Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Contract Markets and Registered Futures Association, 56823-56825 [05-19461]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this AD will
not have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132. This AD will
not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
See the ADDRESSES section for a location
to examine the regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
I
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
I
2005–20–05 Boeing: Amendment 39–14298.
Docket No. FAA–2005–21170;
Directorate Identifier 2002–NM–124–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective October 31,
2005.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767–
200 and 767–300 series airplanes equipped
with center overhead stowage bin modules,
certificated in any category; as identified in
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
767–25–0320, dated April 11, 2002.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:57 Sep 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
56823
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from tests conducted by
the airplane manufacturer. We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of the attachment
of the 9.0g (gravitational acceleration) tie
rods to the center overhead stowage bin
modules. This failure could result in collapse
of those stowage bin modules, and
consequent injury to passengers and crew
and interference with their ability to evacuate
the airplane in an emergency.
further flight, do the actions specified in
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
(ii) For center overhead stowage bin
modules having a configuration other than
‘‘Configuration A,’’ as specified in the service
bulletin: Before further flight, install two
support straps having P/N 412T2043–119 on
the center overhead stowage bin module, in
accordance with Figures 3, 4, and 6 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
Inspection to Determine I-beam Part Number
(P/N)
(f) Within 36 months after the effective
date of this AD: Perform a general visual
inspection of the center overhead stowage
bin modules to determine the P/N of each Ibeam and to determine the configuration of
each center overhead stowage bin module.
Do the inspection in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 767–25–
0320, dated April 11, 2002.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a
general visual inspection is: ‘‘A visual
examination of an interior or exterior area,
installation, or assembly to detect obvious
damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of
inspection is made from within touching
distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror
may be necessary to ensure visual access to
all surfaces in the inspection area. This level
of inspection is made under normally
available lighting conditions such as
daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or
droplight and may require removal or
opening of access panels or doors. Stands,
ladders, or platforms may be required to gain
proximity to the area being checked.’’
(g) For any I-beam found having P/N
412T2040–29 during the inspection required
by paragraph (f) of this AD: No further action
is required by this AD for that I-beam only.
Support Strap Installation
(h) For any I-beam found having a P/N
other than P/N 412T2040–29 during the
inspection required by paragraph (f) of this
AD: Before further flight, do the actions in
paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as
applicable, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 767–25–
0320, dated April 11, 2002.
(1) If the forward-most stowage bin module
was inspected: Before further flight, install
support straps having P/N 412T2043–101
and 412T2043–102 on the center overhead
stowage bin module, in accordance with
Figures 3, 4, and 5 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of the service bulletin.
(2) If the stowage bin module inspected
was other than the forward-most stowage bin
module: Before further flight, do the actions
specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of
this AD, as applicable.
(i) For center overhead stowage bin
modules having ‘‘Configuration A,’’ as
specified in the service bulletin: Before
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Material Incorporated by Reference
(j) You must use Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 767–25–0320, dated April
11, 2002, to perform the actions that are
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by
reference of this document in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O.
Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207,
for a copy of this service information. You
may review copies at the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
400 Seventh Street SW., room PL–401, Nassif
Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at
https://dms.dot.gov; or at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741–
6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
September 12, 2005.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–19227 Filed 9–28–05; 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 Contract
Markets and Registered Futures
Association
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Establish the FY 2005 schedule
of fees.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\29SER1.SGM
29SER1
56824
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the Commission calculates the fee to
recover the costs of its review of rule
National Futures Association
33,692 enforcement programs, based on the
New York Board of Trade ....
36,245 three-year average of the actual cost of
OneChicago ..........................
3,207 performing reviews at each SRO. The
Total ...............................
486,882 cost of operation of the Commission’s
program of SRO oversight varies from
SRO to SRO, according to the size and
III. Background Information
complexity of each SRO’s program. The
A. General
three-year averaging is intended to
The Commission recalculates the fees smooth out year-to-year variations in
cost. Timing of review may affect
charged each year with the intention of
costs—a review may span two fiscal
recovering the costs of operating this
years and fiscal years and reviews are
Commission program.1 All costs are
not conducted at each SRO each year.
accounted for by the Commission’s
Adjustments to actual costs may be
Management Accounting Structure
made to relieve the burden on an SRO
Codes (MASC) system, which records
with a disproportionately large share of
each employee’s time for each pay
program costs.
period. The fees are set each year based
The Commission’s formula provides
on direct program costs, plus an
for a reduction in the assessed fee if an
overhead factor.
SRO has a smaller percentage of United
B. Overhead Rate
States industry contract volume than its
The fees charged by the Commission
percentage of overall Commission
to the SROs are designed to recover
oversight program costs. This
program costs, including direct labor
adjustment reduces the costs so that as
costs and overhead. The overhead rate
a percentage of total Commission SRO
is calculated by dividing total
oversight program costs, they are in line
Commission-wide overhead direct
with the pro rata percentage for that
program labor costs into the total
SRO of United States industry-wide
amount of the Commission-wide
contract volume.
overhead pool. For this purpose, direct
The calculation made is as follows:
program labor costs are the salary costs
The fee required to be paid to the
of personnel working in all Commission Commission by each contract market is
programs. Overhead costs consist
equal to the lesser of actual costs based
generally of the following Commissionon the three-year historical average of
wide costs; indirect personnel costs
costs for that contract market or one-half
(leave and benefits), rent,
of average costs incurred by the
I. General
communications, contract services,
Commission for each contract market for
utilities, equipment, and supplies. This
the most recent three years, plus a pro
This notice relates to fees for the
formula has resulted in the following
rata share (based on average trading
Commission’s review of the rule
overhead rates for the most recent three
volume for the most recent three years)
enforcement programs at the registered
years (rounded to the nearest whole
of the aggregate of average annual costs
futures associations and contract
percent): 129 percent for fiscal year
of all contract markets for the most
markets regulated by the Commission.
2002, 113 percent for fiscal year 2003,
recent three years. The formula for
II. Schedule of Fees
and 109 percent for fiscal year 2004.
calculating the second factor is: 0.5a +
These overhead rates are applied to the
Fees for the Commission’s review of
0.5vt = current fee. In this formula, ‘‘a’’
direct labor costs to calculate the costs
the rule enforcement programs at the
equals the average annual costs, ‘‘v’’
of oversight of SRO rule enforcement
registered futures associations and
equals the percentage of total volume
programs.
contract markets regulated by the
across exchanges over the last three
Commission:
years, and ‘‘t’’ equals the average annual
C. Conduct of SRO Rule Enforcement
costs for all exchanges. NFA, the only
Reviews
Entity
Fee amount
registered futures association regulated
Under the formula adopted in 1993
by the Commission, has no contracts
Chicago Board of Trade .......
$5,127 (58 FR 42463, Aug. 11, 1993), which
traded; hence its fee is based simply on
Chicago Mercantile Exappears at 17 CFR part 1 appendix B,
costs for the most recent three fiscal
change ..............................
256,683
years.
Kansas City Board of Trade
13,859
1 See Section 237 of the Futures Trading Act of
This table summarizes the data used
New York Mercantile Ex1982, 7 USC 16a and 31 USC 9701. For a broader
in the calculations and the resulting fee
change ..............................
125,378 discussion of the history of Commission Fees, see
Minneapolis Grain Exchange
12,691 52 FR 46070 (Dec. 4, 1987).
for each entity:
SUMMARY: The Commission charges fees
to designated contract markets and the
National Futures Association (NFA) to
recover the costs incurred by the
Commission in the operation of a
program which provides a service to
these entities. The fees are charged for
the Commission’s conduct of its
program of oversight of self-regulatory
rule enforcement programs (NFA and
the contract markets are referred to as
SROs).
The calculation of the fee amounts to
be charged for FY 2005 is based on an
average of actual program costs incurred
during FY 2002, 2003, and 2004, as
explained below. The FY 2005 fee
schedule is set forth in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Electronic
payment of fees is required.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The FY 2005 fees for
Commission oversight of each SRO rule
enforcement program must be paid by
each of the named SROs in the amount
specified by no later than November 28,
2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stacy Dean Yochum, Counsel to the
Executive Director, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, (202) 418–5160,
Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20581. For
information on electronic payment,
contact Stella Lewis, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–5186.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:57 Sep 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Entity
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Fee amount
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29SER1.SGM
29SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
56825
Three-year average actual
costs
Three-year
percentage of
volume
Average year
2005 fee
Chicago Board of Trade ..............................................................................................................
Chicago Mercantile Exchange .....................................................................................................
New York Mercantile Exchange ..................................................................................................
New York Board of Trade ............................................................................................................
Kansas City Board of Trade ........................................................................................................
Minneapolis Grain Exchange .......................................................................................................
OneChicago .................................................................................................................................
$5,127
256,683
186,234
61,296
22,034
24,591
6,011
33.4148
51.6763
11.4811
1.9919
1.0113
0.1409
0.0718
$5,127
256,683
125,378
36,245
13,859
12,691
3,207
Subtotal .................................................................................................................................
National Futures Association .......................................................................................................
561,977
33,692
99.7881
N/A
453,190
33,692
Total ...............................................................................................................................
589,657
99.7881
486,882
An example of how the fee is
calculated for one exchange, the
Minneapolis Grain Exchange, is set forth
here:
a. Actual three-year average costs
equal $24,591
b. The alternative computation is:
(.5) ($24,591) +(.5)(.001409)($561,977) =
$12,691.
c. The fee is the less of a or b; in this
case $12,691.
As noted above, the alternative
calculation based on contracts traded is
not applicable to the NFA because it is
not a contract market and has no
contracts traded. The Commission’s
average annual cost for conducting
oversight review of the NFA rule
enforcement program during fiscal year
2002 through 2004 was $33,692 (onethird of $101,076). The fee to be paid by
the NFA for the current fiscal year is
$33,692.
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 contract Stella Lewis at (202)
418–5186 or slewis@cftc.gov, or see the
CFTC Web site at https://www.cftc.gov,
specifically https://www.cftc.gov/cftc/
cftcelectronicpayments.htm.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601, et seq., requires agencies to
consider the impact of the rules on
small business. The fees implemented
in this release affect contract markets
(also referred to as exchanges) and
registered futures associations. The
Commission has previously determined
that contract markets and registered
futures associations are not ‘‘small
entities’’ for purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Accordingly, the
Chairman, on behalf of the Commission,
certifies pursuant to 5 USC 605(b) that
the fees implemented here will not have
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:57 Sep 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Issued in Washington, DC on September
23, 2005, by the Commission.
Edward W. Colbert,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–19461 Filed 9–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–M
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
17 CFR Parts 210, 228, 229, 240 and
249
[Release Nos. 33–8618; 34–52492; File Nos.
S7–40–02; S7–06–03]
RIN 3235–AI66 and 3235–AI79
Management’s Report on Internal
Control Over Financial Reporting and
Certification of Disclosure in Exchange
Act Periodic Reports of Companies
That Are Not Accelerated Filers
Securities and Exchange
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; extension of
compliance dates; request for comment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are extending the
compliance dates that were published
on March 8, 2005, in Release No. 33–
8545 [70 FR 11528], for companies that
are not accelerated filers, for certain
amendments to Rules 13a–15 and 15d–
15 under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Items 308(a) and (b) of
Regulations S–K and S–B, Item 15 of
Form 20–F and General Instruction B of
Form 40–F. These amendments require
companies, other than registered
investment companies, to include in
their annual reports a report of
management and accompanying
auditor’s report on the company’s
internal control over financial reporting.
The amendments also require
management to evaluate, as of the end
of each fiscal period, any change in the
company’s internal control over
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
financial reporting that occurred during
the period that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the company’s internal control
over financial reporting. We are also
extending the compliance dates
applicable to companies that are not
accelerated filers for amendments to
certain representations that must be
included in the certifications required
by Exchange Act Rules 13a–14 and 15d–
14 regarding a company’s internal
control over financial reporting. Finally,
we are soliciting comment about the
implementation of these rules.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date
published on June 18, 2003, in Release
No. 33–8238 [68 FR 36636] remains
August 14, 2003. The effective date of
this document is September 29, 2005.
Comment Date: Comments should be
received on or before October 31, 2005.
Compliance Dates: The compliance
dates are extended as follows: A
company that is not an accelerated filer
must begin to comply with these
requirements for its first fiscal year
ending on or after July 15, 2007.
Companies must begin to comply with
the provisions of Exchange Act Rule
13a–(d) or 15d–(d), whichever applies,
requiring an evaluation of changes to
internal control over financial reporting
requirements with respect to the
company’s first periodic report due after
the first annual report that must include
management’s report on internal control
over financial reporting.
In addition, during the extended
compliance period, a company that is
not an accelerated filer may continue to
omit the amended portion of the
introductory language in paragraph 4 of
the certification required by Exchange
Act Rules 13a–14(a) and 15d–14(a) that
refers to the certifying officers’
responsibility for establishing and
maintaining internal control over
financial reporting for the company, as
well as paragraph 4(b). This language,
however, must be provided in the first
annual report required to contain
E:\FR\FM\29SER1.SGM
29SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56823-56825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19461]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 1
Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Contract
Markets and Registered Futures Association
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Establish the FY 2005 schedule of fees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56824]]
SUMMARY: The Commission charges fees to designated contract markets and
the National Futures Association (NFA) to recover the costs incurred by
the Commission in the operation of a program which provides a service
to these entities. The fees are charged for the Commission's conduct of
its program of oversight of self-regulatory rule enforcement programs
(NFA and the contract markets are referred to as SROs).
The calculation of the fee amounts to be charged for FY 2005 is
based on an average of actual program costs incurred during FY 2002,
2003, and 2004, as explained below. The FY 2005 fee schedule is set
forth in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Electronic payment of fees is
required.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The FY 2005 fees for Commission oversight of each SRO
rule enforcement program must be paid by each of the named SROs in the
amount specified by no later than November 28, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Dean Yochum, Counsel to the
Executive Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-
5160, Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC
20581. For information on electronic payment, contact Stella Lewis,
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581,
(202) 418-5186.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General
This notice relates to fees for the Commission's review of the rule
enforcement programs at the registered futures associations and
contract markets regulated by the Commission.
II. Schedule of Fees
Fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs
at the registered futures associations and contract markets regulated
by the Commission:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity Fee amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Board of Trade.................................. $5,127
Chicago Mercantile Exchange............................. 256,683
Kansas City Board of Trade.............................. 13,859
New York Mercantile Exchange............................ 125,378
Minneapolis Grain Exchange.............................. 12,691
National Futures Association............................ 33,692
New York Board of Trade................................. 36,245
OneChicago.............................................. 3,207
---------------
Total............................................... 486,882
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Background Information
A. General
The Commission recalculates the fees charged each year with the
intention of recovering the costs of operating this Commission
program.\1\ All costs are accounted for by the Commission's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Section 237 of the Futures Trading Act of 1982, 7 USC
16a and 31 USC 9701. For a broader discussion of the history of
Commission Fees, see 52 FR 46070 (Dec. 4, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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): 129 percent for fiscal
year 2002, 113 percent for fiscal year 2003, and 109 percent for fiscal
year 2004. These overhead rates are applied to the direct labor costs
to calculate the costs of oversight of SRO rule enforcement programs.
C. Conduct of SRO Rule Enforcement Reviews
Under the formula adopted in 1993 (58 FR 42463, Aug. 11, 1993),
which appears at 17 CFR part 1 appendix B, the Commission calculates
the fee to recover the costs of its review of rule enforcement
programs, based on the three-year average of the actual cost of
performing reviews at each SRO. The cost of operation of the
Commission's program of SRO oversight varies from SRO to SRO, according
to the size and complexity of each SRO's program. The three-year
averaging is intended to smooth out year-to-year variations in cost.
Timing of review may affect costs--a review may span two fiscal years
and fiscal years and reviews are not conducted at each SRO each year.
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 made is as follows: The fee required to be paid to
the Commission by each contract market is equal to the lesser of actual
costs based on the three-year historical average of costs for that
contract market or one-half of average costs incurred by the Commission
for each contract market 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 contract markets
for the most recent three years. The formula for calculating the second
factor is: 0.5a + 0.5vt = current fee. In this formula, ``a'' equals
the average annual costs, ``v'' equals the percentage of total volume
across exchanges over the last three years, and ``t'' equals the
average annual costs for all exchanges. NFA, the only registered
futures association regulated by the Commission, 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 and the
resulting fee for each entity:
[[Page 56825]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-year Three-year
average actual percentage of Average year
costs volume 2005 fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Board of Trade.......................................... $5,127 33.4148 $5,127
Chicago Mercantile Exchange..................................... 256,683 51.6763 256,683
New York Mercantile Exchange.................................... 186,234 11.4811 125,378
New York Board of Trade......................................... 61,296 1.9919 36,245
Kansas City Board of Trade...................................... 22,034 1.0113 13,859
Minneapolis Grain Exchange...................................... 24,591 0.1409 12,691
OneChicago...................................................... 6,011 0.0718 3,207
-----------------
Subtotal.................................................... 561,977 99.7881 453,190
National Futures Association.................................... 33,692 N/A 33,692
=================
Total................................................... 589,657 99.7881 486,882
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An example of how the fee is calculated for one exchange, the
Minneapolis Grain Exchange, is set forth here:
a. Actual three-year average costs equal $24,591
b. The alternative computation is:
(.5) ($24,591) +(.5)(.001409)($561,977) = $12,691.
c. The fee is the less of a or b; in this case $12,691.
As noted above, the alternative calculation based on contracts
traded is not applicable to the NFA because it is not a contract market
and has no contracts traded. The Commission's average annual cost for
conducting oversight review of the NFA rule enforcement program during
fiscal year 2002 through 2004 was $33,692 (one-third of $101,076). The
fee to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is $33,692.
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
contract Stella Lewis at (202) 418-5186 or slewis@cftc.gov, or see the
CFTC Web site at https://www.cftc.gov, specifically https://www.cftc.gov/
cftc/cftcelectronicpayments.htm.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., requires
agencies to consider the impact of the rules on small business. The
fees implemented in this release affect contract markets (also referred
to as exchanges) and registered futures associations. The Commission
has previously determined that contract markets and registered futures
associations are not ``small entities'' for purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the
Commission, certifies pursuant to 5 USC 605(b) that the fees
implemented here will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Issued in Washington, DC on September 23, 2005, by the
Commission.
Edward W. Colbert,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-19461 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
