Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 3791 

United States with respect to the CCC 

export credit guarantee programs, 

including SCGP. The WTO dispute 

panel’s ruling requires CCC to charge 

premia that are adequate to cover the 

long-term operating costs and losses of 

the programs as a whole. In response, on 

July 1, 2005, CCC revised the premia for 

the export credit guarantee programs to 

reflect program default risk and 

operating costs. CCC is interested in 

exploring potential revisions to the 

structure, design, or operation of SCGP 

that can contribute to meeting this 

‘‘break-even’’ goal, particularly by 

incurring fewer program losses. 

We request interested parties to 

comment on the following specific 

questions under consideration for the 

SCGP. Interested parties may choose to 

address any or all of the questions listed 

or provide other comment. CCC’s aim is 

to improve upon the SCGP’s integrity, 

effectiveness, flexibility, and continued 

viability. 

1. Transaction Size Considerations: 

What limit, if any, should be imposed 

on the value of transactions or the 

amount of exposure that CCC should 

take on the importer that would be 

consistent with commercial practices? 

2. Level of Guarantee Coverage: 

• Is the current level of guarantee 

coverage at 65 percent appropriate? 

• If a higher level of guarantee 

coverage is desired, what measures 

should CCC adopt to better ensure that 

importers are capable of meeting their 

credit obligations? 

• If CCC offered a lower level of 

guarantee coverage, at what point would 

one the SCGP no longer be a viable 

program for U.S. exporters? 

3. Assignments of Payment 

Guarantees: 

• Should CCC require assignment of 

the SCGP payment guarantee and risk? 

• Should CCC permit, but not require 

the exporter to assign the SCGP 

payment guarantee risk? 

• Should CCC not permit the exporter 

to assign the SCGP payment guarantee 

and risk? 

4. Alternative Payment Obligations: 

• Should CCC permit alternative 

forms of payment obligations that would 

change the obligor risk from the 

importer to a foreign bank? (Examples of 

such alternative payment obligation are: 

A banker’s acceptance from an eligible 

foreign bank, a guarantee of an eligible 

foreign bank of the importer’s obligation 

to pay, or a bank aval (obligation to pay) 

added to the importer’s promissory 

note.) 

• What are the estimated costs of 

requiring a foreign bank guarantee 

mechanism on the importer’s obligation 

as stated in the question above? 

5. Collection Experiences on Foreign 

Bank Obligations: What are U.S. 

exporters’ or U.S. financial institutions’

collection experiences in using banker’s 

acceptances or avalized promissory 

notes? 

6. Risk Mitigation Techniques: 

• Should CCC permit the U.S. 

exporter or financial institution to 

mitigate their risk on the portion of the 

transaction value not covered by the 

SCGP payment guarantee? 

• If CCC permits risk mitigation, what 

should CCC do to ensure that the risksharing principal is maintained and that 

all monies are shared, on a pro-rata 

basis, between CCC and the exporter/ 

assignee? 

7. Standby Letters of Credit: 

• Should CCC require that the 

importer open a standby letter of credit 

to the exporter for a portion of the 

export value that could be drawn upon 

by the exporter and shared with CCC on 

a pro-rate basis in the event of the 

default? 

• What costs might be expected if the 

importer were required to maintain a 

standby letter of credit associated with 

the SCGP transaction? 

8. Creditworthiness Assessment of 

Importers: 

• What are exporters’ and U.S. 

financial institutions’ experiences in 

their attempts to assess the 

creditworthiness of the importer using 

commercial credit reference services? 

• Are there countries and regions 

where credit assessments on agricultural 

importers cannot be performed readily 

and reliably? 

9. Collections and Recoveries: 

• How can CCC best partner with the 

exporter and/or the financial institution 

that has accepted assignment of a SCGP 

payment guarantee in order to effect a 

collection? 

• What other means should CCC 

employ in its recovery efforts on SCGP 

defaults? 

10. Other Concerns: What other 

concerns, comments, or interests 

relating to the program regulations, 

mechanisms, and operations of the 

SCGP are important? 

Consideration of Comments 

Additional comments on other 

program modifications to the SCGP that 

are responsive to the principles outlined 

herein are encouraged. CCC will 

carefully consider all comments 

submitted by interested parties. After 

consideration of the comments received, 

CCC will consider what changes, if any, 

should be made to the SCGP. Some of 

the above-described changes would 

require additional notice and 

consideration of comments from 

interested parties via the rulemaking 

process. Other changes might be 

adopted by changing internal policies 

and procedures. Comments received 

will help the Department determine that 

extent and scope of any future 

rulemaking. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 5602, 5622, 5661, 5662, 

5663, 5664, 5676; 15 U.S.C. 714b(d), 714c(f). 

Signed at Washington, DC, on December 

16, 2005. 

W. Kirk Miller, 

General Sales Manager and Vice President, 

Commodity Credit Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 06–610 Filed 1–23–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–M 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 73 

RIN 3150–AH60 

Design Basis Threat; Reopening of 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule: Reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On November 7, 2005 (70 FR 

67380), the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) published for public 

comment a proposed rule consolidating 

the supplemental requirements 

established by the April 29, 2003, 

design basis threat (DBT) orders with 

the existing DBT requirements in 10 

CFR 73.1(a). Specific details of the 

attributes of the DBT to be protected 

against, which include both safeguards 

information (SGI) and classified 

information, are consolidated in 

adversary characteristics documents 

(ACDs) and Regulatory Guides (RGs). 

The proposed rule would revise the 

DBT requirements both for radiological 

sabotage and for theft or diversion of 

Strategic Special Nuclear Material 

(SSNM). ACDs and RGs provide 

guidance to licensees concerning the 

DBT for radiological sabotage, theft and 

diversion. They contain the specific 

details of the attributes of the threat 

which licensees need to know in order 

to evaluate what is necessary to comply 

with the proposed rule. On December 

21, 2005, the Nuclear Energy Institute 

(NEI) requested a 30 day extension to 

the public comment period. Their 

request was based on the fact that 

though the proposed rule was published 

on November 7, 2005, the RGs and the 

ACDs were not available at that time. 

NEI requested copies of these 

documents. The NRC staff agreed to 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
3792 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

provide these documents to the properly 

cleared individuals with a need to 

know, and NEI received the draft RGs 

and ACDs for power reactors on 

December 19, 2005. In view of the delay 

in providing the documents to the 

cleared personnel and in the interests of 

obtaining public comment from the 

broadest range of stakeholders, the 

comment period on the proposed rule is 

being extended for an additional 30 

days from the original January 23, 2006, 

deadline to February 22, 2006. 

DATES: The comment period has been 

extended and now expires on February 

22, 2006. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the Commission is able to 

ensure consideration only for comments 

received before this date. 

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: 

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attn: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff. 

Hand delivered comments should also 

be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 

delivered to 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and 

4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 

You may also provide comments via 

the NRC’s interactive rulemaking Web 

site: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. This site 

also provides the availability to upload 

comments as files (any format), if your 

Web browser supports that function. For 

information about the interactive 

rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol 

Gallagher, (301) 415–5905; e-mail: 

CAG@nrc.gov. 

Certain documents relating to this 

rulemaking, including comments 

received, may be examined at the NRC 

Public Document Room, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Room O1–F21, 

Rockville, MD. The same documents 

may also be viewed and downloaded 

electronically via the rulemaking Web 

site: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

Documents created or received at the 

NRC after November 1, 1999 are also 

available electronically at the NRC’s 

Public Electronic Reading room on the 

Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ 

ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the 

public can gain entry into the NRC’s 

Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s 

public documents. For more 

information, contact the NRC Public 

Document Room (PDR) Reference staff 

at 1–800–397–4209, 202–634–3273 or 

by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Manash K. Bagchi, Office of the Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone (301) 415–

2905; e-mail MKB2@nrc.gov or Mr. 

Richard Rasmussen, Office of Nuclear 

Security and Incident Response, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone 

(301) 415–8380; e-mail RAR@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day 

of January, 2006. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 06–676 Filed 1–23–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–23659; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–236–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker 

Model F27 Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 

600, and 700 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Fokker Model F27 Mark 100, 200, 300, 

400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. This 

proposed AD would require revising the 

Limitations section of the airplane flight 

manual regarding the use of continuous 

ignition, fuel filter heating, and resetting 

circuit breakers during flight in certain 

conditions such as icing. This proposed 

AD results from reports of power loss on 

one or both engines in icing conditions. 

We are proposing this AD to advise the 

flightcrew that continuous ignition will 

not reduce the probability of power loss, 

and what action they must take to avoid 

this hazard. Loss of power in one or 

more engines during flight, if not 

prevented, could result in loss of control 

of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by February 23, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, 

room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Fokker Services B.V., P.O. 

Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the 

Netherlands, for service information 

identified in this proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1137; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number ‘‘FAA–2006–23659; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–236–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of that Web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The Docket 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS