Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14713 

The legislation that created the Rural 

Business Investment Program gave the 

Secretary of Agriculture two choices 

concerning the creation of Rural 

Business Investment Companies: 

leveraged and non-leveraged. A 

leveraged Rural Business Investment 

Company is a company that is created 

with an infusion of Federal capital. A 

non-leveraged Rural Business 

Investment Company is a company that 

is created without the infusion of 

Federal capital. Since the legislation 

authorizing this Program provided 

funds for leveraged Rural Business 

Investment Companies and SBA’s own 

programs operate with leveraged 

entities, the focus of the current Rural 

Business Investment Program has been 

on the creation of leveraged Rural 

Business Investment Companies. Since 

the promulgation of the interim rule, 

Rural Development, with SBA’s 

support, has conditionally selected 

three leveraged Rural Business 

Investment Companies. These 

companies have initiated the process of 

making equity investments in rural 

small businesses. 

Issue 

With the enactment of section 1403 of 

the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. 

L. 109–171; 120 Stat. 4), all unobligated 

funds for the Rural Business Investment 

Program for administrative costs for 

SBA and for the assistance grants and 

leveraging for the Rural Business 

Investment Companies will be 

rescinded at the end of Fiscal Year 2006. 

The enactment of this legislation 

effectively prevents the funding and 

support of new Rural Business 

Investment Companies after the end of 

this Fiscal Year. 

Rural Development believes that a 

greater focus on tapping the equity in 

rural America for the purposes of 

furthering rural development should be 

maintained. By encouraging 

investments in rural businesses with 

rural equity, not only is there the 

development of an underutilized rural 

resource, but also there is the potential 

to use such investments to increase 

wealth in rural communities. 

The development of renewable energy 

resources such as biofuels and wind 

represents an example of the economic 

development power of tapping rural 

equity. The development of these new 

energy resources has reached a stage 

where it is possible to find capital in the 

United States and elsewhere to develop 

many of these rural resources. While the 

rural areas where these outside funded 

projects are located will reap some 

economic benefits, the profits and 

equity they create will be owned by 

those outside these rural communities. 

Rural Development believes that if at 

least a portion of the funding of these 

projects can be supported by the equity 

in the surrounding rural communities, 

the projects are likely to be more 

successful because they will have 

greater local support and generate 

profits and equity that will be retained 

in the these rural communities which 

could be applied to support further 

development. 

Potential Strategies for Continuation of 

the Rural Business Investment Program 

Rural Development seeks to 

encourage not only the placement of 

economic development projects in rural 

areas, like an ethanol plant, but also the 

development of business and 

investment models that will lead to the 

greater use of, and growth in, wealth, 

equity, and economic opportunities in 

rural communities. For these reasons, 

Rural Development would like to 

investigate whether there may be a way 

to continue the Rural Business 

Investment Program, despite the 

enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act 

of 2005, as part of a strategy to help 

unlock the potential power that rural 

equity has to finance rural development 

in a manner that will help rural 

residents share in the benefits of the 

economic growth potential of rural 

America. 

After reviewing the legislation 

creating the Rural Business Investment 

Program, it may be possible for the 

Secretary of Agriculture to operate this 

Program with another partner. The 

legislation authorizing the Rural 

Business Investment Program 

authorized certain financial institutions 

to create and invest in Rural Business 

Investment Companies (7 U.S.C. 

2009cc–9). Eligible financial institutions 

include banks and savings associations 

whose deposits are insured by the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

and Farm Credit System institutions. 

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA), 

the independent Federal agency that 

regulates the Farm Credit System, is 

responsible for the chartering, oversight 

and examination of the financial 

institutions of the Farm Credit System 

(FCS). Additionally, FCA has 

experience in examining other nonSystem institutions, such as Small 

Business Investment Companies. 

Therefore, FCA has the expertise to 

operate the non-leveraged program for 

the Secretary of Agriculture. If the focus 

of this Program shifted to the creation of 

non-leveraged Rural Business 

Investment Companies, the only funds 

that would be needed would be 

administrative costs to administer the 

program and provide technical 

assistance. It is Rural Development’s 

understanding that these funds could be 

raised through the fees the FCA can 

currently charge regulated entities. If the 

FCA would become a partner of this 

Program, provisions would be made to 

ensure that non-Farm Credit System 

members would be allowed to 

participate in the creation and financing 

of non-leveraged Rural Business 

Investment Companies in accordance 

with the statute. This proposal is based 

on a comment Rural Development 

received from the FCA during the 

interim rule commenting period for the 

Rural Business Investment Program [69 

FR 32200; June 8, 2004]. 

Requests for Comments 

Rural Development is seeking help 

from the public regarding the following 

questions related to this matter: 

(1) In what ways can Rural 

Development leverage the Rural 

Business Investment Program, a 

developmental venture capital program, 

to help encourage an expanded use of 

rural equity in the development of rural 

America? 

(2) Does the Rural Business 

Investment Program provide an 

appropriate basis to encourage the 

expanded use of rural equity in rural 

development? If not, are there changes 

in the regulation that could be made to 

make the Program more effective? 

(3) If USDA chooses to use one or 

more partners in order to provide for the 

licensing of non-leveraged Rural 

Business Investment Companies, what 

type of considerations should be made? 

How could such a partnership, between 

USDA and FCA, be made most effective 

for USDA, FCA, and the rural business 

community? If other Federal agencies in 

addition to FCA wish to become a 

partner, how should this be addressed 

within the regulation? 

Dated: March 21, 2007. 

Thomas C. Dorr, 

Under Secretary, Rural Development. 

[FR Doc. 07–1530 Filed 3–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[Docket No. PRM–50–83] 

Project on Government Oversight and 

Union of Concerned Scientists; 

Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
14714 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice 

of receipt. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is publishing for 

public comment a notice of receipt of a 

petition for rulemaking, dated February 

23, 2007, which was filed with the 

Commission by David Lochbaum, on 

behalf of the Project On Government 

Oversight and the Union of Concerned 

Scientists. The petition was docketed by 

the NRC on March 5, 2007, and has been 

assigned Docket No. PRM–50–83. The 

petitioners request that the NRC amend 

its regulations to require periodic 

demonstrations by applicable local, 

State and Federal entities to ensure that 

nuclear power plants can be adequately 

protected against radiological sabotage 

greater than the design basis threat. 

DATES: Submit comments by June 12, 

2007. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the Commission is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Please include PRM–50–83 in the 

subject line of your comments. 

Comments on petitions submitted in 

writing or in electronic form will be 

made available for public inspection. 

Because your comments will not be 

edited to remove any identifying or 

contact information, the NRC cautions 

you against including any information 

in your submission that you do not want 

to be publicly disclosed. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov If 

you do not receive a reply e-mail 

confirming that we have received your 

comments, contact us directly at (301) 

415–1966. You may also submit 

comments via the NRC’s rulemaking 

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

Address questions about our rulemaking 

Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415–

5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments 

can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., 

Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 

415–1966). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 

415–1101. 

Publicly available documents related 

to this petition may be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), Room 01 F21, One White 

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. Selected 

documents, including comments, may 

be viewed and downloaded 

electronically via the NRC rulemaking 

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

Publicly available documents created 

or received at the NRC after November 

1, 1999, are available electronically at 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.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. If you do not have 

access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–

415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, 

Directives and Editing Branch, Division 

of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Telephone: 301–415–7163 or Toll 

Free: 1–800–368–5642. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitioners 

The petitioners are the Project On 

Government Oversight and the Union of 

Concerned Scientists. The petitioners 

state that the Project On Government 

Oversight, formerly the Project on 

Military Procurement, previously 

worked to reform military spending. 

After experiencing success, the 

petitioner expanded its mission to 

include the investigation of systemic 

waste, fraud and abuse in all Federal 

agencies, including the important topic 

of nuclear plant security. 

The petitioners state that the Union of 

Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit 

partnership of scientists and citizens 

that combines scientific analysis, policy 

development, and citizen advocacy to 

achieve practical environmental 

solutions. In 2002, the Union of 

Concerned Scientists had 61,300 

members. The petitioners state that the 

Union of Concerned Scientists has been 

an active participant in the past in 

public meetings conducted by NRC 

regarding security regulations, and the 

petitioner continues to articulate 

potential problems and recommended 

solutions in various public arenas. 

Background 

Current regulations at 10 CFR part 73 

contain requirements for the physical 

protection of nuclear power plants and 

materials. On January 29, 2007, the 

Commission approved the issuance of a 

final rule which revises § 73.1 to 

establish a new design basis threat 

(DBT) level. The final DBT rule was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 19, 2007. (72 FR 12705) 

The petitioners observe that the final 

DBT rule reflects the Commission’s 

determination of the most likely 

composite set of adversary features 

against which private security forces 

should reasonably have to defend. The 

petitioners believes that the DBT level 

set forth in the final rule is less what is 

determined to be the maximum level 

deemed credible by the national 

intelligence community, and that the 

potential exists for radiological sabotage 

at a level greater than the new DBT 

level. The petitioners therefore state that 

the defense of a nuclear power plant 

against a threat greater than the DBT 

would depend on the supplementation 

by local, State and Federal entities. 

The Proposed Amendment 

The petitioners request that the NRC 

amend its regulations at 10 CFR part 50 

to require periodic demonstrations that 

nuclear power plants can be adequately 

protected against radiological sabotage 

above the DBT level. Current regulations 

in Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 require 

periodic demonstrations that plant 

owners and external authorities can 

successfully meet their responsibilities 

during nuclear power plant 

emergencies. The petitioners point out, 

however, that the Commission’s 

regulations do not provide for periodic 

demonstration by applicable local, State 

and Federal entities to ensure that 

nuclear power plants are protected 

against radiological sabotage above the 

DBT level. The petitioners state that 

their requested amendment would 

provide reasonable assurance that 

external authorities could demonstrate 

that adequate protection is also 

available against radiological sabotage 

greater than the DBT level. 

The petitioners believe that in order 

for Americans to be adequately 

protected, nuclear power plants must be 

defended against both DBT and beyondDBT attacks. Therefore, the petitioners 

request that 10 CFR part 50 be amended 

in a way similar to current Appendix E 

to require periodic exercises involving 

licensees and applicable local, State and 

Federal entities to demonstrate their 

capabilities to protect from radiological 

sabotage greater than the DBT level. 

Conclusion 

The petitioners believe that the 

proposed amendment to 10 CFR part 50 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14715 

will complement current regulations by 

requiring periodic demonstrations by 

applicable local, State and Federal 

entities to ensure that nuclear power 

plants can be adequately protected 

against radiological sabotage greater 

than the DBT level. Accordingly, the 

petitioners request that the NCR amend 

its regulations related to emergency 

preparedness as described previously in 

the section titled, ‘‘The Proposed 

Amendment.’’

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day 

of March 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 07–1543 Filed 3–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22918; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–172–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A319–100 and A320–200 Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier 

NPRM for an airworthiness directive 

(AD) that applies to certain Airbus 

Model A319–100 and A320–200 series 

airplanes. The original NPRM would 

have required repetitive inspections of 

the wing-tank fuel pumps, canisters, 

and wing fuel tanks for detached 

identification labels, and corrective 

action if necessary. The original NPRM 

resulted from several incidents of 

detached plastic identification labels 

found floating in the wing fuel tanks. 

This action revises the original NPRM 

by expanding the applicability and 

mandating modification of the fuel 

strainers at the fuel pump and suction 

bypass intakes. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to prevent plastic 

identification labels being ingested into 

the fuel pumps and consequently 

entering the engine fuel feed system, 

which could result in an engine 

shutdown. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by April 23, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

supplemental NPRM. 

• 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 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, 

for service information identified in this 

proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2141; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this supplemental NPRM. 

Send your comments to an address 

listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include 

the docket number ‘‘Docket No. FAA–

2005–22918; Directorate Identifier 

2005–NM–172–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We 

will consider all comments received by 

the closing date and may amend this 

supplemental NPRM in light of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments submitted, 

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 supplemental NPRM. 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 

Management Facility office (telephone 

(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza 

level in the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in ADDRESSES. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Discussion 

We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) for an airworthiness directive 

(AD) (the ‘‘original NPRM’’). The 

original NPRM applies to certain Airbus 

Model A319–100 and A320–200 series 

airplanes. The original NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 10, 2005 (70 FR 68379). The 

original NPRM proposed to require 

repetitive inspections of the wing-tank 

fuel pumps, canisters, and wing fuel 

tanks for detached identification labels, 

and corrective action if necessary. 

Since the original NPRM was issued, 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, superseded French 

airworthiness directive F–2005–121, 

dated July 20, 2005, and issued EASA 

airworthiness directive 2006–0236, 

dated August 10, 2006. The French 

airworthiness directive was referred to 

in the original NPRM. The EASA 

airworthiness directive expands the 

applicability and mandates the 

modification of the fuel strainers at the 

fuel pump and suction bypass intakes, 

which terminates the repetitive 

inspections. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin 

A320–28–1102, Revision 02, including 

Appendix 01, dated July 10, 2006 

(Revision 01, dated February 11, 2005, 

was referred to in the original NPRM as 

the appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing the 

repetitive detailed visual inspections for 

detached identification labels in the 

four wing-tank fuel pumps and 

canisters). The procedures in Revision 

02 are essentially the same as those in 

Revision 01; however, Revision 02 

revises the accomplishment timescales, 

updates the effectivity, and contains 

editorial changes. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS