Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 25987

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

95–10–11 General Electric Company:

Amendment 39–9228. Docket 95–ANE–

17.

Applicability: General Electric Company

(GE) CF6–80C2 series turbofan engines

installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A300

and A310 series, Boeing 747 and 767 series,

and McDonnell Douglas MD–11 series

aircraft.

Note: This airworthiness directive (AD)

applies to each engine identified in the

preceding applicability provision, regardless

of whether it has been modified, altered, or

repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For engines that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

use the authority provided in paragraph (e)

to request approval from the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA). This approval may

address either no action, if the current

configuration eliminates the unsafe

condition, or different actions necessary to

address the unsafe condition described in

this AD. Such a request should include an

assessment of the effect of the changed

configuration on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD. In no case does the

presence of any modification, alteration, or

repair remove any engine from the

applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent a loss of the center drive units

(CDU) brake holding feature, which could

result in possible movement of the fan

reverser translating cowl towards the deploy

position in flight, accomplish the following:

(a) For fan reversers that have a CDU

identified in paragraph 1.A.(1) of Martin

Marietta (MM) CF6–80C2 Service Bulletin

(SB) No. 78–1002, Revision 1, dated March

23, 1995, installed, perform the following:

(1) If the requirements of MM CF6–80C2

SB No. 78–1002, dated February 27, 1995, or

MM CF6–80C2 SB No. 78–1002, Revision 1,

dated March 23, 1995, have not been

previously accomplished, perform a brake

holding torque check of the fan reverser CDU,

a visual inspection of the translating cowl

inner bondment seal, and a functional check

of the translating cowl auto re-stow system in

accordance with paragraphs 2.B, 2.C, and 2.D

of MM CF6–80C2 SB No. 78–1002, Revision

1, dated March 23, 1995, prior to

accumulating 250 cycles in service (CIS) or

30 days, after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs earlier.

(2) If the requirements of MM CF6–80C2

SB No. 78–1002, dated February 27, 1995, or

MM CF6–80C2 SB No. 78–1002, Revision 1,

dated March 23, 1995, have been previously

accomplished, accomplish the following:

(i) Perform a brake holding torque check of

the fan reverser CDU in accordance with

paragraph 2.B of MM CF6–80C2 SB No. 78–

1002, Revision 1, dated March 23, 1995, prior

to accumulating 250 CIS since the last brake

holding torque check.

(ii) Perform a visual inspection of the

translating cowl inner bondment seal, and a

functional check of the translating cowl auto

re-stow system in accordance with

paragraphs 2.C and 2.D of MM CF6–80C2 SB

No. 78–1002, Revision 1, dated March 23,

1995, prior to accumulating 1,000 hours

since the last visual inspection of the

translating cowl inner bondment seal and

functional check of the translating cowl auto

re-stow system.

(b) Thereafter, for fan reversers that have

accomplished the inspection and check

requirements in accordance with paragraph

(a) of this AD, accomplish the following:

(1) Perform a brake holding torque check

of the fan reverser CDU in accordance with

paragraph 2.B of MM CF6–80C2 SB No. 78–

1002, Revision 1, dated March 23, 1995, prior

to accumulating 250 CIS since the last brake

holding torque check.

(2) Perform a visual inspection of the

translating cowl inner bondment seal, and a

functional check of the translating cowl auto

re-stow system in accordance with

paragraphs 2.C and 2.D of MM CF6–80C2 SB

No. 78–1002, Revision 1,dated March 23,

1995, prior to accumulating 1,000 hours

since the last visual inspection of the

translating cowl inner bondment seal and

functional check of the translating cowl auto

re-stow system.

(c) Remove from service the CDU’s

identified in paragraph 1.A.(1) of MM CF6–

80C2 SB No. 78–1002, Revision 1, dated

March 23, 1995, in accordance with

paragraph 2.F of MM CF6–80C2 SB No. 78–

1002, Revision 1, dated March 23, 1995, prior

to December 31, 1995, and replace with a

serviceable part. Removal and replacement of

the CDU in accordance with this paragraph

constitutes terminating action to the initial

and repetitive inspection and check

requirements of paragraph (a) and (b) of this

AD.

(d) For the purpose of this AD, a

serviceable part is defined as a CDU that has

accomplished any revision level of MM CF6–

80C2 SB No. 78–1014; or a CDU whose shaft

has received the hardness inspection in

accordance with any revision level of GE

CF6–80C2 SB No. 78–131, and that has not

had a brake shaft replacement subsequent to

the hardness inspection.

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Engine

Certification Office. The request should be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Engine Certification Office.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternate methods of compliance

with this airworthiness directive, if any, may

be obtained from the Engine Certification

Office.

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with FAR 21.197 and 21.199 to

operate the aircraft to a location where the

requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

(g) The actions required by this AD shall

be done in accordance with the following

service bulletin:

Document No. Pages Revision Date

Martin Marietta CF6–80C2 .............................................................................. 2, 11, 12, 14–18, 20 ........... Original ............. Feb. 27, 1995.

SB No. 78–1002 .............................................................................................. 1, 3–10, 13, 19 ................... 1 ........................ Mar. 23, 1995.

Total pages: 20.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Martin Marietta Services, Inc., Attn:

Karen Lyons, 10525 Chester Road,

Cincinnati, OH 45215. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, New England Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or

at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(h) This amendment becomes effective on

May 31, 1995.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

May 2, 1995.

Mark C. Fulmer,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–11904 Filed 5–12–95; 3:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U
25988 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1For a broader discussion of the history of

Commission fees, see 52 FR 46070 (Dec. 4, 1987).

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 1, 5, and 31

Fees for Applications for Contract

Market Designation, Leverage

Commodity Registration and

Registered Futures Association and

Exchange Rule; Enforcement and

Financial Reviews

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Final schedule of fees.

SUMMARY: The Commission periodically

adjusts fees charged for certain program

services to assure that they accurately

reflect current Commission costs. In this

regard, the staff recently reviewed the

Commission’s actual costs of processing

applications for contract market

designation (17 CFR Part 5, Appendix

B), audits of leverage transaction

merchants (17 CFR Part 31, Appendix B)

and registered futures association and

exchange rule enforcement and

financial reviews (17 CFR Part 1,

Appendix B). The following fee

schedule for fiscal 1995 reflects the

actual costs to the Commission of

providing those services during fiscal

years 1992, 1993 and 1994. Accordingly,

the Commission will reduce the fees as

follows: applications for contract market

designation for a futures contract will be

reduced from $12,000 to $9,600;

contract market designation for an

option contract will be reduced from

$3,000 to $1,600; contract markets that

simultaneously submit designation

applications for a futures and an option

on that futures contract will be reduced

from a combined fee of $13,000 for both

to $10,000 for both; and leverage

commodity registration will be

maintained at $4,500. In addition, the

Commission will publish the schedule

of fees for registered futures association

and exchange rule enforcement and

financial reviews.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Contract Market

Designation and Leverage Commodity

Registration May 16, 1995. Registered

Futures Association and Exchange Rule

Enforcement and Financial Reviews July

17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerald P. Smith, Special Assistant to the

Executive Director, Office of the

Executive Director, Commodity Futures

Trading Commission, 2033 K Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20581, telephone

number 202–254–6090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission periodically reviews the

actual costs of providing services for

which fees are charged and adjusts these

fees accordingly. In connection with its

most recent review, the Commission has

determined that fees for contract market

designations should be adjusted. Also,

this release announces the fiscal 1995

schedule of fees for registered futures

association and exchange rule

enforcement and financial reviews and

maintains leverage commodity

registration fees.

Background Information

I. Computation of Fees

In accordance with Section 237 of the

Futures Trading Act of 1982 (7 U.S.C.

16a) the Commission has established

fees for certain activities and functions

performed by the Commission.1 In

calculating the actual cost of processing

applications for contract market

designation, registering leverage

commodities, and performing registered

futures association and exchange rule

enforcement and financial reviews, the

Commission takes into account

personnel costs (direct costs), and

benefits and administrative costs

(overhead costs).

The Commission first determines

personnel costs by extracting data from

the agency’s Management Accounting

Structured Code (MASC) system.

Employees of the Commission record

the time spent on each project under the

MASC system. The Commission then

adds an overhead factor that is made up

of two components—benefits and

general and administrative costs.

Benefits, which include retirement,

insurance and leave, are based on a

government-wide standard established

by the Office of Management and

Budget in Circular A–76. General and

administrative costs include the

Commission’s costs for space,

equipment, utilities, etc. These general

and administrative costs are derived by

computing the percentage of

Commission appropriations spent on

these non-personnel items. The

overhead calculations fluctuate slightly

due to changes in government-wide

benefits and the percentage of

Commission appropriations applied to

non-personnel costs from year to year.

The actual overhead factor for prior

fiscal years were 99% in 1992, 93% in

1993 and 95% in 1994.

Once the total personnel costs for

each fee item (contract market

designation, rule enforcement review,

etc.) have been determined for each year

the overhead factor is applied and the

costs for fiscal years 1992, 1993 and

1994 are averaged. This results in a

calculation of the average annual cost

over the three-year period.

II. Applications for Contract Market

Designation

On August 23, 1983 the Commission

established a fee for Contract Market

Designation. 48 FR 38214. This fee was

based upon a three-year moving average

of the actual costs expended and the

number of contracts reviewed during

that period of time. The fee charged was

reviewed again in fiscal 1985 and every

year thereafter to determine the fee for

the current year. In fiscal 1985 the

overwhelming majority of designation

applications was for futures contracts as

opposed to option contracts. Therefore,

the proposed fee covered both futures

and option designation applications. In

fiscal 1992 the Commission reviewed its

data on the actual costs for reviewing

designation applications for both futures

and option contracts and determined

that the cost of reviewing a futures

contract designation application was

much higher than the cost of reviewing

an option contract. It also determined

that, when designation applications for

both a futures contract and an option on

that futures contract are submitted

simultaneously, the cost for review of

the option contract designation

application was even lower than the

individual cost of reviewing the futures

contract plus the option contract.

The Commission staff reviewed the

actual costs of processing applications

for contract market designation for a

futures contract for fiscal years 1992,

1993 and 1994 and found that the

average cost over the three year period

was $9,649. The review of actual costs

of processing applications for contract

market designation for an option

contract for fiscal years 1992, 1993 and

1994 revealed that the average costs

over the same three year period was

$1,635. Accordingly, the Commission

has determined that the fee for

applications for contract market

designation for a futures contract will be

reduced to $9,600 and the fee for

applications for contract market

designation as an option contract will be

reduced to $1,600 in accordance with

the Commission’s regulations (17 CFR

Part 5, Appendix B). In addition, the

combined fee for contract markets

simultaneously submitting designation

applications for a futures contract and

an option contract on that futures

contract will be reduced to $10,000.

III. Leverage Commodity Registration

No new applications for leverage

commodity registration were received

by the Commission in fiscal years 1992,

1993 or 1994. Accordingly, the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 25989

Commission will maintain the present

fee of $4,500 for leverage commodity

registration.

IV. Registered Futures Association and

Exchange Rule Enforcement and

Financial Reviews

Under the formula adopted in 1993

(58 FR 42643, August 11, 1993, which

appears in 17 CFR Part 1, Appendix B),

the Commission calculates the rule

enforcement and financial review fees

based on its actual costs, as well as

actual exchange trading volume. The

formula for calculating the rule

enforcement and financial review fee is

0.5a + 0.5vt = current fee. In the

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 cost for all exchanges.

To determine the fee, first the staff

calculates actual costs for the last three

fiscal years. The average annual costs

for that time period for rule enforcement

reviews and financial reviews for each

exchange are as follows:

Exchange

FY 1992–1994 Average annual costs

for review services

Chicago Board of Trade .............................................................................................................................................................. $223,213.48

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ..................................................................................................................................................... 281,309.90

Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange ........................................................................................................................................... 82,768.19

New York Mercantile/COMEX Exchange .................................................................................................................................... 183,632.11

New York Cotton Exchange ........................................................................................................................................................ 97,294.64

Kansas City Board of Trade ........................................................................................................................................................ 17,339.45

New York Futures Exchange ....................................................................................................................................................... 85,024.67

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ....................................................................................................................................................... 27,660.25

Philadelphia Board of Trade ........................................................................................................................................................ 2,622.61

Amex Commodity Corporation .................................................................................................................................................... 1,174.90

Total ...................................................................................................................................................................................... $1,002,040.20

Second, the staff calculates the trading volume for the past three fiscal years to determine the cumulative volume

for each exchange and its percentage of total volume across all exchanges during that same period. The trading volume

figures for that period are as follows:

Exchange FY 1992–1994 cumulative volume

Percentage of total

volume across exchanges

Chicago Board of Trade .......................................................................................................................... 544,962,241 42.8535

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ................................................................................................................. 461,689,060 36.3052

Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange ....................................................................................................... 32,057,990 2.5209

New York Mercantile/COMEX Exchange ................................................................................................ 210,537,536 16.5558

New York Cotton Exchange .................................................................................................................... 11,568,103 0.9097

Kansas City Board of Trade .................................................................................................................... 4,761,301 0.3744

New York Futures Exchange ................................................................................................................... 3,544,087 0.2787

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ................................................................................................................... 2,427,367 0.1909

Philadelphia Board of Trade .................................................................................................................... 138,765 0.0109

Amex Commodity Corporation ................................................................................................................. 0 0.0000

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 1,271,686,450 100.0000

Finally, the staff calculates the current

fees by applying the appropriate

exchange data to the formula. The

following is an example of how the rule

enforcement and financial review fees

for exchanges are calculated.

Example: The Minneapolis Grain Exchange

(MGE) average annual cost is $27,660.25 and

its percentage of total volume over the last

three years is 0.1909%. The annual average

total cost for all exchanges during that same

time period is $1,002,040.20. As a result, the

MGE fee for fiscal 1995 is:

(.5)($27,660.25)+(.5)(.001909)($1,002,040.20)

=current fee or $13,830.12

+$956.45=$14,786.57

As stated in 1993, when the formula

was adopted, if the calculated fee using

this formula is higher than actual costs,

the exchange pays actual costs. If the

calculated fee using the formula is less

than actual costs then the exchange pays

the calculated fee. No exchange will pay

more than actual costs. Also, if an

exchange has no volume over the threeyear period it pays a flat 50% of actual

costs.

The National Futures Association

(NFA) is a registered futures association

which is responsible for regulating the

practices of its members. In its oversight

role, the Commission performs rule

enforcement and financial reviews of

the NFA. The Commission’s average

annual cost for reviewing the National

Futures Association during fiscal years

1992 through 1994 is $248,187.94. The

National Futures Association will

continue to be charged 100% of its

actual costs.

Based upon this formula the fees for

all of the exchanges and the NFA for

fiscal 1995 are as follows:

Exchange/NFA 1995 Fee

Chicago Board of Trade .............................................................................................................................................................. $223,213.48

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ..................................................................................................................................................... 281,319.91

Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange ........................................................................................................................................... 54,014.31

New York Mercantile/COMEX Exchange .................................................................................................................................... 174,763.94
25990 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Exchange/NFA 1995 Fee

New York Cotton Exchange ........................................................................................................................................................ 53,205.10

Kansas City Board of Trade ........................................................................................................................................................ 10,545.54

New York Futures Exchange ....................................................................................................................................................... 43,908.68

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ....................................................................................................................................................... 14,786.57

Philadelphia Board of Trade ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,857.41

Amex Commodity Corporation .................................................................................................................................................... 587.45

National Futures Association ....................................................................................................................................................... 278,187.94

Total ...................................................................................................................................................................................... $1,136,390.33

As in the calculation of fees in

previous years, the fiscal 1995 fee for

the Chicago Board of Trade includes the

MidAmerica Commodity Exchange.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires

agencies to consider the impact of rules

on small businesses. 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 are not ‘‘small entities’’ for

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 47 FR 18618

(April 30, 1982). Registered futures

associations also are not considered

‘‘small entities’’ by the Commission.

Therefore, the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply

to contract markets or registered futures

associations. Accordingly, the

Chairman, on behalf of the Commission,

certifies that the fees implemented

herein do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Issued in Washington, DC., on May 9,

1995, by the Commission.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–11990 Filed 5–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

31 CFR Part 247

RIN 1510–AA44

Regulations Governing FedSelect

Checks

AGENCY: Financial Management Service,

Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Financial Management

Service, U.S. Department of the

Treasury, is issuing a final rule to

govern FedSelect checks, a new

payment instrument for use by Federal

agencies in paying Federal obligations.

This final rule sets forth procedural

instructions for using FedSelect checks,

and defines the rights and liabilities of

the Federal Government, Federal

Reserve Banks, and banks in connection

with FedSelect checks.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

Garner, Program Analyst, Cash

Management Policy and Planning, 202–

874–6751; or Brad Ipema, Principal

Attorney, 202–874–6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

portion of the preamble discusses the

basis and purpose of 31 CFR part 247.

It also responds to comments on the

Financial Management Service’s (FMS)

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

on this subject issued October 21, 1994

(59 FR 53125). A notice to extend the

comment period for the notice of

proposed rulemaking to December 21,

1994 was issued November 28, 1994 (59

FR 60739).

The FMS currently offers Federal

agencies two payment mechanisms for

paying Federal obligations. A Federal

agency may either request the issuance

of a Treasury check or the initiation of

an electronic funds transfer. However,

the FMS is making available to Federal

agencies a third payment option called

FedSelect, a new check instrument to be

used with imprest fund transactions and

other ‘‘on-demand’’ payment needs. The

preferred method of payment is

electronic. However, FedSelect is the

FMS’s response to customer needs for a

new paper instrument and is to be used

only when checks are deemed

appropriate and consistent with FMS

policy as contained in 31 CFR part 206.

General Comments and Responses on

the NPRM

The Department received eight

written comments on the NPRM from

Federal agency officials and the

financial community. One organization

expressed concern that the Government

proposes direct competition to the

current third party draft industry. The

Report of the National Performance

Review (NPR), September 1993, FM08,

stated that since third party drafts are

like checks, agencies essentially pay

someone else to have a bank account for

them. It was recommended that the

Secretary of the Treasury eliminate the

use of third party drafts and allow the

use of commercial checking accounts.

FedSelect grew out of this NPR

recommendation, with an FMS desire to

offer an alternative to third party drafts

and improve customer services.

Several questions were raised

regarding the operation of FedSelect.

One organization and one bank wanted

to know whether existing Federal

Reserve bank routing numbers will be

utilized on FedSelect checks. FedSelect

checks will be drawn on the Federal

Reserve Bank of Chicago and will bear

that Reserve Bank routing number.

One organization requested

identification of the types of

transactions for which FedSelect checks

will be used. FedSelect checks

potentially may be used to pay all

Government financial obligations; e.g.,

benefit and vendor payments.

Two organizations wanted to know

how many FedSelect checks will be

issued for each type of payment. It is

undetermined at this time how many

checks will be issued for each type of

payment.

One organization requested to know

the types of persons and entities that

will be payees of such instrument. All

types of persons and entities doing

business with the Government will be

payees of such instrument.

One organization wanted to know the

start-up date of FedSelect. The start-up

date for FedSelect will be July through

October 1995.

Two organizations requested that the

FMS provide banks with sample

FedSelect checks so that their personnel

can become familiar with them. It will

be recommended that area banks be

provided sample FedSelect checks by

Federal agencies utilizing FedSelect

checks in their respective locale. This

will allow bank personnel to become

familiar with the FedSelect checks.

Several organizations requested that

the FMS describe plans to prevent fraud

losses due to counterfeiting, forgery and