Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44707 

5Letter 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)). 

6Financial Services and Markets Act, 2000 (Eng.). 

References to sections of the FSMA are hereinafter 

cited as ‘‘Section [ ] FSMA.’’

7Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 

(Recognition for Investment Exchanges and Clearing 

Houses) Regulations (2001) SI 2001/995. 

8The 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 http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/ 

handbook/REC. 

9The 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. 

10Section 2 FSMA. 

11Section 285 FSMA. ICE Clear Europe received 

such recognition on May 12, 2008. 

12See 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. 1NFA is the only registered futures association. 

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 

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 

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. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
44708 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

2See Section 237 of the Futures Trading Act of 

1982, 7 U.S.C. 16a and 31 U.S.C. 9701. For a 

broader discussion of the history of Commission 

Fees, see 52 FR 46070 (Dec. 4, 1987). 

Entity Fee amount 

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. 

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 

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) 

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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 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 http://www.cftc.gov, 

specifically, http://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] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with section 

3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, the Department 

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: http:// 

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 http:// 

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. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES