Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations, 48264-48266 [E7-16705]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
48264
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 163 / Thursday, August 23, 2007 / Notices
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
CME shall be required to provide the
Commission immediate notice of any
deficiency in surrogate capital.
• CME and CFETS shall be required
to provide all large-trader reporting
information at the same time and in the
same format that CFETS would be
required to provide if CFETS were
registered as an FCM. CME and CFETS
shall be required to act as agent for
service of process regarding trading on
CME for both CFETS members and
customers of CFETS members.
• CME shall not hold CFETS
positions and associated funds in U.S.
customer accounts segregated pursuant
to section 4d of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 6d.
• CME and CFETS shall be required
to maintain records, in English, in the
U.S., sufficient to permit the
Commission to confirm compliance
with any provision of any order issued
by the Commission. CME and CFETS
shall be required to make such records
available to the Commission in the U.S.
within 72 hours of any request.
• CME and CFETS shall be required
to comply with U.S. anti-money
laundering requirements as determined
by the U.S. Treasury.
• CME and CFETS shall be required
to accept joint and several liability in
any Commission enforcement action
relating to compliance with any order
issued by the Commission.
• CME and CFETS shall be required
to file a report with the Commission
providing statistics and analyzing issues
(to be determined) within 18 months
after issuance of any relief.
II. Request for Comments
The Commission requests public
comment on any aspect of the Petition
that commenters believe may raise
issues under the CEA or Commission
regulations. In particular, the
Commission invites comment regarding:
(1) Whether the proposed exemption is
consistent with the requirements for
relief set forth in section 4(c) of the Act,
7 U.S.C. 6(c), including whether
granting the exemption would be
consistent with the public interest and
the purposes of the CEA; (2) whether
CME’s representations, as discussed
above, if imposed as conditions of an
order pursuant to section 4(c)(1), section
6(c)(1), would provide adequate
safeguards with respect to the U.S.
clearing system in light of CFETS’
exemption from the FCM registration
requirement; (3) whether an order
granting the request for relief should
include requirements different from or
in addition to those discussed above; (4)
order to avoid providing the Commission with nextday notice of its surrogate capital on deposit.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Aug 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
whether an order granting the request
for relief should exclude any one or
more of the requirements discussed
above; (5) any material adverse effects
that granting the petition would have
upon other derivatives clearing
organizations, exchanges, or other
Commission registrants from a
competitive 7 or other perspective 8; and
(6) any other issues relevant to this
petition.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8,
2007 by the Commission.
David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7–16641 Filed 8–22–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
Effective Dates: The FY 2007 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
October 22, 2007.
DATES:
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 Adrienne Young-Burgess, Three
Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–5196.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
Fees for Reviews of the Rule
Enforcement Programs of Contract
Markets and Registered Futures
Associations
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Establish the FY 2007 schedule
of fees.
AGENCY:
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) (National Futures
Association (NFA), a registered futures
association, and the contract markets are
referred to as SROs). The calculation of
the fee amounts to be charged for FY
2007 is based upon an average of actual
program costs incurred during FY 2004,
2005, and 2006, as explained below.
The FY 2007 fee schedule is set forth in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Electronic payment of fees is required.
7 As noted above, the Commission may grant an
exemption pursuant to Section 4(c)(1) of the Act, 7
U.S.C. 6(c)(1), ‘‘[i]n order to promote responsible
economic or financial innovation and fair
competition.’’ Section 15(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C.
19(b), provides that the ‘‘Commission shall take into
consideration the public interest to be protected by
the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least
anticompetitive means of achieving the objectives
of this chapter, as well as the policies and purposes
of this chapter, in issuing any order * * *.’’
8 The Commission notes that Section 15(a) of the
Act, 7 U.S.C. 19(a), requires that the Commission,
before issuing an order, consider the costs and
benefits in light of considerations of protection of
market participants and the public; considerations
of the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial
integrity of futures markets; considerations of price
discovery; considerations of sound risk
management practices; and other public interest
considerations.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 .....
HedgeStreet ................................
One Chicago ...............................
Chicago Climate Futures Exchange ....................................
EUREX .......................................
National Futures Association ......
$72,547
97,725
59,604
10,799
57,273
10,967
2,736
18,355
Total .....................................
608,114
1,731
2,523
273,854
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
1 NFA
is the only registered futures association.
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).
2 See
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
48265
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 163 / Thursday, August 23, 2007 / Notices
on direct program costs, plus an
overhead factor.
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): 109 percent for fiscal year
2004, 109 percent for fiscal year 2005,
and 109 percent for fiscal year 2006.
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 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
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 percent
of volume
(percent)
3-year average
actual costs
Calculated
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 ...............................................................................
HedgeStreet .........................................................................................................
One Chicago ........................................................................................................
Chicago Climate Futures Exchange ....................................................................
EUREX .................................................................................................................
Subtotal ................................................................................................................
National Futures Association ...............................................................................
$72,547
97,725
73,089
20,685
106,219
21,490
5,413
35,695
3,461
4,403
440,729
273,854
34.1011
52.8310
10.4640
0.2071
1.8893
0.1006
0.0137
0.2300
0.0002
0.1460
................................
................................
$72,547
97,725
59,604
10,799
57,273
10,967
2,736
18,355
1,731
2,523
334,260
273,854
Total ..............................................................................................................
706,718
................................
608,114
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
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) ($21,490) + (.5) (.001006) ($) =
$10,967.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in
this case $10,967.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Aug 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
conducting oversight review of the NFA
rule enforcement program during fiscal
years 2004 through 2006 was $273,854
(one-third of $821,561). The fee to be
paid by the NFA for the current fiscal
year is $273,854.
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 Adrienne Young-Burgess
at (202) 418–5196 or aburgess@cftc.gov,
or see the CFTC Web site at https://
www.cftc.gov, specifically, https://
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 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 Acting
Chairman, on behalf of the Commission,
certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
48266
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 163 / Thursday, August 23, 2007 / Notices
the fees implemented here will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Issued in Washington, DC on August 17,
2007, by the Commission.
David Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7–16705 Filed 8–22–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Information Collection; Submission for
OMB Review; Comment Request
Corporation for National and
Community Service.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Corporation for National
and Community Service (hereinafter the
‘‘Corporation’’), has submitted a public
information collection request (ICR)
entitled Learn and Serve America
Program and Performance Reporting
System to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval
in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13),
(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of the
ICR, with applicable supporting
documentation, may be obtained by
calling the Corporation for National and
Community Service, Kimberly Spring,
202–606–6629 (kspring@cns.gov).
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TTY–TDD) may call (202) 565–2799
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted, identified by the title of the
information collection activity, to the
Office of information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn: Ms. Katherine Astrich,
OMB Desk Office for the Corporation for
National and Community Service, by
any of the following two methods
within 30 days from the date of
publication in this Federal Register.
(1) By fax to: (202) 395–6974,
Attention: Ms. Katherine Astrich, OMB
Desk Officer for the Corporation for
National and Community Service; and
(2) Electronically by e-mail to:
Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov.
The OMB
is particularly interested in comments
which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Corporation, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Aug 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
Corporation’s estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Propose ways to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submissions
of responses.
Comments
A 60-day public comment Notice was
published in the Federal Register on
May 2, 2007. This comment period
ended on July 2, 2007. Comments
received included requests for
additional directions and response
options; clarification of questions on
participant race and ethnicity; and the
addition of questions specific to training
and technical assistance activities. The
collection system has been modified to
address these comments.
Description: The Corporation is
seeking the renewal of the Learn and
Serve America Program and
Performance Reporting System, also
known as LASSIE. The system includes
the Program and Performance
Measurement Report, which is
completed annually by any institution
that receives Learn and Serve grant
funds. The Report is administered
through a web-based system and
collects information on the
characteristics of reporting institutions,
numbers and types of program
participants and program partners,
service activities, and institutional
supports for service-learning. There are
three parallel versions of the Report to
accommodate differences in
terminology and institutional structure
among K–12, higher education, and
community-based grant recipients.
Type of Review: Renewal.
Agency: Corporation for National and
Community Service.
Title: Learn and Serve America
Program and Performance Reporting
System.
OMB Number: 3045–0095.
Affected Public: Learn and Serve
America Grantees and Subgrantees.
Number of Respondents: 2,100.
Frequency: Annually.
Average Time per Response: 1/4 hour
for grantees and 1 hour for subgrantees.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 2025.
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):
None.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintenance): None.
Dated: August 14, 2007.
Robert Grimm,
Director, Department of Research and Policy
Development.
[FR Doc. E7–16689 Filed 8–22–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Information Collection; Submission for
OMB Review, Comment Request
Corporation for National and
Community Service.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Corporation for National
and Community Service (hereinafter the
‘‘Corporation’’) has submitted a public
information collection request (ICR)
entitled the Evaluation of Youth Corps:
18-Month Follow-up Survey to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this
ICR, with applicable supporting
documentation, may be obtained by
calling the Corporation for National and
Community Service, Ms. Lillian Dote at
(202) 606–6984. Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TTY–TDD) may call (202) 606–3472
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern
time, Monday through Friday.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted, identified by the title of the
information collection activity, to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB Desk Officer for the
Corporation for National and
Community Service, by the following
method, within 30 days from the date of
publication in this Federal Register:
(1) By fax to: (202) 395–6974,
Attention: Ms. Katherine Astrich, OMB
Desk Officer for the Corporation for
National and Community Service.
(2) Electronically by e-mail to:
Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB
is particularly interested in comments
which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Corporation, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 163 (Thursday, August 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48264-48266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16705]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Establish the FY 2007 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) (National Futures Association (NFA), a registered futures
association, and the contract markets are referred to as SROs). The
calculation of the fee amounts to be charged for FY 2007 is based upon
an average of actual program costs incurred during FY 2004, 2005, and
2006, as explained below. The FY 2007 fee schedule is set forth in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Electronic payment of fees is required.
DATES: Effective Dates: The FY 2007 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 October 22, 2007.
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 Adrienne Young-
Burgess, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC
20581, (202) 418-5196.
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\ 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...................................... $72,547
Chicago Mercantile Exchange................................. 97,725
New York Mercantile Exchange................................ 59,604
Kansas City Board of Trade.................................. 10,799
New York Board of Trade..................................... 57,273
Minneapolis Grain Exchange.................................. 10,967
HedgeStreet................................................. 2,736
One Chicago................................................. 18,355
Chicago Climate Futures Exchange............................ 1,731
EUREX....................................................... 2,523
National Futures Association................................ 273,854
-----------
Total................................................... 608,114
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 48265]]
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): 109 percent for fiscal
year 2004, 109 percent for fiscal year 2005, and 109 percent for fiscal
year 2006. 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 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 percent of Calculated 2006
actual costs volume (percent) fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Board of Trade.............................. $72,547 34.1011 $72,547
Chicago Mercantile Exchange......................... 97,725 52.8310 97,725
New York Mercantile Exchange........................ 73,089 10.4640 59,604
Kansas City Board of Trade.......................... 20,685 0.2071 10,799
New York Board of Trade............................. 106,219 1.8893 57,273
Minneapolis Grain Exchange.......................... 21,490 0.1006 10,967
HedgeStreet......................................... 5,413 0.0137 2,736
One Chicago......................................... 35,695 0.2300 18,355
Chicago Climate Futures Exchange.................... 3,461 0.0002 1,731
EUREX............................................... 4,403 0.1460 2,523
Subtotal............................................ 440,729 .................. 334,260
National Futures Association........................ 273,854 .................. 273,854
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 706,718 .................. 608,114
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) ($21,490) + (.5) (.001006) ($) = $10,967.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case $10,967.
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 2004 through 2006 was $273,854 (one-third of $821,561). The fee
to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is $273,854.
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
Adrienne Young-Burgess at (202) 418-5196 or aburgess@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 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 Acting Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, certifies pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
[[Page 48266]]
the fees implemented here will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Issued in Washington, DC on August 17, 2007, by the Commission.
David Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7-16705 Filed 8-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
