5880 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2015 / 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.’’ 

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. 

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 

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.’’ 

Issued On: January 28, 2015. 

Rolf Schmitt, 

Deputy Director, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Research and Technology. 

[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 

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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2015 / Notices 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 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 

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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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. 

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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES