Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33125 

10For example, the New York State Judiciary 

reported that before New York mandated settlement 

conferences in residential foreclosure cases, up to 

ninety percent of borrowers sued failed to appear 

and received default judgments. See State of New 

York Unified Court System, 2010 Report of the 

Chief Administrator of the Courts, at 8, 11 (2010), 

available at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ 

publications/pdfs/foreclosurereportnov2010.pdf. 

The court stated: ‘‘The lack of representation in 

foreclosure cases continues to be one of the greatest 

challenges we face in fulfilling our statutory 

mandate.’’ Id. at 12. Similarly, in one of the most 

mature foreclosure diversion programs in the 

country, in Philadelphia, 4.5 percent of the 

homeowners who participated had legal 

representation. See The Reinvestment Fund, 

Philadelphia Residential Mortgage Foreclosure 

Diversion Program: Initial Report of Findings, at 10 

(June 2011), available at: http://www.trfund.com/ 

resource/downloads/policypubs/ 

Foreclosure_Diversion_Initial_Report.pdf. In 

addition, a 2010 survey of foreclosure mediation 

programs across the United States by the 

Department of Justice and the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development reported that 

‘‘legal resources for homeowners in mediation 

programs generally are quite limited.’’ Department 

of Justice & Department of Housing & Urban 

Development, Emerging Strategies for Effective 

Foreclosure Mediation Programs, at 6 (2010), 

available at: http://www.justice.gov/atj/effectivemediation-prog-strategies.pdf. 

complaints filed would be the 

percentage of borrowers in foreclosure 

who are represented by a lawyer as well 

as the number of other types of TILA 

violation cases. The Bureau notes that 

survey and other data indicate that a 

majority of borrowers in default would 

not have legal representation.10

1. The Bureau seeks comment or data 

on whether and if so, how the number 

of lawsuits alleging an ability-to-repay 

violation would vary under the 

following circumstances: 

(a) The mortgage loan is conceded not 

to be a ‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ 

(b) The mortgage loan is claimed to be 

a ‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ 

Potential Outcomes From Litigation and 

Damages 

As noted above, sections 1413 and 

1416 of the Dodd-Frank Act provide 

special statutory remedies for violations 

of TILA section 129C(a), which can 

include an award of damages in the 

amount equal to the sum of all finance 

charges and fees paid by the consumer 

within the three-year statute of 

limitations and in the case of a defense 

to foreclosure, recoupment or set off. 

1. The Bureau seeks comment on the 

likelihood of potential outcomes of 

litigation, such as dismissal, summary 

judgment, settlement, or judgment after 

trial, and the effect on costs under 

various scenarios including: 

(a) The mortgage loan is conceded not 

to be a ‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ 

(b) The mortgage loan is claimed to be 

a ‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ 

2. The Bureau seeks comment and 

data on assumptions about a loan, such 

as interest rate, purchase price, finance 

charges, and fees, required to calculate 

average amount of damages awarded in 

a TILA case involving a violation of the 

ability-to-repay requirements based on 

the scenarios listed above in paragraph 

1. 

3. The Bureau seeks comment on the 

impact of other aspects of damages, 

such as a consumer’s attorney’s fees, 

and lender’s litigation costs. 

Other Factors or Costs 

1. The Bureau seeks comment on 

whether any additional factors should 

be considered in assessing the litigationrelated costs associated with the abilityto-repay requirements. 

2. The Bureau seeks comment and 

data on any other potential costs of 

ability-to-repay litigation, including: 

(a) Costs associated with risks that 

loans are ‘‘put back’’ to originators by 

secondary market participants due to a 

potential ability-to-repay claim or 

proven violation. Factors that may 

determine the total cost of put backs 

may include: (i) Number and type of 

representation and warranty provisions 

in purchase and sale agreements going 

forward; (ii) number of loans that could 

potentially be put back; (iii) frequency 

of put backs being realized; and (iv) cost 

to lender net of any recovery through 

foreclosure or sale. 

(b) Costs associated with extended 

foreclosure timelines due to ability-torepay litigation. 

Dated: May 31, 2012. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13608 Filed 6–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0588; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–017–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400 

series airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by reports of chafing between 

the wire harness along the wing leading 

edge and the inboard end rib of the wing 

leading edge due to insufficient 

clearance. This proposed AD would 

require inspecting the wire harness 

along the leading edge for chafing 

damage, and repair if necessary; and 

relocating and installing new anchor 

nuts. We are proposing this AD to detect 

and correct chafing damage to the wire 

harness along the wing leading edge 

which, if not corrected, could lead to 

the loss of the airframe de-icing system, 

and could become a possible ignition 

source causing fire. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by July 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, 

Inc., Q–Series Technical Help Desk, 123 

Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario 

M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375– 

4000; fax 416–375–4539; email 

thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; 

Internet http://www.bombardier.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 Operations office 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 Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33126 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Avionics and Flight Test Branch, ANE– 

172, FAA, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 

11590; telephone (516) 228–7301; fax 

(516) 794–5531. 

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–2012–0588; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NM–017–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. 

Discussion 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, has issued Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2012–05, 

dated January 13, 2012 (referred to after 

this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

There have been several in-service reports 

of chafing between the wire harness along the 

wing leading edge and the wing leading edge 

inboard end rib. The chafing condition was 

found to be caused by insufficient clearance 

between the wire harness and the structure. 

Chafing and damage to this wire harness 

could lead to the loss of the airframe de-icing 

system and could be a possible ignition 

source causing fire and the subsequent loss 

of the aeroplane. 

This [TCCA] Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

mandates [a detailed] inspection of the wire 

harness along the leading edge [for chafing 

damage, and repair if necessary] and the 

relocation [and installation of new] anchor 

nut[s]. 

You may obtain further information 

by examining the MCAI in the AD 

docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service 

Bulletin 84–57–24, dated September 30, 

2011. The actions described in this 

service information are intended to 

correct the unsafe condition identified 

in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

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. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 83 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 9 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. Required 

parts would cost about $0 per product. 

Where the service information lists 

required parts costs that are covered 

under warranty, we have assumed that 

there will be no charge for these parts. 

As we do not control warranty coverage 

for affected parties, some parties may 

incur costs higher than estimated here. 

Based on these figures, we estimate the 

cost of the proposed AD on U.S. 

operators to be $63,495, or $765 per 

product. 

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. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

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 AD: 

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2012– 

0588; Directorate Identifier 2012–NM– 

017–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by July 20, 

2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model 

DHC–8–400, –401, and –402 airplanes; 

certificated in any category; serial numbers 

4001 through 4382 inclusive. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57: Wings. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

chafing between the wire harness along the 

wing leading edge and the inboard end rib of 

the wing leading edge due to insufficient 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33127 

clearance. We are issuing this AD to detect 

and correct chafing damage to the wire 

harness along the wing leading edge which, 

if not corrected, could lead to the loss of the 

airframe de-icing system, and could become 

a possible ignition source causing fire. 

(f) Compliance 

You are responsible for having the actions 

required by this AD performed within the 

compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

(g) Inspection and Repair 

Within 3,000 flight hours or 18 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first: Perform a detailed inspection for 

chafing damage of the wire harness at the 

leading edge, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 84–57–24, dated September 

30, 2011. If any chafing damage is found: 

Before further flight, repair in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–57–24, dated 

September 30, 2011. 

(h) Install New Anchor Nut 

Within 3,000 flight hours or 18 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first: Relocate and install new anchor 

nuts on the leading edge, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–57–24, dated 

September 30, 2011. 

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), ANE–170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: 

Program Manager, Continuing Operational 

Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 

11590; telephone 516–228–7300; fax 516– 

794–5531. 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. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness 

Directive CF–2012–05, dated January 13, 

2012; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84– 

57–24, dated September 30, 2011; for related 

information. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q–Series 

Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, 

Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; 

telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; 

email thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; 

Internet http://www.bombardier.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 May 24, 

2012. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13555 Filed 6–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0598; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–CE–017–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; HPH s. r.o. 

Sailplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all HPH 

s. r.o. Models 304C, 304CZ, and 304CZ– 

17 sailplanes. This proposed AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as the lack of a drain hole in 

the elevator control rod, which may 

allow water to accumulate in the control 

rod and lead to possible corrosion. This 

condition could cause the elevator 

control rod to fail, which could result in 

loss of control of the sailplane. We are 

issuing this proposed AD to require 

actions to address the unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by July 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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 HPH spol. s 

r.o., Cˇ a ́slavska ́ 126, P.O. Box 112, 284 01 

Kutna ́ Hora, Czech Republic, telephone: 

+420 327 512 633; fax: +420 327 513 

441; email: hph@hph.cz; Internet: 

www.hph.cz. You may review copies of 

the referenced service information at the 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call (816) 329– 

4148. 

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 

(telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329– 

4138; fax: (816) 329–4090; email: 

taylor.martin@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–2012–0598; Directorate Identifier 

2012–CE–017–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:// 

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS