36156 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

stock, sod, hay, and other regulated

articles in the newly regulated areas had

a market value of approximately $4.06

million. The potential costs to affected

entities of treatments required as a

result of this rule are minimal compared

to the total value of regulated articles

sold in these areas.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact have

been prepared for this program. The

assessment provides a basis for the

conclusion that the methods employed

to regulate the imported fire ant will not

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment. Based on the

finding of no significant impact, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that an environmental

impact statement need not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact were

prepared in accordance with: (1) The

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.

4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the

Council on Environmental Quality for

implementing the procedural provisions

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3)

USDA regulations implementing NEPA

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part

372).

Copies of the environmental

assessment and finding of no significant

impact are available for public

inspection at USDA, room 1141, South

Building, 14th Street and Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays. Persons

wishing to inspect copies are requested

to call ahead on (202) 690–2817 to

facilitate entry into the reading room. In

addition, copies may be obtained by

writing to the individual listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301

Agricultural commodities,

Incorporation by reference, Plant

diseases and pests, Quarantine,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR

part 301 as follows:

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 301

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150bb, 150dd,

150ee, 150ff, 161, 162, and 164–167; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).

2. In § 301.81–3, paragraph (e), the list

of quarantined areas is amended by

adding, in alphabetical order, entries for

Garland, Pike, Pulaski, Saline, and

Sevier Counties in Arkansas and by

revising the entries for Desha, Howard,

Jefferson, and Lincoln Counties in

Arkansas to read as set forth below.

§ 301.81–3 Quarantined areas.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

* * * * *

ARKANSAS

* * * * *

Desha County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Garland County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Howard County. The entire county.

Jefferson County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Lincoln County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Pike County. The entire county.

Pulaski County. The entire county.

Saline County. The entire county.

Sevier County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of

June 1998.

Charles P. Schwalbe,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–17634 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

7 CFR Part 457

Guaranteed Production Plan of Fresh

Market Tomato; 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 Thursday, May 1, 1997 (62 FR

23628–23634), and subsequently

corrected on June 20, 1997 (62 FR

33539). The regulation pertains to the

Guaranteed Production Plan of Fresh

Market Tomato Regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 21, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Louise Narber, 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

current Fresh Market Tomato

(Guaranteed Production Plan) 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 and

the subsequent final rule correction

contain errors which may prove to be

misleading and need to be clarified. The

calendar dates for the end of the

insurance period are being further

corrected to designate November 10

instead of September 20 as the correct

calendar date for the end of the

insurance period in the states of Florida

and Georgia. As currently stated in

policy, the insurance period is only 31

days. Fall tomatoes require

approximately 70 days from planting to

maturity.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457

Crop insurance, Fresh market tomato

(guaranteed production plan).

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 457 is

corrected by making the following

correcting amendment:
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