16388 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA309 

Whaling Provisions; Aboriginal 

Subsistence Whaling Quotas 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; notification of quota for 

bowhead whales. 

SUMMARY: NMFS provides notification 

of the aboriginal subsistence whaling 

quota for bowhead whales that it has 

assigned to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (AEWC), and other 

limitations deriving from regulations 

adopted at the 59th Annual Meeting of 

the International Whaling Commission 

(IWC). For 2011, the quota is 75 

bowhead whales struck. This quota and 

other limitations govern the harvest of 

bowhead whales by members of the 

AEWC. 

DATES: Effective March 23, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Office of International 

Affairs, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Wulff, (202) 482–3689. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aboriginal 

subsistence whaling in the United States 

is governed by the Whaling Convention 

Act (16 U.S.C. 916 et seq.). Regulations 

that implement the Act, found at 50 CFR 

230.6, require the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary) to publish, at 

least annually, aboriginal subsistence 

whaling quotas and any other 

limitations on aboriginal subsistence 

whaling deriving from regulations of the 

IWC. 

At the 59th Annual Meeting of the 

IWC, the Commission set catch limits 

for aboriginal subsistence use of 

bowhead whales from the BeringChukchi-Beaufort Seas stock. The 

bowhead catch limits were based on a 

joint request by the United States and 

the Russian Federation, accompanied by 

documentation concerning the needs of 

two Native groups: Alaska Eskimos and 

Chukotka Natives in the Russian Far 

East. 

This action by the IWC thus 

authorized aboriginal subsistence 

whaling by the AEWC for bowhead 

whales. This aboriginal subsistence 

harvest is conducted in accordance with 

a cooperative agreement between NOAA 

and the AEWC. 

The IWC set a 5-year block quota of 

280 bowhead whales landed. For each 

of the years 2008 through 2012, the 

number of bowhead whales struck may 

not exceed 67, except that any unused 

portion of a strike quota from any year, 

including 15 unused strikes from the 

2003 through 2007 quota, may be 

carried forward. No more than 15 strikes 

may be added to the strike quota for any 

one year. At the end of the 2010 harvest, 

there were 15 unused strikes available 

for carry-forward, so the combined 

strike quota for 2011 is 82 (67 + 15). 

This arrangement ensures that the 

total quota of bowhead whales landed 

and struck in 2011 will not exceed the 

catch limits set by the IWC. Under an 

arrangement between the United States 

and the Russian Federation, the Russian 

natives may use no more than seven 

strikes, and the Alaska Eskimos may use 

no more than 75 strikes. 

Through its cooperative agreement 

with the AEWC, NOAA has assigned 75 

strikes to the Alaska Eskimos. The 

AEWC will allocate these strikes among 

the 11 villages whose cultural and 

subsistence needs have been 

documented, and will ensure that its 

hunters use no more than 75 strikes. 

Other Limitations 

The IWC regulations, as well as the 

NOAA regulation at 50 CFR 230.4(c), 

forbid the taking of calves or any whale 

accompanied by a calf. 

NOAA regulations (at 50 CFR 230.4) 

contain a number of other prohibitions 

relating to aboriginal subsistence 

whaling, some of which are summarized 

here. For example: 

• Only licensed whaling captains or 

crew under the control of those captains 

may engage in whaling. 

• They must follow the provisions of 

the relevant cooperative agreement 

between NOAA and a Native American 

whaling organization. 

• The aboriginal hunters must have 

adequate crew, supplies, and 

equipment. 

• They may not receive money for 

participating in the hunt. 

• No person may sell or offer for sale 

whale products from whales taken in 

the hunt, except for authentic articles of 

Native handicrafts. 

• Captains may not continue to whale 

after the relevant quota is taken, after 

the season has been closed, or if their 

licenses have been suspended. They 

may not engage in whaling in a wasteful 

manner. 

Dated: March 18, 2011. 

Jean Pierre-Ple, 

Acting Director, Office of International 

Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6889 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–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: FY 2008 and 2009 schedule of 

fees; establish the FY 2010 schedule of 

fees revision. 

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 (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 2010 is based upon an 

average of actual program costs incurred 

during FY 2007, 2008, and 2009, as 

explained below. The FY 2010 fee 

includes adjustments to program costs 

incurred in FY 2008 and 2009, which 

are being revised as a result of an 

internal review of program costs. The 

FY 2010 fee schedule and the revision 

of FY 2008 and 2009 fees are set forth 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section. Electronic payment of fees is 

required. 

DATES: The FY 2010 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 May 23, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Carney, Chief Financial Officer, 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, (202) 418–5477, Three 

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW. 

Washington, DC 20581. For information 

on electronic payment, contact Jennifer 

Fleming, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 

21st Street NW. Washington, DC 20581, 

(202) 418–5034. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General 

This notice relates to fees for the 

Commission’s review of the rule 

enforcement programs at the registered 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Notices 16389 

1NFA is the only registered futures association. 2See generally 74 FR 46115 (Sep. 8, 2009). 

futures associations 1 and designated 

contract markets (DCM), which are 

collectively referred to herein as SROs, 

regulated by the Commission. 

II. Background Information 

A. General 

The Commission recalculates the fees 

charged each year with the intention of 

recovering the costs of operating this 

Commission program. Fees are 

calculated by extracting direct labor 

costs for rule enforcement reviews from 

the agency’s Budget Programming 

Accounting Codes (BPAC), which 

captures each employee’s time by 

project, for a three-year period. The 

agency then adds an overhead factor for 

benefits and general administrative 

costs. The agency uses a three-year 

rolling average to cover fluctuations in 

the number of hours spent reviewing 

each SRO over time. In recognition of 

the fact that the cost of conducting a 

review may not correlate directly with 

the size of a particular SRO, the agency 

also calculates an alternate fee that takes 

the volume into account. The agency 

charges the SRO the lesser of the two 

fees. 

Subsequent to an internal review, the 

Commission found that in FY 2008 and 

2009 not all direct program labor costs 

were captured and that some direct 

costs were misapplied to SRO reviews. 

As the formula for calculating the FY 

2010 fee to be charged to the SROs 

includes actual costs incurred in FY 

2008 and 2009, the fees for those years 

are being revised, and the FY 2010 fee 

is being adjusted to account for the 

revisions. In addition, the FY 2009 fee 

that was assessed on USFE is being 

rescinded,2 as USFE ceased operations 

on December 31, 2008. All adjustments 

are shown in the tables that follow. 

B. Overhead Rate 

Once the agency determines the direct 

costs for rule enforcement review of 

each SRO, it applies an overhead rate to 

cover employee benefits and other 

administrative costs. 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): 140 percent for fiscal year 

2007, and 144 percent for fiscal year 

2008, and 147 percent for 2009. 

C. Calculation of FY 2010 Fees 

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. 

To provide relief to SROs who may bear 

a disproportionately large share of 

program costs, the Commission’s 

alternate 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 SRO is equal to the 

lesser of actual costs based on the threeyear historical average of costs for that 

SRO or one-half of average costs 

incurred by the Commission for each 

SRO 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 SROs 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 SROs 

over the last three years, and ‘‘t’’ equals 

the average annual costs for all SROs. 

NFA has no contracts traded; hence, its 

fee is based simply on costs for the most 

recent three fiscal years. The following 

table summarizes the data used in the 

calculations and the resulting fee for 

each entity for FY 2010. The 3-year 

average actual cost calculations were 

derived using the FY 2008 and 2009 fees 

as they are revised elsewhere in this 

notice: 

FY 2010 FEES

3-year average actual 

costs 3-year % of volume 

2010 Fee 

(lesser of actual or 

calculated fee) 

Chicago Board of Trade .......................................................................... $188,085 0 .291273 $188,085 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ................................................................. 145,952 55 .5839 145,952 

New York Mercantile Exchange .............................................................. 572,494 12 .5373 363,321 

Kansas City Board of Trade .................................................................... 27,303 0 .1351 14,482 

ICE Futures U.S ...................................................................................... 144,847 2 .3324 86,762 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ................................................................... 104,706 0 .0488 52,653 

HedgeStreet ............................................................................................. 23,272 0 .002 11,636 

Chicago Climate Futures Exchange ........................................................ 21,705 0 .0205 10,853 

US Futures Exchange ............................................................................. 0 0 .0001 0 

OneChicago ............................................................................................. 1,157 0 .1791 1,157 

Subtotal ............................................................................................. 1,229,521 .................................... 847,901 

National Futures Association ................................................................... 561,531 .................................... 561,531 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
16390 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Notices 

3See 73 FR 44707 (Sep. 29, 2008) and 74 FR 

46115 (Sep. 8, 2009). 

FY 2010 FEES—Continued 

3-year average actual 

costs 3-year % of volume 

2010 Fee 

(lesser of actual or 

calculated fee) 

Total ........................................................................................... 1,791,052 .................................... 1,436,432 

An example of how the fee is 

calculated for one exchange, the 

Chicago Board of Trade, is set forth 

here: 

a. Actual three-year average costs 

equal $188,085 

b. The alternative computation is: (.5) 

($188,085) + (.5) (.291273) ($1,229,521) 

= $273,105 

c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in 

this case $188,085 

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 2008 through 2010 was $561,531 

(one-third of $1,684,592.85). The fee to 

be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal 

year is $561,531, plus the adjustment to 

the fees that were published for FY 2008 

and 2009 in the Federal Register.3

D. Revision of FY 2008 and 2009 Fees 

This year, Commission conducted an 

internal review of its SRO fee process 

that has resulted in adjustments to the 

fees owed by several SROs and NFA. As 

a result of the internal review FY 2008 

and FY 2009 fees for the Commission’s 

review of the rule enforcement programs 

at the registered futures associations and 

SROs regulated by the Commission are 

accordingly revised as follows: 

FY 2009 FEE ADJUSTMENTS

Entity 2009 Assessment Adjustment 2009 Revision 

Chicago Board of Trade ............................................................................................ $77,371 $6,522 $83,893 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ................................................................................... 121,071 0 121,071

New York Mercantile Exchange ................................................................................ 197,535 141,670 339,205 

Kansas City Board of Trade ...................................................................................... 10,127 13,210 23,337 

ICE Futures U.S ........................................................................................................ 32,683 1,815 34,498 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ..................................................................................... 62,449 (30,420) 32,029 

HedgeStreet ............................................................................................................... 14,375 8 14,383 

Chicago Climate Futures Exchange .......................................................................... 12,259 7 12,266 

US Futures Exchange ............................................................................................... 18,601 (18,601) 0 

OneChicago ............................................................................................................... 1,157 0 1,157 

National Futures Association ..................................................................................... 179,641 347,243 526,884 

Total .................................................................................................................... 727,270 461,453 1,188,723 

FY 2008 FEE ADJUSTMENTS

Entity 2008 Assessment Adjustment 2008 Revision 

Chicago Board of Trade ............................................................................................ $146,077 $56,971 $203,048 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ................................................................................... 124,734 0 124,734

New York Mercantile Exchange ................................................................................ 144,893 104,026 248,919 

Kansas City Board of Trade ...................................................................................... 11,119 174 11,293 

ICE Futures U.S ........................................................................................................ 37,662 1,678 39,340 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ..................................................................................... 28,181 (27,413) 768 

HedgeStreet ............................................................................................................... 10,194 13 10,207 

Chicago Climate Futures Exchange .......................................................................... 8,306 3 8,309 

US Futures Exchange ............................................................................................... 14,602 68 14,670 

OneChicago ............................................................................................................... 15,836 262 16,098 

National Futures Association ..................................................................................... 450,419 (3,045) 447,374 

Total .................................................................................................................... 992,022 132,737 1,124,760 

E. Final Amounts Due 

To determine the final amount due 

from each SRO, the adjustments for FY 

2008 and 2009 must be added to or 

subtracted from FY 2010 fee. For 

example: Chicago Board of Trade 

(CBOT) will owe $251,578 which is 

computed as follows, $188,085 (2010 

fee) + $6,522 (2009 adjustment amount) 

+ $56,971 (2008 adjustment amount) = 

$251,578. The following chart provides 

the calculation for each SRO: 

Entity 2008 Adjustment 2009 Adjustment 2010 Fee Due 

Chicago Board of Trade .......................................................... $56,971 $6,522 $188,085 $251,578 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Notices 16391 

Entity 2008 Adjustment 2009 Adjustment 2010 Fee Due 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ................................................. 0 0 145,952 145,952 

New York Mercantile Exchange .............................................. 104,026 141,670 363,321 609,017 

Kansas City Board of Trade .................................................... 174 13,210 14,482 27,866 

ICE Futures U.S ...................................................................... 1,678 1,815 86,762 90,255 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ................................................... (27,413) (30,420) 52,653 (5,180) 

HedgeStreet ............................................................................. 13 8 11,636 11,657 

Chicago Climate Futures Exchange ........................................ 3 7 10,853 10,863 

OneChicago ............................................................................. 262 0 1,157 1,419 

National Futures Association ................................................... (3,045) 347,243 561,531 905,729 

III. Payment Method 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act 

(DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to 

the government by electronic transfer of 

funds (See 31 USC 3720). For 

information about electronic payments, 

please contact Jennifer Fleming at (202) 

418–5034 or jfleming@cftc.gov, or see 

the CFTC Web site at http:// 

www.cftc.gov, specifically, http:// 

www.cftc.gov/cftc/ 

cftcelectronicpayments.htm. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 14, 

2011 by the Commission. 

David Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6821 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

Call for Innovative National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pilot 

Project Proposals 

AGENCY: Council On Environmental 

Quality. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability, Call for 

Innovative National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Pilot Project 

Proposals. 

SUMMARY: The Chair of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) invites the 

public and federal agencies to nominate 

innovative pilot projects that 

accomplish the NEPA goals of 

transparency and informed 

decisionmaking in a more timely and 

effective manner. Nominations will be 

accepted via online submission until 

June 15, 2011. CEQ will track and 

publicize the progress of selected pilot 

projects as part of its NEPA Pilot 

Program, to identify and promote more 

efficient ways to do effective 

environmental reviews that can be 

replicated across the Federal 

Government. The NEPA Pilot Project 

Program is part of CEQ’s broad effort to 

modernize and reinvigorate federal 

agency implementation of NEPA 

through innovation, public engagement, 

and transparency. The NEPA Pilot 

Program will also facilitate a review 

under section 6 of Executive Order 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ of provisions of 

CEQ’s NEPA Regulations that may be 

outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 

excessively burdensome. 76 FR 3821, 

Jan. 21, 2011; 40 CFR 1500–1508. 

DATES: The Call for Innovative National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pilot 

Project Proposals is available as of 

March 17, 2011. Nominations may be 

submitted online until June 15, 2011, 

and will not be considered after that 

date. 

ADDRESSES: The Call for Innovative 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Pilot Project Proposals and 

online nomination submission form is 

available at http://whitehouse.gov/ 

administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/ 

nepa/nepa-pilot-project. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie Scharf, Deputy General Counsel, 

Council on Environmental Quality, 202– 

456–2464. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

17, 2011, the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) issued a Call for 

Innovative National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Pilot Project 

Proposals, inviting the public and 

federal agencies, to nominate innovative 

pilot projects that accomplish the NEPA 

goals of transparency and informed 

decisionmaking in a more timely and 

effective manner. Nominations may be 

submitted online at http:// 

whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ 

ceq/initiatives/nepa/nepa-pilot-project. 

Nominations will be accepted until June 

15, 2011, and will be publicly posted on 

the CEQ Web site, http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/ceq. CEQ will not 

consider nominations submitted after 

June 15, 2011. 

In consultation with a panel of agency 

NEPA experts, CEQ will select up to five 

(5) nominated pilot projects for further 

study and trial implementation, based 

on their potential to: (1) Reduce the 

costs and/or time needed to complete 

the NEPA process; (2) ensure 

environmental protection; (3) improve 

the quality and transparency of Federal 

agency decision-making; and (4) yield 

replicable best practices or procedural 

innovations that can be replicated by 

other agencies or applied to other 

Federal actions or programs so as to 

improve NEPA implementation beyond 

a specific project. CEQ will coordinate 

with relevant agencies to track project 

implementation for the purpose of 

evaluating and publicizing the 

efficiencies realized. These outcomes 

will be published on the CEQ Web site 

and on the NEPA Web site, nepa.gov. 

Where appropriate, CEQ will advocate 

that agencies incorporate these best 

practices into new or revised NEPA 

procedures. Accordingly, the NEPA 

Pilot Program will facilitate a review 

under section 6 of Executive Order 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ of provisions of 

CEQ’s NEPA Regulations that may be 

outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 

excessively burdensome. 76 FR 3821, 

Jan. 21, 2011; 40 CFR 1500–1508. 

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4342, 4344) 

Dated: March 17, 2011. 

Nancy H. Sutley, 

Chair. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6760 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3125–W0–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Meeting of the Ocean Research and 

Resources Advisory Panel 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Ocean Research and 

Resources Advisory Panel (ORRAP) will 

hold a meeting. The meeting will be 

open to the public. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Monday, April 25, 2011, from 8:30 a.m. 

to 5:30 p.m. and Tuesday, April 26, 

2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Members 

of the public should submit their 

comments in advance of the meeting to 

the meeting Point of Contact. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES