62418 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / 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. 

Committee’s notice of proposed 

addition included substantial additional 

explanation and description of the 

specific service requirements. 

Consequently, the Committee disagrees 

that the notice is vague and lacks 

specificity, and finds that the notice 

effectively describes the requirements 

the AbilityOne nonprofit agency will 

perform. 

In accordance with Committee 

regulations, Federal contracting 

activities assist the Committee to 

identify necessary products and services 

that are suitable for procurement by the 

Government and may be furnished by 

AbilityOne nonprofit agencies. In doing 

so, contracting activities define their 

specific contract requirements and 

inform the Committee if there is a 

contractor providing the product or 

service. When deliberating on a 

proposed PL addition, the Committee 

then considers whether a proposed 

addition would likely have a severe 

adverse financial impact on the current 

contractor for the project. 

Both contractors that submitted 

comments are awardees of the Defense 

Logistics Agency (DLA) Special 

Operational Equipment Tailored 

Logistics Support (SOE TLS) contract to 

provide a range of commercial products 

and equipment to military customers. 

They claim the addition of the proposed 

3PL service to the Procurement List 

could result in severe adverse financial 

impact to their sales under the DLA SOE 

TLS contract. 

In response to the comments, the 

Committee sought additional 

information from the contracting 

activity and the contactors, to ensure 

that appropriate information was fully 

considered. In its response, the Army 

contracting activity clearly stated it does 

not currently contract for the 3PL 

services as described in the statement of 

work (SOW). The contracting activity 

stated that through the SOW, it is 

seeking a complete one-stop 

standardized and centralized solution to 

address reduced budget and personnel 

capacity within PM FSS. DLA’s 

solicitation for the SOE TLS states it is 

an indefinite delivery-indefinite 

quantity (IDIQ) contract for equipment 

and ancillary services. This 

Procurement List addition of the 3PL 

requirement is a firm-fixed price 

contract for services explicitly identified 

in the SOW, including direct labor 

services, as is appropriate for a 3PL 

requirement; it is not an IDIQ contract 

for products and equipment. Based on 

these facts, the Army and the 

Commission concluded that the DLA 

prime vendor contract and the Natick 

contract requirements for 3PL services 

in this proposed PL addition are not the 

same. For these reasons, the contracting 

activity confirmed in writing and the 

Commission concluded that there is no 

current contractor providing the specific 

services included in the proposed PL 

addition. 

The commercial contractors are 

experienced DOD vendors. One 

contractor’s annual revenues exceed the 

range of revenues that the Committee 

determines could result in severe 

adverse financial impact on that 

contractor if the service is added to the 

PL. Although the Committee requested 

information from the contractors, they 

were unable to provide any contract 

data demonstrating they were the 

current contractor to the Army 

contracting activity (or another 

contracting activity) for the 3PL services 

required in this addition. The 

Committee reviews the level of impact 

on the ‘‘current contractor for the 

specific commodity or services’’ [41 

CFR 51–2.4(a)(4)(i)]. The contractors in 

question are not current contractors for 

the specific service requirement; 

therefore, under Committee regulations, 

the Committee finds there is no severe 

adverse impact on the contractors. 

Further, the contractors continue to 

have the opportunity to sell products 

and equipment under the DLA SOE TLS 

prime vendor program. 

One contractor also questioned 

whether the project would create 

employment for people with severe 

disabilities by referring to a prior project 

that was deleted from the PL. The 

Committee conducts a deliberative 

review of specific proposed addition 

projects. To qualify for addition to the 

PL, the Committee must determine that 

the record for this project demonstrates 

that it has the potential to generate 

employment for people who are blind or 

significantly disabled [41 CFR 51– 

2.4(a)(1)]. In their review, the 

Committee determined that the record 

supports that the 3PL services will 

create employment for people with 

significant disabilities. The record 

specifies the amount of direct labor 

hours to be provided by people with 

significant disabilities and discusses 

referral sources for these individuals, 

including current or previous nonprofit 

agency employees with the skills to 

perform the proposed new positions. 

Accordingly, after full consideration, 

the Committee concluded that the 3PL 

Service is suitable for addition to the 

Procurement List. 

Barry S. Lineback, 

Director, Business Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24720 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Fees for Reviews of the Rule 

Enforcement Programs of Designated 

Contract Markets and Registered 

Futures Associations 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of 2014 Schedule of Fees. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (CFTC or 

Commission) charges fees to designated 

contract markets and registered futures 

associations to recover the costs 

incurred by the Commission in the 

operation of its program of oversight of 

self-regulatory organization (SRO) rule 

enforcement programs, specifically 

National Futures Association (NFA), a 

registered futures association, and the 

designated contract markets. The 

calculation of the fee amounts charged 

for 2014 by this notice is based upon an 

average of actual program costs incurred 

during fiscal year (FY) 2011, FY 2012, 

and FY 2013. 

DATES: Effective date: Each SRO is 

required to remit electronically the 

applicable fee on or before December 16, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Jean Buhler, Chief Financial 

Officer, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission; (202) 418–5089; Three 

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. For information 

on electronic payment, contact Jennifer 

Fleming; (202) 418–5034; Three 

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background Information 

A. General 

This notice relates to fees for the 

Commission’s review of the rule 

enforcement programs at the registered 

futures associations 1 and designated 

contract markets (DCM), each of which 

is an SRO regulated by the Commission. 

The Commission recalculates the fees 

charged each year to cover the costs of 

operating this Commission program.2

The fees are set each year based on 

direct program costs, plus an overhead 

factor. The Commission calculates 

actual costs, then calculates an alternate 

fee taking volume into account, and 

then charges the lower of the two.3

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Notices 62419 

B. Overhead Rate 

The fees charged by the Commission 

to the SROs are designed to recover 

program costs, including direct labor 

costs and overhead. The overhead rate 

is calculated by dividing total 

Commission-wide overhead direct 

program labor costs into the total 

amount of the Commission-wide 

overhead pool. For this purpose, direct 

program labor costs are the salary costs 

of personnel working in all Commission 

programs. Overhead costs generally 

consist of the following Commissionwide costs: Indirect personnel costs 

(leave and benefits), rent, 

communications, contract services, 

utilities, equipment, and supplies. This 

formula has resulted in the following 

overhead rates for the most recent three 

years (rounded to the nearest whole 

percent): 145 Percent for FY 2011, 161 

percent for FY 2012, and 181 percent for 

FY 2013. 

C. Conduct of SRO Rule Enforcement 

Reviews 

Under the formula adopted by the 

Commission in 1993, the Commission 

calculates the fee to recover the costs of 

its rule enforcement reviews and 

examinations, based on the three-year 

average of the actual cost of performing 

such reviews and examinations at each 

SRO. The cost of operation of the 

Commission’s SRO oversight program 

varies from SRO to SRO, according to 

the size and complexity of each SRO’s 

program. The three-year averaging 

computation method is intended to 

smooth out year-to-year variations in 

cost. Timing of the Commission’s 

reviews and examinations may affect 

costs—a review or examination may 

span two fiscal years and reviews and 

examinations are not conducted at each 

SRO each year. 

As noted above, adjustments to actual 

costs may be made to relieve the burden 

on an SRO with a disproportionately 

large share of program costs. The 

Commission’s formula provides for a 

reduction in the assessed fee if an SRO 

has a smaller percentage of United 

States industry contract volume than its 

percentage of overall Commission 

oversight program costs. This 

adjustment reduces the costs so that, as 

a percentage of total Commission SRO 

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 2014 

assessed fee FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 

CBOE Futures .............. $98,556 $29,278 $235,567 $121,134 0.66 $65,672 $65,672 

Chicago Board of Trade 5,260 238,392 164,974 136,209 29.85 298,837 136,209 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ...................... 422,837 757,347 391,917 524,034 46.88 624,386 524,034 

ELX Futures ................. ........................ 34,593 134,267 56,287 0.212 29,782 29,782 

ICE Futures U.S. .......... 17,624 221,813 360,223 199,886 6.08 146,957 146,957 

Kansas City Board of 

Trade ........................ 30,976 34,335 559 21,957 0.17 12,331 12,331 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ...................... 88,790 60,897 220,975 123,554 0.04 62,122 62,122 

NADEX North American ........................ 11,293 101,252 37,515 0.000 18,758 18,758 

New York Mercantile 

Exchange .................. 136,565 7,411 135,316 93,098 15.41 165,638 93,098 

NYSE LIFFE US .......... 416,069 71,317 24,802 170,729 0.50 89,232 89,232 

One Chicago ................ ........................ 55,755 128,599 61,452 0.176 32,085 32,085 

Subtotal ................. 1,216,678 1,522,431 1,898,452 1,545,854 100 1,545,799 1,210,279 

National Futures Association ....................... 416,615 487,328 186,499 363,480 ........................ ........................ 363,480 

Total ...................... 1,633,293 2,009,759 2,084,950 1,909,334 ........................ ........................ 1,573,760 

An example of how the fee is 

calculated for one exchange, the 

Chicago Board of Trade, is set forth 

here: 

a. Actual three-year average costs 

equal $136,209. 

b. The alternative computation is: (.5) 

($136,209) + (.5) (.298) ($1,545,854) = 

$298,837. 

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

this case $136,209. 

As noted above, the alternative 

calculation based on contracts traded is 

not applicable to NFA because it is not 

a DCM and has no contracts traded. The 

Commission’s average annual cost for 

conducting oversight review of the NFA 

rule enforcement program during fiscal 

years 2011 through 2013 was $363,480 

(one-third of $1,090,441). The fee to be 

paid by the NFA for the current fiscal 

year is $363,480. 

II. Schedule of Fees 

Fees for the Commission’s review of 

the rule enforcement programs at the 

registered futures associations and 

DCMs regulated by the Commission are 

as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

62420 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Notices 

3-year 

average 

actual cost 

2014 fee lesser 

of actual or 

calculated fee 

CBOE Futures ................................................................................................................................................. $ 121,134 $ 65,672 

Chicago Board of Trade .................................................................................................................................. 136,209 136,209 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ......................................................................................................................... 524,034 524,034 

ELX Futures ..................................................................................................................................................... 56,287 29,782 

ICE Futures U.S. ............................................................................................................................................. 199,886 146,957 

Kansas City Board of Trade ............................................................................................................................ 21,957 12,331 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ........................................................................................................................... 123,554 62,122 

NADEX North American .................................................................................................................................. 37,515 18,758 

New York Mercantile Exchange ...................................................................................................................... 93,098 93,098 

NYSE LIFFE US .............................................................................................................................................. 170,729 89,232 

One Chicago .................................................................................................................................................... 61,452 32,085 

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,545,854 1,210,279 

National Futures Association ........................................................................................................................... 363,480 363,480 

Total .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,909,334 1,573,760 

III. Payment Method 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act 

(DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to 

the government by electronic transfer of 

funds. See 31 U.S.C. 3720. For 

information about electronic payments, 

please contact Jennifer Fleming at (202) 

418–5034 or jfleming@cftc.gov, or see 

the CFTC Web site at www.cftc.gov, 

specifically, www.cftc.gov/cftc/

cftcelectronicpayments.htm. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 16a. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 10, 

2014, by the Commission. 

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24624 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

[Docket No: CFPB–2014–0027] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (Bureau) is proposing 

a new information collection titled, 

‘‘Bridges to Financial Security: A Multisite Demonstration Project.’’ 

DATES: Written comments are 

encouraged and must be received on or 

before December 16, 2014 to be assured 

of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the title of the information 

collection, OMB Control Number (see 

below), and docket number (see above), 

by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA 

Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, 

DC 20552. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: 

PRA Office), 1275 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20002. 

Please note that comments submitted 

after the comment period will not be 

accepted. In general, all comments 

received will become public records, 

including any personal information 

provided. Sensitive personal 

information, such as account numbers 

or social security numbers, should not 

be included. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Documentation prepared in support of 

this information collection request is 

available at www.regulations.gov. 

Requests for additional information 

should be directed to the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: 

PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435–9575, 

or email: PRA@cfpb.gov. Please do not 

submit comments to this mailbox. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: Bridges to 

Financial Security: A Multi-site 

Demonstration Project. 

OMB Control Number: 3170–XXXX. 

Type of Review: New collection 

(Request for a new OMB control 

number). 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

15,000. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 42,386. 

Abstract: The Bureau, beginning in 

the winter of 2015, will launch a multisite financial education demonstration 

project to provide one-on-one and group 

financial counseling/coaching services 

to individuals with disabilities 

transitioning into the workplace or 

already employed. The goal is twofold: 

(1) To improve the financial skills of 

approximately 15,000 individuals across 

the spectrum of disability to effectively 

navigate the financial marketplace, 

resulting in improved credit, reduced 

debt, and increased savings; and (2) to 

build the capacity of diverse multisector systems (non-disability and 

disability) in up to 14 cities to unite 

around the common purpose of building 

financial security for individuals with 

disabilities. Monthly qualitative reports 

and quantitative aggregated individual 

data will be collected from participating 

sites to document the design, growth 

and impact of up to 14 integrated 

diverse delivery models serving 

primarily low-income populations with 

disabilities. 

Request for Comments: Comments are 

invited on: (a) Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Bureau, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) The accuracy of the Bureau’s 

estimate of the burden of the collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methods and the assumptions used; 

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. Comments submitted in 

response to this notice will be 

summarized and/or included in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES