Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations, 6304-6306 [2021-01145]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6304
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 12 / Thursday, January 21, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
providing written public comments will
be limited to one comment per public
comment period with no repetition of
previous comments. Comments can also
be submitted in writing during the
public comment period through the
webinar. Comments will be read into
the record, transcribed, and become part
of the meeting record. Due to time
meeting constraints, all comments may
not be addressed during the meeting.
The Hydrographic Services Review
Panel (HSRP) is a Federal Advisory
Committee established to advise the
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere, the NOAA
Administrator, on matters related to the
responsibilities and authorities set forth
in section 303 of the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Act of 1998, as
amended, and such other appropriate
matters that the Under Secretary refers
to the Panel for review and advice.
Matters To Be Considered
The panel is convening on issues
relevant to NOAA’s navigation services,
including stakeholder use of navigation
services data, products and services,
and other topics related to hydrographic
surveys, nautical charting, the ongoing
National Spatial Reference System
(NSRS) modernization including
changes to flood plain management,
navigation services contributions to
resilience and coastal data and
information systems, coastal and ocean
modeling, PORTS® (Physical
Oceanographic Real-Time System)
sensor enhancements and expansion,
the projects of the NOAA-University of
New Hampshire Joint Hydrographic
Center Cooperative Agreement, the new
NOAA five-year cooperative agreement
with the University of Southern Florida
to launch the Center for Ocean Mapping
and Innovative Technologies (COMIT),
updates on legislative and budget
priorities, and other topics. Navigation
services include the data, products, and
services provided by the NOAA
programs and activities that undertake
geodetic observations, gravity modeling,
coastal and shoreline mapping,
bathymetric mapping and modeling,
hydrographic surveying, nautical
charting, tide and water level
observations, current observations,
flooding, resilience, inundation and sea
level rise, marine and coastal modeling,
geospatial and LIDAR data, and related
topics. This suite of NOAA products
and services support safe and efficient
navigation, resilient coasts and
communities, and the nationwide
positioning information infrastructure to
support America’s climate needs and
commerce. The Panel will hear about
the missions and uses of NOAA’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:44 Jan 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
navigation services, the value these
services bring, and what improvements
could be made. Other matters may be
considered.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities and there
will be sign language interpretation and
captioning services. Please direct
requests for other auxiliary aids to
Melanie.Colantuno@noaa.gov at least 10
business days in advance of the
meeting.
Kathryn Ries,
Deputy Director, Office of Coast Survey,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021–01193 Filed 1–19–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–JE–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 2020 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. Fees
collected from each self-regulatory
organization are deposited in the
Treasury of the United States as
miscellaneous receipts. The calculation
of the fee amounts charged for 2020 by
this notice is based upon an average of
actual program costs incurred during
fiscal year (‘‘FY’’) 2017, FY 2018, and
FY 2019.
DATES: Each self-regulatory organization
is required to remit electronically the
applicable fee on or before March 22,
2021.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony C. Thompson, Executive
Director and Chief Administrative
Officer, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission; (202) 418–5697; Three
Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW,
Washington, DC 20581. For information
on electronic payment, contact Jennifer
Fleming; (202) 418–5034; Three
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW,
Washington, DC 20581.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
A. General
This notice relates to fees for the
Commission’s review of the rule
enforcement programs at the registered
futures associations 1 and designated
contract markets (‘‘DCM’’), each of
which is a self-regulatory organization
(‘‘SRO’’) regulated by the Commission.
The Commission recalculates the fees
charged each year to cover the costs of
operating this Commission program.2
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
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): 169 percent for FY 2017, 182
percent for FY 2018, and 174 percent for
FY 2019.
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM
21JAN1
6305
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 12 / Thursday, January 21, 2021 / Notices
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
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:
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
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF DATA USED IN FEE CALCULATIONS
Actual total costs
FY 2017
FY 2018
3-Year
average
actual costs
FY 2019
3-Year
total
volume %
Adjusted
volume
costs
2020
Assessed
fee
Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P. ....................
CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC .....................
Chicago Board of Trade ................................
Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. ..............
Eris Exchange, LLC ......................................
ICE Futures U.S., Inc. ...................................
Minneapolis Grain Exchange, Inc. ................
Nasdaq OMX Futures Exchange, Inc. ..........
New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. ............
Nodal Exchange, LLC ...................................
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc.
OneChicago, LLC ..........................................
$60,045
31,026
96,442
472,157
53,010
199,090
42,226
251,200
212,798
100,600
84,666
36,444
$56,551
16,033
2,296
235,127
33,170
50,096
438
109,413
3,397
33,162
6,986
61,276
........................
40,517
22,835
383,995
........................
73,464
39,525
1,741
45,425
2,312
135,159
........................
$38,866
29,192
40,525
363,760
28,727
107,550
27,396
120,785
87,206
45,358
75,604
32,573
0.02
1.40
32.69
42.23
0.01
6.86
0.05
0.59
12.77
0.06
0.22
0.20
$19,527
21,600
183,313
392,507
14,397
87,993
13,944
63,311
107,290
22,996
38,891
17,276
$19,527
21,600
40,525
363,760
14,397
87,993
13,944
63,311
87,206
22,996
38,891
17,276
Subtotal ..................................................
1,639,704
607,946
744,973
997,541
100.00
997,541
791,427
National Futures Association ........................
660,710
507,673
540,821
569,735
........................
........................
569,735
Total .......................................................
2,300,414
1,115,619
1,285,794
1,567,276
100.00
997,541
1,361,161
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this
case $40,525
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 =
$40,525
b. The alternative computation is: [(.5)
($40,525)] + (.5) [(.3269048)
($997,541)] = $183,313
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 2017 through 2019 was $569,735.
The fee to be paid by the NFA for the
current fiscal year is $569,735.
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:
TABLE 2—SCHEDULE OF FEES
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
3-Year
average
actual costs
3-Year
total
volume %
Adjusted
volume costs
2020
Assessed fee
Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P. .......................................................................
CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC .......................................................................
Chicago Board of Trade ..................................................................................
Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. .................................................................
Eris Exchange, LLC .........................................................................................
ICE Futures U.S., Inc. .....................................................................................
Minneapolis Grain Exchange, Inc. ...................................................................
Nasdaq OMX Futures Exchange, Inc. .............................................................
New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. ..............................................................
Nodal Exchange, LLC ......................................................................................
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. ....................................................
OneChicago, LLC ............................................................................................
$38,866
29,192
40,525
363,760
28,727
107,550
27,396
120,785
87,206
45,358
75,604
32,573
0.02
1.40
32.69
42.23
0.01
6.86
0.05
0.59
12.77
0.06
0.22
0.20
$19,527
21,600
183,313
392,507
14,397
87,993
13,944
63,311
107,290
22,996
38,891
17,276
$19,527
21,600
40,525
363,760
14,397
87,993
13,944
63,311
87,206
22,996
38,891
17,276
Subtotal .....................................................................................................
997,541
100.00
997,541
791,427
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:41 Jan 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM
21JAN1
6306
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 12 / Thursday, January 21, 2021 / Notices
TABLE 2—SCHEDULE OF FEES—Continued
3-Year
average
actual costs
Adjusted
volume costs
2020
Assessed fee
National Futures Association ...........................................................................
569,735
........................
........................
569,735
Total ..........................................................................................................
1,567,276
100.00
997,541
1,361,161
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 website at https://
www.cftc.gov, specifically, https://
www.cftc.gov/cftc/
cftcelectronicpayments.htm.
Fees collected from each selfregulatory organization shall be
deposited in the Treasury of the United
States as miscellaneous receipts. See 7
U.S.C 16a.
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 13th day
of January, 2021, by the Commission.
Robert Sidman,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021–01145 Filed 1–19–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION
Statement Regarding the Provision of
Financial Products and Services to
Consumers With Limited English
Proficiency
Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing
this Statement Regarding the Provision
of Financial Products and Services to
Consumers with Limited English
Proficiency (Statement) to encourage
financial institutions to better serve
consumers with limited English
proficiency (LEP) and to provide
principles and guidelines to assist
financial institutions in complying with
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank
Act), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
(ECOA), and other applicable laws.
DATES: The Bureau released this
Statement on its website on January 13,
2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ena
P. Koukourinis, Senior Counsel, Office
SUMMARY:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
3-Year
total
volume %
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:44 Jan 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity,
at CFPB_FairLending@cfpb.gov or 202–
435–7000. If you require this document
in an alternative electronic format,
please contact CFPB_Accessibility@
cfpb.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statement Regarding the Provision of
Financial Products and Services to
Consumers With Limited English
Proficiency
A. Background
The Bureau works to ensure a fair,
transparent, and competitive consumer
financial marketplace. To that end, the
Bureau seeks to promote access to
financial products and services for all
consumers, including LEP consumers.1
Despite having considerable credit
needs and representing a large segment
of the U.S. population, LEP consumers
often encounter significant barriers to
participating in the consumer financial
marketplace.2 Many of these challenges
stem from language access issues—
financial disclosures and written
documents are generally not available in
languages other than English and some
financial institutions do not have
bilingual employees or access to
interpretation services.3
Recognizing the compliance risks and
uncertainty that many financial
institutions raise as challenges to better
serving LEP consumers in non-English
languages, the Bureau is issuing this
Statement to outline compliance
principles and guidelines that
encourage financial institutions to
expand access to products and services
for LEP consumers. In doing so, the
Bureau seeks to: (1) Promote access to
financial products for all consumers; (2)
facilitate compliance by providing clear
rules of the road; and (3) educate and
empower consumers to make better
1 In this document, a consumer with ‘‘limited
English proficiency’’ or a ‘‘limited English
proficient’’ (LEP) consumer means a person who
has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or
understand English.
2 See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
Spotlight on serving limited English proficient
consumers: Language access in the consumer
financial marketplace, 6–7 (Nov. 2017), https://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_
spotlight-serving-lep-consumers_112017.pdf.
3 Id. at 12.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
informed financial decisions.4 Financial
institutions play an important role in
building a more inclusive financial
system and presenting opportunities for
LEP consumers to build their financial
capabilities.5 The effective and
responsible integration of LEP
consumers into the financial
marketplace has the potential to create
positive benefits for consumers and the
financial services industry alike.6
The Dodd-Frank Act emphasizes the
Bureau’s role in ensuring ‘‘fair,
equitable, and nondiscriminatory access
to credit.’’ 7 Consistent with that
purpose, the Bureau encourages
financial institutions to promote access
to financial products and services for all
consumers by better serving LEP
consumers. In providing such assistance
and serving LEP consumers, financial
institutions must also comply with
Dodd-Frank Act prohibitions against
engaging in any unfair, deceptive, or
abusive act or practice (UDAAP) 8 and
the ECOA.9 This Statement provides
guidance on how financial institutions
can provide access to credit in
languages other than English in a
manner that is beneficial to consumers,
while taking steps to ensure financial
institutions’ actions are compliant with
the ECOA, the prohibitions against
UDAAPs, and other applicable laws.
Approximately 22 percent of the U.S.
population over the age of 5 (in all, 67.8
million people) speak a language other
than English at home and, of these, 37.6
percent are LEP.10 LEP consumers face
4 See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203
(2010), sec. 1021 (Dodd-Frank Act); see also CFPB
Director Kathleen Kraninger, Kraninger Marks
Second Year as Director of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (Dec. 11, 2020), https://
www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/
kraninger-marks-second-year-director-consumerfinancial-protection-bureau/.
5 Supra note 2.
6 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
Spotlight on serving limited English proficient
consumers: Language access in the consumer
financial marketplace, 6–7 (Nov. 2017), https://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_
spotlight-serving-lep-consumers_112017.pdf.
7 Dodd-Frank Act, sec. 1013(c)(2)(A), 124 Stat.
1376 (2010) (codified as 12 U.S.C. 5493(c)(2)(A)).
8 Id. at sec. 1036 (codified as 12 U.S.C. 5536).
9 15 U.S.C 1691 et seq.
10 U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American
Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1601:
E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM
21JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6304-6306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01145]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2020 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. Fees collected from
each self-regulatory organization are deposited in the Treasury of the
United States as miscellaneous receipts. The calculation of the fee
amounts charged for 2020 by this notice is based upon an average of
actual program costs incurred during fiscal year (``FY'') 2017, FY
2018, and FY 2019.
DATES: Each self-regulatory organization is required to remit
electronically the applicable fee on or before March 22, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony C. Thompson, Executive
Director and Chief Administrative Officer, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission; (202) 418-5697; Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street
NW, Washington, DC 20581. For information on electronic payment,
contact Jennifer Fleming; (202) 418-5034; Three Lafayette Centre, 1155
21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
A. General
This notice relates to fees for the Commission's review of the rule
enforcement programs at the registered futures associations \1\ and
designated contract markets (``DCM''), each of which is a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') regulated by the Commission. The
Commission recalculates the fees charged each year to cover the costs
of operating this Commission program.\2\ 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): 169 percent for FY 2017,
182 percent for FY 2018, and 174 percent for FY 2019.
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
[[Page 6305]]
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:
Table 1--Summary of Data Used in Fee Calculations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual total costs
------------------------------------------------ 3-Year average 3-Year total Adjusted 2020 Assessed
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 actual costs volume % volume costs fee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P............ $60,045 $56,551 .............. $38,866 0.02 $19,527 $19,527
CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC.............. 31,026 16,033 40,517 29,192 1.40 21,600 21,600
Chicago Board of Trade.................. 96,442 2,296 22,835 40,525 32.69 183,313 40,525
Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc........ 472,157 235,127 383,995 363,760 42.23 392,507 363,760
Eris Exchange, LLC...................... 53,010 33,170 .............. 28,727 0.01 14,397 14,397
ICE Futures U.S., Inc................... 199,090 50,096 73,464 107,550 6.86 87,993 87,993
Minneapolis Grain Exchange, Inc......... 42,226 438 39,525 27,396 0.05 13,944 13,944
Nasdaq OMX Futures Exchange, Inc........ 251,200 109,413 1,741 120,785 0.59 63,311 63,311
New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc....... 212,798 3,397 45,425 87,206 12.77 107,290 87,206
Nodal Exchange, LLC..................... 100,600 33,162 2,312 45,358 0.06 22,996 22,996
North American Derivatives Exchange, 84,666 6,986 135,159 75,604 0.22 38,891 38,891
Inc....................................
OneChicago, LLC......................... 36,444 61,276 .............. 32,573 0.20 17,276 17,276
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................ 1,639,704 607,946 744,973 997,541 100.00 997,541 791,427
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Futures Association............ 660,710 507,673 540,821 569,735 .............. .............. 569,735
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 2,300,414 1,115,619 1,285,794 1,567,276 100.00 997,541 1,361,161
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 = $40,525
b. The alternative computation is: [(.5) ($40,525)] + (.5) [(.3269048)
($997,541)] = $183,313
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case $40,525
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 2017 through 2019 was $569,735. The fee to be paid by the NFA for
the current fiscal year is $569,735.
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:
Table 2--Schedule of Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Year average 3-Year total Adjusted 2020 Assessed
actual costs volume % volume costs fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P.................... $38,866 0.02 $19,527 $19,527
CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC...................... 29,192 1.40 21,600 21,600
Chicago Board of Trade.......................... 40,525 32.69 183,313 40,525
Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc................ 363,760 42.23 392,507 363,760
Eris Exchange, LLC.............................. 28,727 0.01 14,397 14,397
ICE Futures U.S., Inc........................... 107,550 6.86 87,993 87,993
Minneapolis Grain Exchange, Inc................. 27,396 0.05 13,944 13,944
Nasdaq OMX Futures Exchange, Inc................ 120,785 0.59 63,311 63,311
New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc............... 87,206 12.77 107,290 87,206
Nodal Exchange, LLC............................. 45,358 0.06 22,996 22,996
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc........ 75,604 0.22 38,891 38,891
OneChicago, LLC................................. 32,573 0.20 17,276 17,276
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... 997,541 100.00 997,541 791,427
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6306]]
National Futures Association.................... 569,735 .............. .............. 569,735
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 1,567,276 100.00 997,541 1,361,161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email protected], or see the
CFTC website at https://www.cftc.gov, specifically, https://www.cftc.gov/cftc/cftcelectronicpayments.htm.
Fees collected from each self-regulatory organization shall be
deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous
receipts. See 7 U.S.C 16a.
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 13th day of January, 2021, by
the Commission.
Robert Sidman,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-01145 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
