33120 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 20—CONVECTION-ONLY COOLING DOWN ENERGY USE—Continued 

Product type Test unit 

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 

Cool down 

energy use 

(Wh) 

Cool down 

duration 

(min) 

Cool down 

energy use 

(Wh) 

Cool down 

duration 

(min) 

Cool down 

energy use 

(Wh) 

Cool down 

duration 

(min) 

17 6.7 6.52 6.6 6.28 7.2 6.90 

18 2.5 3.13 2.6 3.25 2.6 3.27 

Note: Test units for which no values are listed indicate that no cooling fan ran after the completion of the combination or convection-only cooking cycles. 

DOE may consider test procedure 

amendments to include the cooling fan 

energy consumption as part of the 

energy efficiency metric for convection 

microwave ovens. If DOE determines 

that such amendments are appropriate, 

it may also consider adjustments to the 

annual standby mode hours to account 

for the additional time that the product 

operates the cooling fan at the end of the 

cooking cycle. The total annual cooling 

fan hours would be calculated by 

multiplying the amount of time that the 

cooling fan operates per cycle by the 

number of total annual convection 

microwave cooking and convection-only 

cooking cycles. These hours would then 

be subtracted from the total number of 

standby mode hours. However, DOE is 

unaware of consumer usage data 

regarding the total annual convection 

microwave and convection-only cooking 

cycles for convection microwave ovens. 

15. DOE welcomes comment on 

whether the cooling fan energy 

consumption should be included in the 

efficiency metric for convection 

microwave ovens. 

G. Additional Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment 

DOE may consider amendments to the 

microwave oven test procedure for both 

microwave-only and convection 

microwave ovens based on the testing 

discussed in the sections above. In 

addition to the specific issues for each 

testing method on which DOE is seeking 

comment, DOE is seeking comment on 

the following: 

16. DOE welcomes general comments 

about the potential testing 

methodologies to measure microwave 

oven active mode energy use presented 

in this notice. DOE also welcomes 

comment on any alternative testing 

methodologies appropriate for inclusion 

in the DOE microwave oven test 

procedure. DOE requests data on the 

repeatability and reproducibility of such 

testing methods. DOE also welcomes 

additional data on the repeatability and 

reproducibility of testing results using 

the test methods presented in this 

notice. 

The purpose of this NODA is to solicit 

feedback from industry, manufacturers, 

academia, consumer groups, efficiency 

advocates, government agencies, and 

other stakeholders on issues related to 

the DOE microwave oven test 

procedure. DOE is specifically 

interested in information and additional 

data on the potential amendments to the 

microwave oven test procedure for 

measuring active mode energy use 

presented in today’s notice. 

Respondents are advised that DOE is 

under no obligation to acknowledge 

receipt of the information received or 

provide feedback to respondents with 

respect to any information submitted 

under this NODA. Responses to this 

NODA do not bind DOE to any further 

actions related to this topic. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 

2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13609 Filed 6–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Part 1026 

[Docket No. CFPB–2012–0022] 

RIN 3170–AA17 

Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice of reopening of comment 

period and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau) is 

reopening the comment period for the 

proposed rule published by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System (Board) in the Federal Register 

on May 11, 2011 (76 FR 27390). On May 

11, 2011, the Board published for notice 

and comment a proposed rule amending 

Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) to 

implement amendments to the Truth in 

Lending Act (TILA) made by the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The 

proposed rule addressed new ability-torepay requirements that generally will 

apply to consumer credit transactions 

secured by a dwelling and the definition 

of a ‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ Among other 

consumer financial protection laws, the 

Dodd-Frank Act transferred the Board’s 

rulemaking authority for TILA to the 

Bureau as of July 21, 2011. The original 

comment period to the proposed rule 

closed on July 22, 2011. The Bureau is 

reopening the comment period until 

July 9, 2012 to seek comment 

specifically on certain new data and 

information submitted during or 

obtained after the close of the original 

comment period. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 9, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CFPB–2012– 

0022 or RIN 3170–AA17, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20552. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier in Lieu of 

Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20552. 

All submissions must include the 

agency name and docket number or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

for this rulemaking. In general, all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In addition, 

comments will be available for public 

inspection and copying at 1700 G Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20552, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You 

can make an appointment to inspect the 

documents by telephoning (202) 435– 

7275. 

All comments, including attachments 

and other supporting materials, will 

become part of the record and subject to 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33121 

1See CFPB Bulletin 11–3, CFPB Policy on Ex 

Parte Presentations in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

August 16, 2011. 

2The Bureau notes that the data received by the 

Bureau are confidential supervisory data and 

subject to a confidentiality agreement between the 

Bureau and the FHFA. Therefore, the Bureau is 

seeking comment on aggregate or otherwise nonconfidential aspects of the dataset. 

3See Mortgage Market Note 11–02 (Apr. 11, 

2011), available at: http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/ 

20686/QRM_FINAL_ALL.pdf 

4 76 FR 24030 (Apr. 29, 2011). 

5See, e.g., Appendix A of 2011 QRM Proposal 

and Appendix A of Mortgage Market Note 11–02. 

6Some of the loans included in these tables are 

non-conventional loans insured by government 

agencies. 

public disclosure. You should not 

include sensitive personal information, 

such as account numbers or social 

security numbers. The Bureau will not 

edit comments to remove any 

identifying or contact information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Mondor or Stephen Shin, Office of 

Regulations, at (202) 435–7700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Sections 1411, 1412, and 1414 of the 

Dodd-Frank Act create new TILA 

section 129C, which, among other 

things, establishes new ability-to-pay 

requirements and provides a 

presumption of compliance with those 

requirements if the mortgage loan is a 

‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ On May 11, 2011, 

the Board published for notice and 

comment a proposed rule amending 

Regulation Z to implement new TILA 

section 129C. 76 FR 27390. The 

comment period closed on July 22, 

2011. 

As of July 21, 2011, the Dodd-Frank 

Act transferred the Board’s rulemaking 

authority for TILA, among other 

consumer financial protection laws, to 

the Bureau. See sections 1061 and 

1100A of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

Accordingly, all comment letters on the 

proposed rule were also transferred to 

the Bureau. In response to the proposed 

rule, approximately 1800 comment 

letters were received from numerous 

commenters, including members of 

Congress, lenders, consumer groups, 

trade associations, mortgage and real 

estate market participants, and 

individual consumers. 

In addition, after the close of the 

original comment period, various 

interested parties, including industry 

and consumer group commenters, 

submitted to the Bureau oral and 

written ex parte presentations on the 

proposed rule.1 Materials pertaining to 

these presentations are filed in the 

record and are publicly available at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Through various comment letters, ex 

parte communications, and the Bureau’s 

own collection of data, the Bureau has 

received additional information and 

new data pertaining to the proposed 

rule. The Bureau is interested in 

providing opportunity for additional 

public comment on these materials. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is issuing this 

notice to reopen the comment period 

until July 9, 2012 in order to request 

comment specifically on certain 

additional information or new data, as 

discussed in detail below. The Bureau is 

not soliciting comment on other aspects 

of the proposed rule. Therefore, the 

Bureau encourages commenters to limit 

their submissions accordingly. 

II. Discussion and Request for Comment 

A. Federal Housing Finance Agency 

Mortgage Loan Data 

The Bureau seeks comment on 

mortgage loan data that the Bureau has 

received from the Federal Housing 

Finance Agency (FHFA).2 To date, the 

Bureau has received a sample drawn 

from the FHFA’s Historical Loan 

Performance (HLP) dataset along with 

tabulations from the entire file. The data 

include a one percent random sample of 

all mortgage loans in the HLP dataset 

from 1997 through 2011; and 

tabulations of the HLP dataset by FHFA 

showing the number of loans and 

performance of those loans by year and 

debt-to-income (DTI) range. 

The HLP dataset consists of all 

mortgage loans purchased or guaranteed 

by the Federal National Mortgage 

Association (Fannie Mae) and the 

Federal Home Loan Mortgage 

Corporation (Freddie Mac) (jointly with 

Fannie Mae, the ‘‘Enterprises’’), but 

does not include loans backing privatelabel mortgage-backed securities (MBS) 

bought by the Enterprises.3 The dataset 

contains loan-level information on 

characteristics and performance of all 

single-family mortgages purchased or 

guaranteed by the Enterprises. FHFA 

updates the HLP dataset quarterly with 

information from each Enterprise. 

Among other elements, the dataset 

includes product type; payment-toincome and debt-to-income (PTI/DTI) 

ratios at origination; initial loan-to-value 

(LTV) ratios based on the purchase price 

or appraised property value and the 

first-lien balance; and credit score(s) for 

the borrower(s). 

The Bureau notes that in the context 

of the multi-agency 2011 Qualified 

Residential Mortgage Proposal (2011 

QRM Proposal) 4 and in the Mortgage 

Market Note 11–02, FHFA has discussed 

or released historical loan performance 

data. In particular, the Bureau notes 

FHFA’s discussion of the HLP dataset 

generally, including the limitations of 

the data, and the FHFA’s release of 

historical data on loan volumes and 

delinquency rates, including any 

tabulations or data based on the HLP 

dataset, as provided in Mortgage Market 

Note 11–02.5

FHFA’s HLP dataset contains certain 

loan-level variables that can be used for 

a variety of data modeling and analysis. 

The Bureau proposes to use these data 

to tabulate volumes and performance of 

loans with varying characteristics and to 

perform other statistical analyses that 

may assist the Bureau in defining loans 

with characteristics that make it 

appropriate to presume that the lender 

complied with the ability-to-pay 

requirements or assist the Bureau in 

assessing the benefits and costs to 

consumers, including access to credit, 

and covered persons of, as well as the 

market share covered by, alternative 

definitions of a ‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ 

For example, the Bureau is examining 

various measures of delinquency and 

their relationship to other variables such 

as a consumer’s total DTI ratio. 

The tables below show the volume of 

loans and the percentage that were ever 

60 days or more delinquent, tabulated 

by the total DTI on the loans and year 

of origination. The Bureau believes that 

loan performance, as measured by 

delinquency rate such as 60 days or 

more delinquent, is an appropriate 

metric to evaluate whether consumers 

had the ability to repay those loans at 

the time made. The Bureau notes that 

these specific tabulations include firstlien mortgages for first or second homes, 

that have fully documented income and 

that are fully amortizing with a maturity 

that does not exceed 30 years. The 

Bureau further notes that the tabulations 

do not include the following types of 

loans: loans for investor-owned 

properties, low- or no-document 

mortgages; interest-only (IO) mortgages; 

negatively-amortizing mortgages such as 

payment option-ARMs; or mortgages 

with a balloon payment feature.6

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33122 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP05JN12.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33123 

7For example, the Bureau has procured 

commercially available loan-level data related to 

mortgages held in private label securities from 

Blackbox Logic LLC. 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–C 

The FHFA data are comprehensive 

and cover the entirety of mortgages 

purchased or guaranteed by the 

Enterprises. The Bureau has also 

acquired commercially available data on 

mortgages securitized into private label 

securities,7 and expects to perform 

similar data modeling and analysis on 

this data. In addition, the Bureau is 

seeking supplemental data on loans 

held in portfolio and non-conventional 

loans insured or guaranteed by other 

federal agencies. These supplemental 

data sources may also be used to inform 

the Bureau’s analysis. 

Certain commenters and interested 

parties requested that the Bureau adopt 

a specific DTI ratio requirement for 

qualified mortgages. For example, some 

suggested that if a borrower’s total DTI 

ratio is below a specified threshold, the 

mortgage loan should satisfy the 

qualified mortgage requirements, 

assuming other relevant conditions are 

met. In addition to a DTI requirement, 

some commenters and interested parties 

suggested that the Bureau should 

include within the definition of a 

‘‘qualified mortgage’’ loans with a DTI 

above a certain threshold if the 

consumer has a certain amount of 

assets, such as money in a savings or 

similar account, or a certain amount of 

residual income. The Bureau notes, 

however, that available data do not 

provide information on certain noncollateral factors, such as liquid 

financial reserves, which would enable 

the Bureau to examine their relationship 

with measures of loan performance and 

a consumer’s ability to repay. 

Accordingly, the Bureau seeks data, if 

available, from commenters or 

interested parties on such factors (in 

addition to DTI ratios as discussed 

above) and their relationship to 

measures of delinquency or their impact 

on the number or percentage of 

mortgage loans that would be a 

‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP05JN12.001</GPH>
33124 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8See, e.g., letter from David H. Stevens, Mortgage 

Bankers Association, to Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, July 22, 2011. 

9See, e.g., letter from Center for Responsible 

Lending, National Consumer Law Center, Consumer 

Federation of America, and National Association of 

Consumer Advocates, to Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau and Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, July 22, 2011; 

Memorandum on ‘‘Rebuttable Presumption: A 

Perspective on Litigation Risk by the Numbers’’ 

from Center for Responsible Lending and National 

Consumer Law Center, to Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, dated October 11, 2011. 

Request for Comment 

1. The Bureau seeks comment on the 

dataset received from FHFA and 

commercially available data on 

mortgages securitized into private label 

securities, including the data source, 

parameters, and whether other data or 

studies are available or more 

appropriate for the purposes indicated 

above. 

2. The Bureau requests data or 

tabulations for loans not covered in the 

FHFA data, including loans insured by 

the Federal Housing Administration 

(FHA loans), the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA loans), the Department of 

Agriculture and the Rural Housing 

Service (RHS loans); or loans held in 

portfolio or securitized outside of the 

Enterprises or a federal agency, which 

would be appropriate for the purposes 

indicated above. 

3. The Bureau seeks comment and 

data on any measures of loan 

performance and their relationship to a 

consumer’s DTI ratio. 

4. The Bureau seeks comment and 

data on any measures of residual 

income, the use of such measures in 

loan underwriting, the relationship of 

these measures to loan performance, 

and their relationship to measures of 

consumer expenditures. 

5. The Bureau seeks comment and 

data regarding any measures of the 

amount of liquid financial reserves 

available to meet (i) mortgage-related 

obligations or (ii) current obligations, 

the use of such measures in loan 

underwriting, and the relationship of 

these measures to loan performance. 

6. The Bureau seeks comment and 

data regarding any measures of stable 

income and timely housing payments, 

the use of such measures in loan 

underwriting, and the relationship of 

these measures to loan performance. 

B. Litigation Cost Estimates 

In response to information received 

from commenters and ex parte 

communications, the Bureau is seeking 

comment and data on estimates of 

litigation costs and liability risks 

associated with claims alleging a 

violation of ability-to-repay 

requirements for a mortgage loan that is 

not a ‘‘qualified mortgage,’’ in addition 

to costs and risks that might apply to a 

‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ 

As discussed in detail in the proposal, 

section 1416 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

creates special remedies for violations of 

TILA section 129C(a) and provides that 

the statute of limitations for an action 

for a violation of TILA section 129C is 

three years from the date of the 

occurrence of the violation. In addition, 

section 1413 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

provides that a consumer may assert a 

violation of TILA section 129C as a 

defense to foreclosure by recoupment or 

set off without regard for the time limit 

on a private action for damages. 

However, new TILA section 129C, 

among other things, provides a 

presumption of compliance with the 

ability-to-repay requirements if the 

mortgage loan is a ‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ 

To implement this special protection 

from liability, the Board proposed two 

alternative definitions of a ‘‘qualified 

mortgage’’ that would provide either a 

legal safe harbor or a rebuttable 

presumption that the ability-to-repay 

requirements had been met. 

Commenters and ex parte 

communications addressed various 

aspects of the alternative proposals 

implementing the presumption of 

compliance for a ‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ 

In particular, some commenters and 

interested parties presented estimates of 

the litigation costs associated with 

claims alleging a violation of the abilityto-repay requirements. Commenters and 

interested parties argued that these 

estimated costs should inform the 

Bureau’s determination between a safe 

harbor or a rebuttable presumption as 

well as the scope of coverage of a 

‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ Other 

commenters and interested parties 

noted that additional litigation costs 

should be considered, such as 

commercial litigation costs associated 

with ‘‘put-back’’ liabilities and risks for 

loans sold on the secondary market and 

extended foreclosure timelines because 

of ongoing ability-to-repay litigation. 

An industry commenter and other 

interested parties argued that the 

estimated costs to creditors associated 

with litigation and penalties for an 

ability-to-repay violation could be 

substantial and provided illustrations of 

costs under the proposal, noting 

potential cost estimates of the possible 

statutory damages and attorney’s fees.8

For example, the total estimated costs 

and damages ranged between 

approximately $70,000 and $110,000 

depending on various assumptions, 

such as the interest rate on a loan or 

whether the presumption of compliance 

is a safe harbor or rebuttable 

presumption. On the other hand, 

consumer group commenters and some 

ex parte communications asserted that 

the potential incidence of litigation is 

relatively small, and therefore liability 

cost and risk are minimal for any given 

mortgage creditor.9 Consumer groups 

provided estimates of the number of 

cases in foreclosure and the percentage 

of cases that involve TILA claims, such 

as a claim of rescission. Consumer 

groups also provided percentages of 

borrowers in foreclosure who are 

represented by lawyers, noting the 

difficulty in bringing a TILA violation 

claim, and addressed estimates of 

litigation costs, such as attorney’s fees. 

The Bureau is reopening the comment 

period to seek comment and data on 

various factors the Bureau believes are 

relevant to analyzing estimated costs 

associated with litigation for a claim 

alleging a violation of ability-to-repay 

requirements, as described below. 

Request for Comment 

Foreclosure and other times when a 

suit may be filed. The Dodd-Frank Act 

provides that a borrower may assert a 

violation of the ability-to-repay 

requirements as a defense to foreclosure. 

Therefore, the Bureau believes that 

estimates of serious delinquency and 

number of homes entering foreclosure 

are critical to measuring the potential 

costs of ability-to-repay litigation risk. 

Although aggregate data on serious 

delinquency and homes entering 

foreclosure are available from various 

sources such as the Mortgage Bankers 

Association National Delinquency 

Survey, the Bureau notes that more 

granular estimates of homes entering 

foreclosure can be estimated from the 

FHFA data and other data sources. 

1. The Bureau seeks comment on the 

most appropriate measure of 

delinquency for purposes of calculating 

potential costs associated with abilityto-repay litigation in the foreclosure 

context. 

2. The Bureau seeks comment on 

estimates of potential lawsuits asserting 

an ability-to-repay violation during the 

first three years after consummation— 

when the borrower has not yet defaulted 

but nevertheless sues the lender. 

Number of potential litigants and 

complaints filed. Consumer groups 

argued that due to the complexity of 

mortgage-related litigation, such as a 

violation of TILA, asserting an abilityto-repay violation would require access 

to a lawyer. These groups noted that 

appropriate proxies for the number of 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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