Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations, 39672-39673 [06-6109]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39672
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Notices
Nutrition and Forestry and the House
Committee on Agriculture. A copy of
the reinstated charter will be furnished
to the Library of Congress and to the
Committee Management Secretariat and
will be posted on the Commission’s
Web site at https://www.cftc.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 7, 2006,
by the Commission.
Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06–6190 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–M
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
Fees for Reviews of the Rule
Enforcement Programs of Contract
Markets and Registered Futures
Associations
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
AGENCY:
Establishment of the FY 2006
schedule of fees.
ACTION:
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 (SRO)
rule enforcement programs (17 CFR part
1 Appendix B) (NFA and the contract
markets are referred to as SROs). The
calculation of the fee amounts to be
charged for FY 2006 is based upon an
average of actual program costs incurred
during FY 2003, 2004, and 2005, as
explained below. The FY 2006 fee
schedule is set forth in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Electronic
payment of fees is required.
DATES: Effective Dates: The FY 2006 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
September 11, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stacy Dean Yochum, Counsel to the
Executive Director, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, (202) 418–5160,
Three Lafayette Centre, 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 1 and designated
contract markets (DCM), which are
referred to as SROs, 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
DCMs regulated by the Commission:
Entity
Fee amount
Chicago Board of Trade ................................................................................................................................................................
Chicago Mercantile Exchange .......................................................................................................................................................
New York Mercantile Exchange ....................................................................................................................................................
Kansas City Board of Trade ..........................................................................................................................................................
New York Board of Trade ..............................................................................................................................................................
Minneapolis Grain Exchange .........................................................................................................................................................
OneChicago ...................................................................................................................................................................................
National Futures Association .........................................................................................................................................................
$72,286
201,763
105,117
10,992
63,561
11,108
18,301
277,661
Total ........................................................................................................................................................................................
760,789
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.2 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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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
1 National Futures Association (NFA) is the only
registered futures association.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:46 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
Under the formula adopted in 1993
(58 FR 42643, Aug. 11, 1993), which
appears at 17 CFR part 1 Appendix B,
the Commission calculates the fee to
recover the costs of its rule enforcement
review 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 yearto-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.
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
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).
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): 113 percent for fiscal year
2003, 109 percent for fiscal year 2004,
and 109 percent for fiscal year 2005.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
39673
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Notices
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 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 and the resulting fee
for each entity:
3-year average actual
costs
3-year % of
volume
Average year
2006 fee
Chicago Board of Trade ..............................................................................................................
Chicago Mercantile Exchange .....................................................................................................
New York Mercantile Exchange ..................................................................................................
Kansas City Board of Trade ........................................................................................................
New York Board of Trade ............................................................................................................
Minneapolis Grain Exchange .......................................................................................................
OneChicago .................................................................................................................................
72,286
201,763
144,899
16,985
115,320
21,490
35,695
34.4803
51.4928
10.7381
0.8216
1.9397
0.1193
0.1489
72,286
201,763
105,117
10,992
63,561
11,108
18,301
Subtotal .................................................................................................................................
National Futures Association .......................................................................................................
608,438
277,661
99.7407
N/A
483,128
277,661
Total ......................................................................................................................................
886,099
99.7407
760,789
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 $21,490.
b. The alternative computation is: (.5)
($21,490) + (.5) (.001193) ($608,438) =
$11,108.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in
this case $11,108.
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 2003 through 2005 was $277,661
(one-third of $832,983). The fee to be
paid by the NFA for the current fiscal
year is $277,661.
Payment Method
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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 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 rules on small
business. The fees implemented in this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:46 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 U.S.C. 605(b) that the fees
implemented here will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Settlement Agreement with Family
Dollar, a corporation, containing a civil
penalty of $100,000.
DATES: Any interested person may ask
the Commission not to accept this
agreement or otherwise comment on its
contents by filing a written request with
the Office of the Secretary by July 28,
2006.
[CPSC Docket No. 06–C0004]
Persons wishing to
comment on this Settlement Agreement
should sent written comments to the
Comment 06–C0004, Office of the
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Washington, DC 20207.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Howard N. Tarnoff, Trial Attorney,
Office of Compliance, Consumer
Product Safety Commission,
Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301)
504–7589.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of
the Agreement and Order appears
below.
Family Dollar, Inc., a Corporation,
Provisional Acceptance of a
Settlement Agreement and Order
Dated: July 7, 2006.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 5, 2006,
by the Commission.
Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06–6109 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: It is the policy of the
Commission to publish settlements
which it provisionally accepts under the
Consumer Product Safety Act in the
Federal Register in accordance with the
terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published
below is a provisionally-accepted
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ADDRESSES:
In the Matter of Family Dollar, Inc., a
Corporation; Settlement Agreement and
Order
1. This Settlement Agreement is made by
and between the staff (the ‘‘staff’’) of the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (the
‘‘Commission’’) and Family Dollar, Inc.
(‘‘Family Dollar’’), a corporation, in
accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20 of the
Commission’s procedures for Investigations,
Inspections, and Inquiries under the
Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’). This
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 134 (Thursday, July 13, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39672-39673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6109]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Contract
Markets and Registered Futures Associations
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Establishment of the FY 2006 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 (SRO) rule enforcement programs (17 CFR part 1
Appendix B) (NFA and the contract markets are referred to as SROs). The
calculation of the fee amounts to be charged for FY 2006 is based upon
an average of actual program costs incurred during FY 2003, 2004, and
2005, as explained below. The FY 2006 fee schedule is set forth in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Electronic payment of fees is required.
DATES: Effective Dates: The FY 2006 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 September 11, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Dean Yochum, Counsel to the
Executive Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-
5160, Three Lafayette Centre, 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 \1\ and
designated contract markets (DCM), which are referred to as SROs,
regulated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Futures Association (NFA) is the only registered
futures association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity Fee amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Board of Trade............................... $72,286
Chicago Mercantile Exchange.......................... 201,763
New York Mercantile Exchange......................... 105,117
Kansas City Board of Trade........................... 10,992
New York Board of Trade.............................. 63,561
Minneapolis Grain Exchange........................... 11,108
OneChicago........................................... 18,301
National Futures Association......................... 277,661
------------------
Total............................................ 760,789
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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): 113 percent for fiscal
year 2003, 109 percent for fiscal year 2004, and 109 percent for fiscal
year 2005. 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 42643, Aug. 11, 1993),
which appears at 17 CFR part 1 Appendix B, the Commission calculates
the fee to recover the costs of its rule enforcement review 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. 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
[[Page 39673]]
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 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 and the
resulting fee for each entity:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-year average 3-year % of Average year
actual costs volume 2006 fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Board of Trade.......................................... 72,286 34.4803 72,286
Chicago Mercantile Exchange..................................... 201,763 51.4928 201,763
New York Mercantile Exchange.................................... 144,899 10.7381 105,117
Kansas City Board of Trade...................................... 16,985 0.8216 10,992
New York Board of Trade......................................... 115,320 1.9397 63,561
Minneapolis Grain Exchange...................................... 21,490 0.1193 11,108
OneChicago...................................................... 35,695 0.1489 18,301
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 608,438 99.7407 483,128
National Futures Association.................................... 277,661 N/A 277,661
�����������������������������������������������������������������
Total....................................................... 886,099 99.7407 760,789
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $21,490.
b. The alternative computation is: (.5) ($21,490) + (.5) (.001193)
($608,438) = $11,108.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case $11,108.
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 2003 through 2005 was $277,661 (one-third of $832,983). The fee
to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is $277,661.
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
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 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 U.S.C. 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 July 5, 2006, by the Commission.
Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-6109 Filed 7-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
