,909
28,384
Subtotal ...................................
National Futures Association .........
1,898,452
186,499
667,888
292,102
1,089,134
401,337
1,218,491
293,312
100
........................
1,218,387
........................
994,902
293,312
Total ........................................
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD 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 ..................................
2,084,950
959,990
1,490,471
1,511,804
........................
........................
1,288,214
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 $79,476.
b. The alternative computation is: (.5)
($79,476) + (.5) (.30) ($1,218,491) =
$223,017.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in
this case $79,476.
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
1 National Futures Association 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:48 Apr 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
18900
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 77 / Monday, April 24, 2017 / Notices
rule enforcement program during fiscal
years 2013 through 2015 was $293,312.
The fee to be paid by the NFA for the
current fiscal year is $293,312.
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:
3-Year average
actual cost
3-Year percent
of volume
2016 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 ........................................................................................................................
$131,259
79,476
385,923
44,756
182,421
186
138,868
34,077
159,897
8,267
53,362
1.22
30.08
44.03
0.00
10.21
0.06
0.05
0.08
13.84
0.13
0.2795
$73,074
79,476
385,923
22,378
153,429
186
69,741
17,505
159,897
4,909
28,384
Subtotal .........................................................................................................................
National Futures Association ...............................................................................................
1,218,491
293,312
100
........................
994,902
293,312
Total ..............................................................................................................................
1,511,804
........................
1,288,214
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 https://
www.cftc.gov, specifically, https://
www.cftc.gov/cftc/
cftcelectronicpayments.htm.
(Authority: 7 U.S.C. 16a)
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 19,
2017, by the Commission.
Robert N. Sidman,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017–08222 Filed 4–21–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew
Collection Number 3038–0091,
Disclosure and Retention of Certain
Information Relating to Cleared Swaps
Customer Collateral
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or
‘‘Commission’’) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the
proposed renewal of a collection of
certain information by the agency.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(‘‘PRA’’), Federal agencies are required
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:48 Apr 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
to publish notice in the Federal Register
concerning each proposed collection of
information, including each proposed
extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for
public comment. This notice solicits
comments on the collections of
information provided for by the
Commission’s regulations under the
Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’)
relating to the protection of customer
collateral held by futures commission
merchants (‘‘FCM’’) and derivatives
clearing organizations (‘‘DCO’’) to serve
as margin in cleared swaps transactions.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before June 23, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by ‘‘Disclosure and Retention
of Certain Information Relating to
Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral,’’
and Collection Number 3038–0091 by
any of the following methods:
• The Agency’s Web site, at https://
comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
through the Web site.
• Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission,
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC
20581.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as
Mail above.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
through the Portal.
Please submit your comments using
only one method.
All comments must be submitted in
English, or if not, accompanied by an
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
English translation. Comments will be
posted as received to https://
www.cftc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jacob Chachkin, Special Counsel, 202–
418–5496, email: jchachkin@cftc.gov; or
Joshua Beale, Special Counsel, 202–
418–5446, email: jbeale@cftc.gov,
Division of Swap Dealer and
Intermediary Oversight, Commodity
Futures Trading Commission.
Under the
PRA,1 Federal agencies must obtain
approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for each collection
of information they conduct or sponsor.
‘‘Collection of Information’’ is defined
in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3
and includes agency requests or
requirements that members of the public
submit reports, keep records, or provide
information to a third party. Section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies
to provide a 60-day notice in the
Federal Register concerning each
proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an
existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB
for approval. To comply with this
requirement, the CFTC is publishing
notice of the proposed collection of
information listed below.
Title: Disclosure and Retention of
Certain Information Relating to Cleared
Swaps Customer Collateral (OMB
Control No. 3038–0091). This is a
request for an extension of a currently
approved information collection.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 44
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
24APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 77 (Monday, April 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18898-18900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08222]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2016 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 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 2016 by this notice is based upon an
average of actual program costs incurred during fiscal year (``FY'')
2013, FY 2014, and FY 2015.
DATES: Effective: Each self-regulatory organization is required to
remit electronically the applicable fee on or before June 23, 2017.
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:
[[Page 18899]]
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\ 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\ National Futures Association 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 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): 181 percent for FY 2013,
and 180 percent for FY 2014, and 211 percent for FY 2015.
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 percent Volume 2016 Assessed
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 actual costs of volume adjusted costs fee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBOE Futures........................................ $235,567 .......... $158,209 $131,259 1.22 $73,074 $73,074
Chicago Board of Trade.............................. 164,974 $55,515 17,938 79,476 30.08 223,017 79,476
Chicago Mercantile Exchange......................... 391,917 225,701 540,151 385,923 44.03 461,189 385,923
ELX Futures......................................... 134,267 .......... .......... 44,756 0.00 22,378 22,378
ICE Futures U.S..................................... 360,223 81,176 105,864 182,421 10.21 153,429 153,429
Kansas City Board of Trade.......................... 559 .......... .......... 186 0.06 467 186
Minneapolis Grain Exchange.......................... 220,975 47,648 147,983 138,868 0.05 69,741 69,741
NADEX North American................................ 101,252 980 .......... 34,077 0.08 17,505 17,505
New York Mercantile Exchange........................ 135,316 225,672 118,701 159,897 13.84 164,294 159,897
NYSE LIFFE US....................................... 24,802 .......... .......... 8,267 0.13 4,909 4,909
One Chicago......................................... 128,599 31,196 289 53,362 0.28 28,384 28,384
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................ 1,898,452 667,888 1,089,134 1,218,491 100 1,218,387 994,902
National Futures Association........................ 186,499 292,102 401,337 293,312 .............. .............. 293,312
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 2,084,950 959,990 1,490,471 1,511,804 .............. .............. 1,288,214
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $79,476.
b. The alternative computation is: (.5) ($79,476) + (.5) (.30)
($1,218,491) = $223,017.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case $79,476.
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
[[Page 18900]]
rule enforcement program during fiscal years 2013 through 2015 was
$293,312. The fee to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is
$293,312.
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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Fee lesser
3-Year average 3-Year percent of actual or
actual cost of volume calculated fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBOE Futures................................................ $131,259 1.22 $73,074
Chicago Board of Trade...................................... 79,476 30.08 79,476
Chicago Mercantile Exchange................................. 385,923 44.03 385,923
ELX Futures................................................. 44,756 0.00 22,378
ICE Futures U.S............................................. 182,421 10.21 153,429
Kansas City Board of Trade.................................. 186 0.06 186
Minneapolis Grain Exchange.................................. 138,868 0.05 69,741
NADEX North American........................................ 34,077 0.08 17,505
New York Mercantile Exchange................................ 159,897 13.84 159,897
NYSE LIFFE US............................................... 8,267 0.13 4,909
One Chicago................................................. 53,362 0.2795 28,384
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 1,218,491 100 994,902
National Futures Association................................ 293,312 .............. 293,312
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 1,511,804 .............. 1,288,214
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://www.cftc.gov, specifically, https://www.cftc.gov/cftc/cftcelectronicpayments.htm.
(Authority: 7 U.S.C. 16a)
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 19, 2017, by the Commission.
Robert N. Sidman,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-08222 Filed 4-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
