to be present if the insured acknowledges his signature to the witness. ¶ 18. Lea also makes a policy argument that Congress intended to create an inflexible rule for administrative convenience. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Manning, 568 F.2d 922, 926 (2nd Cir.1977). However, a more stringent requirement of present witnesses would frustrate the dual Congressional purposes of the regulation: alleviating administrative difficulties with the insurance company and avoiding delays in payment to beneficiaries upon the death of the insured. O’Neal, 653 F.Supp. at 722. When the regulations do not provide for a given factual problem or error, courts have preferred a more commonsense approach in interpreting these regulations. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Hurford, 983 F.Supp. 1045, 1047 (D.Ka.1997) (<HOLDING>); Terry v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 527,
recognizing that strict compliance with  1557 is required holding that strict compliance is not required holding that assuming compliance with a standard form and the absence of conflict with statute the parties to a contract of insurance are free to incorporate such provisions and conditions as they desire holding form designating 200 of insurance proceeds to various beneficiaries in strict compliance with regulations recognizing that the government generally has the right to insist on performance in strict compliance with the contract specifications