19830 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1See 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).

Division of Human Factors, to The File

entitled, ‘‘Proposed Revisions to Labeling

Requirements for Packages of Charcoal’’

dated June 15, 1995.

2. Memorandum from George Sweet of

Directorate for Epidemiology, Division of

Human Factors to Sharon R. White

entitled, ‘‘Pictogram Testing for Warning

Labels on Charcoal Bags,’’ dated June 12,

1995.

TAB F—Logs of Industry Meetings on (1)

April 22, 1994, and (2) April 13, 1995.

TAB G—Memorandum from Mary F.

Donaldson of Directorate of Economic

Analysis to Sharon R. White, entitled

‘‘Economic Analysis of a Revision to

Charcoal Labeling,’’ dated June 22, 1995.

TAB H—Draft Federal Register Notice—

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

7. Letter from James C. Stephen, President,

Weber-Stephen Products Co., to Sharon R.

White, CPSC, May 11, 1995.

8. Letter from Harleigh Ewell, CPSC, to

James C. Stephen, President, Weber-Stephen

Products Co., June 29, 1994.

9. Woodson, W.; Tillman, B.; and Tillman,

P., 1992.

10. ANSI Z535.3–1991, American National

Standard, Criteria for Safety Symbols.

11. Perry, E., and Neily, M. (1985). Burning

Charcoal Briquettes in a Fireplace. U.S.

Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Washington, DC.

12. Letter from Leonard S. Gryn, Executive

Vice President, Weber-Stephen Products Co.,

to Harleigh Ewell, CPSC, July 5, 1995.

13. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 60 FR

40785 (August 10, 1995).

14. Comments on proposed rule, Nos.

CH96–1–1 through CH96–1–7.

15. Briefing package, consisting of a

briefing memorandum from Sharon White,

Project Manager, to the Commission, March

ll, 1996, and Tabs B and D–E:

TAB B—Memorandum from Leonard

Schachter, CPSC Directorate for

Epidemiology and Health Sciences, to

Sharon R. White, entitled ‘‘Deaths and

Injuries Associated with Charcoal,’’ dated

November 28, 1995.

TAB C—1. Memorandum from Sharon R.

White, CPSC Directorate for Engineering

Sciences, to File, entitled ‘‘Responses to

Comments on the Proposed Rule on the

Labeling Requirements for Packages of

Charcoal,’’ dated February 28, 1996.

2. Memorandum from Mary F. Donaldson,

CPSC Directorate for Economic Analysis, to

Sharon R. White, entitled ‘‘Response to

Comments, Proposed Rule Amending

Labeling on Packages of Charcoal,’’ dated

February 28, 1996.

3. Memorandum from Rikki Khanna, CPSC

Directorate for Engineering Sciences, to

Sharon R. White, entitled ‘‘Responses to

Comment on Proposed Rule for Labeling of

Retail Containers of Charcoal (REF: CH96–

1–3),’’ dated February 9, 1996.

4. Memorandum from Mary F. Toro of the

Office of Compliance, Division of

Regulatory Management, entitled Charcoal

Labeling Package—Comments on the NPR

dated December 13, 1995.

5. Memorandum from Kimberly Long of

Directorate for Epidemiology and Health

Sciences to Sharon R. White, entitled

‘‘Comments to Proposed Rule Amending

Package Labeling of Charcoal, FR., Vol. 60,

No. 154, August 10, 1995, pp. 40785,’’

dated December 6, 1995.

TAB E—Memorandum from Mary F.

Donaldson, CPSC Directorate for Economic

Analysis, to Sharon R. White, entitled

‘‘Economic Analysis of a Revision to

Charcoal Labeling,’’ dated December 8,

1995.

16. Memorandum from Mary Ann Danello,

Ph.D,. Associate Executive Director for

Epidemiology and Health Sciences,

‘‘Corrected Response to Comments for

Proposed Rule Amending Package Labeling

of Charcoal, FR, Vol. 60, No. 154, August 10,

1995, pp. 4078ff,’’ dated April 3, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96–10978 Filed 5–02–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

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 1996 reflects the actual costs

to the Commission of providing those

services during fiscal years 1993, 1994

and 1995. Accordingly, the Commission

will change the fees as follows:

Applications for contract market

designation for a futures contract will be

reduced from $9,600 to $8,300; contract

market designation for an option

contract will be increased from $1,600

to $1,800; 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 $10,000 for both

to $9,200 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 3, 1996. Registered

Futures Association and Exchange Rule

Enforcement and Financial Reviews July

2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerald P. Smith, Special Assistant to the

Executive Director, Office of the

Executive Director, Commodity Futures

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette

Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20581, telephone

number 202–418–5156.

