Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2013 / Notices 52907 

accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 

777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.216. 

Dated: August 26, 2013. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20899 Filed 8–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

COMMITTEE FOR THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE 

AGREEMENTS 

Determination Under the Textile and 

Apparel Commercial Availability 

Provision of the Dominican RepublicCentral America-United States Free 

Trade Agreement (‘‘CAFTA–DR 

Agreement’’) 

AGENCY: The Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements. 

ACTION: Determination to add a product 

in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 

of the CAFTA–DR agreement. 

SUMMARY: The Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements 

(‘‘CITA’’) has determined that certain 

polyester/nylon cut corduroy fabric, as 

specified below, is not available in 

commercial quantities in a timely 

manner in the CAFTA–DR countries. 

The product will be added to the list in 

Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA–DR 

Agreement in unrestricted quantities. 

DATES: Effective August 27, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maria Dybczak, Office of Textiles and 

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

(202) 482–3651. 

For Further Information Online: 

http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/

CaftaReqTrack.nsf under ‘‘Approved

Requests,’’ Referencen number: 184.2013.

07.25.Fabric.Alston&BirdforSPCGlobal 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: The CAFTA–DR Agreement; 

Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican RepublicCentral America-United States Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act (‘‘CAFTA– 

DR Implementation Act’’), Public Law 109– 

53; the Statement of Administrative Action, 

accompanying the CAFTA–DR 

Implementation Act; and Presidential 

Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and 

7996 (March 31, 2006). 

Background: 

The CAFTA–DR Agreement provides 

a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, 

and fibers that the Parties to the 

CAFTA–DR Agreement have 

determined are not available in 

commercial quantities in a timely 

manner in the territory of any Party. The 

CAFTA–DR Agreement provides that 

this list may be modified pursuant to 

Article 3.25(4)–(5), when the President 

of the United States determines that a 

fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in 

commercial quantities in a timely 

manner in the territory of any Party. See 

Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA–DR 

Agreement; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) 

of the CAFTA–DR Implementation Act. 

The CAFTA–DR Implementation Act 

requires the President to establish 

procedures governing the submission of 

a request and providing opportunity for 

interested entities to submit comments 

and supporting evidence before a 

commercial availability determination is 

made. In Presidential Proclamations 

7987 and 7996, the President delegated 

to CITA the authority under section 

203(o)(4) of CAFTA–DR Implementation 

Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. 

Pursuant to this authority, on September 

15, 2008, CITA published modified 

procedures it would follow in 

considering requests to modify the 

Annex 3.25 list of products determined 

to be not commercially available in the 

territory of any Party to CAFTA–DR 

(Modifications to Procedures for 

Considering Requests Under the 

Commercial Availability Provision of 

the Dominican Republic-Central 

America-United States Free Trade 

Agreement, 73 FR 53200) (‘‘CITA’s 

procedures’’). 

On July 25, the Chairman of CITA 

received a request for a Commercial 

Availability determination (‘‘Request’’) 

from Alston & Bird, LLP on behalf of 

SPC Global, LLC, for certain polyester/ 

nylon cut corduroy fabric, as specified 

below. On July 29, 2013, in accordance 

with CITA’s procedures, CITA notified 

interested parties of the Request, which 

was posted on the dedicated Web site 

for CAFTA–DR Commercial Availability 

proceedings. In its notification, CITA 

advised that any Response with an Offer 

to Supply (‘‘Response’’) must be 

submitted by August 8, 2013, and any 

Rebuttal Comments to a Response must 

be submitted by August 14, 2013, in 

accordance with sections 6 and 7 of 

CITA’s procedures. No interested entity 

submitted a Response to the Request 

advising CITA of its objection to the 

Request and its ability to supply the 

subject product. 

In accordance with section 

203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA–DR 

Implementation Act, and section 8(c)(2) 

of CITA’s procedures, as no interested 

entity submitted a Response to object to 

the Request with an offer to supply the 

subject product, CITA has determined to 

add the specified fabric to the list in 

Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA–DR 

Agreement. 

The subject product has been added 

to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA– 

DR Agreement in unrestricted 

quantities. A revised list has been 

posted on the dedicated Web site for 

CAFTA–DR Commercial Availability 

proceedings. 

Specifications: Certain Polyester/

Nylon Cut Corduroy Fabric. 

HTS: 5801.32.0000. 

Fiber Content: 80–95% polyester, 5–20% 

nylon. 

Yarn Size: 

Warp: Polyester filament between 111–222 

decitex (English: 100–200 denier). 

Fill: Polyester filament 111–278 decitex 

(English: 100–250 denier) and bi-constituent 

polyester-nylon filament between 222–389 

decitex (English: 200–350 denier). 

NOTE 1: In the bi-constituent yarn, the 

polyester and nylon are mixed prior to 

extrusion. 

NOTE 2: The yarn size designations 

describe a range of specifications for yarn in 

its greige condition. They are intended as 

specifications to be followed by the mill in 

sourcing yarn used to produce the fabric. 

Weaving, dyeing, and finishing can alter the 

characteristics of the yarn as it appears in the 

finished fabric. This specification therefore 

includes yarns appearing in the finished 

fabric as finer or coarser than the designated 

yarn sizes provided that the variation occurs 

after processing of the greige yarn and 

production of the fabric. 

Thread count: 20–34 warp ends x 50–67 

fill picks per centimeter (English: 50–86 warp 

ends x 127–170 fill picks per inch). 

Weight: 220–290 grams per sq. meter 

(English: 6.48–8.55 oz per sq. yard). 

Width: 142–162 cm (English: 56–64 

inches). 

Weave: Cut corduroy with 3–6 wales per 

cm (English: 8–16 wales per inch). 

Finishing: Piece dyed or of yarns of 

different colors. 

Kim Glas, 

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20765 Filed 8–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

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 FY 2013 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
52908 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2013 / Notices 

1NFA is the only registered futures association. 

2See 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. 

registered futures association, and the 

designated contract markets. The 

calculation of the fee amounts charged 

for FY 2013 by this notice is based upon 

an average of actual program costs 

incurred during FY 2010, 2011, and 

2012. 

DATES: Effective date: Each SRO is 

required to remit electronically the fee 

applicable to it on or before October 28, 

2013. 

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, (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

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

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 consist 

generally 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): 153 percent for fiscal year 

2010, 145 percent for fiscal year 2011, 

and 161 percent for fiscal year 2012. 

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 FY 2013 assessed fee FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 

CBOE Futures ........................................ $ $98,556 29,278 $42,611 0 .34 $23,914 $23,914 

Chicago Board of Trade ........................ 87,953 5,260 238,392 110,535 29 .25 280,868 110,535 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ............... 882,542 422,837 757,347 687,575 50 .14 730,502 687,575 

ELX Futures ........................................... .................... .................... 34,593 11,531 0 .341 8,397 8,397 

ICE Futures U.S. .................................... 94,043 17,624 221,813 111,160 3 .20 80,237 80,237 

Kansas City Board of Trade .................. 227,296 30,976 34,335 97,536 0 .18 50,133 50,133 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ................. .................... 88,790 60,897 49,896 0 .05 25,321 25,321 

NADEX North American ........................ .................... .................... 11,293 3,764 0 .000 1,882 1,882 

New York Mercantile Exchange ............ 596,767 136,565 7,411 246,915 15 .93 246,340 246,340 

New York LIFFE .................................... .................... 416,069 71,317 162,462 0 .42 84,495 84,495 

One Chicago .......................................... .................... .................... 55,755 18,585 0 .141 10,382 10,382 

Subtotal ........................................... 1,888,601 1,216,678 1,522,431 1,542,570 100 1,542,470 1,329,210 

National Futures Association ................. 1,206,393 416,615 487,328 703,445 ...................... .................... 703,445 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2013 / Notices 52909 

Actual total costs 3-year average actual 

costs 

3-year % of 

volume 

Volume adjusted costs FY 2013 assessed fee FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 

Total ......................................... 3,094,994 1,633,293 2,009,759 2,246,015 ...................... .................... 2,032,655 

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 110,535. 

b. The alternative computation is: (.5) 

(110,535) + (.5) (.292) (1,542,570) = 

280,868. 

c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in 

this case 110,535. 

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 2010 through 2012 was 708,424 

(one-third of 2,125,273). The fee to be 

paid by the NFA for the current fiscal 

year is 708,424. 

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: 

2013 fee 

lesser of actual or calculated fee 

CBOE Futures .......................... $23,914 

Chicago Board of Trade ........... 110,535 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange .. 687,575 

ELX Futures .............................. 8,397 

ICE Futures U.S. ...................... 80,237 

Kansas City Board of Trade ..... 50,133 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ... 25,321 

NADEX North American ........... 1,882 

New York Mercantile Exchange 246,340 

New York LIFFE ....................... 84,495 

One Chicago ............................. 10,382 

Subtotal ............................. 1,329,210 

National Futures Association .... 703,445 

Total ........................... 2,032,655 

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 August 21, 

2013, by the Commission. 

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, 

Deputy Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20772 Filed 8–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

BUREAU 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

Notice of Availability of Final 

Environmental Assessment (FINAL EA) 

and a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) for Renovation and 

Modernization of the Organization 

Headquarters Building, Washington, 

DC 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final 

Environmental Assessment (FINAL EA) 

and a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) for Renovation and 

Modernization of the organization 

headquarters building located at 1700 G 

Street NW., Washington, DC. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (CFPB) is issuing this 

notice to advise the public that, on 

January 3, 2013, the CFPB prepared and 

completed, a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) based on the Final 

Environmental Assessment (FINAL EA) 

for the project at 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC is to modernize the 

interior and courtyard space of the 

building. The building is currently used 

as the headquarters for the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). 

Originally built in 1976, the building 

has three below ground levels that 

extend beneath a large public courtyard 

(two of which include secured parking) 

and seven floors above ground with the 

highest reserved for mechanical 

equipment. Storefront retail is located at 

the ground level. The CFPB prepared 

the final EA, dated July 2013, in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than September 25, 2013. The 

FONSI and/or Final EA are available as 

of the publication date of this notice. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

request copies of the FONSI and/or 

Final EA, from: Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, Facilities Office— 

Projects, 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC, 20552. You may 

submit comments by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic: michael.davis@cfpb.gov. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Michael Davis, Project Manager, 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 

20552. All comments, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, will become part of the public 

record and subject to public disclosure. 

You should submit only information 

that you wish to make available 

publicly. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Davis, Project Manager, Office 

of Administrative Operations, at (202) 

435–9405. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final 

EA evaluated the future project at 1700 

G Street NW., Washington, DC to 

modernize the interior and courtyard 

space of the building. The building is 

currently used as the headquarters for 

the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau (CFPB). Originally built in 1976, 

the building has three below ground 

levels that extend beneath a large public 

courtyard (two of which include 

secured parking) and seven floors above 

ground with the highest reserved for 

mechanical equipment. Storefront retail 

is located at the ground level. The Final 

EA has been prepared in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969. Based on the 

results of the EA, the CFPB has issued 

a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) indicating that the proposed 

action will not have a significant impact 

on the environment. Minimization and 

mitigating measures will include: 

Compliance with applicable regulatory 

laws, procedures, and permits for all 

construction activities; site review by 

state historic preservation office before 

construction to avoid disturbance of any 

site with the potential for historical 

significance; and the application of best 

management practices (BMP) to 

minimize short term air quality and 

noise impact during construction 

activities. 

Dated: August 21, 2013. 

Christopher D’Angelo, 

Chief of Staff, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20896 Filed 8–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES