Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules 104069 

2024–13, dated April 29, 2024 (Transport 

Canada AD CF–2024–13). 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 29, Hydraulic Power. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an investigation 

of an in-service leakage event that indicated 

the use potential of an uncalibrated torque 

wrench when tightening the union fittings at 

the pressure and return interfaces of all three 

rudder hydraulic power control units (PCUs). 

The FAA is issuing this AD to address union 

fittings that could come loose and leak when 

improperly torqued. The unsafe condition, if 

not addressed, could result in the potential 

loss of one or more hydraulic systems. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Requirements 

Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this 

AD: Comply with all required actions and 

compliance times specified in, and in 

accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF– 

2024–13. 

(h) Exception to Transport Canada AD CF– 

2024–13 

(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF–2024– 

13 refers to its effective date, this AD requires 

using the effective date of this AD. 

(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF–2024– 

13 refers to hours air time, this AD requires 

using flight hours. 

(3) Where the material referenced in 

Transport Canada AD CF–2024–13 specifies 

to ‘‘perform a visual inspection for 

hydraulics leaks for all Rudder PCUs coil 

tube fitting (Upper, Middle and Lower)’’ this 

AD requires replacing that text with ‘‘perform 

a visual inspection for hydraulics leaks for all 

Rudder PCUs coil tube fitting (Upper, Middle 

and Lower), and if any leak is found, the leak 

must be repaired before further flight.’’ 

(i) No Reporting Requirement 

Although the material referenced in 

Transport Canada AD CF–2024–13 specifies 

to submit certain information to the 

manufacturer, this AD does not include that 

requirement. 

(j) Additional AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, AIR–520, Continued 

Operational Safety Branch, 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the Continued Operational 

Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the 

person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD 

and email to: AMOC@faa.gov. Before using 

any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 

principal inspector, or lacking a principal 

inspector, the manager of the responsible 

Flight Standards Office. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain instructions 

from a manufacturer, the instructions must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, AIR–520, Continued 

Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or 

Transport Canada; or Airbus Canada Limited 

Partnership’s Transport Canada Design 

Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by 

the DAO, the approval must include the 

DAO-authorized signature. 

(k) Additional Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Brenda Buitrago Perez, Aviation 

Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, 

Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 

516–228 7300; email 9-avs-nyaco-cos@

faa.gov. 

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

the material listed in this paragraph under 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) You must use this material as 

applicable to do the actions required by this 

AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Transport Canada AD CF–2024–13, 

dated April 29, 2024. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) For Transport Canada material 

identified in this AD, contact Transport 

Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft 

Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, 

Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888– 

663–3639; email TC.AirworthinessDirectivesConsignesdenavigabilite.TC@tc.gc.ca. You 

may find this Transport Canada material on 

the Transport Canada website at 

tc.canada.ca/en/aviation. 

(4) You may view this material at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, Operational 

Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

206–231–3195. 

(5) You may view this material at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@nara.gov. 

Issued on December 16, 2024. 

Peter A. White, 

Deputy Director, Integrated Certificate 

Management Division, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30310 Filed 12–19–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 310 

[Docket ID: DoD–2024–OS–0137] 

RIN 0790–AL80 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

(Department or DoD) is giving 

concurrent notice of a modified system 

of records titled ‘‘Defense Sexual 

Assault Incident Database,’’ DHRA 06, 

and this rulemaking, which exempts 

portions of this system of records from 

certain provisions of the Privacy Act to 

avoid interference during the conduct of 

criminal, civil, or administrative actions 

or investigations. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

February 18, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number, Regulation 

Identifier Number (RIN), and title, by 

any of the following methods. 

* Federal Rulemaking Portal: https:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

* Mail: Department of Defense, Office 

of the Assistant to the Secretary of 

Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and 

Transparency, Regulatory Directorate, 

4800 Mark Center Drive, Attn: Mailbox 

24, Suite 05F16, Alexandria, VA 22350– 

1700. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN 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 https://

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rahwa Keleta, OSD.DPCLTD@mail.mil; 

(703) 571–0070. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 

1974, the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense is modifying and reissuing a 

system of records titled ‘‘Defense Sexual 

Assault Incident Database,’’ DHRA 06. 

This system of records was originally 

established to centralize case-level 

sexual assault data involving a member 

of the Armed Forces, in a manner 

consistent with law and DoD regulations 

for Unrestricted and Restricted reporting 

and to facilitate reports to Congress on 

claims of retaliation in connection with 

an Unrestricted Report of sexual assault 

made by or against a member of the 

Armed Forces. 

II. Privacy Act Exemption 

The Privacy Act permits Federal 

agencies to exempt eligible records in a 

system of records from certain 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
104070 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

provisions of the Act, including the 

provisions providing individuals with a 

right to request access to and 

amendment of their own records and 

accountings of disclosures of such 

records. If an agency intends to exempt 

a particular system of records, it must 

first go through the rulemaking process 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1)–(3), (c), 

and (e). This proposed rule explains 

why an exemption is being claimed for 

this system of records and invites public 

comment, which DoD will consider 

before the issuance of a final rule 

implementing the exemption. 

The DoD proposes to modify 32 CFR 

part 310 to add a new Privacy Act 

exemption rule for DHRA 06, ‘‘Defense 

Sexual Assault Incident Database,’’ and 

to exempt portions of this system of 

records from certain provisions of the 

Privacy Act because some records may 

contain investigatory material compiled 

for law enforcement purposes within 

the scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), other 

than material within the scope of 

subsection (j)(2). The DoD is proposing 

to claim exemptions from several 

provisions of the Privacy Act, including 

various access, amendment, disclosure 

of accounting, and notice requirements, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). 

A notice of a modified system of 

records for DHRA 06, ‘‘Defense Sexual 

Assault Incident Database,’’ is also 

published in this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

Regulatory Analysis 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ as Amended by 

Executive Order 14094, ‘‘Modernizing 

Regulatory Review,’’ and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ 

Executive Orders 12866 (as amended 

by Executive Order 14094) and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distribute impacts, and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. It has been determined that 

this proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under these executive 

orders. 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

Section 202(a) of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

(2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) requires agencies to 

assess anticipated costs and benefits 

before issuing any rule whose mandates 

may result in the expenditure by State, 

local, and Tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, in 

any one year of $100 million in 1995 

dollars, updated annually for inflation. 

This proposed rule will not mandate 

any requirements for State, local, or 

Tribal governments, nor will it affect 

private sector costs. 

Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 

The Assistant to the Secretary of 

Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and 

Transparency has certified that this 

proposed rule is not subject to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) because it would not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This proposed 

rule is concerned only with the 

administration of Privacy Act systems of 

records within the DoD. Therefore, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, 

does not require DoD to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) was enacted to 

minimize the paperwork burden for 

individuals; small businesses; 

educational and nonprofit institutions; 

Federal contractors; State, local, and 

Tribal governments; and other persons 

resulting from the collection of 

information by or for the Federal 

Government. The Act requires agencies 

obtain approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget before using 

identical questions to collect 

information from ten or more persons. 

This proposed rule does not impose 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on the public. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a rule 

that has federalism implications, 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs on State and local governments, 

and is not required by statute, or has 

federalism implications and preempts 

State law. This proposed rule will not 

have a substantial effect on State and 

local governments. 

Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ 

Executive Order 13175 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed rule (and subsequent final 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on one or more Indian 

Tribes, preempts Tribal law, or affects 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes. This 

proposed rule will not have a 

substantial effect on Indian Tribal 

governments. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 310 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 310—PROTECTION OF PRIVACY 

AND ACCESS TO AND AMENDMENT 

OF INDIVIDUAL RECORDS UNDER 

THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 310 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

■ 2. Amend § 310.29 by adding 

paragraph (c)(30) to read as follows: 

§ 310.29 Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD) exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(30) System identifier and name. 

DHRA 06, Defense Sexual Assault 

Incident Database. 

(i) Exemptions. This system of records 

is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); 

(d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1); (e)(4)(G), 

(H), (I), and (f). 

(ii) Authority. 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). 

(iii) Exemption from the particular 

subsections. Exemption from the 

particular subsections is justified for the 

following reasons: 

(A) Subsections (c)(3), (d)(1), and 

(d)(2)—Exemption (k)(2). Records in this 

system of records may contain 

investigatory material compiled for law 

enforcement purposes other than 

material within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j)(2). Application of exemption 

(k)(2) may be necessary because access 

to, amendment of, or release of the 

accounting of disclosures of such 

records could: inform the record subject 

of an investigation of the existence, 

nature, or scope of an actual or potential 

law enforcement or disciplinary 

investigation, and thereby seriously 

impede law enforcement efforts by 

permitting the record subject and other 

persons to whom the subject might 

disclose the records or accounting of 

records to avoid criminal penalties, civil 

remedies, or disciplinary measures; 

interfere with a civil or administrative 

action or investigation by allowing the 

subject to tamper with witnesses or 

evidence, and to avoid detection or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules 104071 

apprehension, which may undermine 

the entire investigatory process; or 

reveal confidential sources who might 

not have otherwise come forward to 

assist in an investigation and thereby 

hinder DoD’s ability to obtain 

information from future confidential 

sources, and result in an unwarranted 

invasion of the privacy of others. 

(B) Subsection (d)(3), and (d)(4). 

These subsections are inapplicable to 

the extent that an exemption is being 

claimed from subsections (d)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, exemptions from 

subsections (d)(3), and (d)(4) are 

claimed pursuant to (k)(2). 

(C) Subsection (e)(1). In the collection 

of information for investigatory 

purposes it is not always possible to 

conclusively determine the relevance 

and necessity of particular information 

in the early stages of the investigation or 

adjudication. In some instances, it will 

be only after the collected information 

is evaluated in light of other information 

that its relevance and necessity for 

effective investigation and adjudication 

can be assessed. Collection of such 

information permits more informed 

decision-making by the Department 

when making required disciplinary 

determinations. Accordingly, 

application of exemption (k)(2) may be 

necessary. 

(D) Subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H). 

These subsections are inapplicable to 

the extent exemption is claimed from 

subsections (d)(1) and (2). 

(E) Subsection (e)(4)(I). To the extent 

that this provision is construed to 

require more detailed disclosure than 

the broad, generic information currently 

published in the system notice, an 

exemption from this provision is 

necessary to protect the confidentiality 

of sources of information and to protect 

the privacy and physical safety of 

individuals providing information, 

including witnesses, victims, 

informants, or others. Accordingly, 

application of exemption (k)(2) may be 

necessary. 

(F) Subsection (f). The agency’s rules 

are inapplicable to those portions of the 

system that are exempt. Accordingly, 

application of exemption (k)(2) may be 

necessary. 

(iv) Exempt records from other 

systems. In the course of carrying out 

the overall purpose for this system, 

exempt records from other systems of 

records may in turn become part of the 

records maintained in this system. To 

the extent that copies of exempt records 

from those other systems of records are 

maintained in this system, the DoD 

claims the same exemptions for the 

records from those other systems that 

are entered into this system, as claimed 

for the prior system(s) of which they are 

a part, provided the reason for the 

exemption remains valid and necessary. 

Dated: December 12, 2024. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29916 Filed 12–19–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6001–FR–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1