Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee-New Task, 5880-5882 [2015-01918]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
5880
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2015 / Notices
was in that part of the report directed to
the Department of the Interior (DOI) that
the National Commission recommended
that DOI: ‘‘Develop more detailed
requirements for incident reporting and
data concerning offshore incidents and
‘near misses.’ Such data collection
would allow for better tracking of
incidents and stronger risk assessments
and analysis.’’
F. Program Evaluation
One commenter requested that BTS
report the results of the program to
stakeholders at least once a year and
that the program be evaluated after two
years of operation. The frequency of
public reports will depend on how
many near miss reports are reported to
the system. To comply with CIPSEA,
reports of aggregated data must be
prepared in such a way that no third
party could determine the identity of a
reporter, directly or indirectly. BTS
expects to issue public reports at least
once per year and potentially more
often, as appropriate.
With regard to re-evaluating the
program after two years, as
demonstrated by near miss reporting in
the aviation industry, it took a
commitment of several years before
employee reporting increased
sufficiently to allow for a robust
program evaluation. BTS agrees that
‘‘formative evaluation’’ is essential in
developing a successful data collection
program and will conduct such
evaluation as soon as there is sufficient
quantitative information in the near
miss data system to allow for such
analysis. However, the potential value
of sharing data in a confidential manner
is worth the investment of time and
effort because the continuation of
environmental and human losses is an
unacceptable alternative to the public
and the government.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
workers have a duty to ensure safe
operating practices to prevent accidents.
To ensure all workers, regardless of
employer, will take appropriate action
whenever necessary, Congress should
amend the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act or specific safety statutes to
provide the same whistleblower
protection that workers are guaranteed
in other comparable settings.’’
Issued On: January 28, 2015.
Rolf Schmitt,
Deputy Director, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Research and Technology.
G. Intent of the National Commission
Report
One commenter correctly noted that
the National Commission Report on the
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill was
issued in 2011, not 2013 as the 60-day
notice inadvertently stated. BTS,
however, does not agree with the
commenter’s suggestions that the
National Commission Report did not
envision a government-managed system
for near miss reporting, or that the
Commission’s recommendation for an
industry ‘‘self-policing institute that
would gather incident and performance
data’’ would satisfy the
recommendation for a near miss
reporting program. In fact, the two
recommendations are contained in
different parts of the 2011 report, and it
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:46 Feb 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
[FR Doc. 2015–02053 Filed 2–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee—New Task
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of new task assignment
for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC).
AGENCY:
The FAA assigned the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) a new task to
provide recommendations regarding
Aircraft Systems Information Security/
Protection (ASISP) rulemaking, policy,
and guidance on best practices for
airplanes and rotorcraft, including both
certification and continued
airworthiness. The issue is that without
updates to regulations, policy, and
guidance to address ASISP, aircraft
vulnerabilities may not be identified
and mitigated, thus increasing exposure
times to security threats. In addition, a
lack of ASISP-specific regulations,
policy, and guidance could result in
security related certification criteria that
are not standardized and harmonized
between domestic and international
regulatory authorities.
This notice informs the public of the
new ARAC activity and solicits
membership for the new ASISP Working
Group.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven C. Paasch, Federal Aviation
Administration, 1601 Lind Ave. SW.,
Renton, WA 98057–3356, Email:
steven.c.paasch@faa.gov, Phone: (425)
227–2549, Fax (425) 227–1100.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
ARAC Acceptance of Task
As a result of the December 18, 2014,
ARAC meeting, the FAA assigned and
ARAC accepted this task establishing
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the ASISP Working Group. The working
group will serve as staff to the ARAC
and provide advice and
recommendations on the assigned task.
The ARAC will review and approve the
recommendation report and will submit
it to the FAA.
Background
The FAA established the ARAC to
provide information, advice, and
recommendations on aviation related
issues that could result in rulemaking to
the FAA Administrator, through the
Associate Administrator of Aviation
Safety.
The ASISP Working Group will
provide advice and recommendations to
the ARAC on ASISP-related rulemaking,
policy, and guidance, including both
initial certification and continued
airworthiness. Without updates to
regulations, policy, and guidance to
address ASISP, aircraft vulnerabilities
may not be identified and mitigated,
thus increasing exposure times to
security threats. Unauthorized access to
aircraft systems and networks could
result in the malicious use of networks,
and loss or corruption of data (e.g.,
software applications, databases, and
configuration files) brought about by
software worms, viruses, or other
malicious entities. In addition, a lack of
ASISP-specific regulations, policy, and
guidance could result in security related
certification criteria that are not
standardized and harmonized between
domestic and international regulatory
authorities.
There are many different types of
aircraft operating in the United States
National Air Space (NAS), including
transport category airplanes, small
airplanes, and rotorcraft. The
regulations, system architectures, and
security vulnerabilities are different
across these aircraft types. The current
regulations do not specifically address
ASISP for any aircraft operating in the
NAS. To address this issue, the FAA has
published special conditions for
particular make and model aircraft
designs. The FAA issues Special
Conditions when the current
airworthiness regulations for an aircraft
do not contain adequate or appropriate
safety standards for certain novel or
unusual design features including
ASISP. Even though the FAA published
special conditions for ASISP, an update
to the current regulations should be
considered. International civil aviation
authorities are also considering
rulemaking for ASISP and the ASISP
Working Group could be used as input
into harmonization of these activities.
The FAA has issued policy statement,
PS–AIR–21.16–02, Establishment of
E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM
03FEN1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2015 / Notices
Special Conditions for Cyber Security,
which describes when the issuance of
special conditions is required for certain
aircraft designs. This policy statement
provides general guidance and requires
an update to address the ever evolving
security threat environment.
A companion issue paper is published
in combination with each FAA ASISP
Special Condition. The issue paper
provides guidance for specific aircrafts
and models and contains proprietary
industry information which is not
publically available. These issue papers,
with industry input, could provide
additional guidance and best practices
recommendations and could be used as
input into the development of national
policy and guidance (e.g., advisory
circular). The FAA has not published
guidance on the use of security controls
and best practices for ASISP, thus
ARAC recommendations in this area are
highly desirable.
There are many industry standards
addressing various security topics, such
as Aeronautical Radio Incorporated
(ARINC), Federal Information
Processing Standards (FIPS),
International Standards Organization
(ISO), and National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
standards. There are also industry
standards addressing processes for
requirements development, validation,
and verification, such as Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aerospace
Recommended Practices (ARP) 4754a
and SAE ARP 4761. In addition, there
are standards from RTCA such as (1)
RTCA DO–326A ‘‘Airworthiness
Security Process Specification,’’
published July 8, 2014. This document
provides process assurance guidance
and requirements for the aircraft design
regarding systems information security.
(2) RTCA DO–355, ‘‘Information
Security Guidance for Continuing
Airworthiness,’’ published June 17,
2014. This document provides guidance
for assuring continued safety of aircraft
in service in regard to systems
information security. (3) RTCA DO–356,
‘‘Airworthiness Security Methods and
Considerations,’’ published September
23, 2014. This document provides
analysis and assessment methods for
executing the process assurance
specified in DO–326A.
The ASISP Working Group
recommendations as to the usability of
these standards in ASISP policy and/or
guidance are highly desirable.
The Task
The ASISP Working Group is tasked
to:
1. Provide recommendations on
whether ASISP-related rulemaking,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:46 Feb 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
policy, and/or guidance on best
practices are needed and, if rulemaking
is recommended, specify where in the
current regulatory framework such
rulemaking would be placed.
2. Provide the rationale as to why or
why not ASISP-related rulemaking,
policy, and/or guidance on best
practices are required for the different
categories of airplanes and rotorcraft.
3. If it is recommended that ASISPrelated policy and/or guidance on best
practices are needed, specify (i) which
categories of airplanes and rotorcraft
such policy and/or guidance should
address, and (ii) which airworthiness
standards such policy and/or guidance
should reference.
4. If it is recommended that ASISPrelated policy and/or guidance on best
practices is needed, recommend
whether security-related industry
standards from ARINC, FIPS,
International Standards Organization
(ISO), NIST, SAE ARP 4754a and/or
SAE ARP 4761 would be appropriate for
use in such ASISP-related policy and/or
guidance.
5. Consider EASA requirements and
guidance material for regulatory
harmonization.
6. Develop a report containing
recommendations on the findings and
results of the tasks explained above.
a. The recommendation report should
document both majority and dissenting
positions on the findings and the
rationale for each position.
b. Any disagreements should be
documented, including the rationale for
each position and the reasons for the
disagreement.
7. The working group may be
reinstated to assist the ARAC by
responding to the FAA’s questions or
concerns after the recommendation
report has been submitted.
Schedule
The recommendation report should be
submitted to the FAA for review and
acceptance no later than fourteen
months from the date of the first
working group meeting.
Working Group Activity
The ASISP Working Group must
comply with the procedures adopted by
the ARAC, and are as follows:
1. Conduct a review and analysis of
the assigned tasks and any other related
materials or documents.
2. Draft and submit a work plan for
completion of the task, including the
rationale supporting such a plan, for
consideration by the ARAC.
3. Provide a status report at each
ARAC meeting.
4. Draft and submit the
recommendation report based on the
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5881
review and analysis of the assigned
tasks.
5. Present the recommendation report
at the ARAC meeting.
6. Present the findings in response to
the FAA’s questions or concerns (if any)
about the recommendation report at the
ARAC meeting.
Participation in the Working Group
The ASISP Working Group will be
comprised of technical experts having
an interest in the assigned task. A
working group member need not be a
member representative of the ARAC.
The FAA would like a wide range of
members to ensure all aspects of the
tasks are considered in development of
the recommendations. The provisions of
the August 13, 2014 Office of
Management and Budget guidance,
‘‘Revised Guidance on Appointment of
Lobbyists to Federal Advisory
Committees, Boards, and Commissions’’
(79 FR 47482), continues the ban on
registered lobbyists participating on
Agency Boards and Commissions if
participating in their ‘‘individual
capacity.’’ The revised guidance now
allows registered lobbyists to participate
on Agency Boards and Commissions in
a ‘‘representative capacity’’ for the
‘‘express purpose of providing a
committee with the views of a
nongovernmental entity, a recognizable
group of persons or nongovernmental
entities (an industry, sector, labor
unions, or environmental groups, etc.)
or state or local government.’’ (For
further information see Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA) as
amended, 2 U.S.C. 1603, 1604, and
1605.)
If you wish to become a member of
the ASISP Working Group, write the
person listed under the caption FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
expressing that desire. Describe your
interest in the task and state the
expertise you would bring to the
working group. The FAA must receive
all requests by March 5, 2015. The
ARAC and the FAA will review the
requests and advise you whether or not
your request is approved.
If you are chosen for membership on
the working group, you must actively
participate in the working group, attend
all meetings, and provide written
comments when requested. The member
must devote the resources necessary to
support the working group in meeting
any assigned deadlines. The member
must keep management and those
represented advised of the working
group activities and decisions to ensure
the proposed technical solutions do not
conflict with the position of those
represented. Once the working group
E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM
03FEN1
5882
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2015 / Notices
has begun deliberations, members will
not be added or substituted without the
approval of the ARAC Chair, the FAA,
including the Designated Federal
Officer, and the Working Group Chair.
The Secretary of Transportation
determined the formation and use of the
ARAC is necessary and in the public
interest in connection with the
performance of duties imposed on the
FAA by law.
The ARAC meetings are open to the
public. However, meetings of the ASISP
Working Group are not open to the
public, except to the extent individuals
with an interest and expertise are
selected to participate. The FAA will
make no public announcement of
working group meetings.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 28,
2015.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2015–01918 Filed 2–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[Docket No. FHWA–2015–0002]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Request for Comments for
New Information Collection
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The FHWA has forwarded the
information collection request described
in this notice to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval of a new information
collection. We published a Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day public
comment period on this information
collection on November 12, 2014. We
are required to publish this notice in the
Federal Register by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Please submit comments by
March 5, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments
within 30 days to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including: (1)
Whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the FHWA’s performance;
(2) the accuracy of the estimated
burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:46 Feb 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
enhance the quality, usefulness, and
clarity of the collected information; and
(4) ways that the burden could be
minimized, including the use of
electronic technology, without reducing
the quality of the collected information.
All comments should include the
Docket number FHWA–2015–0002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keith Williams, 202–366–9212,
Highway Safety Specialist, Strategic
Integration Team, Office of Safety
Programs, Federal Highway
Administration, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Room E71–119,
Washington, DC 20590, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Inventory of State Police
Accident Reports (PAR) and Serious
Injury Reporting.
Background: The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Office of
Safety’s mission is to exercise
leadership throughout the highway
community to make the Nation’s
roadways safer by developing,
evaluating, and deploying life-saving
countermeasures; advancing the use of
scientific methods and data-driven
decisions, fostering a safety culture, and
promoting an integrated,
multidisciplinary 4 E’s (Engineering,
Education, Enforcement, Education)
approach to safety. The mission is
carried out through the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP), a data
driven strategic approach to improving
highway safety on all public roads that
focuses on performance. The goal of the
program is to achieve a significant
reduction in traffic fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads, including
non-State-owned public roads and roads
on tribal lands.
In keeping with that mission, the
United States Congress on June 29, 2012
passed the Moving Ahead for Progress
in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21),
which was signed into law (Pub. L. 112–
141) on July 6, 2012 by President
Barrack Obama. MAP–21 is a milestone
for the U.S. economy and the Nation’s
surface transportation program as it
transformed the policy and
programmatic framework for
investments to guide the system’s
growth and development and created a
streamlined performance-based surface
transportation program. The Federal
Highway Administration defines
Transportation Performance
Management as a strategic approach that
uses system information to make
investment and policy decisions to
achieve national performance goals.
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
MAP–21 requires the Secretary of
Transportation to establish performance
measures for States to use to assess
serious injuries and fatalities per vehicle
mile traveled; and the number of serious
injuries and fatalities, for the purposes
of carrying out the HSIP under 23 U.S.C.
148. The HSIP is applicable to all public
roads and therefore requires crash
reporting by law enforcement agencies
that have jurisdiction over them.
In defining performance measures for
serious injuries, FHWA seeks to define
serious injuries in a manner that would
provide for a uniform definition for
national reporting in this performance
area, as required by MAP–21. An
established standard for defining serious
injuries as a result of highway crashes
has been developed in the 4th edition of
the Model Minimum Uniform Crash
Criteria (MMUCC). MMUCC represents
a voluntary and collaborative effort to
generate uniform crash data that are
accurate, reliable and credible for datadriven highway safety decisions within
a State, between States, and at the
national level. The MMUCC defines a
serious injuries resulting from traffic
crashes as ‘‘Suspected Serious Injury
(A)’’ whose attributes are: Any injury,
other than fatal, which results in one or
more of the following: Severe laceration
resulting in exposure of underlying
tissues, muscle, organs, or resulting in
significant loss of blood, broken or
distorted extremity (arm or leg), crush
injuries, suspected skull, chest, or
abdominal injury other than bruises or
minor lacerations, significant burns
(second and third degree burns over 10
percent or more of the body),
unconsciousness when taken from the
crash scene, or paralysis.
As part of the effort to understand
current reporting levels for serious
injuries to support the MAP–21
performance measures, the FHWA seeks
to determine at what level law
enforcement agencies have adopted the
MMUCC definition, attribute and coding
convention. FHWA is aware that not all
States have adopted the MMUCC
definition, attribute and coding
convention for serious injuries while
other States have only partially adopted
the definition. It is also known that
some jurisdictions do not use the State
Police Accident Report (PAR) form to
report on crashes. It is not known if
these PARs are MMUCC compliant.
The purpose of the information
collection is to conduct an assessment
of each Federal, tribal, State and nonState PAR to determine if the definition
and coding convention used for
reporting on serious injuries is or is not
compliant with MMUCC, and if not
E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM
03FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5880-5882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01918]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee--New Task
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC) a new task to provide recommendations regarding Aircraft Systems
Information Security/Protection (ASISP) rulemaking, policy, and
guidance on best practices for airplanes and rotorcraft, including both
certification and continued airworthiness. The issue is that without
updates to regulations, policy, and guidance to address ASISP, aircraft
vulnerabilities may not be identified and mitigated, thus increasing
exposure times to security threats. In addition, a lack of ASISP-
specific regulations, policy, and guidance could result in security
related certification criteria that are not standardized and harmonized
between domestic and international regulatory authorities.
This notice informs the public of the new ARAC activity and
solicits membership for the new ASISP Working Group.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven C. Paasch, Federal Aviation
Administration, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, Email:
steven.c.paasch@faa.gov, Phone: (425) 227-2549, Fax (425) 227-1100.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ARAC Acceptance of Task
As a result of the December 18, 2014, ARAC meeting, the FAA
assigned and ARAC accepted this task establishing the ASISP Working
Group. The working group will serve as staff to the ARAC and provide
advice and recommendations on the assigned task. The ARAC will review
and approve the recommendation report and will submit it to the FAA.
Background
The FAA established the ARAC to provide information, advice, and
recommendations on aviation related issues that could result in
rulemaking to the FAA Administrator, through the Associate
Administrator of Aviation Safety.
The ASISP Working Group will provide advice and recommendations to
the ARAC on ASISP-related rulemaking, policy, and guidance, including
both initial certification and continued airworthiness. Without updates
to regulations, policy, and guidance to address ASISP, aircraft
vulnerabilities may not be identified and mitigated, thus increasing
exposure times to security threats. Unauthorized access to aircraft
systems and networks could result in the malicious use of networks, and
loss or corruption of data (e.g., software applications, databases, and
configuration files) brought about by software worms, viruses, or other
malicious entities. In addition, a lack of ASISP-specific regulations,
policy, and guidance could result in security related certification
criteria that are not standardized and harmonized between domestic and
international regulatory authorities.
There are many different types of aircraft operating in the United
States National Air Space (NAS), including transport category
airplanes, small airplanes, and rotorcraft. The regulations, system
architectures, and security vulnerabilities are different across these
aircraft types. The current regulations do not specifically address
ASISP for any aircraft operating in the NAS. To address this issue, the
FAA has published special conditions for particular make and model
aircraft designs. The FAA issues Special Conditions when the current
airworthiness regulations for an aircraft do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for certain novel or unusual design
features including ASISP. Even though the FAA published special
conditions for ASISP, an update to the current regulations should be
considered. International civil aviation authorities are also
considering rulemaking for ASISP and the ASISP Working Group could be
used as input into harmonization of these activities.
The FAA has issued policy statement, PS-AIR-21.16-02, Establishment
of
[[Page 5881]]
Special Conditions for Cyber Security, which describes when the
issuance of special conditions is required for certain aircraft
designs. This policy statement provides general guidance and requires
an update to address the ever evolving security threat environment.
A companion issue paper is published in combination with each FAA
ASISP Special Condition. The issue paper provides guidance for specific
aircrafts and models and contains proprietary industry information
which is not publically available. These issue papers, with industry
input, could provide additional guidance and best practices
recommendations and could be used as input into the development of
national policy and guidance (e.g., advisory circular). The FAA has not
published guidance on the use of security controls and best practices
for ASISP, thus ARAC recommendations in this area are highly desirable.
There are many industry standards addressing various security
topics, such as Aeronautical Radio Incorporated (ARINC), Federal
Information Processing Standards (FIPS), International Standards
Organization (ISO), and National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) standards. There are also industry standards addressing
processes for requirements development, validation, and verification,
such as Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aerospace Recommended
Practices (ARP) 4754a and SAE ARP 4761. In addition, there are
standards from RTCA such as (1) RTCA DO-326A ``Airworthiness Security
Process Specification,'' published July 8, 2014. This document provides
process assurance guidance and requirements for the aircraft design
regarding systems information security. (2) RTCA DO-355, ``Information
Security Guidance for Continuing Airworthiness,'' published June 17,
2014. This document provides guidance for assuring continued safety of
aircraft in service in regard to systems information security. (3) RTCA
DO-356, ``Airworthiness Security Methods and Considerations,''
published September 23, 2014. This document provides analysis and
assessment methods for executing the process assurance specified in DO-
326A.
The ASISP Working Group recommendations as to the usability of
these standards in ASISP policy and/or guidance are highly desirable.
The Task
The ASISP Working Group is tasked to:
1. Provide recommendations on whether ASISP-related rulemaking,
policy, and/or guidance on best practices are needed and, if rulemaking
is recommended, specify where in the current regulatory framework such
rulemaking would be placed.
2. Provide the rationale as to why or why not ASISP-related
rulemaking, policy, and/or guidance on best practices are required for
the different categories of airplanes and rotorcraft.
3. If it is recommended that ASISP-related policy and/or guidance
on best practices are needed, specify (i) which categories of airplanes
and rotorcraft such policy and/or guidance should address, and (ii)
which airworthiness standards such policy and/or guidance should
reference.
4. If it is recommended that ASISP-related policy and/or guidance
on best practices is needed, recommend whether security-related
industry standards from ARINC, FIPS, International Standards
Organization (ISO), NIST, SAE ARP 4754a and/or SAE ARP 4761 would be
appropriate for use in such ASISP-related policy and/or guidance.
5. Consider EASA requirements and guidance material for regulatory
harmonization.
6. Develop a report containing recommendations on the findings and
results of the tasks explained above.
a. The recommendation report should document both majority and
dissenting positions on the findings and the rationale for each
position.
b. Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale
for each position and the reasons for the disagreement.
7. The working group may be reinstated to assist the ARAC by
responding to the FAA's questions or concerns after the recommendation
report has been submitted.
Schedule
The recommendation report should be submitted to the FAA for review
and acceptance no later than fourteen months from the date of the first
working group meeting.
Working Group Activity
The ASISP Working Group must comply with the procedures adopted by
the ARAC, and are as follows:
1. Conduct a review and analysis of the assigned tasks and any
other related materials or documents.
2. Draft and submit a work plan for completion of the task,
including the rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration by
the ARAC.
3. Provide a status report at each ARAC meeting.
4. Draft and submit the recommendation report based on the review
and analysis of the assigned tasks.
5. Present the recommendation report at the ARAC meeting.
6. Present the findings in response to the FAA's questions or
concerns (if any) about the recommendation report at the ARAC meeting.
Participation in the Working Group
The ASISP Working Group will be comprised of technical experts
having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need
not be a member representative of the ARAC. The FAA would like a wide
range of members to ensure all aspects of the tasks are considered in
development of the recommendations. The provisions of the August 13,
2014 Office of Management and Budget guidance, ``Revised Guidance on
Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and
Commissions'' (79 FR 47482), continues the ban on registered lobbyists
participating on Agency Boards and Commissions if participating in
their ``individual capacity.'' The revised guidance now allows
registered lobbyists to participate on Agency Boards and Commissions in
a ``representative capacity'' for the ``express purpose of providing a
committee with the views of a nongovernmental entity, a recognizable
group of persons or nongovernmental entities (an industry, sector,
labor unions, or environmental groups, etc.) or state or local
government.'' (For further information see Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995 (LDA) as amended, 2 U.S.C. 1603, 1604, and 1605.)
If you wish to become a member of the ASISP Working Group, write
the person listed under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
expressing that desire. Describe your interest in the task and state
the expertise you would bring to the working group. The FAA must
receive all requests by March 5, 2015. The ARAC and the FAA will review
the requests and advise you whether or not your request is approved.
If you are chosen for membership on the working group, you must
actively participate in the working group, attend all meetings, and
provide written comments when requested. The member must devote the
resources necessary to support the working group in meeting any
assigned deadlines. The member must keep management and those
represented advised of the working group activities and decisions to
ensure the proposed technical solutions do not conflict with the
position of those represented. Once the working group
[[Page 5882]]
has begun deliberations, members will not be added or substituted
without the approval of the ARAC Chair, the FAA, including the
Designated Federal Officer, and the Working Group Chair.
The Secretary of Transportation determined the formation and use of
the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the
performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
The ARAC meetings are open to the public. However, meetings of the
ASISP Working Group are not open to the public, except to the extent
individuals with an interest and expertise are selected to participate.
The FAA will make no public announcement of working group meetings.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 28, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2015-01918 Filed 2-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
