64506 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this AD: 

(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 to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction, 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. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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): 

2014–22–02 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 

39–18006; Docket No. FAA–2014–0705; 

Directorate Identifier 2014–NE–13–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective November 14, 2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) 

Trent 1000–A, 1000–C, 1000–D, 1000–E, 

1000–G, and 1000–H turbofan engines. 

(d) Reason 

This AD was prompted by a finding that 

an intermediate pressure (IP) shaft failure 

may not be detected by engine electronic 

controller (EEC) software earlier than 

standard MB6.15. We are issuing this AD to 

detect IP shaft failure and prevent IP 

compressor turbine burst, uncontained 

engine failure, and damage to the airplane. 

(e) Actions and Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(1) Within 30 days or 180 flight cycles after 

the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first, remove from the engine any EEC 

software standard earlier than software 

standard MB6.15. 

(2) Install EEC software eligible for 

installation. 

(f) Installation Prohibition 

After the effective date of this AD, do not 

install any EEC containing a software 

standard earlier than software standard of 

MB6.15, into any engine. 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, 

FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to 

make your request. You may email your 

request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov. 

(h) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; phone: 781–238–7765; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: kenneth.steeves@faa.gov. 

(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency AD 2014–0192, dated 

September 1, 2014, for more information. 

You may examine the MCAI in the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for and 

locating it in Docket No. FAA–2014–0705. 

(3) RR Alert Service Bulletin No. TRENT 

1000 73–AH914, dated July 23, 2014, which 

is not incorporated by reference in this AD, 

can be obtained from RR using the contact 

information in paragraph (h)(4) of this AD. 

(4) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate 

Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, 

England, DE248BJ; phone: 011–44–1332– 

242424; fax: 011–44–1332–249936; email: 

http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_

team.jsp; Internet: https://

www.aeromanager.com. 

(5) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference 

None. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

October 17, 2014. 

Colleen M. D’Alessandro, 

Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25739 Filed 10–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0091] 

32 CFR Part 311 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense is exempting those records 

contained in DWHS E05, entitled 

‘‘Mandatory Declassification Review 

Files,’’ pertaining to requests and/or 

appeals from individuals for the 

mandatory review of classified 

documents. The exemption will allow 

DoD to provide protection against 

releasing any documents that remain 

properly classified and not available for 

release. 

DATES: The rule is effective on January 

8, 2015 unless adverse comments are 

received by December 29, 2014. If 

adverse comment is received, the 

Department of Defense will publish a 

timely withdrawal of the rule in the 

Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350– 

3100. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this Federal Register 

document. The general policy for 

comments and other submissions from 

members of the public is to make these 

submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Cindy Allard at (571) 372–0461. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

direct final rule makes nonsubstantive 

changes to the Office of the Secretary 

Privacy Program rules. These changes 

will allow the Department to add an 

exemption rule to the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense Privacy Program 

rules that will exempt applicable 

Department records and/or material 

from certain portions of the Privacy Act. 

This is being published as a direct final 

rule as the Department of Defense does 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64507 

not expect to receive any adverse 

comments, and so a proposed rule is 

unnecessary. 

Direct Final Rule and Significant 

Adverse Comments 

DoD has determined this rulemaking 

meets the criteria for a direct final rule 

because it involves nonsubstantive 

changes dealing with DoD’s 

management of its Privacy Progams. 

DoD expects no opposition to the 

changes and no significant adverse 

comments. However, if DoD receives a 

significant adverse comment, the 

Department will withdraw this direct 

final rule by publishing a notice in the 

Federal Register. A significant adverse 

comment is one that explains: (1) Why 

the direct final rule is inappropriate, 

including challenges to the rule’s 

underlying premise or approach; or (2) 

why the direct final rule will be 

ineffective or unacceptable without a 

change. In determining whether a 

comment necessitates withdrawal of 

this direct final rule, DoD will consider 

whether it warrants a substantive 

response in a notice and comment 

process. 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

is not a significant rule. This rule does 

not (1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy; a sector of the economy; 

productivity; competition; jobs; the 

environment; public health or safety; or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; (2) Create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another Agency; (3) Materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs, or 

the rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in these Executive orders. 

Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) 

It has been certified that this rule does 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because it is concerned only with the 

administration of Privacy Act systems of 

records within the Department of 

Defense. A Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis is not required. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) 

It has been determined that this rule 

does not impose additional information 

collection requirements on the public 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

does not involve a Federal mandate that 

may result in the expenditure by State, 

local and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more and that it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

does not have federalism implications. 

This rule does not have substantial 

direct effects 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. Therefore, no 

Federalism assessment is required. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 311—OFFICE OF THE 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND JOINT 

STAFF PRIVACY PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 311 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 522a. 

■ 2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c)(21) to read as follows: 

§ 311.8 Procedures for exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(21) System identifier and name: 

DWHS E05, Mandatory Declassification 

Review Files. 

(i) Exemption: Information classified 

under E.O. 13526, as implemented by 

DoD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). 

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). 

(iii) Reasons: From subsection 5 

U.S.C. 552a(d) because granting access 

to information that is properly classified 

pursuant to E.O. 13526, as implemented 

by DoD 5200.1–R, may cause damage to 

the national security. 

Dated: October 27, 2014. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25819 Filed 10–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 311 

[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0126] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense is exempting those records 

contained in DPFPA 05, entitled 

‘‘Computer Aided Dispatch and Records 

Management System (CAD/RMS),’’ 

pertaining to investigatory material 

compiled for law enforcement purposes 

(under (j)(2) of the Act) to enable OSD 

to conduct certain investigations and 

relay law enforcement information 

without compromise of the information, 

and protect investigative techniques and 

efforts employed, as well as 

investigatory material compiled for law 

enforcement purposes (under (k)(2) of 

the Act), other than material within the 

scope of subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy 

Act to enable the protection of identities 

of confidential sources who might not 

otherwise come forward and who 

furnished information under an express 

promise that the sources’ identity would 

be held in confidence. The exemption 

will allow DoD to provide protection 

against notification of investigatory 

material including certain reciprocal 

investigations which might alert a 

subject to the fact that an investigation 

of that individual is taking place, and 

the disclosure of which would weaken 

the on-going investigation, reveal 

investigatory techniques, and place 

confidential informants in jeopardy who 

furnished information under an express 

promise that the sources’ identity would 

be held in confidence. Further, 

requiring OSD to grant access to records 

and amend these records would unfairly 

impede the investigation of allegations 

of unlawful activities. To require OSD to 

confirm or deny the existence of a 

record pertaining to a requesting 

individual may in itself provide an 

answer to that individual relating to an 

on-going investigation. The 

investigation of possible unlawful 

activities would be jeopardized by 

agency rules requiring verification of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES