Federal Register Vol. 82, No.118,

Background

The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-77, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests within the United States.

Currently, the regulations do not authorize the importation into the continental United States of fresh pomegranate fruit from Turkey. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a request from the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Turkey to amend the regulations to allow the importation of commercially produced pomegranate fruit (Punica granatum L.) from Turkey into the continental United States. In evaluating Turkey's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

The PRA, titled “Importation of Fresh Fruit of Pomegranate, Punica granatum L., from Turkey into the Continental United States” (February 2011, updated October 2015), analyzes the potential pest risk associated with the importation of fresh pomegranates into the continental United States from Turkey. In the PRA, we identified nine quarantine pests that could likely follow the pathway of fresh pomegranates from Turkey into the United States:

Background

The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-77, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.

The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow tree tomatoes from Ecuador to be imported into the continental United States.

In evaluating Ecuador's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (See ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

The PRA, titled “Importation of fresh tree tomato (Solanum betaceum Cavanilles) from Ecuador into the continental United States” (September 2013), analyzes the potential pest risk associated with the importation of tree tomatoes into the continental United States from Ecuador. The PRA identified four pests of quarantine significance present in Ecuador that could be introduced into the continental United States through the importation of tree tomatoes. They are:

Fruit Flies:

Moth:

Virus:

The PRA derives plant pest risk potential for these pests by estimating the likelihood of the introduction of each pest into the continental United States through the importation of tree tomatoes from Ecuador.

The PRA considers two pests to have high pest risk potential (A. fraterculus and C. capitata), and two to have medium risk potential (N. elegantalis and Tamarillo mosaic virus). Based on the findings of the PRA, APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port-of-entry inspection are necessary to mitigate the risk associated with the importation of tree tomatoes from Ecuador into the continental United States. These measures are listed in the RMD and are used as the basis for the requirements of this proposed rule.

Therefore, we are proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of commercial consignments of tree tomatoes from Ecuador into the continental United States, subject to a systems approach. Requirements of the systems approach, which would be added to the regulations as new § 319.56-78, are discussed in the following sections.

Proposed paragraph (a) of § 319.56-78 would set forth general requirements for the NPPO of Ecuador and for growers and packers producing the tree tomatoes for export to the continental United States.

Paragraph (a)(1) would require the NPPO of Ecuador to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO of Ecuador and places of production and packinghouses registered with the NPPO of Ecuador would, subject to APHIS approval of the workplan, implement to meet the requirements of the proposed systems approach. An operational workplan is an arrangement between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program and officials of the NPPO of a foreign government that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will comply with U.S. regulations governing the import or export of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatories and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are managed in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for managing those issues. Operational workplans require APHIS approval.

If the operational workplan is approved, APHIS would be directly involved with the NPPO of Ecuador in monitoring and auditing the systems approach implementation. Such monitoring could involve site visits by APHIS personnel.

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require tree tomatoes intended for export to the continental United States to be grown by places of production registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would require the tree tomatoes to be packed for export to the continental United States in pest-exclusionary packinghouses registered with the NPPO of Ecuador.

Registration of places of production and packinghouses with the NPPO of Ecuador would ensure that the NPPO exercises oversight of these locations and that the places of production and packinghouses continuously follow the provisions of the export program. It would also facilitate traceback in the event that tree tomatoes from Ecuador are determined to be infested with quarantine pests.

Proposed paragraph (a)(4) would require the NPPO of Ecuador to maintain all forms and documents related to export program activities in registered places of production and packinghouses for at least 1 year and provide them to APHIS upon request. Such forms and documents would include (but would not be limited to) records regarding fruit fly trapping in registered places of production and records regarding pest detections in registered places of production and registered packinghouses. Based on APHIS' review of the records, we may monitor places of production and packinghouses as we deem warranted.

Proposed paragraph (a)(5) would require the identity of each lot of tree tomato from Ecuador destined for export to the continental United States to be maintained throughout the export process, from the place of production to the release for entry in the continental United States. The operational workplan would have to describe the means of identification used that allows the lot to be traced back to its place of production. This requirement would facilitate traceback in the event that quarantine pests are discovered in a lot of tree tomatoes destined for export to the United States. This, in turn, would help ensure that timely remedial measures are taken to address the plant pest risk at the place of production and preclude the further export of infested fruit from that place of production.

Proposed paragraph (a)(6) states that tree tomatoes from Ecuador may be imported in commercial consignments only. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestation because the commodity is often ripe to overripe and is often grown with little to no pest control. Commercial consignments, as defined within the regulations, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: quantity of produce, type of packaging, identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer.

Proposed paragraph (a)(7) would provide that lots of tree tomatoes destined for export to the continental United States must be safeguarded during movement from registered places of production to registered packinghouses, and from registered packinghouses to arrival at the port of entry into the continental United States as specified by the operational workplan. Such safeguarding could include the use of pest-proof screens or tarpaulins to cover the lots during transit, or other similar measures approved by APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador.

Our systems approach would require certain measures to take place at the registered places of production. Proposed paragraph (b) of § 319.56-78 would contain these requirements and measures.

Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would require that registered places of production of tree tomatoes destined for export to the continental United States be determined by APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador to be free from A. fraterculus and C. capitata based on trapping conducted in accordance with the operational workplan. Pest free places of production are defined by the number of fruit flies captured in a given timeframe; in this case, the operational workplan would specify that only one fruit fly would be permitted to be trapped in the place of production per week. Trapping must begin at least 1 year prior to harvest and continue throughout the completion of harvest. Traps must be serviced every 7 days. If the number of flies per trap per day exceed levels specified in the operational workplan, the place of production will be prohibited from exporting tree tomatoes to the continental United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador jointly agree that the risk has been mitigated. The NPPO must keep records regarding the placement and monitoring of all traps, as well as records of all pest detections in these traps, for at least 1 year and provide the records to APHIS upon request.

Establishment of fruit fly pest free places of production, in combination with other measures, obviates the need for post-harvest commodity treatments to achieve phytosanitary security. APHIS has only in rare instances intercepted fruit flies in tree tomatoes. Although tree tomatoes are considered to be poor hosts to A. fraterculus and C. capitata, we would require that tree tomatoes be produced in places of production practically free of fruit flies, i.e., fruit fly populations would have to be maintained below a threshold of 0.07 fruit flies per trap per day. Places of production would have to provide 1 year of trapping data with a result of low prevalence throughout the year in order to become a registered place of production.

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require registered places of production to remove fallen tree tomato fruit in accordance with the operational workplan. It would also prohibit fallen fruit from being included in field containers of fruit brought to the packinghouse to be packed for export. Fallen fruit are especially susceptible to quarantine pests.

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require fields at registered places of production to be inspected by the NPPO of Ecuador at least once during the growing season for Tamarillo mosaic virus. Sites must be determined by the NPPO to be free of the virus as a result of these inspections.

Tamarillo mosaic virus is transmitted primarily by contact between mechanical inoculations and grafting, but cannot be transmitted between plants or by seeds. Tamarillo mosaic virus reduces fruit yields and causes disfiguring blotches on the skin of the tree tomato fruit, which lowers the value of the fruit. Visual inspections at registered places of production for Tamarillo mosaic virus will provide the appropriate level of protection for the United States.

Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would require the NPPO of Ecuador to visit and inspect registered places of production monthly, starting 60 days before harvest and continuing throughout the shipping season, for signs of infestation and to allow APHIS to monitor these inspections. The NPPO of Ecuador must also certify to APHIS that registered places of production have in place effective fruit fly trapping programs and control guidelines to reduce pest populations.

Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would provide that if APHIS or the NPPO of Ecuador determined that a registered place of production has failed to follow the requirements of the regulations, the place of production would be excluded from the export program until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador jointly agree that the place of production has taken appropriate remedial measures to address the plant pest risk.

Proposed paragraph (c) of § 319.56-78 would set forth requirements for mitigation measures that would have to occur at registered packinghouses.

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require that, while a registered packinghouse is in use for packing tree tomatoes for export to the continental United States, the packinghouse can only accept tree tomatoes that are from registered places of production that have been produced in accordance with proposed § 319.56-78. Tree tomatoes from other places of production may be produced under conditions that are less stringent than those of this proposed rule, and may therefore be a pathway for introduction of quarantine pests into the packinghouses.

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require that tree tomatoes must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin within 24 hours of harvest. These safeguards would have to remain intact until the tree tomatoes arrive in the United States, or the consignment would not be allowed to enter the United States. These requirements collectively would aid in preventing the tree tomatoes from becoming infested with plant pests during, or subsequent, to packing.

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would require that all openings to the outside of the packinghouse must be covered by screening with openings of not more than 1.6 mm or by some other barrier that prevents pests from entering. The packinghouse must have double doors at the entrance to the facility and at the interior entrance to the area where the tree tomatoes are packed.

Proposed paragraph (d) of § 319.56-78 would require the NPPO of Ecuador or officials authorized by the NPPO of Ecuador to visually inspect a biometric sample of tree tomato fruit in accordance with the operational workplan following post-harvest processing. The sample would have to be visually inspected for N. elegantalis and Tamarillo mosaic virus. A portion of the fruit would then have to be cut open and inspected for A. fraterculus and C. capitata. Cutting the fruit open would allow inspectors to determine whether the fruit is infested with A. fraterculus or C. capitata larvae.

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would state that if N. elegantalis is found, the entire lot of fruit will be prohibited from import into the United States unless it is treated with an approved quarantine treatment monitored by APHIS.

Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would state that if Tamarillo mosaic virus is found, the entire lot of fruit will be prohibited from importation into the United States.

Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would state that if A. fraterculus or C. capitata is found, the entire lot of fruit will be prohibited from importation to the United States and the place of production producing that fruit will be suspended from the export program until appropriate measures, as agreed upon by the NPPO of Ecuador and APHIS, have been taken.

Proposed paragraph (e) of § 319.56-78 would require that each consignment of fresh tree tomato fruit from Ecuador be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador containing an additional declaration that the tomatoes were produced in accordance with the requirements § 319.56-78, and have been inspected and found free of A. fraterculus, C. capitata, N. elegantalis, and Tamarillo mosaic virus.

Under the general conditions for the importation of fruits and vegetables in § 319.56-3, each consignment of tree tomatoes would be subject to further inspection at the port entry into the United States.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this proposed rule is not significant, it does not trigger the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

The tree tomato is not grown in the United States, so there would be no impacts of the proposed rule for U.S. producers. In 2014, the U.S. imported an estimated 130,000 pounds of this fruit from various countries. Based on conversations with Ecuadoran officials, and Ecuador's tree tomato production capabilities and established markets, we estimate that 10 percent or less of current exports would be diverted to the United States. Assuming an average market price of $3 per pound, based on the import price for tree tomato from New Zealand, and a quantity of at most 15 shipments or 11,250 pounds, the value of tree tomato imports from Ecuador may reach approximately $34,000 annually.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would allow fresh tree tomato fruit to be imported into the continental United States from Ecuador. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding tree tomato fruit imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send comments on the Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0072. Please send a copy of your comments to the USDA using one of the methods described under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document.

APHIS is proposing to amend the fruit and vegetable regulations to allow the importation of tree tomato from Ecuador into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the tree tomatoes would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for importation in commercial consignments, registration and monitoring of places of production, field monitoring and pest-control practices, trapping, and inspection for quarantine pests by the NPPO of Ecuador.

Implementing this rule will require an operational workplan, production site and packinghouse registrations, recordkeeping, identification, trapping, inspections, and phytosanitary certificates.

We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.4092 hours per response.

Respondents: Producers and importers of tree tomatoes from Ecuador and the NPPO of Ecuador.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 42.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 40.

Estimated annual number of responses: 1,681.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 688 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

A copy of the information collection may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (A link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule.) Copies can also be obtained from Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483. APHIS will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0562; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-027-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-22, dated June 24, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0562.

We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-072, Revision A, dated October 26, 2016. This service information describes procedures for identification of affected HSTAs, and replacement if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 544 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0621; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-049-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-18, dated June 20, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0621.

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-52-88, dated April 14, 2016. This service information describes procedures for identification of corrosion in fuselage door bearings, replacement if necessary, and CIC application. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 143 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0563; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-021-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0033, dated February 17, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0563.

We reviewed SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016. The service information describes airworthiness limitations, including inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the MLG and CPCP related tasks. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with SAAB maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (i)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure.

The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into an operator's maintenance or inspection program.

Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.

In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been approved by the FAA.

When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).

The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design.

To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type design.

However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier AD.

This proposed AD therefore would apply to Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of approval of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 87 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9386; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-056-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN 235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes, and Model C-295 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2016 (81 FR 85169). The NPRM was prompted by leakage of a motorized cross-feed fuel valve. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the affected fuel valves and, depending on findings, applicable corrective actions.

Since we issued the NPRM, an additional report of a fuel leak in a motorized cross-feed valve has resulted in the need for a change to the compliance time for the initial inspection, the addition of repetitive inspections and operational checks, and corrective action if necessary.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD 2017-0004, dated January 9, 2017, (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9386.

