Supplier Credit Guarantee Program, 3790-3791 [06-610]
Download as PDF
3790
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 71, No. 15
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1493
RIN 0551–ZA00
Supplier Credit Guarantee Program
Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC), USDA.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR).
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This ANPR solicits comments
on options to reform the USDA, CCC,
Supplier Credit Guarantee Program
(SCGP). The purpose of this ANPR is to
invite suggestions on changes to reform
the program to reduce the risk of
default, improve the ability to effect a
collection on defaulted obligations, and
consider alternative program
mechanisms and forms of payment
obligations that are consistent with
commercial export practices. The intent
of this request is to seek comments on
program reforms that would improve
the SCGP’s effectiveness and efficiency
and lower costs.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before February 23, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
by any of the following methods: E-mail:
SCGP.ANPR@fas.usda.gov.
Fax: (202) 690–1595 Attention:
‘‘SCGP/ANPR Comments.’’
Mail: William S. Hawkins, Director,
Program Administration Division,
Export Credits, Foreign Agricultural
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1400 Independence Ave., SW., Stop
1031, Washington, DC 20250–1031.
Hand Delivery/Courier: 1400
Independence Ave., SW., Room 4083,
Washington, DC 20250–1031.
All comments received will be
available for public inspection at the
above address during regular business
hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William S. Hawkins, Director,
Administration Division, at the address
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:42 Jan 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
stated above. Telephone: (202) 720–
3241.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations for the SCGP became
effective on August 30, 1996. The
program became operational with an
announcement for Mexico on that same
day, providing coverage for high-value
agricultural products such as fruits,
vegetables, tree nuts, potatoes, wine,
brandy, dairy products, and ice cream.
The products made eligible were those
that typically traded in smaller
transactions and not commonly
financed under the existing CCC Export
Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102).
CCC viewed the SCGP as a means of
supplementing the GSM–102 program
and providing more flexibility and
options in leveraging private sector
credit.
Since 1981, the GSM–102 program
has served as a means of guaranteeing
the payment by foreign banks of credit
extended by U.S. exporters or banks for
agricultural commodity sales. The SCGP
provides a similar guarantee for
payment by importers when U.S.
exporters’ extend short-term credit, up
to 180-days, in export sales. CCC
developed the SCGP as an export credit
alternative that did not require a letter
of credit as a payment mechanism,
would better accommodate smaller
transaction sizes associated with
containerized shipping, and would react
to importers’ general desire to obtain
open-account terms of payment from
U.S. exporters.
At inception, the SCGP offered a 50
percent guarantee in the event that an
importer of U.S. agricultural
commodities or products defaulted on
an obligation to pay the exporter for the
value of the goods sold. On December 3,
1997, CCC amended the commodity
eligibility for the SCGP to include bulk
commodities such as cotton, feed grains,
oilseeds, protein meals, and wheat. On
October 1, 1999, guaranteed coverage
under the SCGP increased from 50 to 65
percent.
The SCGP relies upon the principle of
risk-sharing between exporter and CCC
to work. Exporters are often in a unique
position to assess the ability of an
importer to pay for an export transaction
because of past contractual experience,
access to importer’s credit references, or
specialized knowledge of the
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
agricultural business sector in the
importing country. Since inception, the
instrument establishing the importer’s
obligation to pay the export value has
been a promissory note form, prescribed
by CCC and issued by the importer to
the exporter. The U.S. exporter can hold
the SCGP payment guarantee or assign
the guarantee to a U.S. financial
institution. In many cases, where the
exporter has assigned SCGP payment
guarantees to a U.S. financial
institution, the exporter is paid the
percentage guaranteed by CCC by that
financial institution and retains the risk
of payment by the importer. In other
cases, the U.S. financial institution, in
taking an assignment of the SCGP
payment guarantee, may be willing to
pay the exporter for the entire export
value if that financial institution is able
to make a credit assessment of the
importer and is willing to accept the
risk of default for the uncovered portion
of the sale.
Overall, since 1997, CCC issued
approximately $2.78 billion in credit
guarantees under the SCGP supporting
more than $4.3 billion in U.S. export
sales of agricultural commodities and
products. Mexico has dominated the
SCGP as an import destination with
more than 60 percent of the volume of
activity, but other regions such as
Central America, South East Asia, and
the Caribbean have benefited and
further growth in these regions is
expected. The SCGP has supported the
U.S. export of a variety of agricultural
commodities and products ranging from
bulk commodities such as feed grains,
oilseeds, protein meals, rice, and cotton,
but also including significant volumes
of red meat, poultry, fruits, grocery store
items, and other high value agricultural
products.
From 1997 to 2004, the defaults
experienced in the SCGP were
manageable given the limited size of the
SCGP at that time and the sporadic
nature of the defaults incurred.
However, in 2004 and 2005 CCC
experienced significant defaults under
the SCGP. In reaction to these increased
defaults, CCC made improvements to its
claims recovery process, but CCC
continues to seek other means to reduce
defaults and better recoveries.
CCC’s interest in SCGP improvements
also arises from the outcome of the
recent World Trade Organization (WTO)
dispute brought by Brazil against the
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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?
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:42 Jan 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3791
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
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule: Reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
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
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3790-3791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-610]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 3790]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1493
RIN 0551-ZA00
Supplier Credit Guarantee Program
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), USDA.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This ANPR solicits comments on options to reform the USDA,
CCC, Supplier Credit Guarantee Program (SCGP). The purpose of this ANPR
is to invite suggestions on changes to reform the program to reduce the
risk of default, improve the ability to effect a collection on
defaulted obligations, and consider alternative program mechanisms and
forms of payment obligations that are consistent with commercial export
practices. The intent of this request is to seek comments on program
reforms that would improve the SCGP's effectiveness and efficiency and
lower costs.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 23, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, by any of the following methods: E-
mail: SCGP.ANPR@fas.usda.gov.
Fax: (202) 690-1595 Attention: ``SCGP/ANPR Comments.''
Mail: William S. Hawkins, Director, Program Administration
Division, Export Credits, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Stop 1031, Washington, DC
20250-1031.
Hand Delivery/Courier: 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 4083,
Washington, DC 20250-1031.
All comments received will be available for public inspection at
the above address during regular business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William S. Hawkins, Director,
Administration Division, at the address stated above. Telephone: (202)
720-3241.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations for the SCGP became effective on August 30, 1996.
The program became operational with an announcement for Mexico on that
same day, providing coverage for high-value agricultural products such
as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, potatoes, wine, brandy, dairy
products, and ice cream. The products made eligible were those that
typically traded in smaller transactions and not commonly financed
under the existing CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102). CCC
viewed the SCGP as a means of supplementing the GSM-102 program and
providing more flexibility and options in leveraging private sector
credit.
Since 1981, the GSM-102 program has served as a means of
guaranteeing the payment by foreign banks of credit extended by U.S.
exporters or banks for agricultural commodity sales. The SCGP provides
a similar guarantee for payment by importers when U.S. exporters'
extend short-term credit, up to 180-days, in export sales. CCC
developed the SCGP as an export credit alternative that did not require
a letter of credit as a payment mechanism, would better accommodate
smaller transaction sizes associated with containerized shipping, and
would react to importers' general desire to obtain open-account terms
of payment from U.S. exporters.
At inception, the SCGP offered a 50 percent guarantee in the event
that an importer of U.S. agricultural commodities or products defaulted
on an obligation to pay the exporter for the value of the goods sold.
On December 3, 1997, CCC amended the commodity eligibility for the SCGP
to include bulk commodities such as cotton, feed grains, oilseeds,
protein meals, and wheat. On October 1, 1999, guaranteed coverage under
the SCGP increased from 50 to 65 percent.
The SCGP relies upon the principle of risk-sharing between exporter
and CCC to work. Exporters are often in a unique position to assess the
ability of an importer to pay for an export transaction because of past
contractual experience, access to importer's credit references, or
specialized knowledge of the agricultural business sector in the
importing country. Since inception, the instrument establishing the
importer's obligation to pay the export value has been a promissory
note form, prescribed by CCC and issued by the importer to the
exporter. The U.S. exporter can hold the SCGP payment guarantee or
assign the guarantee to a U.S. financial institution. In many cases,
where the exporter has assigned SCGP payment guarantees to a U.S.
financial institution, the exporter is paid the percentage guaranteed
by CCC by that financial institution and retains the risk of payment by
the importer. In other cases, the U.S. financial institution, in taking
an assignment of the SCGP payment guarantee, may be willing to pay the
exporter for the entire export value if that financial institution is
able to make a credit assessment of the importer and is willing to
accept the risk of default for the uncovered portion of the sale.
Overall, since 1997, CCC issued approximately $2.78 billion in
credit guarantees under the SCGP supporting more than $4.3 billion in
U.S. export sales of agricultural commodities and products. Mexico has
dominated the SCGP as an import destination with more than 60 percent
of the volume of activity, but other regions such as Central America,
South East Asia, and the Caribbean have benefited and further growth in
these regions is expected. The SCGP has supported the U.S. export of a
variety of agricultural commodities and products ranging from bulk
commodities such as feed grains, oilseeds, protein meals, rice, and
cotton, but also including significant volumes of red meat, poultry,
fruits, grocery store items, and other high value agricultural
products.
From 1997 to 2004, the defaults experienced in the SCGP were
manageable given the limited size of the SCGP at that time and the
sporadic nature of the defaults incurred. However, in 2004 and 2005 CCC
experienced significant defaults under the SCGP. In reaction to these
increased defaults, CCC made improvements to its claims recovery
process, but CCC continues to seek other means to reduce defaults and
better recoveries.
CCC's interest in SCGP improvements also arises from the outcome of
the recent World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute brought by Brazil
against the
[[Page 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 risk-sharing 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