Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2004 / Notices 67543

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).

support a new stock. Under this change, 

abundance, PBR, and mortality 

estimates of the prospective stocks 

would be included in a SAR. The 

identification of management units of 

coastal bottlenose dolphins in the 

Western North Atlantic in the 2002 

SARs is an example of a previous use 

of this concept although the terminology 

was different (management units versus 

prospective stocks). The 2004 draft 

SARs for the Hawaii stock of false killer 

whales identifies prospective stock 

structure in accordance with this 

proposed change.

In unusual situations, the formula 

Congress added to the MMPA to 

calculate PBR (Nmin*0.5Rmax*Fr) 

results in a number that is not 

consistent with the narrative definition 

of PBR (the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortality, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its OSP). 

Such a situation arises when a stock is 

below its OSP and is declining or stable, 

yet human-caused mortality is a not a 

major factor in the population’s trend. 

For example, Hawaiian monk seals are 

endangered, declining, and below OSP 

(based upon the abundance prior to the 

1970s), yet human-caused mortality is 

insufficient to account for the decline or 

a failure to increase. A limited removal 

would not reduce the population’s 

ability not reach or maintain its OSP 

after the major factors affecting the stock 

have been identified and addressed.

One option for PBR in these situations 

is to estimate PBR as zero. However, a 

PBR of zero may not reflect the concept 

of PBR included in the narrative 

definition. Furthermore, a PBR of zero 

would be inconsistent with Congress’

concerns about the need to establish a 

procedure that allows for occasional 

taking of threatened or endangered 

species incidental to commercial fishing 

(See House Report 103–439 (March 21, 

1994) at 30.) Therefore, in these unusual 

situations, NMFS may report PBR as 

‘‘undefined’’. The draft 2004 SAR for 

Hawaiian monk seals has been changed 

in accordance with this proposed 

change to the guidelines.

Dated: November 15, 2004.

P. Michael Payne

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 04–25645 Filed 11–17–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Fees for Reviews of the Rule 

Enforcement Programs of Contract 

Markets and Registered Futures 

Association

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission.

ACTION: Establish the FY 2004 schedule 

of fees. 

SUMMARY: The Commission charges fees 

to designated contract markets and the 

National Futures Association (NFA) to 

recover the costs incurred by the 

Commission in the operation of a 

program which provides a service to 

these entities. The fees are charged for 

the Commission’s conduct of its 

program of oversight of self-regulatory 

rule enforcement programs (17 CFR part 

1 Appendix B) (NFA and the contract 

markets are referred to as SROs).

The calculation of the fee amounts to 

be charged for FY 2004 is based on an 

average of actual program costs incurred 

in during FY 2001, 2002, and 2003, as 

explained below. The FY 2004 fee 

schedule is set forth in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Beginning 

with the FY 2004 fee, electronic 

payment of fees is required.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The FY 2004 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 January 18, 

2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stacy Dean Yochum, Counsel to the 

Executive Director, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, (202) 418–5160, 

Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20581. For 

information on electronic payment, 

contact Stella Lewis, Three Lafayette 

Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–5186.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General 

This notice relates to fees for the 

Commission’s review of the rule 

enforcement programs at the registered 

futures associations and contract 

markets 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 

contract markets regulated by the 

Commission:

Entity Fee amount 

Chicago Board of Trade ........... $81,264

Chicago Mercantile Exchange .. 318,729

Kansas City Board of Trade ..... 11,866

New York Mercantile Exchange 136,622

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ... 6,605

National Futures Association .... 110,946

New York Board of Trade ........ 51,075

BrokerTec Futures Exchange 1 12,126

Total ................................... $729,233

1BrokerTec Futures Exchange, now known 

as Exchange Place Futures Exchange, LLC, 

ceased operations in November 2003. As of 

January 30, 2004, Exchange Place Futures is 

wholly owned by U.S. Futures Exchange 

(USFE). 

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): 117 percent for fiscal year 

2001, 129 percent for fiscal year 2002, 

and 113 percent for fiscal year 2003. 

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 

67544 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2004 / Notices 

appears at 17 CFR Part 1 Appendix B, 

the Commission calculates the fee to 

recover the costs of its review of rule 

enforcement programs, based on the 

three-year average of the actual costs of 

performing reviews at each SRO. The 

cost of operation of the Commission’s 

program of SRO oversight varies from 

SRO to SRO, according to the size and 

complexity of each SRO’s program. The 

three-year averaging is intended to 

smooth out year-to-year variations in 

cost. Timing of reviews may affect 

costs—a review may span two fiscal 

years and reviews 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 contract market is 

equal to the lesser of actual costs based 

on the three-year historical average of 

costs for that contract market or one-half 

of average costs incurred by the 

Commission for each contract market 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 contract markets 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 exchanges over the last three 

years, and ‘‘t’’ equals the average annual 

costs for all exchanges. NFA, the only 

registered futures association regulated 

by the Commission, 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:

Three-year 

average actual costs 

Three-year 

percentage 

of volume 

Average 

year 2003 

fee 

Chicago Board of Trade .......................................................................................................................... $81,264 34.0371 $81,264 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ................................................................................................................. 318,729 50.8784 318,729 

New York Mercantile Exchange .............................................................................................................. 182,492 12.4781 136,622 

New York Board of Trade ........................................................................................................................ 87,485 2.0163 51,075 

Kansas City Board of Trade .................................................................................................................... 21,534 0.3022 11,866 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ................................................................................................................... 12,394 0.1121 6,605 

BrokerTec Futures Exchange .................................................................................................................. 23,387 0.1188 12,126 

Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................. 727,285 99.8429 618,287 

National Futures Association ................................................................................................................... 110,946 N/A 110,946 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 838,231 99.8429 729,233 

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 $12,394. 

b. The alternative computation is:

(.5) ($12,394) + (.5) (.001121) ($727,285) 

= $6,605.

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

this case $6,605. 

As noted above, the alternative 

calculation based on contracts traded is 

not applicable to the NFA because it is 

not a contract market and has no 

contracts traded. The Commission’s 

average annual cost for conducting 

oversight review of the NFA rule 

enforcement program during fiscal years 

2001 through 2003 was $110,946 (onethird of $332,837). The fee to be paid by 

the NFA for the current fiscal year is 

$110,946. 

Payment Method 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act 

(DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to 

the government by electronic transfer to 

funds (See 31 U.S.C. 3720). For 

information about electronic payments, 

please contact Stella Lewis at (202) 418–

5186 or slewis@cftc.gov, or see the CFTC 

Web site at 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 (also 

referred to as exchanges) and registered 

futures associations. The Commission 

has previously determined that contract 

markets and registered futures 

associations are not ‘‘small entities’’ for 

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. Accordingly, the Chairman, on 

behalf of the Commission, certifies 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the fees 

implemented here will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

12, 2004, by the Commission. 

Jean A. Webb, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–25615 Filed 11–17–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, 

December 3, 2004.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, 

DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference 

Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance 

Matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean 

A. Webb, (202) 418–5100.

Catherine D. Daniels, 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–25675 Filed 11–16–04; 10:29 

am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M