Airbus Defense and Space S.A. has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016; and AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections, replacement of the motorized fuel valves, and performing operational checks and corrective actions on affected motorized fuel valves. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

We estimate that this SNPRM affects 14 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition corrective actions for the operational check specified in this proposed AD.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Use of Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures in Clinical Investigations under 21 CFR Part 11—Questions and Answers.” The draft guidance provides guidance to sponsors, clinical investigators, IRBs, CROs, and other interested parties on the use of electronic records and electronic signatures under part 11 in clinical investigations of medical products. The draft guidance thus expands upon recommendations in the 2003 part 11 guidance for recommendations that pertain to FDA-regulated clinical investigations conducted under parts 312 and 812 and is limited to the scope and application of part 11 requirements to such clinical investigations.

Since 2003, advances in electronic technology have expanded the uses and capabilities of electronic systems in clinical investigations. In addition, electronic systems and technologies are used and managed in novel ways, services are shared or contracted between organizations in new ways, and electronic data flow between parties is more efficient and more prevalent. The standards and capabilities of electronic systems have improved, and features—such as audit trails, automated date-and-time stamps, appropriate validation, and the ability to generate copies and retain records—are standard components of many electronic systems.

FDA's overall approach to the 2003 part 11 guidance was to provide a narrow and practical interpretation of part 11 requirements. FDA continues to support and promote such a narrow and practical interpretation in the draft guidance, including our intent to exercise enforcement discretion regarding specific part 11 provisions for validation, audit trails, record retention, and record copying. FDA reminds sponsors, however, that records must still be maintained or submitted in accordance with the underlying predicate rules, and the Agency can take regulatory action for noncompliance with such predicate rules. In addition, FDA continues to encourage sponsors and other regulated entities to use a risk-based approach, as introduced in the 2003 part 11 guidance and further described in the draft guidance, when deciding to validate electronic systems, implement audit trails, or archive required records for clinical investigations. The draft guidance clarifies and expands upon recommendations for applying and implementing part 11 requirements, as appropriate, in the current environment of electronic systems used in clinical investigations.

The draft guidance discusses the following: (1) Procedures that may be followed to help ensure that electronic records and electronic signatures meet FDA requirements and are considered to be trustworthy, reliable, and generally equivalent to paper records and handwritten signatures executed on paper, and (2) the use of a risk-based approach when deciding to validate electronic systems, implement audit trails for electronic records, and archive records that are pertinent to clinical investigations conducted under parts 312 and 812.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the use of electronic records and electronic signatures for FDA-regulated clinical investigations conducted under parts 312 and 812. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations. This is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 12866.

This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are found in regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This draft guidance pertains to sponsors, clinical investigators, IRBs, CROs, and other interested parties who use electronic records, electronic signatures, and electronic systems in FDA-regulated clinical investigations and who send certain information to FDA or others or who keep certain records and make them available to FDA inspectors. The collections of information in part 11 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0303; the collections of information in part 312, including §§ 312.41, 312.57, 312.58, 312.62, and 312.120, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and the collections of information in § 812.140 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078. The use of electronic records, electronic signatures, and electronic systems (as described in the draft guidance) would not result in any new costs, including capital costs or operating and maintenance costs because sponsors and others already have experience using computer-based equipment and software necessary to be consistent with the draft guidance.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (the Act) as amended in 2000 authorizes the Department to establish Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards (Installation Standards) and establish an installation program to enforce those Installation Standards. The Installation Standards are at 24 CFR part 3285, and installation in freezing temperature areas is covered at § 3285.312(b). Section 604(a)(3) of the Act as amended in 2000 also created the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC). Section 604(b)(3) of the Act directs HUD to provide the MHCC with an opportunity to review any HUD proposed Interpretative Bulletin and to provide written comments to the Department for a period of up to 120 days.

Frost-protected shallow foundations have been successfully used both domestically and internationally in residential and commercial applications for over 50 years as a means to avoid deeper and more costly foundation systems. However, as a result of recent problems and inquiries related to the proper design, use, and installation of manufactured home frost protected foundation systems in areas subject to freezing temperature conditions, HUD commissioned a study and report to assess both foundation design and installation practices for manufactured homes located in temperature areas with seasonally frozen ground. HUD provided the MHCC with a report of its findings on October 26, 2016, entitled “An Assessment of Design and Installation Practices for Manufactured Homes in Climates with Seasonally Frozen Ground” prepared by SEBA Professional Services, LLC (https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=10-07-16-Frost-free-Found.pdf), and announced it would form the basis for an Interpretative Bulletin to be issued on the subject.

The study and resulting report found some key factors needed for long-term and consistent success require special considerations that are often neglected, particularly for FFF designs and installations that rely on well-drained and non-frost susceptible soil conditions. These factors include appropriately engineered installation details, site investigation practices, fulfillment of responsibilities by all parties associated with manufactured home installation, and verification procedures to ensure that important design conditions are actually being achieved in practice. Accordingly, this Interpretative Bulletin was developed for the purpose of clarifying requirements and providing practical guidance for the manufactured housing industry when designing or setting foundations for manufactured homes in locations subject to freezing temperatures with seasonal ground freezing.

HUD also indicated at the October 26th meeting of the MHCC, that it would consider any comments received from the MHCC on the report and scheduled a teleconference on November 28, 2016, with the Regulatory Subcommittee of the MHCC and with the MHCC on December 12, 2016, to receive feedback and recommendations from the subcommittee and MHCC. As a result of those discussions, the Regulatory Subcommittee recommended that HUD draft an Interpretative Bulletin for the December 12, 2016, teleconference with the full MHCC, taking into consideration the comments from the Regulatory Subcommittee teleconference and subsequent comments from the MHCC. A large part of the discussion focused on what constitutes acceptable engineering practice. Some members of the subcommittee expressed concerns on whether the SEI/ASCE 32-01 (ASCE 32) Standard should exclusively define accepted engineering practice or if other engineering alternatives should be allowed. During the December 12, 2016, conference call with the MHCC, the committee developed and approved the following recommendations and comments to its draft Interpretative Bulletin. These comments were also approved by a subsequent letter ballot. The ballot results were provided to HUD by the MHCC's Administering Organization (AO) on January 23, 2017. HUD's response to each of the points raised by the MHCC is as follows:

1. Tone of the IB needs to be more positive.

HUD Response: A statement has been added above to indicate that frost protected shallow foundations have been successfully used both domestically and abroad for than 50 years.

2. The focus of the IB should be to inform and educate.

HUD Response. HUD believes that the IB focus is both informative and provides education to all respective participants in the installation process.

3. The IB should focus on compliance with 3285.

HUD Response: The guidance in the IB does focus on both foundation design guidelines and compliance with the provisions for foundations in freezing temperature areas in 3285.312(b) of the Model Installation Standards.

4. The IB should be simplified (too lengthy).

HUD Response: HUD does not agree as the guidance cannot be further simplified in this proposed IB, since it is both practical and technical and, in general, provides a recipe for compliance with the Model Installation Standards.

5. FFF definition and FPSF definition.

HUD Response: A definition has been added for a Frost Protected Shallow Foundation (FPSF). However, as there is no generally recognized definition of a frost free foundation (FFF), HUD is requesting comments from the public on a suitable technical definition and has reserved a space in the IB for a definition of the term.

6. Clarify site specific foundation.

HUD Response: A site specific foundation means a foundation system that has been designed for a specific site.

7. Target audience should be installers, local jurisdiction, regulators, and manufacturers.

HUD Response: HUD agrees and focused the four options in the IB on those entities and organizations.

8. The problem doesn't seem to appear in all states and how to solve that problem.

HUD Response: Comments are being requested on other verifiable strategies that may not be addressed in this IB that have been effective and successfully used in other states.

9. Ensure additional cost are not incurred due to IB.

HUD Response: This IB has been developed to clarify the intent of the standards with technical concepts that will avoid costly foundation and structural repairs due to frost heave.

10. Reference to actual designs and specific engineering language in the IB should be removed.

HUD Response: Reference to actual designs has been removed from the IB. However, it remains necessary to utilize some engineering terminology to explain certain aspects of the foundation options contained in this IB.

11. Ensure IB doesn't exceed reasonable accepted engineering practice as required in § 3285.312(b)(2).

HUD Response: HUD believes that all aspects and options contained in this IB conform to acceptable engineering practice.

12. Remove reference to the SEBA report from the IB.

HUD Response: HUD agrees and has taken out the SEBA report.

13. Remove Local Authority Having Jurisdiction (LAHJ) where the plan approval is not required and in HUD administered states (§ 3286.3, HUD administered installation program) from the IB.

HUD Response: HUD does not agree with this recommendation as an LAHJ can both require plan approval and establish provisions which exceed the requirements of HUD's Model Installation Standards in states where HUD administers the installation program.

The MHCC also provided HUD with the specific suggested text revisions to the Interpretative Bulletin. The MHCC suggested revisions are available at https://www.xxxxxxxxx (Appendix E). However, HUD did not agree with or accept the MHCC recommendation to delete the statement regarding the SEI/ASCE 32-01 Standard generally providing the bases for acceptable engineering practice (see page 10 of Appendix E); HUD consolidated MHCC recommendations for manufacturers on Recommended Practices and Procedures (see page 11 of Appendix E); HUD deleted the Recommendations for Retailers and Installers as recommended by the MHCC (see page 12 of Appendix E); HUD did not accept the MHCC recommendation regarding deleting statements regarding the assignment of design responsibilities to local authorities (see page 13 of Appendix E); HUD also did not accept the MHCC recommendation to delete the statement regarding submitting the foundation plan to the local authority having jurisdiction if applicable but did delete the statement regarding the sealing of foundation plans by an engineer or architect that is licensed in the state where the installation is occurring (see page 13 of Appendix E); HUD modified the language for regulatory officials and inspectors based in part on recommendations of the MHCC (see page 14 of Appendix E); HUD accepted the editorial revisions recommended by the MHCC for Option 1 (see page 15 of Appendix E); and HUD also accepted the MHCC recommendation to delete the requirements for vents in skirting to be automatically closing (see page 16 of Appendix E).

HUD has considered the above recommendations and comments from the MHCC and included them where it deemed appropriate in the text of the Interpretative Bulletin.

This guidance is being issued in response to numerous requests, inquiries, and questions regarding how to comply with HUD's requirements for foundations in freezing temperature areas, in accordance with 24 CFR 3285.312(b) of the Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards, when footings do not extend below the frost depth at the site. Engineered foundations designs such as monolithic slab systems (§ 3282.312(b)(2)) placed on a layer of well drained undisturbed ground or fill material that is not susceptible to frost and frost protected shallow foundations (FPSF), which are insulated foundations (§ 3282.312(b)(3)) that rely on insulation to prevent ground freezing as well as other alternative foundation systems including industry termed “frost free foundations” have great appeal and potential in freezing temperature areas as a cost-effective means of installing manufactured homes on seasonally-frozen ground. Understandably, their use has been promoted and increased in recent years as a means for reducing manufactured housing installation costs when compared to using conventional or proprietary foundation support systems in freezing temperature areas. However, some key factors important to their long-term and consistent success require special considerations that are often neglected, particularly for FFF designs and installations. These factors include appropriately engineered installation details, site investigation practices, and verification procedures to ensure that important design conditions are actually being achieved in practice.

Important factors or design considerations in any frost-protected foundation include:

• Clarity of technical requirements;

• definite criteria for determining soil frost susceptibility and soil moisture sub-surface drainage conditions; and

• guidance on water table depth to determine if the site is suitably well drained.

In addition, for foundations being placed on non-frost susceptible soil, it is also necessary to provide guidance on appropriate site-specific details such as the depth of non-frost-susceptible soil or fill layers required for the frost depth encountered at the site and the layout of sub-surface drainage, when sub-surface site conditions are not well drained. Clarification and accuracy of roles during the site testing and installation process also play an important part in ensuring that frost-protected foundation designs meet the requirements of HUD's Manufactured Home Model Installation Standards in 24 CFR 3285.312.

The HUD commissioned study reviewed a selection of representative alternative foundation plans including FFF designs in current use for consistency with the HUD code, the ASCE 32 standard titled Design and Construction of Frost Protected Shallow Foundations, and generally accepted engineering practice. These reviews and additional technical information (including terminology and technical references) are included in an engineering assessment report at the URL provided in this notice. Thus, the report provides both a reference and technical basis for the guidance and recommendations included herein.

A summary of key findings from the engineering assessment are as follows:

• One of the reviewed FFF designs demonstrated an appropriate application of the HUD code and ASCE 32 standard's technical requirements for frost protection of foundations. Thus, it is possible to develop a compliant FFF design in accordance with acceptable engineering practice or ASCE 32.

• All other reviewed FFF designs contained a number of flaws or non-conformances, including:

○ A lack of clarity of technical requirements in manufacturer installation instructions, details, and notes;

○ Missing or vague criteria for identification and measurement of soil frost susceptibility;

○ Missing or vague guidance for determining soil moisture, sub-surface drainage conditions, and water table depth in relation to determining if the site is “well drained” and suitable for an FFF installation; and

○ Missing guidance to direct appropriate site specific adjustments of important installation details (e.g., depth of non-frost-susceptible soil or fill layers and lay-out of sub-surface drainage when required).

• A number of the FFF installation designs reviewed showed a pattern of confused roles and responsibilities, often assigning design decisions and site engineering evaluations to local regulatory officials who are typically neither qualified nor trained in foundation engineering or soil mechanics and engineering. Furthermore, they are not charged with such responsibilities because it may pose a conflict of interest (i.e., enforcers making design and construction decisions or judgments on matters they will be enforcing) and a potential conflict with state engineering practice laws (i.e., conducting engineering or design activities for which they are not licensed). Consequently, this practice can lead to an incorrect selection of the proper foundation and drainage system for the site.

Consequently, most of the reviewed alternative foundation designs including FFF designs were found to be not in conformance with the HUD Code and the ASCE 32 reference standard for frost-protection of shallow foundations. In addition, one state's installation rules were reviewed and provisions related to FFF design and installations were found to be similarly non-compliant. Thus, a need exists to clarify requirements and provide guidance for proper and compliant applications of FFF designs as an alternative to a conventional (frost depth) footing or a conventional FPSF design using insulation to protect against ground freezing in accordance with acceptable engineering practice or the ASCE 32 standard.

In view of the above, each organization involved in the process of foundation design, approval, and installation has responsibilities that need to be met. Key areas and responsibilities for each organization or entity are as follows:

• Manufacturers need to ensure their foundation designs fully comply with 24 CFR 3285, Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards (HUD Code) by use of acceptable engineering practice or applicable provisions of the SEI/ASCE 32-01 Standard, Design and Construction of Frost-Protected Shallow Foundations (ASCE 32). In general, the basis and design principles for acceptable engineering practice should be consistent with the provisions of the ASCE 32 Standard. However, this interpretative bulletin is not intended to preclude the use of other alternatives such as engineered foundation designs provided they result in comparable protection against frost heave that would be provided by the ASCE 32 Standard.

• Manufacturers should review and, as appropriate, delete or revise any installation instructions that rely exclusively on surface drainage to prevent the effects of frost heave, as such installations do not comply with acceptable engineering practices or ASCE 32.

• Manufacturers should inform installers in their installation instructions and on all approved foundation plans that prior to beginning the installation, a site-specific soil test or other evidence is required to determine soil frost susceptibility, the water table level, and sub-surface drainage conditions.

• Retailers should verify that the installations are performed only by licensed installers.

• Design professionals and Design Approval Primary Inspection Agencies (DAPIAs) need to ensure that foundation designs comply with all aspects of the HUD Code as provided in 24 CFR 3285.312. Designs that rely on surface drainage exclusively or do not specify the means of assessing frost susceptibility of soils and their sub-surface drainage characteristics should be disapproved or revised to meet the provisions of this Interpretative Bulletin. Frost protected foundation designs that were approved prior to the effective date of October 28, 2008, of HUD's Installation Program, should be reviewed and re-approved for compliance with 24 CFR 3285. Additionally, design and installation responsibilities may not be delegated to local regulatory authorities.

• Installers should consider all sites in freezing temperature areas as frost susceptible unless a soil test or other evidence is provided to prove the site is non-frost susceptible.

• To ensure compliance with acceptable engineering practices or ASCE 32, installers should never install a new home on a site that has conditions not covered in the manufacturer's installation instructions or the DAPIA approved engineered foundation plan, and should bring the specific site conditions to the professional engineer or registered architect of record for assessment or obtain the services of another professional engineer or registered architect to assess the site conditions and adequacy of the foundation design for the site. Once the plan is updated to address site conditions and sealed, it should be sent to the manufacturer and its DAPIA for approval. The plan should then be submitted to the LAHJ, as applicable. Installers should not use any design that assigns responsibility to them for assessing frost susceptibility and sub-surface drainage conditions without proper soil analysis.

• Regulatory officials and inspectors should reject installation plans that require them to take on any aspect of design responsibility. If a site is claimed to have soil that is non-frost susceptible and that is well-drained, soil tests or other evidence must be provided to the regulatory official and/or inspector.

• Manufacturer's installation instructions including DAPIA approved engineered foundation plans should be available on-site during inspections. If these plans are not available, the home cannot pass inspection.

• In areas where no set local frost depth is determined, the depths corresponding with the Air Freezing Index (Figure 1) may be used.

• Installation rules in both states and local municipalities should be compared to the ASCE 32 standard and the HUD Code to ensure conformity.

In view of the above described concerns, this Interpretative Bulletin was developed for the purpose of clarifying requirements and providing practical guidance for the manufactured housing industry when designing or setting foundations for a manufactured home in locations subject to freezing temperatures with seasonal ground freezing. This guidance is intended for first-time installations, not replacement installs when current foundations exist on site.

In summary, in order to resolve the identified problems and previously discussed concerns in this Preamble associated with certain foundation designs and installation practices in temperature areas subject to freezing, all responsible parties in the process should follow the guidance in this Interpretative Bulletin. These concerns and issues involve designers, DAPIAs, manufacturers, installers, and regulatory authorities. The most important factor in reducing problems are properly designed installation instructions giving appropriate direction and details for installers to implement and regulatory officials to verify and inspect. Because this over-arching concern is applicable to all methods of installation related to foundation frost-protection, specific recommendations and guidance for various design and installation options are provided in the Interpretative Bulletin.

Request for Comments: HUD is soliciting comments from the public on the following:

1. How should the term frost free foundation be defined for use and context with this Interpretative Bulletin?

2. Are there any other alternative engineered foundation designs, including floating engineered slab designs and pile foundation systems, etc. that should be included for use with this Interpretative Bulletin? If so, under what conditions and criteria should these systems be permitted?

3. Please provide information on other strategies, that are currently not included in this proposed Interpretative Bulletin, that have been successfully used or employed to resist the effects of frost heave.

This Interpretative Bulletin is being issued to provide guidance for all parties associated with designing and installing manufactured home foundation systems in areas subject to freezing temperatures in accordance with 24 CFR 3285.312(b) of HUD's Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards.

Frost Free Foundation (FFF) [Reserved].

Frost Protected Shallow Foundation (FPSF) means a foundation protected from frost heave by insulating the foundation in accordance with acceptable engineering practice or with the provisions in SEI/ASCE 32-01, Design and Construction of Frost Protected Foundations (ASCE 32) to retard frost penetration below the foundation in order to allow shallower footing depths to be used. Use of well drained non-frost susceptible soils is also included as FPSFs for certain applications (i.e., monolithic slab systems, alternative foundations).

The following recommendations, practices and procedures should be followed by all parties involved in manufactured home installations in order to ensure that foundations installed in freezing temperature areas are not subject to frost heave and comply with the provisions of HUD's Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards.

Manufacturers should require that design professionals who submit plans to them for approval, as required by 24 CFR 3285.2(c)(1)(ii), develop foundation frost-protection installation methods that comply with applicable provisions of the HUD's Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards, 24 CFR 3285.312(b)(2) or (3). To ensure consistent and effective conformance, options with detailed guidance for complying designs are provided below and should be followed. These directions should also be incorporated into their Manufacturer's Installation Instruction manual as required by 24 CFR 3285.2(c)(2).

• Current Frost Free Foundation (FFF) installation instructions that rely exclusively on surface drainage as a means of foundation frost-protection should either be removed from the manufacturer's installation instructions or immediately revised.

• Manufacturer's installation instructions for monolithic slab and alternative foundation designs including FFF designs should indicate that, prior to commencement of installation, the steps to be taken to verify through soil tests or existing site soil records that the site soil is non-frost-susceptible and that a ground water assessment should be done to verify that the soil is “well-drained” with a water table depth consistently and sufficiently below the frost line.

• To facilitate installations in locations subject to freezing, manufacturer instructions should have at least one example of an acceptable foundation system for frost susceptible and non-frost susceptible soil conditions for use in freezing temperature areas. These designs are to have a design professional's seal, and if not previously part of the manufacturer's installation instructions, be approved by the manufacturer and its Design Approval Primary Inspection Agency (DAPIA).

Foundation frost-protection methods used for installation designs need to comply with HUD's Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards by use of acceptable engineering practice or the ASCE 32 standard. To ensure consistent and effective conformance, alternatives with detailed guidance for development of complying designs by manufacturers and for DAPIA review and approval are provided in the next section of this Interpretative Bulletin, “Design Options, Compliance Checklists, and Installation Practices”.

• Alternative foundation designs including FFF designs that rely exclusively on surface drainage as a means of foundation frost-protection should be removed from manufacturer's installation instructions and its DAPIA approval withdrawn or be immediately revised.

• Alternative foundation designs that do not specify appropriate means of assessing the frost-susceptibility of soils and their sub-surface drainage characteristics on a site-specific basis should either be removed from use and the manufacturer's installation instructions and DAPIA approval withdrawn or immediately revised.

• Alternative foundation designs including FFF designs that assign design responsibilities to local regulatory authorities, such as assessing site drainage, water table depth, or soil frost-susceptibility should be removed from use and the manufacturer's installation instructions and DAPIA approval withdrawn or immediately revised.

When installing a new home on a site that has conditions not covered in the manufacturer's installation manual or in a DAPIA approved alternative engineered foundation plan, the special site conditions should be brought to the attention of the engineer or architect of record. If there is no engineer or architect of record, a licensed engineer or licensed architect should be retained to evaluate the conditions and then design a plan to install the home. Once this plan is finalized and sealed, it must be sent to the manufacturer and its DAPIA for approval per 24 CFR 3285.2(c)(1)(ii). The plan should also be submitted to the LAHJ for approval if applicable.

• Installers should never install manufactured homes using alternative foundations or FFF installation designs that rely exclusively on surface drainage as a means of frost protection.

• Installers should never initiate an FFF installation where the instructions require them to take on design responsibility of assessing soil frost-susceptibility and sub-surface drainage conditions without proper soil testing and analysis. Instead, installers should verify that appropriate soil testing and site assessment for use of any given foundation design has been completed prior to initiating an installation.

• Prior to installation of an alternative foundation including an engineered system that is not included in the manufacturer's installation instructions, installers need to verify that the installation plan is stamped by an engineer or architect of record as well as approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA.

• Installers should only use foundation plans that have been approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA on or after January 1, 2009, the effective date of HUD's installation program.

Regulatory officials and inspectors should verify compliance with manufacturer DAPIA approved installation designs including provisions for subsurface drainage, water table depth, requirements for non-frost-susceptibility of soils, etc., when required by the design for a given site.

• Where a site is claimed to have non-frost-susceptible and “well-drained” soils as a basis for setting foundation pads or footings above the design frost depth, evidence should be required including soils tests or pre-existing site-specific soil records and site sub-surface drainage and groundwater investigation by a qualified soils laboratory or soils engineering professional or geologist. Single site soil samples may be taken by the installer or by qualified soil engineering professionals with the soil tests done by a qualified soils engineering laboratory or soils engineering professional. The standard for non-frost susceptible soil is that no more than 6% by mass can pass through a #200 sieve in accordance with ASTM D422-63(2007)e2, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM D422).

• Regulatory officials should assure that any DAPIA approved alternate foundation plans and the manufacturer installation instructions are on site and available during inspections. If approved installation plans are not available on site during inspections, the home cannot pass inspection.

In areas where the local frost depth is unavailable, or not documented, local regulatory officials should consider permitting design frost depths to be determined in accordance with Table 1. Design Frost Depth for Footings and Figure 1. U.S. Air Freezing Map Index.

• Obtain the local-design frost depth for footings from either of the following:

○ The local authority having jurisdiction (LAHJ),

○ Use Table 1 with the site's Air-Freezing Index (AFI) from Figure 1,1 or

○ Consult with a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered geologist.

• When using Table 1 and Figure 1 to determine frost depth for footings, the depth of interior pier footings complying with footnote (b) of Table 1 may be taken as one-half the depth required in Table 1.

• Based on the required frost depth for footings, dig the footing to the frost depth.

• Check the soil bearing at depth of the footing with a torque probe, pocket penetrometer or other suitable testing device.

• Based on the tested soil bearing value, properly size the footing according to the manufacturer's installation instructions or use the Table in 24 CFR 3285.202 in the HUD Code.

• Place footing pads and construct piers or supports at locations specified in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions.

• Backfill as needed and grade the site as required for drainage in accordance with 24 CFR 3285.203:

○ Crown the finish grade at the centerline of the foundation

○ Slope grade a minimum of 1/2-inch per foot for a minimum distance of 10 feet away from the home perimeter.

Pre-Installation Preparations:

• Before initiating installation, verify that the installation instructions are designed (sealed) by a registered professional engineer or registered architect, and approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA.

• When applicable, verify that the LAHJ has accepted and approved the foundation and installation plan and all applicable permits are obtained. For designs that rely on well-drained sites and use of existing soils to frost depth that are non-frost susceptible, verify the following before initiating installation:

○ The non-frost-susceptible condition of existing soils above the frost depth and below the base of the slab at each site has been verified by site soil records or tested by a soils engineer or geologist or tested in accordance with ASTM D422 and determined to have a fines mass content of less than 6% by mass passing a #200 sieve for the specific installation site or the development as a whole. A soils report should be provided by the engineer or soil lab of record for verification.

○ Alternatively, conduct such testing as follows:

➢ Obtain a minimum of two soil samples per installation site (one at each end of the foundation area) and from any borrow materials on site used as fill. A materials report from a quarry may be used when material is supplied from a licensed quarry.

➢ When conducting borings for soil samples, take a minimum of one pint (plastic bag full) of soil from depths of one foot and at the determined frost depth or at the frost depth as determined from Table 1, Design Frost Depth for Footings. Continue each boring to two feet below the determined frost depth (as measured from the proposed finish grade) to determine if the water table is present.

➢ Deliver or send the soil samples to a soils laboratory for particle size testing per ASTM D422.

➢ If the soils laboratory report indicates greater than 6% fines by mass passing a #200 sieve, then the soil at the site is frost susceptible and either footing to frost depth or one of the alternative foundation options (see https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=10-07-16-Frost-free-Found.pdf) for frost susceptible soil conditions should be used.

○ The water table condition of the site has been assessed by the engineer or architect of record and documentation provided of the water table being at least two feet below the determined frost depth. Alternatively, make this determination using soil borings as described above.

○ If the water table is higher than two feet below the determined frost depth, a network of drainage pipes sloped to drain to daylight or an engineered drainage system must be placed at the base of non-frost-susceptible fill (e.g., clean gravel or crush rock) placed to a depth equal to the local frost depth.

○ Alternatively, a site specific foundation design can be prepared and sealed by a professional engineer or registered architect or geologist and approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA. Such foundation designs are to comply with the provisions of the ASCE 32 Standard or with accepted engineering practice that will result in comparable performance to the frost protection afforded by the ASCE 32 Standard.

○ Save documentation of all of the above and provide to the LAHJ for verification as required.

• For designs that rely on well-drained sites and use of fill materials to frost depth that are non-frost susceptible, verify the following before initiating installation:

○ The slab base and foundation fill materials are specified by the engineer or architect of record as non-frost susceptible such as clean gravel or crushed rock or other suitable material with no more than 6% fines by mass passing a #200 sieve per ASTM D422 test method. Non-frost susceptible subgrade materials are to be filled from the frost depth to the slab base for the entire extent of the slab plus any over dig.

○ The water table condition of the site has been assessed by the engineer or architect of record and documentation provided of the water table being at least two feet below the determined frost depth. Alternatively, this determination can be made using soil borings as described above.

➢ If the water table is higher than two feet below the determined frost depth, a network of drainage pipe sloped to drain to daylight or an engineered drainage system should be placed at the base of non-frost-susceptible fill (e.g., clean gravel or crush rock) placed to a depth equal to the determined frost depth.

○ Save documentation of all of the above and provide to the LAHJ for verification as required.

Installation Phase:

• Excavate slab area to frost depth or only to the bottom of the slab's non-frost-susceptible base layer if existing soils have been determined to be non-frost susceptible down to frost depth during the pre-installation preparation phase (see above).

• Place foundation drains sloped to drain to daylight or an engineered drainage system at the bottom of the non-frost-susceptible base or fill material layer.

• Place the non-frost-susceptible fill and base materials, compacting as required by the manufacturer's installation instructions and/or the engineer or architect of record. Do not initiate fill placement where compaction requirements and methods are not specified. Obtain compaction requirements, as needed, from the engineer or architect of record. The minimum requirement is 90% compaction per 24 CFR 3285.201 although the engineer or architect of record or LAHJ may require a higher compaction level based on the fill material used.

• Construct the reinforced monolithic slab in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions or according to the manufacturer and DAPIA approved installation instructions and plans.

• Backfill as needed and grade the site as required for drainage:

○ Slope grade a minimum of 1/2-inch per foot for a minimum distance of 10 feet away from the home perimeter.

Pre-Installation Preparations:

• Before initiating installation, verify that the installation instructions are designed (sealed) and certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect, approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA.

• Also, verify that the instructions include an approved installation design complying with one of the following bases for the proposed installation design, as permitted in the HUD Code:

○ Complies with acceptable engineering practice or the ASCE 32 standard by use of properly-specified insulation materials and sized in accordance with the local temperature area and located around the perimeter of the foundation with insulated skirting and closeable vents or the entire foundation pad is insulated where there is no skirting or the skirting is not insulated or the skirting has non-closing vents. Non-frost-susceptible base materials are used at a minimum thickness required by acceptable engineering practice or SEI/ASCE 32, and insulation materials are protected against damage in accordance with acceptable engineering practice or ASCE 32.

○ Complies with acceptable engineering practice to prevent the effects of frost heave in accordance with acceptable engineering practice or in a manner equivalent to the insulation provisions in the ASCE 32 standard.

• Obtain foundation insulation materials as specified in the installation instruction and verify the correct type is received. Commonly accepted insulation materials include Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) and Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) of various “types” in accordance with ASTM C578 and ASCE 32 standards.

• Insulation material conformance with the specified type should be verified by product labels or a certification from the insulation manufacturer. Materials commonly stocked in supply stores may not be the correct “type” even though it may be the correct “kind” (e.g., XPS or EPS).

Installation Phase:

• Excavate the foundation area to the correct shallow foundation depth as indicated in the manufacturer's installation instructions or by the engineer or architect of record (generally the foundation depth need not exceed 12″ to 16″ below finish grade).

• Place specified non-frost-susceptible base material and provide drainage pipes around the perimeter, at a minimum of 4 inches (within the base material layer) as required by the installation instructions. Pipes need to be run to day-light or have a mechanical means of draining the water. Sequence the foundation slab or pad construction and insulation placement in accordance with the design approach indicated on the manufacturer's installation instructions. Where sub-slab insulation is required, this will need to be placed before slab construction. Perimeter insulation may be placed after slab construction.

• After construction of the slab and supports and placement of the home, construct the insulated skirting with closeable vents as required by the manufacturer's installation instructions. Where the foundation slab is entirely insulated with horizontal below ground insulation (the design does not rely on perimeter insulation only), no skirting is required.

• Place wing insulation (extending outward horizontally underground from the perimeter of the foundation) as required by the installation instructions. Depending on the design approach and temperature severity, wing insulation may or may not be required.

• Provide protection of any exposed exterior insulation or within 10 inches of the finish grade surface.

• Backfill as needed and grade the site as required for drainage:

○ Slope grade a minimum of 1/2-inch per foot for a minimum distance of 10 feet away from the home perimeter.

Pre-Installation Preparations:

• Before initiating installation, verify that the installation instructions are designed (sealed) by a professional engineer or registered architect, and approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA. The LAHJ can require that the plans also be reviewed and sealed by an engineer or architect in the state where the installation is to occur.

• When applicable, verify that the LAHJ has accepted and approved the alternative foundation and installation plan and all applicable permits are obtained. The installation design needs to comply with one of the following conformance options for the proposed installation design as permitted in HUD's Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards:

○ Complies with acceptable engineering practice or the ASCE 32 standard by use of non-frost-susceptible site soils or fills (adequately tested and verified as defined in ASCE 32) and that such soils or fills extend to the determined frost depth with provision for adequate surface and subgrade drainage especially where underlying soils are poorly drained and/or the water table is within two feet of the design frost depth.

• For designs that rely on well-drained soils and sites and use of existing soils to frost depth that are non-frost susceptible, verify the following before initiating installation:

○ The non-frost-susceptible characteristic of existing soils above the determined frost depth at each site has been tested by a soils engineer or geologist or tested in accordance with ASTM D422 and determined to have a fines mass content of less than 6% passing a #200 sieve for the specific installation site or the development as a whole. A soils report should be provided by the engineer or soil lab of record for verification.

○ Alternatively, conduct such testing as follows:

➢ Obtain a minimum of two soil samples per installation site (one at each end of the foundation area) and from any borrow materials on site used as fill. A materials report from a quarry may be used when material is supplied from a licensed quarry.

➢ When conducting borings for soil samples, take a minimum of one pint (plastic bag full) of soil from depths of one foot and at the determined prescribed frost depth or as determined from Table 1, Design Frost Depth for Footings. Continue each boring to two feet below the determined prescribed frost depth (as measured from the proposed finish grade) to determine if the water table is present.

➢ Deliver or send the soil samples to a soils laboratory for particle size testing per ASTM D442.

➢ If the soils laboratory report indicates greater than 6% fines by mass passing a #200 sieve, then the soil at the site is frost susceptible and either a footing to frost depth or a manufacturer and DAPIA approved alternative foundation for frost susceptible soil conditions must be used.

○ The water table condition of the site has been assessed by the engineer or architect of record and documentation provided of the water table being at least two feet below the determined frost depth. Alternatively, make this determination using soil borings as described above.

○ If the water table is higher than two feet below the determined frost depth, a network of drainage pipes sloped to drain to daylight or an engineered drainage system should be placed at the base of non-frost-susceptible fill (e.g., clean gravel or crush rock) placed to a depth equal to the determined frost depth.

○ Alternatively, a site specific foundation design can be prepared and sealed by a professional engineer or registered architect or geologist and approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA. Such Foundation designs are to comply with the provisions of the ASCE 32 Standard or with accepted engineering practice that will result in comparable performance to the frost protection afforded by the ASCE 32 Standard.

○ Save documentation of all of the above and provide to the LAHJ for verification as required.

• For designs that rely on well-drained sites and use of fill materials to frost depth that are non-frost susceptible, verify the following before initiating installation:

○ The slab base and foundation fill materials are specified by the engineer or architect of record as non-frost susceptible such as clean gravel or crushed rock or other suitable material with no more than 6% fines by mass passing a #200 sieve per ASTM D442 test method. Non-frost susceptible subgrade materials are to be filled from the frost depth to the slab base for the entire extent of the slab plus any over dig.

○ The water table condition of the site has been assessed by the engineer or architect of record and documentation provided of the water table being at least two feet below the determined frost depth. Alternatively, this determination can be made using soil borings as described above.

If the water table is higher than two feet below the determined frost depth, a network of drainage pipe sloped to drain to daylight or an engineered drainage system should be placed at the base of non-frost-susceptible fill (e.g., clean gravel or crush rock) placed to a depth equal to the local frost depth.

○ Save documentation of all of the above and provide to the LAHJ for verification as required.

Installation Phase:

• Excavate area under foundation or slab to frost depth or only to the bottom of the non-frost-susceptible base layer if existing soils have been determined to be non-frost susceptible down to frost depth during the pre-installation preparation phase (see above).

• Place foundation drains sloped to drain to daylight or an engineered drainage system at the bottom of the non-frost-susceptible base or fill material layer.

• Place the non-frost-susceptible fill and base materials, compacting as required by the manufacturer's installation instructions and/or the engineer or architect of record. Do not initiate fill placement where compaction requirements and methods are not specified. Obtain compaction requirements, as needed, from the engineer or architect of record. The minimum requirement is 90% compaction per 24 CFR 3285.201 although the engineer or architect of record or LAHJ may require a higher compaction level based on the fill material used.

• Construct the alternative foundation system in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions or according to the manufacturer and DAPIA approved installation instructions and plans.

• Backfill as needed and grade the site as required for drainage:

○ Slope grade a minimum of 1/2-inch per foot for a minimum distance of 10 feet away from the home perimeter.

This Interpretative Bulletin is issued pursuant to 24 CFR 3285.2 and 3285.312(b) of HUD's Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards.

On February 22, 2017, the Cleveland Dragon Boat Association notified the Coast Guard that it will be holding the Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. on August 12, 2017. The dragon boat races are to take place in Lake Erie, off of Wendy Park located on Whiskey Island, Cleveland, OH. The course will consist of 3 racing lanes of 400 meters in length that run parallel to the shoreline. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a boating race event on a navigable waterway will pose a significant risk to participants and the boating public.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the race course during heats of the scheduled event. Vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the safety zone between heats. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. on August 12, 2017, that would be effective and enforced intermittently. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of Lake Erie, off of Whiskey Island, Cleveland, OH inside an area starting on shore at position 41°29′57″ N., 081°43′00″ W., extending in a straight line to the break wall at position 41°30′12″ N., 081°43′14″ W., then along the break wall to position 41°30′23″ N., 081°42′56″ W., and back to the shore at position 41°30′05″ N., 081°42′39″ W. (NAD 83). The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the scheduled 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. racing event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Order's, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

We conclude that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting 7 hours that would prohibit entry within the zone during heats. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

On March 8, 2017, Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River received an application for a marine event from the Kentucky Drag Boat Association for the Evansville, IL Drag Boat Races. The event is scheduled to take place over two days, September 16 and 17, 2017, on the Kaskaskia River near Evansville, IL. High speed boat practices and races will take place during the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on September 16 and 17, 2017.

Hazards from this race include impediment of the navigational channel and high speed vessels participating in the race. The Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the race would be a safety concern for anyone transiting through the race course.

The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters between mile markers 9 and 11 before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this proposed rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8 a.m. on September 16, 2017 through 6 p.m. on September 17, 2017. The zone would be enforced from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. each day. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters between mile markers 9 and 11 on the Kaskaskia River in Evansville, IL. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and participants on the navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled high speed boat practices and races. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This proposed rule would have a minimal impact on navigable waterway vessel traffic because it would be in enforced for ten daylight hours on two consecutive days and would restrict transit in and through a section of the Kaskaskia River extending two miles. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the proposed rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone. The racing events on September 16 and 17, 2017 will take place in heats, allowing time for vessels affected by the closure to transit the area between heats when deemed safe by on-scene representatives of the COTP.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A. above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule would have implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of the rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting for ten hours on two days, during daylight hours and restricts transit in and through a section of the Kaskaskia River extending two miles. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this proposed rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this proposed rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses the following local rules MDAQMD Rule 1118, NSAQMD Rule 513, and SDCAPCD Rule 2. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive an adverse comment on a particular rule, we may adopt as final the rules that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.