### 26672 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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. Clarksville, VA, Lake Country Regional,

RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig Leesburg, VA, Leesburg Executive, ILS OR

LOC RWY 17, Amdt 1 Leesburg, VA, Leesburg Executive, RNAV

(GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 3 New Market, VA, New Market, Takeoff

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Norfolk, VA, Norfolk Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

5, Amdt 26A Newport, VT, Newport State, GPS RWY 36,

Orig-A, CANCELLED Newport, VT, Newport State, RNAV (GPS)

RWY 36, Orig Guernsey, WY, Camp Guernsey, GPS RWY

32, Orig, CANCELLED Guernsey, WY, Camp Guernsey, NDB RWY

32, Amdt 1 Guernsey, WY, Camp Guernsey, RNAV (GPS)

RWY 32, Orig Torrington, WY, Torrington Muni, NDB RWY

10, Amdt 2 Torrington, WY, Torrington Muni, NDB RWY

28, Amdt 2 RESCINDED: On March 28, 2012 (77 FR 18683), the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 30833, Amdt No. 3470 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.33. The following 46 entries for Denver, CO, and 1 entry for Camden, AR, effective 31 May, 2012, are hereby rescinded in their entirety: Camden, AR, Harrell Field, VOR/DME RWY

1, Amdt 10 Denver, CO, Centennial, Takeoff Minimums

and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

7, Amdt 3 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

8, Amdt 5 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

16L, Amdt 3 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

16R, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

17L, Amdt 4 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

17R, Amdt 3 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

25, Amdt 3 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

26, Amdt 3 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

34L, ILS RWY 34L (CAT II), ILS RWY 34L (CAT III), ILS RWY 34L (SA CAT I), Amdt

2 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

34R, ILS RWY 34R (CAT II), ILS RWY 34R (CAT III), ILS RWY 34R (SA CAT I), Amdt

3 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

35L, ILS RWY 35L (CAT II), ILS RWY 35L (CAT III), ILS RWY 35L (SA CAT I), Amdt

5 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY

35R, ILS RWY 35R (CAT II), ILS RWY 35R (CAT III), ILS RWY 35R (SA CAT I), Amdt

3 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y

RWY 7, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y

RWY 8, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y

RWY 16L, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y

RWY 16R, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 17L, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y

RWY 17R, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y

RWY 25, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y

RWY 26, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y

RWY 34L, Amdt 2 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y

RWY 34R, Amdt 2 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y

RWY 35L, Amdt 2 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y

RWY 35R, Amdt 2 Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z

RWY 7, Orig Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z

RWY 8, Orig Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z

RWY 16L, Orig Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z

RWY 16R, Orig Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z

RWY 17L, Orig Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z

RWY 17R, Orig Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z

RWY 25, Orig Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z

RWY 26, Orig Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z

RWY 34L, Orig Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z

RWY 34R, Orig Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z

RWY 35L, Orig Denver, CO, Denver Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z

RWY 35R, Orig Denver, CO, Front Range, ILS OR LOC RWY

17, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Front Range, ILS OR LOC RWY

26, Amdt 5 Denver, CO, Front Range, ILS OR LOC RWY

35, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Front Range, NDB RWY 26,

Amdt 5 Denver, CO, Front Range, RNAV (GPS) RWY

17, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Front Range, RNAV (GPS) RWY

26, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Front Range, RNAV (GPS) RWY

35, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Front Range, Takeoff Minimums

and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Denver, CO, Rocky Mountain Metropolitan,

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt

5

[FR Doc. 2012–10727 Filed 5–4–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION** 

**17 CFR Part 1**

**Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated**  **Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations** 

**AGENCY :**  Commodity Futures Trading
Commission. **ACTION :**  Notice of FY 2011 schedule of fees.

**SUMMARY :**  The Commission charges fees to designated contract markets and registered futures associations to recover the costs incurred by the Commission in the operation of its program of oversight of self-regulatory organization rule enforcement programs, specifically National Futures Association, a registered futures association, and the designated contract markets. The calculation of the fee amounts charged for FY 2011 by this notice is based upon an average of actual program costs incurred during FY 2008, 2009, and

2010.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: Each SRO is required to remit electronically the fee applicable to it on or before July 6, 2012.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Mark Carney, Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418–5477, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. For information on electronic payment, contact Jennifer Fleming, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–5034.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background Information

A. General

This notice relates to fees for the Commission’s review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations 1 and designated contract markets (DCM) each of which is a self-regulatory organization (SRO) regulated by the Commission. The Commission recalculates the fees charged each year to cover the costs of operating this Commission program. 2 All costs are accounted for by the Commission’s Budget Program Activity Codes (BPAC) system, formerly the Management Accounting Structure Codes (MASC) system, which records each employee’s time for each pay period. The fees are set each year based on direct program costs, plus an overhead factor. The Commission calculates actual costs, then calculates an alternate fee taking volume into account, then charges the lower of the

two. 3


### 26673 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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 consistgenerally 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): 144 percent for fiscal year 2008, 147 percent for fiscal year 2009, and 153 percent for fiscal year 2010.
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 actual costs 3-Year % of volume Volume adjusted

costs FY2011 Assessed fee FY2008 FY2009 FY2010

CBOE Futures .......................................... .................... $519 .................... $173 0.057 $448 $173 Chicago Board of Trade .......................... $30,305 142,446 $87,953 86,901 27,706 218,442 86,901 Chicago Climate Exchange ..................... 23,590 2,129 .................... 8,573 0.025 4,444 4,444 Chicago Mercantile Exchange ................. 13,511 341,186 882,542 412,413 54.224 548,690 412,413 ICE Future U.S. ....................................... 126,362 286,289 94,043 168,898 2.883 102,659 102,659 Kansas City Board of Trade .................... 78,321 2,888 227,296 102,835 0.139 52,294 52,294 Minneapolis Grain Exchange ................... 187,679 123,566 .................... 103,748 0.047 52,172 52,172 New York Mercantile Exchange .............. 497,654 15,948 596,767 370,123 14.214 274,838 274,838 North American Derivative Exchanges .... 25,175 .................... .................... 8,392 0.000 4,196 4,196 One Chicago ............................................ 3,471 .................... .................... 1,157 0.134 1,425 1,157

Subtotal ............................................. 986,069 914,972 1,888,601 1,263,214 100 1,259,607 991,247

National Futures Association ................... 1,054,392 109,639 1,206,393 790,141 .................... .................... 790, 141

Total .................................................. 2,040,460 1,024,611 3,094,994 2,053,355 .................... ............ ........ 1,781,388

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 $86,901.

b. The alternative computation is: (.5) ($86,901) + (.5) (.2771) ($1,263,214) = $218,442.

c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case $86,901. 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 2008 through 2010 was $790,141 (one-third of $2,370,423). The fee to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is $790,141.

II. Schedule of Fees

Therefore, fees for the Commission’s review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations and DCMs regulated by the Commission are as follows:


### 26674 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

1 16 U.S.C. 825(b), 825f(a). 2011 Feelesser of actual or calculated fee

CBOE Futures .......................... $173 Chicago Board of Trade ........... 86,901 Chicago Climate Exchange ...... 4,444 Chicago Mercantile Exchange .. 412,413 ICE Futures U.S. ...................... 102,659 Kansas City Board of Trade ..... 52,294 Minneapolis Grain Exchange ... 52,172 New York Mercantile Exchange 274,838
North American Derivatives Exchange .................................. 4,196 OneChicago .............................. 1,157

Subtotal ............................. 991,247

National Futures Association .... 790,141

Total ................................... 1,781,388

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. Issued in Washington, DC, on this 1st day of May, 2012, by the Commission. David Stawick, Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2012–10898 Filed 5–4–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE P**

**DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY**

**Federal Energy Regulatory Commission** 

**18 CFR Part 35**

**[Docket No. RM11–17–000; Order No. 760]**

**Enhancement of Electricity Market Surveillance and Analysis Through**  **Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data From Regional Transmission**  **Organizations and Independent System Operators** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending its regulations to require each regional transmission organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO) to electronically deliver to the Commission, on an ongoing basis, data related to the markets that it administers. Specifically, the Commission is amending its regulations to establish ongoing electronic delivery of data relating to physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors, financial transmission rights, internal bilateral contracts, uplift, and interchange pricing. Such data will facilitate the Commission’s development and evaluation of its policies and regulations and will enhance Commission efforts to detect anti-competitive or manipulative behavior, or ineffective market rules, thereby helping to ensure just and reasonable rates.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: This rule will become effective July 6, 2012.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  William Sauer (Technical Information),

Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6639, william.sauer@ferc.gov. Christopher Daignault (Legal

Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
8286, christopher.daignault@ferc.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Table of Contents

Paragraph Nos.

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ ........................................................................... 1 II. Background ................................................................................................................. .......................................................................... 2 III. Discussion ................................................................................................................ ........................................................................... 8 A. Commission Authority and the Need for Market Data ........................................................................... ............................ 8 B. Duplicative Requirements .................................................................................................... ................................................. 20 C. Confidentiality of Data ..................................................................................................... ..................................................... 30 D. Data Formatting ............................................................................................................. ........................................................ 37 E. Web-Based Delivery .......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 45 F. Data Requested .............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 49 G. Implementation Timeline and Phasing ......................................................................................... ....................................... 64 H. Ongoing Electronic Delivery ................................................................................................. ................................................ 74 I. Future Specifications and Modifications of the Data and the Process for Delivery ............................................ .............. 80 J. Technical Conference ........................................................................................................ ..................................................... 84 IV. Information Collection Statement ........................................................................................... ........................................................... 86 V. Environmental Analysis ...................................................................................................... ................................................................ 96 VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act ................................................................................................. ................................................................. 97 VII. Document Availability ..................................................................................................... ................................................................. 105 VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification ............................................................................ ................................................... 108

139 FERC ¶ 61,053
Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff,

Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.

Final Rule
Issued April 19, 2012

I. Introduction

1. In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is revising its regulations to require each regional transmission organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO) to electronically deliver to the Commission, on an ongoing basis, data related to the markets that it administers. The Commission, acting pursuant to sections 301(b) and 307(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 1 will amend its regulations to establish ongoing electronic delivery of data relating to physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors, financial transmission rights (FTR), internal bilateral contracts, uplift, and interchange pricing. Such data will facilitate the Commission’s