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 1996

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

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 19831

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 93% in 1993, 95% in

1994 and 92% in 1995.

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 1993, 1994 and

1995 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 1993,

1994 and 1995 and found that the

average cost over the three year period

was $8,313. The review of actual cost of

processing applications for contract

market designation for an option

contract for fiscal years 1993, 1994 and

1995 revealed that the average costs

over the same three year period was

$1,876. Accordingly, the Commission

has determined that the fee for

applications for contract market

designation for a futures contract will be

reduced to $8,300 and the fee for

applications for contract market

designation as an option contract will be

increased to $1,800 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 $9,200.

III. Leverage Commodity Registration

No new applications for leverage

commodity registration were received

by the Commission in fiscal years 1993,

1994 or 1995. Accordingly, the

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 1993–1995

average annual

costs for review

services

Chicago Board of Trade .................................................................................................................................................................. $264,915.17

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ......................................................................................................................................................... 243,452.97

Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange ............................................................................................................................................... 64,169.59

New York Mercantile/COMEX Exchange ........................................................................................................................................ 240,870.26

New York Cotton/New York Futures Exchange .............................................................................................................................. 58,606.03

Kansas City Board of Trade ............................................................................................................................................................ 17,129.09

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ........................................................................................................................................................... 23,196.63

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

Total ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 914,962.35

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 1993–1995

cumulative

volume

Percentage

of total volume across

exchanges

Chicago Board of Trade ........................................................................................................................................... 604,202,447 42.6254

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ................................................................................................................................. 530,733,388 37.4423

Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange ....................................................................................................................... 34,865,386 2.4597

New York Mercantile/COMEX Exchange ................................................................................................................ 223,922,964 15.7974

New York Cotton/New York Futures Exchange ...................................................................................................... 16,103,681 1.1361

Kansas City Board of Trade .................................................................................................................................... 4,888,383 0.3449
19832 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Exchange

FY 1993–1995

cumulative

volume

Percentage

of total volume across

exchanges

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ................................................................................................................................... 2,644,863 0.1866

Philadelphia Board of Trade .................................................................................................................................... 107,875 0.0076

Total ............................................................................................................................................................... 1,417,468,987 100.0000

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 $23,196.63 and

its percentage of total volume over the last

three years is 0.1866. The annual average

total cost for all exchanges during that same

time period is $914,962.35. As a result, the

MGE fee for fiscal 1996 is:

(.5)($23,196.63)+(.5)(.001866)($914,962.35) =

current fee or $11,598.32 + $853.69 =

$12,452.01

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

1993 through 1995 is $255,333.91. 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 1996 are as follows:

Exchange/NFA 1996 fee

Chicago Board of Trade .................................................................................................................................................................. $264,915.17

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ......................................................................................................................................................... 243,452.97

Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange ............................................................................................................................................... 43,337.95

New York Mercantile/COMEX Exchange ........................................................................................................................................ 192,708.42

New York Cotton/New York Futures Exchange .............................................................................................................................. 34,480.14

Kansas City Board of Trade ............................................................................................................................................................ 10,142.47

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ........................................................................................................................................................... 12,452.01

Philadelphia Board of Trade ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,346.08

National Futures Association ........................................................................................................................................................... 255,333.91

Total ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,058,169.12

As in the calculation of fees in

previous years, the fiscal 1996 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, D.C., on April 29,

1996, by the Commission.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 96–11014 Filed 5–02–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM95–4–002]

Revisions to Uniform System of

Accounts, Forms, Statements, and

Reporting Requirements for Natural

Gas Companies

Issued April 29, 1996.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; Order On

Clarification.

SUMMARY: On February 29, 1996, the

Commission issued a notice adopting

specifications for the electronic filing of

the Index of Customers and discount

transportation rate report. The

electronic filing of these reports was

required by Order No. 581. In response

to a request for clarification, or in the