Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 36157

PART 457—COMMON CROP

INSURANCE REGULATIONS;

REGULATIONS FOR THE 1998 AND

SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT YEARS

1. The authority citation for part 457

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(p).

§ 457.128 [Corrected]

2. In § 457.128, paragraph 10(b)(7) is

further corrected to read as follows:

‘‘October 31 of the crop year in

California, November 10 of the crop year

in Florida and Georgia, and September

20 of the crop year in all other states.’’

Signed in Washington D.C., on June 26,

1998.

Joy Harwood,

Acting Manager, Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 98–17636 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

7 CFR Part 457

Dry Pea; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation, USDA.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to the final regulation which

was published in the Federal Register

on Tuesday, December 16, 1997 (62 FR

65741–65747). The regulation pertains

to the Dry Pea Crop Insurance

Provisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arden Routh, Insurance Management

Specialist, Research and Development,

Product Development Division, Federal

Crop Insurance Corporation, United

States Department of Agriculture, 9435

Holmes Road, Kansas City, MO 64131,

telephone (816) 926–7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final regulation that is the subject

of this correction was intended to

provide policy changes to better meet

the needs of the insured and include the

pea crop insurance regulations with the

Common Crop Insurance Policy for ease

of use and consistency of terms.

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulation

contained an error which may prove

misleading. The local market price

definition was based on the cash price

per pound for U.S. No. 2 grade of dry

peas and is being corrected to be based

on the cash price per pound for U.S. No.

1 grade of dry peas. Dry Pea production

that is eligible for quality adjustment is

based on production grading U.S. No. 2

or worse; therefore, any production not

grading U.S. No. 1 is eligible for quality

adjustment. The local market price must

be based on the U.S. No. 1 grade rather

than U.S. No. 2. The value of the

damaged or conditioned production is

divided by the local market price (based

on U.S. No. 1 grade) to calculate the

quality adjustment factor under section

12(e) of the crop provisions.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457

Crop insurance, Dry pea.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 457 is

corrected by making the following

correcting amendment:

PART 457—COMMON CROP

INSURANCE REGULATIONS;

REGULATIONS FOR THE 1998 AND

SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT YEARS

1. The authority citation for part 457

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(1), 1506(p).

§ 457.140 [Corrected]

2. In § 457.140, section 1 of the policy

pertaining to the definition of ‘‘Local

market price’’ is corrected by removing

the phrase ‘‘U.S. No. 2’’, in the first and

second sentences, and replacing it with

‘‘U.S. No. 1’’.

Signed in Washington D.C., on June 26,

1998.

Joy Harwood,

Acting Manager, Federalf Crop Insurance

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 98–17637 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Housing Service

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Rural Utilities Service

Farm Service Agency

7 CFR Part 1980

RIN 0560–AE92

Subordination of Direct Loan Basic

Security To Secure a Guaranteed Line

of Credit; Correction

AGENCIES: Rural Housing Service, Rural

Business-Cooperative Service, Rural

Utilities Service, Farm Service Agency,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects the

amendatory language contained in the

final rule published April 24, 1998,

regarding approving a subordination of

direct loan security when another

lender will be making a line of credit

guaranteed by the Agency with a

Contract of Guarantee-Line of Credit.

This correction clarifies that the

conditions applicable to a subordination

of direct loan basic security do not

apply to the subordination of direct loan

normal income security. This correction

will apply retroactively to those lines of

credit approved since the effective date

of the final rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phillip Elder (202) 690–4012; Electronic

mail: pelder@wdc.fsa.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final rule being corrected by this

publication was intended to allow

subordination of direct loan basic

chattel and real estate security to secure

a guaranteed line of credit in certain

cases, to allow subordinations for

refinancing purposes and to remove a

loan maximum limitation that had been

repealed.

Need for Correction

As published, the final rule had the

unintentional effect of greatly increasing

the conditions that must be met for the

Agencies to subordinate direct loan

normal income security when making a

guaranteed line of credit. These extra

conditions were intended to apply only

to subordinations of basic security when

making a guaranteed line of credit. As

stated in the final rule discussion of the

fourth comment received, ‘‘Regardless,

the limitations included in § 1980.108(a)

will allow subordinations of direct loan

basic security in only those cases where

the likelihood of a Government loss on

the direct loan is small.’’ The extra

conditions were not to be applied to

subordinations of normal income

security. The definitions of normal

income and basic security are contained

in § 1962.4 of Title 7. Also, as part of

this correction, the first extra condition

in § 1980.108(a)(1)(vi) is clarified to

more clearly state that the required loan

to value ratio is to be calculated based

on all of the borrower’s direct loans and

all of the loan security and is not

calculated on a single loan basis for

multiple loan borrowers.

Correction of Publication

In the final rule published in Federal

Register, 63 FR 20295–20299, on April

24, 1998, make the following corrections

in the amendatory language section: At
36158 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

63 FR 20298, in the third column,

§ 1980.108, introductory paragraph

(a)(1)(vi) and the first sentence of

paragraph (a)(1)(vi)(A), should be

corrected to read as follows:

§ 1980.108 General provisions.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(vi) The Agency may subordinate

direct loan basic security under

paragraph (a)(1)(v)(D) of this section

only when both of the following

additional conditions are met:

(A) The total unpaid principal and

interest balance of all of the borrower’s

direct loans secured by the property

being subordinated is less than or equal

to 75 percent of the value of all of the

basic security for the direct loan,

excluding the value of growing crops or

planned production, on the date the

Agency approves the subordination.

* * *

Signed at Washington, DC, on June 22,

1998.

August Schumacher Jr.,

Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign

Agricultural Services.

Dated: June 10, 1998.

Jill Long Thompson,

Under Secretary for Rural Development.

[FR Doc. 98–17562 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–121–AD; Amendment

39–10642; AD 98–14–09]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–100, –200, –200C Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain Boeing Model 737–

100, –200, and –200C series airplanes.

This action requires repetitive

inspections to detect fatigue cracking

and certain discrepancies of the forward

engine mount support (FEMS) fitting

and its attachments, and repair, if

necessary. This amendment is prompted

by reports of fatigue cracks on the lower

flange of the FEMS fitting, broken bolts

and bolts with loose or detached nuts on

the upper inboard attachment of the

FEMS fitting, and cracked or severed

lugs at the outboard support link

attachment of the FEMS fitting. The

actions specified in this AD are

intended to detect and correct fatigue

cracking and certain discrepancies of

the FEMS fitting and its attachments,

which could result in an in-flight

separation of an engine.

DATES: Effective July 17, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of July 17,

1998.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

August 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

121–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Boeing

Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box

3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gregory L. Schneider, Aerospace

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2028; fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

has received reports of certain problems

affecting the forward engine mount

support (FEMS) fitting on certain Boeing

Model 737 series airplanes. This

support fitting is one of the primary

structural elements that attach the

engine to the wing. The reports indicate

that three critical elements of the FEMS

fitting have proved to be susceptible to

fatigue damage or other problems as

summarized below:

• Lower Flange of the FEMS Fitting:

The FAA has received 17 reports of

cracks of the lower flange ‘‘I’’ section of

the FEMS fitting. Analysis indicates that

the cracks were initiated by fatigue. A

FEMS fitting that has a cracked lower

flange may not be capable of

withstanding certain limit load

conditions.

• Upper Inboard Attachment Bolt:

There have been 13 cases of the upper

inboard attachment bolt fracturing in

service due to fatigue, and 4 cases of the

nut being broken, loose, or detached.

Investigation revealed that the original

production bolt installation was subject

to relative motion between the bushing

and the attachment bolt. As a result, the

production nut (which has no secondary

locking features) tended to come loose

in service. A later configuration change

that was intended to correct this

problem consisted of installing a

stronger bolt and nut, and a new

bushing. This change, which has

subsequently been adopted by almost

the entire fleet of affected airplanes,

requires the nut to be torqued to a

higher value than is appropriate for the

bolt and nut installation. Specifically,

the torque applied to the new nut is

applicable to a ‘‘non-lubricated’’ thread

condition, whereas the nut material

tends to act as a ‘‘dry’’ lubricant.

Consequently, the higher torque applied

to the new bolt and nut configuration

induces an excessive pre-load on the

bolt threads. This excessive pre-load, in

conjunction with certain operational

loads, causes an overload condition on

the bolt threads, which in turn leads to

premature fatigue cracking of the bolt.

Additionally, results of an analysis

indicate that the FEMS fitting cannot

react certain limit load conditions with

a fractured or detached bolt at this

location.

• Upper Outboard Lug of the FEMS

Fitting:

The upper outboard lug of the FEMS

fitting contains a bearing that has

proved susceptible to excessive wearing.

This lug is designed to secure the

outboard end of the FEMS fitting to the

wing. A severely worn bearing could

drastically reduce the fatigue life of the

lug. This condition has been observed

on six airplanes to date; on three of

those airplanes the lug was found to be

completely fractured. Analysis has

revealed that the FEMS fitting cannot

react certain limit load conditions with

a severed lug.

Explanation of the Unsafe Condition

The fatigue cracking problems that

affect the three areas of the FEMS fitting

are examples of ‘‘multiple element

damage.’’ The existence of any one of

these conditions could result in an

engine separation under certain limit

load conditions. The simultaneous

existence of any two conditions could

result in an immediate engine loss at

loads that are much lower than the

design limit loads. These problems, if

not corrected, could result in an inflight separation of an engine.