75574 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 

1A Transportation Security Incident is defined in 

33 CFR 101.105 to mean ‘‘a security incident 

resulting in a significant loss of life, environmental 

damage, transportation system disruption, or 

economic disruption in a particular area.’’ 

2 33 CFR parts 104 and 105, subparts C and D. 

3An Alternative Security Program is defined in 

33 CFR 101.105 to mean ‘‘a third-party or industry 

organization developed standard that the 

Commandant [of the Coast Guard] has determined 

provides an equivalent level of security to that 

established by [33 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter H].’’ 

Properly filed competing applications 

for a license filed in response to this 

notice will be treated as objections to 

the contemplated license. Comments 

and objections submitted in response to 

this notice will not be made available 

for public inspection, and, to the extent 

permitted by law, will not be released 

under the Freedom of Information Act, 

5 U.S.C. 552. 

Dated: December 11, 2014. 

Richard U. Rodriguez, 

Acting Director, Office of Technology 

Transfer, National Institutes of Health. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29572 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–1020] 

Guidance on Maritime Cybersecurity 

Standards 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

developing policy to help vessel and 

facility operators identify and address 

cyber-related vulnerabilities that could 

contribute to a Transportation Security 

Incident. Coast Guard regulations 

require certain vessel and facility 

operators to conduct security 

assessments, and to develop security 

plans that address vulnerabilities 

identified by the security assessment. 

The Coast Guard is seeking public input 

from the maritime industry and other 

interested parties on how to identify 

and mitigate potential vulnerabilities to 

cyber-dependent systems. The Coast 

Guard will consider these public 

comments in developing relevant 

guidance, which may include standards, 

guidelines, and best practices to protect 

maritime critical infrastructure. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted to 

the online docket via http://

www.regulations.gov, or reach the 

Docket Management Facility, on or 

before February 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments using one 

of the listed methods, and see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more 

information on public comments. 

• Online—http://www.regulations.gov 

following Web site instructions. 

• Fax—202–493–2251. 

• Mail or hand deliver—Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. Hours for 

hand delivery are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays (telephone 202–366–9329). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this document call or 

email LT Josephine Long, Coast Guard; 

telephone 202–372–1109, email 

Josephine.A.Long@uscg.mil or LCDR 

Joshua Rose, Coast Guard; 202–372– 

1106, email Joshua.D.Rose@uscg.mil. 

For information about viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826, toll free 1–800–647–5527. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Comments 

We encourage you to submit 

comments (or related material) on the 

questions listed below. We will consider 

all submissions and may adjust our final 

policy actions based on your comments. 

Comments should be marked with 

docket number USCG–2014–1020, and 

should provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

should provide personal contact 

information so that we can contact you 

if we have questions regarding your 

comments; but please note that all 

comments will be posted to the online 

docket without change and that any 

personal information you include can be 

searchable online (see the Federal 

Register Privacy Act notice regarding 

our public dockets, 73 FR 3316, Jan. 17, 

2008). 

Mailed or hand-delivered comments 

should be in an unbound 81⁄2 x 11 inch 

format suitable for reproduction. The 

Docket Management Facility will 

acknowledge receipt of mailed 

comments if you enclose a stamped, 

self-addressed postcard or envelope 

with your submission. 

Documents mentioned in this notice, 

and all public comments, are in our 

online docket at http://

www.regulations.gov and can be viewed 

by following the Web site’s instructions. 

You can also view the docket at the 

Docket Management Facility (see the 

mailing address under ADDRESSES) 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Discussion 

The Coast Guard is developing policy 

to help vessel and facility operators 

identify and address cyber-related 

vulnerabilities that could contribute to a 

Transportation Security Incident (TSI).1

Coast Guard regulations require certain 

vessel and facility operators to conduct 

security assessments, and to develop 

security plans that address 

vulnerabilities identified by the security 

assessment.2 Vessel and facility security 

plans must also address specific 

security functions, including the 

following: 

• Communications 

• Security Training Requirements 

• Procedures for vessel/facility 

interfacing 

• Declaration of Security 

• Security Systems and Equipment 

Maintenance 

• Security Measures for Access Control 

• Security Measures for Handling Cargo 

• Security Measures for Monitoring 

• Security Incident Procedures 

The Coast Guard is seeking public input 

on the following questions: 

(1) What cyber-dependent systems, 

commonly used in the maritime 

industry, could lead or contribute to a 

TSI if they failed, or were exploited by 

an adversary? 

(2) What procedures or standards do 

vessel and facility operators now 

employ to identify potential 

cybersecurity vulnerabilities to their 

operations? 

(3) Are there existing cybersecurity 

assurance programs in use by industry 

that the Coast Guard could recognize? If 

so, to what extent do these programs 

address vessel or facility systems that 

could lead to a TSI? 

(4) To what extent do current security 

training programs for vessel and facility 

personnel address cybersecurity risks 

and best practices? 

(5) What factors should determine 

when manual backups or other nontechnical approaches are sufficient to 

address cybersecurity vulnerabilities? 

(6) How can the Coast Guard leverage 

Alternative Security Programs 3 to help 

vessel and facility operators address 

cybersecurity risks? 

(7) How can vessel and facility 

operators reliably demonstrate to the 

Coast Guard that critical cyber-systems 

meet appropriate technical or 

procedural standards? 

(8) Do classification societies, 

protection and indemnity clubs, or 

insurers recognize cybersecurity best 

practices that could help the maritime 

industry and the Coast Guard address 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 75575 

cybersecurity risks? (See also http://

www.dhs.gov/publication/cybersecurityinsurance.) 

Authority 

This notice is issued under the 

authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). 

Dated: December 12, 2014. 

Captain Andrew Tucci, 

Chief, Office of Port & Facility Compliance, 

U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29658 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Docket No. FEMA–2014–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1436] 

Proposed Flood Hazard 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency; DHS. 

ACTION: Notice; correction. 

SUMMARY: On November 3, 2014, FEMA 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed flood hazard determination 

notice that contained an erroneous 

table. This notice provides corrections 

to that table, to be used in lieu of the 

information published at 79 FR 65231. 

The table provided here represents the 

proposed flood hazard determinations 

and communities affected for the East 

Nishnabotna Watershed. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before March 18, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary Flood 

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where 

applicable, the Flood Insurance Study 

(FIS) report for each community are 

available for inspection at both the 

online location and the respective 

Community Map Repository address 

listed in the table below. Additionally, 

the current effective FIRM and FIS 

report for each community are 

accessible online through the FEMA 

Map Service Center at 

www.msc.fema.gov for comparison. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. FEMA–B–1436, to Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 

500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 

20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 

500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 

20472, (202) 646–4064 or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov; or visit 

the FEMA Map Information eXchange 

(FMIX) online at 

www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_

main.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA 

proposes to make flood hazard 

determinations for each community 

listed in the table below, in accordance 

with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, 

and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed flood hazard 

determinations, together with the 

floodplain management criteria required 

by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that 

are required. They should not be 

construed to mean that the community 

must change any existing ordinances 

that are more stringent in their 

floodplain management requirements. 

The community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own, or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These flood hazard determinations are 

used to meet the floodplain 

management requirements of the NFIP 

and are also used to calculate the 

appropriate flood insurance premium 

rates for new buildings built after the 

FIRM and FIS report become effective. 

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel 

(SRP) is available to communities in 

support of the appeal resolution 

process. SRPs are independent panels of 

experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and 

other pertinent sciences established to 

review conflicting scientific and 

technical data and provide 

recommendations for resolution. Use of 

the SRP may only be exercised after 

FEMA and local communities have been 

engaged in a collaborative consultation 

process for at least 60 days without a 

mutually acceptable resolution of an 

appeal. Additional information 

regarding the SRP process can be found 

online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_

fact_sheet.pdf. 

The communities affected by the 

flood hazard determinations are 

provided in the table below. Any 

request for reconsideration of the 

revised flood hazard determinations 

shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS 

report that satisfies the data 

requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) 

is considered an appeal. Comments 

unrelated to the flood hazard 

determinations will also be considered 

before the FIRM and FIS report are 

made final. 

Correction 

In the proposed flood hazard 

determination notice published at 79 FR 

65230 in the November 3, 2014, issue of 

the Federal Register, FEMA published a 

table titled East Nishnobta Watershed. 

This table contained inaccurate 

information as to the spelling for the 

watershed name. 

In this document, FEMA is publishing 

a table containing the accurate 

information. The information provided 

below should be used in lieu of that 

previously published. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: November 24, 2014. 

Roy E. Wright, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Mitigation, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

EAST NISHNABOTNA WATERSHED

Community Community map repository address 

Audubon County, Iowa, and Incorporated Areas 

Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata 

City of Audubon ........................................................................................ City Hall, 410 North Park Place, Audubon, IA 50025. 

City of Brayton .......................................................................................... City Hall, 202 County Trunk Road, Brayton, IA 50042. 

City of Exira .............................................................................................. City Hall, 108 East Washington Street, Exira, IA 50076. 

City of Gray .............................................................................................. Audubon County Courthouse, 318 Leroy Street, Suite 4, Audubon, IA 

50025. 

City of Kimballton ..................................................................................... City Hall, 116 North Main Street, Kimballton, IA 51543. 

Unincorporated Areas of Audubon County .............................................. Audubon County Courthouse, 318 Leroy Street, Suite 4, Audubon, IA 

50025. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES