This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

40307 

Vol. 77, No. 131 

Monday, July 9, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0620; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–357–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for certain The Boeing Company Model 

747–400, –400D, and –400F series 

airplanes. That NPRM proposed to 

require repetitive operational tests of the 

engine fuel suction feed of the fuel 

system, and other related testing if 

necessary. That NPRM was prompted by 

reports of two in-service occurrences on 

Model 737–400 airplanes of total loss of 

boost pump pressure of the fuel feed 

system, followed by loss of fuel system 

suction feed capability on one engine, 

and in-flight shutdown of the engine. 

This action revises that NPRM by 

proposing to require repetitive 

operational tests and corrective actions 

if necessary. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to detect and 

correct loss of the engine fuel suction 

feed capability of the fuel system, which 

in the event of total loss of the fuel boost 

pumps could result in dual engine 

flameout, inability to restart the engines, 

and consequent forced landing of the 

airplane. Since these actions impose an 

additional burden over that proposed in 

the previous NPRM, we are reopening 

the comment period to allow the public 

the chance to comment on these 

proposed changes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by August 23, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue 

Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion 

Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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–2008–0620; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–357–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 because of 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. 

Discussion 

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to certain The Boeing Company 

Model 747–400, –400D, and –400F 

series airplanes. That NPRM published 

in the Federal Register on June 6, 2008 

(73 FR 32248). That NPRM proposed to 

require performing repetitive 

operational tests of the engine fuel 

suction feed of the fuel system, and 

other related testing if necessary, 

according to a method approved the 

FAA. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 

32248, June 6, 2008) Was Issued 

Since we issued the previous NPRM 

(73 FR 32248, June 6, 2008), we have 

received comments from operators 

indicating a high level of difficulty 

performing the actions in the previous 

NPRM during maintenance operations. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–28A2330, dated April 2, 

2012. This service information describes 

procedures for repetitive operational 

tests of the engine fuel suction feed of 

the fuel system, and corrective actions 

if necessary. The corrective actions 

include isolating the cause of any 

leakage and repairing the leak. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32248, June 6, 2008). The following 

presents the comments received on the 

previous NPRM and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40308 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Requests To Issue Certification 

Maintenance Requirement (CMR) Task 

Instead of NPRM 

Japan Airlines (JAL) and Qantas 

Airways Ltd. (Qantas) requested that we 

withdraw the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32248, June 6, 2008). JAL asked that 

instead of issuing an NPRM, we issue a 

CMR task. JAL stated that the 

requirements in the previous NPRM 

should not be addressed as an AD. JAL 

did not provide a reason for this request. 

We do not agree with the commenters’ 

request. CMRs are developed by the 

Certification Maintenance Coordination 

Committee (CMCC) during the type 

certification process. The CMCC is made 

up of manufacturer representatives 

(typically maintenance, design, and 

safety engineering personnel); operator 

representatives designated by the 

Industry Steering Committee 

chairperson; Aircraft Certification Office 

specialists, and the Maintenance Review 

Board (MRB) chairperson. CMRs 

developed during this process become a 

part of the certification basis of the 

airplane upon issuance of the type 

certificate. We do not have a process for 

convening the CMCC outside of the type 

certification process; based on this, the 

CMR is not an option for replacing this 

AD. Regardless, the airworthiness 

limitations (ALI) were not in the 

maintenance program at the time the 

previous NPRM was issued; therefore, 

an AD is required to accomplish the ALI 

task. 

Qantas stated that maintenance 

review board report (MRBR) Task 28– 

022–04 was added to the Model 747– 

400 MRBR in May 2006, and contains 

failure effect category (FEC) 8, meaning 

that it is a hidden safety derived task. 

Qantas added that this task has been 

adequately addressed in the MRBR and 

related maintenance planning document 

(MPD). Qantas stated that there are over 

200 FEC 5 and 8 safety-related tasks in 

the Model 747–400 MRBR which could 

result in adverse safety outcomes if not 

addressed, and most of these tasks are 

not the subject of ADs. Qantas added 

that issuing the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32248, June 6, 2008) will generate an 

added administrative burden on 

operators, with no benefit derived. 

Qantas concluded that the previous 

NPRM is not necessary, but added that 

if the ACO does not agree, consideration 

should be given to the CMR approach. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request. We have determined that the 

latent failure of the fuel system suction 

feed system identified in this AD is an 

unsafe condition that requires issuance 

of an AD. In reference to FEC 5 and 8 

safety-related tasks in Section 5.4 of 

FAA Advisory Circular 121–22B, 

‘‘Maintenance Review Board Report 

(MRBR) Maintenance Type Board, and 

OEM/TCH Inspection Program 

Procedures,’’ dated October 29, 2010; 

FAA Advisory Circular 121–22B, 

Section 5.4, specifies ‘‘Operators of the 

aircraft type should implement the 

Initial MRBR in accordance with 

established procedures. The MRBR 

requirements are not an operator 

maintenance program. After FAA 

approval, the requirements become a 

baseline or framework, around which 

each operator can develop its own 

individual aircraft maintenance 

program. The FAA recommends the 

operator’s program incorporate MRBR 

revisions associated with type design 

changes * * *’’ This task was not 

included in the initial MRBR for Model 

747–400 airplanes as a safety-related 

task; therefore, incorporating the FEC 8 

task would be an option for operators, 

but not a requirement until the AD is 

published. We have made no change to 

the supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Requests To Revise Compliance Time 

Lufthansa Technik AG (Lufthansa) 

and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) 

asked that we change the compliance 

time for the initial and repetitive 

operational test interval required by 

paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 

FR 32248, June 6, 2008). KLM asked that 

we change the compliance time of 

‘‘30,000 flight hours’’ to ‘‘45,000 flight 

hours or 1 D.’’ KLM stated that if an 

aircraft does not pass the operational 

test then a tank entry is required, which 

has an impact on the currently 

scheduled downtime requirements for 

the C-checks. Lufthansa asked that we 

change the compliance time to ‘‘35,000 

flight hours.’’ Lufthansa stated that it is 

performing the operational test at a 1– 

D interval that corresponds to up to 

33,000 flight hours. 

We do not agree with the requests that 

the compliance time be changed. In 

developing an appropriate compliance 

time for the actions specified in 

paragraph (f) of this supplemental 

NPRM, we considered the safety 

implications and normal maintenance 

schedules for the timely 

accomplishment of the specified 

actions. We have determined that the 

proposed compliance time will ensure 

an acceptable level of safety and allow 

the actions to be done during scheduled 

maintenance intervals for most affected 

operators. However, affected operators 

may request an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) to request an 

extension of the repetitive operational 

test interval under the provisions of 

paragraph (h) of this AD by submitting 

data substantiating that the change 

would provide an acceptable level of 

safety. We have made no change to the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Clarify the Reason for the 

Unsafe Condition 

Boeing and Northwest Airlines 

(NWA) asked that we clarify the reason 

for the unsafe condition identified in 

the previous NPRM (73 FR 32248, June 

6, 2008), by including all relevant 

information. Boeing stated that the 

description of a report of in-service 

occurrences of loss of fuel system 

suction feed capability results from 

reports of two in-service engine 

flameout events while operating on 

suction feed with undetected air leak 

failures on Model 737–400 airplanes. 

Boeing added that there are no known 

reports of any engine flameout related 

events in the Model 747 fleet. Boeing 

noted that undetected air leaks could 

exist and the subject maintenance 

procedure is a proactive measure to 

ensure engine flameout will not occur 

due to air leaks while on suction feed 

operation. 

NWA asked for an explanation of 

what caused the failure that resulted in 

issuance of the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32248, June 6, 2008), and stated that 

failure analysis could indicate different 

action than the one proposed. NWA 

added that the events occurred on twin 

engine airplanes, and requested that we 

provide the basis for the conclusion that 

Model 747–400 airplanes have the same 

or greater risk for this unsafe condition 

to occur as twin engine airplanes. 

We agree that the reason for the 

unsafe condition should be clarified for 

the reasons provided. We have changed 

the language in the reason for the unsafe 

condition identified in the Summary 

section and paragraph (e) of this 

supplemental NPRM to specify that the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32248, June 6, 

2008) ‘‘* * * was prompted by reports 

of two in-service occurrences on Model 

737–400 airplanes of total loss of boost 

pump pressure of the fuel feed system, 

followed by loss of fuel system suction 

feed capability on one engine, and inflight shutdown of the engine.’’ Also, we 

have determined that Model 747–400, 

–400D, and –400F series airplanes are 

affected by the identified unsafe 

condition. The cause of the failure is 

identified in the failure analysis done by 

Boeing, and incorporates a four engine 

airplane in place of a twin engine 

airplane. We have made no change to 

the supplemental NPRM in this regard. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40309 

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance 

Section 

NWA stated that the cost estimate 

specified in the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32248, June 6, 2008) is too low, and 

asked that it be changed. NWA stated 

that the cost of fuel is not included in 

the cost estimate and should be 

included due to the high cost of fuel. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

request. Although fuel is used during 

the operational test, we have not 

received data on the amount of fuel 

used during the test. In addition, fuel 

costs vary among operators. Therefore, 

we do not have definitive data that 

would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the fuel costs. In any case, 

we have determined that direct and 

incidental costs are still outweighed by 

the safety benefits of the AD. We have 

made no change to the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this supplemental 

NPRM because we evaluated all the 

relevant information and determined 

the unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

in other products of the same type 

design. Certain changes described above 

expand the scope of the previous NPRM 

(73 FR 32248, June 6, 2008). 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 supplemental 

NPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of the 

Supplemental NPRM 

This supplemental NPRM revises the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32248, June 6, 

2008) by proposing repetitive 

operational tests of the engine fuel 

suction feed of the fuel system, and 

corrective actions if necessary. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 79 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. We estimate the following costs 

to comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Operational Test ..................................................... 3 work hours × $85 per hour = $255 per engine, 

per test.

$1,020 $80,580, per test. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the on-condition actions 

specified in this AD. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

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. 

Regulatory Findings 

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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2008–0620; Directorate Identifier 2007– 

NM–357–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by August 23, 

2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 747–400, –400D, and –400F series 

airplanes, certificated in any category; as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–28A2330, dated April 2, 2012. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of two 

in-service occurrences on Model 737–400 

airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure 

of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of 

fuel system suction feed capability on one 

engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability 

of the fuel system, which in the event of total 

loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in 

dual engine flameout, inability to restart the 

engines, and consequent forced landing of 

the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Operational Test and Corrective Actions 

Within 30,000 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD: Perform an 

operational test of the engine fuel suction 

feed of the fuel system, and all applicable 

corrective actions, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40310 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Service Bulletin 747–28A2330, dated April 2, 

2012. Do all applicable corrective actions 

before further flight. Repeat the operational 

test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 

30,000 flight hours. Thereafter, except as 

provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no 

alternative procedures or repeat test intervals 

will be allowed. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 27, 

2012. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16668 Filed 7–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Chapter 1 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0658] 

Proposed Policy Clarification for the 

Registration of Aircraft to U.S. Citizen 

Trustees in Situations Involving NonU.S. Citizen Trustors and 

Beneficiaries; Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA). 

ACTION: Proposed Policy; Availability of 

Documents for Inspection and Extension 

of Time in which to Submit Written 

Comments; Correction. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration is correcting a document 

published on June 26, 2012 (77 FR 

38016). That document extended the 

comment period on its proposed policy 

regarding the registration of aircraft to 

U.S. citizen trustees in situations 

involving non-U.S. citizen trustors and 

beneficiaries. This document revises the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

that document. Due to a clerical error, 

language from a prior document was 

inadvertently included; this correction 

is made to provide clarity. Also, this 

document corrects the Authority cite. 

DATES: The FAA is extending the 

comment period to August 17, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LaDeana Peden at 405 954–3296, Office 

of Aeronautical Center Counsel, Federal 

Aviation Administration. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Corrections 

In FR Doc. 2012–15339 published on 

June 26, 2012, on page 38016, in the 

third column and page 38017 in the first 

column, revise the paragraphs in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION to read as 

follows: 

The FAA published a notice in the 

Federal Register on February 9, 2012 

(77 FR 6694), proposing to clarify its 

policy regarding the registration of 

aircraft to U.S. citizen trustees in 

situations involving non-U.S. citizen 

trustors and beneficiaries. The notice 

requested that interested parties submit 

written comments on the proposed 

policy clarification by March 31, 2012. 

In a notice published on March 14, 2012 

(77 FR 15180), the FAA scheduled a 

public meeting on the proposed policy 

clarification for June 6, 2012, in 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and 

extended the deadline for written 

comments until July 6, 2012. 

During the June 6 public meeting, 

among the comments received were 

several suggestions that additional time 

would be needed to prepare 

comprehensive written comments on 

the FAA’s proposed policy clarification. 

The FAA agrees that additional time for 

the submission of comments would be 

helpful, and therefore has decided to 

extend the comment period until 

August 17, 2012. The FAA expects that 

the comments received through the end 

of the extended comment period and 

during the public meeting will enable it 

to determine what steps it should take 

next in addressing the trust registration 

issue, including the development of a 

final policy clarification. 

Comments should be sent by email to 

ladeana.peden@faa.gov. Comments 

received by FAA may be viewed at the 

Office of Chief Counsel’s FAA Web site 

located at http://www.faa.gov/about/ 

office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44102, 

44103. 

Issued in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on 

June 29, 2012. 

Joseph R. Standell, 

Aeronautical Center Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16719 Filed 7–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Part 232 

[Docket No. FR–5537–P–01] 

RIN–2502–AJ04 

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 

Section 232 Healthcare Mortgage 

Insurance Program: Partial Payment of 

Claims 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing 

Commissioner, HUD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

amend the regulations governing FHA’s 

Section 232 Healthcare Mortgage 

Insurance program (Section 232 

program). The Section 232 program 

insures mortgage loans to facilitate the 

construction, substantial rehabilitation, 

purchase, and refinancing of nursing 

homes, intermediate care facilities, 

board and care homes, and assistedliving facilities. The amendments 

proposed by this rule would reduce risk 

to the FHA insurance fund by 

establishing the criteria and process by 

which FHA will accept and pay a partial 

payment of the claim under the FHA 

mortgage insurance contract. Through 

acceptance and payment of a partial 

payment of claim, FHA pays the lender 

a portion of the unpaid principal 

balance and recasts a portion of the 

mortgage under terms and conditions 

determined by FHA, as an alternative to 

the lender assigning the entire mortgage 

to HUD. Partial payment of claim would 

also allow FHA insured healthcare 

projects to continue operating and 

providing services. 

DATES: Comment Due Date: September 

7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS