Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations, 44707-44709 [E8-17531]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
activities satisfies appropriate
standards.5 Such a determination would
permit ICE Clear Europe to operate as an
MCO consistent with the requirements
set forth in FDICIA Section 409(b)(3).
In reviewing this request, the
Commission has considered the UK
legal and regulatory regime for what are
referred to as ‘‘recognised clearing
houses,’’ and how that regime has been
applied to ICE Clear Europe. This
includes the UK’s Financial Services
and Markets Act, 2000 6 (FSMA),
regulations thereunder,7 and regulatory
guidance provided by the FSA.8 ICE
Clear Europe provided the CFTC with
its analysis of the correspondence
between recognition requirements
applicable to clearing houses recognized
by the FSA and the core principles
applicable to DCOs as set forth in CEA
Section 5b.9
The Commission also considered
additional facts, including the authority
of the FSA to enforce compliance with
the applicable foreign law, the foreign
law’s applicability to the activities of
MCOs, FSA’s membership in the
International Organization of Securities
Commissions (IOSCO), a review of the
UK financial system in general
(including FSA’s supervision of clearing
in particular) by the International
Monetary Fund and World Bank (with
satisfactory results), and the FSA’s
demonstrated ability and willingness to
share information and otherwise
cooperate with the CFTC.
The FSA is authorized under the
FSMA to supervise the clearing of
financial instruments by persons located
in the UK and has the authority to
5 Letter from Paul Swann, President and Chief
Operating Officer of Ice Clear Europe, to David A.
Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, dated March 10, 2008,
with annexes. ICE Clear Europe intends to clear
OTC derivatives transactions to be executed on the
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (ICE), a U.S. exempt
commercial market. See generally CEA § 2(h)(3), 7
U.S.C. 2(h)(3), for a discussion of exempt
commercial markets. This activity will bring it
within FDICIA’s definition of an MCO. See FDICIA
§ 408(2)(C), 12 U.S.C. 4421(2)(C) (defining OTC
derivative instrument to include any agreement,
contract, or transaction exempt under CEA Section
2(h)).
6 Financial Services and Markets Act, 2000 (Eng.).
References to sections of the FSMA are hereinafter
cited as ‘‘Section [ ] FSMA.’’
7 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
(Recognition for Investment Exchanges and Clearing
Houses) Regulations (2001) SI 2001/995.
8 The FSA provides what it describes as a
‘‘specialized sourcebook’’ entitled ‘‘Recognised
Investment Exchanges and Recognised Clearing
Houses (REC) requirements applying to recognised
bodies as part of the ‘‘FSA Handbook,’’ which is
available at https://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/
handbook/REC.
9 The issues raised under Section 409 do not
include FSA’s supervision of trading, and the
Commission has accordingly not reviewed that
aspect of FSA’s regulatory program in considering
the present Order.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Jul 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
enforce compliance with applicable
laws, rules and regulations.10 Clearing
in the UK of OTC instruments may be
conducted only by a clearing house
recognized by the FSA,11 thus MCO
activity is subject to regulatory
supervision by the FSA. Furthermore,
the FSA has the ability and has agreed
to share with the CFTC, upon request,
information in its possession regarding
ICE Clear Europe’s activities as a
recognised clearing house and to
otherwise cooperate with the CFTC.12
As a matter of courtesy, the
Commission invited comment
concerning ICE Clear Europe’s
application from the other federal
financial regulators listed in Section
409, but received none. The
Commission also invited the public to
comment on ICE Clear’s petition by
general release posted on the
Commission’s Web site on June 17,
2008. The Commission received
comments from three individuals. Each
of these comments concerned the
trading of contracts in the United
Kingdom, but none addressed the FSA’s
program for the supervision of clearing.
As noted above, the supervision of
trading was outside the scope of the
current review.
Based upon this information, the
CFTC has determined, pursuant to
FDICIA Section 409(b)(3), that the
supervision by the UK’s FSA of ICE
Clear Europe’s activity in clearing OTC
instruments satisfies appropriate
standards. Any material changes or
omissions in the facts and
circumstances upon which this order is
based might require the CFTC to
reconsider this matter.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 23,
2008.
David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–17357 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
2 FSMA.
285 FSMA. ICE Clear Europe received
such recognition on May 12, 2008.
12 See generally the Memorandum of
Understanding between the United States CFTC and
the United Kingdom FSA Concerning Consultation,
Cooperation and the Exchange of Information
Related to Market Oversight (November 12, 2006)
and other agreements to cooperate referred to
therein.
PO 00000
10 Section
11 Section
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44707
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 2008 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
2008 is based upon an average of actual
program costs incurred during FY 2005,
2006, and 2007, as explained below.
The FY 2008 fee schedule is set forth in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Electronic payment of fees is required.
DATES: Effective Date: The FY 2008 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 29, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stacy Dean Yochum, Deputy Executive
Director, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, (202) 418–5157, Three
Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20581. For information
on electronic payment, contact Angela
Clark, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581,
(202) 418–5178.
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
Chicago Board of Trade ...........
1 NFA
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
Fee amount
$146,077
is the only registered futures association.
31JYN1
44708
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices
Entity
Fee amount
Chicago Mercantile Exchange ..
New York Mercantile Exchange
Kansas City Board of Trade .....
New York Board of Trade ........
Minneapolis Grain Exchange ...
HedgeStreet ..............................
Chicago Climate Futures Exchange ..................................
U.S. Futures Exchange ............
OneChicago ..............................
National Futures Association ....
124,734
144,893
11,119
37,662
28,181
10,194
Total ...................................
992,022
8,306
14,602
15,836
450,419
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.
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
2005, 109 percent for fiscal year 2006,
and 140 percent for fiscal year 2007.
The increase in the overhead rate for FY
2007 is due to refinement in the
agency’s reporting capabilities. In past
years, the overhead rate did not
accurately reflect the cost of benefits.
The implementation of a new financial
system revealed the inaccuracy and the
2007 overhead rate reflects the correct
benefits amount. 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
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 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 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 and the resulting fee
for each entity:
3-year
average actual
costs
3-year % of
volume
2008 Fee
(lesser of
actual or
calculated fee)
$146,077
124,734
213,577
20,918
62,615
55,903
20,293
16,594
28,692
29,684
719,088
450,419
32.4504
54.5543
10.5981
0.1834
1.7674
0.0637
0.0132
0.0026
0.0711
0.2764
........................
........................
$146,077
124,734
144,893
11,119
37,662
28,181
10,194
8,306
14,602
15,836
541,603
450,419
Total ......................................................................................................................................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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 .................................................................................................................................
Chicago Climate Futures Exchange ............................................................................................
US Futures Exchange .................................................................................................................
OneChicago .................................................................................................................................
Subtotal .................................................................................................................................
National Futures Association .......................................................................................................
1,169,507
........................
992,022
An example of how the fee is
calculated for one exchange, the
Minneapolis Grain Exchange, is set forth
here:
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).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Jul 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a. Actual three-year average costs
equal $55,903.
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices
b. The alternative computation is: (.5)
($55,903) + (.5) (.000637) ($719,088) =
$28,181.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in
this case $28,181.
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 2005 through 2007 was $450,419
(one-third of $1,351,256). The fee to be
paid by the NFA for the current fiscal
year is $450,419.
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 Angela Clark at (202)
418–5178 or aclark@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
the fees implemented here will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 24,
2008, by the Commission.
David Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–17531 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
[Docket ID: USA–2008–0005]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In compliance with section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, the Department
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Jul 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
of the Army announces a proposed
revision of a public information
collection and seeks public comment on
the provisions thereof. Comments are
invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the information collection on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
DATES: Consideration will be given to all
comments received by September 29,
2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and title,
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Federal Docket Management
System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–1160.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name, docket
number and title for this Federal
Register document. The general policy
for comments and other submissions
from members of the public is to make
these submissions available for public
viewing on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request more information on this
proposed information collection or to
obtain a copy of the proposal and
associated collection instruments,
please write to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 441 G Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20314–1000, Attn:
CECW–CO, or call Department of the
Army Reports clearance officer at (703)
428–6440.
Title, Associated Form, and OMB
Number: Application for a Department
of the Army Permit; ENG Form 4345,
OMB Control Number 0710–0003.
Needs and Uses: Information
collected is used to evaluate, as required
by law, proposed construction or filing
in waters of the United States that result
in impacts to the aquatic environment
and nearby properties, and to determine
if issuance of a permit is in the public
interest. Respondents are private
landowners, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and government agencies.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44709
Respondents also include sponsors of
proposed and approved mitigation
banks and in-lieu fee programs.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households; business or other for-profit;
not-for-profit institutions; farms; Federal
government; State; local or tribal
government.
Annual Burden Hours: 984,000.
Number of Respondents: 89,450.
Responses Per Respondent: 1.
Average Burden Per Response: 11
hours.
Frequency: On occasion.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Corps
of Engineers is required by three federal
laws, passed by Congress, to regulate
construction-related activities in waters
of the United States. This is
accomplished through the review of
applications for permits to do this work.
Dated: July 23, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E8–17550 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
[Docket No. USA–2008–0006]
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
ACTION:
Notice.
The Department of Defense has
submitted to OMB for clearance, the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35).
DATES: Consideration will be given to all
comments received by September 2,
2008.
Title, Form, and OMB Number:
Industry Partnership Survey; OMB
Control Number 0702–0122.
Type of Request: Extension.
Number of Respondents: 1,371.
Responses Per Respondent: 1.
Annual Responses: 357.
Average Burden Per Response: 15
minutes.
Annual Burden Hours: 343.
Needs and Uses: The information
collected from this survey will be used
to systematically survey and measure
industry contractors to better
understand how they feel about SDDC’s
acquisition processes, and to improve
the way business is conducted. The
SDDC provides global surface
deployment command and control and
distribution operations to meet National
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 148 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44707-44709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17531]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2008 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 2008 is based upon
an average of actual program costs incurred during FY 2005, 2006, and
2007, as explained below. The FY 2008 fee schedule is set forth in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Electronic payment of fees is required.
DATES: Effective Date: The FY 2008 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 29, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Dean Yochum, Deputy Executive
Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5157, Three
Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. For
information on electronic payment, contact Angela Clark, Three
Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202)
418-5178.
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..................................... $146,077
[[Page 44708]]
Chicago Mercantile Exchange................................ 124,734
New York Mercantile Exchange............................... 144,893
Kansas City Board of Trade................................. 11,119
New York Board of Trade.................................... 37,662
Minneapolis Grain Exchange................................. 28,181
HedgeStreet................................................ 10,194
Chicago Climate Futures Exchange........................... 8,306
U.S. Futures Exchange...................................... 14,602
OneChicago................................................. 15,836
National Futures Association............................... 450,419
------------
Total.................................................. 992,022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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): 109 percent for fiscal
year 2005, 109 percent for fiscal year 2006, and 140 percent for fiscal
year 2007. The increase in the overhead rate for FY 2007 is due to
refinement in the agency's reporting capabilities. In past years, the
overhead rate did not accurately reflect the cost of benefits. The
implementation of a new financial system revealed the inaccuracy and
the 2007 overhead rate reflects the correct benefits amount. 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 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. 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 and the
resulting fee for each entity:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 Fee
3-year (lesser of
average actual 3-year % of actual or
costs volume calculated
fee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Board of Trade.......................................... $146,077 32.4504 $146,077
Chicago Mercantile Exchange..................................... 124,734 54.5543 124,734
New York Mercantile Exchange.................................... 213,577 10.5981 144,893
Kansas City Board of Trade...................................... 20,918 0.1834 11,119
New York Board of Trade......................................... 62,615 1.7674 37,662
Minneapolis Grain Exchange...................................... 55,903 0.0637 28,181
HedgeStreet..................................................... 20,293 0.0132 10,194
Chicago Climate Futures Exchange................................ 16,594 0.0026 8,306
US Futures Exchange............................................. 28,692 0.0711 14,602
OneChicago...................................................... 29,684 0.2764 15,836
Subtotal.................................................... 719,088 .............. 541,603
National Futures Association.................................... 450,419 .............. 450,419
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 1,169,507 .............. 992,022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $55,903.
[[Page 44709]]
b. The alternative computation is: (.5) ($55,903) + (.5) (.000637)
($719,088) = $28,181.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case $28,181.
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 2005 through 2007 was $450,419 (one-third of $1,351,256). The fee
to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is $450,419.
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
Angela Clark at (202) 418-5178 or aclark@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 the fees implemented here will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 24, 2008, by the Commission.
David Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-17531 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
