• SSMP – S. Baird with J. Baker working on section owed

• ASAG SOP – J. Long requested ASAG information on their internal AMS change process(s)

• 03-44 –

General:

S. Baird mentioned she has rewritten the legal part of the SSMP in plain language. She is including information on proprietary information and source selection. She is making the sensitive security information section "reserved" and leaving that to J. Baker. Per J. Baker that section will not be populated for a while as they are still working issues related to it.

J. Baker explained the current situation with security of sensitive information. She stated when TSA was formed and the personnel left FAA, they took with them the CFR that governs sensitive security information. Since 9/11 the government has taken a very different view of what is and is not sensitive. J. Baker mentioned a survey FAA participated in with the White House and based on the results expected an Executive Order to address these issues. To date this Executive Order has not been published. Therefore, FAA had a rule that they want to reinstate (it went to TSA as well) which will address the security of sensitive information issues. J. Baker stated currently the order is being rewritten as well as pursuing the rule reinstatement. She guessed they hope to reach closure in 3-6 months.

B. Ingargiola suggested J. Baker work with Faye Jordan, of ACM-20 in reference to the DRRC. She stated that she believed the DRRC and what J. Baker is doing would probably complement each other.

ASAG endorsed, with S. Baird’s part and reserving the sensitive security information section. (Note the SSMP has not been resubmitted as of this meeting to incorporate this change.)

J. Long provided a general overview of the document D. Lankford chose to go with from the ones discussed at the previous ASAG meeting. He chose to go with a Standard Operating Procedure versus the ISO-9001-like process.

J. Long was tasked with taking the ASAG Guidance document and converting it to a Standard Operating Procedure document for the ASAG. As part of that document there will be appendices, which will address how each ASAG member/organization processes AMS changes once received. This is the internal process to each phase and/or line of business. A discussion was held in reference to what was meant by their internal process. Basically it is what each member does once with any AMS changes received, specifically significant changes. For example, review them personally, forward changes to management for review and comment, etc.

ACTION: (1) J. Long provide members with a detailed e-mail of what she is asking for. (2) All members provide information by May 13^th. (3) J. Long consolidate information provided and forward draft to ASAG members for review and comment.

D. Lankford presented an idea seeking feedback from the ASAG members. The proposal is a quality management system for the ASAG process. This would be an ISO-9001-like process. This would include documenting activities, processes, people, decisions, etc. and creating work plans, quality manuals, etc. There would have to be measurements identified to ensure the processes is being done.

One key element to this is ASAG members would have a large role in the development of the quality management system documents. Each member will need to describe and document their process for managing changes. For example, the entire process needs to include what process(es) each member uses to review, provide, comments, etc. for every change they receive.

D. Lankford stated this process could be as large or as small as the ASAG wants it to be. He wanted to know if the members see value and benefit from doing this process.

A discussion was held in reference to iCMM and how this relates to it. B. Ingargiola stated ACM reviewed iCMM and ISO-9001 and ended up using iCMM only. It was mentioned that if the iCMM process was used it would get support from AIO. No matter which process is used, all ASAG members will need to provide information and assist with developing it.

ACTION: (1) All ASAG members send a message to D. Lankford with your interest in pursuing this. (2) D. Lankford determine whether iCMM or ISO-9001 would be used and identify what commitment will be required from ASAG members to complete this. Brief at future ASAG meeting.

B. Ingargiola stated the Associates would be having meetings to discuss the A-76 process. They are also discussing AMS and A-76 and how they relate to each other. She invited any ASAG members interested in getting involved to the meetings. B. Ingargiola will send D. Sirk the meeting information.

ACTION: (1) B. Ingargiola provide D. Sirk with meeting schedule as it relates to A-76. (2) D. Sirk forward the schedule to ASAG members for their information.

D. Sirk mentioned the changes Linda Ibrahim has submitted. D. Sirk asked J. Long to ensure the change documents get out to the ASAG members and asked that the ASAG members review and provide comments prior to the April ASAG meeting.

ACTION: (1) J. Long provide change documents to ASAG members. (2) ASAG members review and provide comments prior to the April meeting.

The question was raised if ATB was exempt from AMS. D. Sirk stated there are no organizations that are exempt from AMS.

Change Requests:

03-36, System Safety Management Program, Ron Stroup, ASD-100, presented this change. He stated this document expands the section on software safety, at the request of ARA-1. Due to concerns from S. Baird, Section on 6.3, "disclosure of information", has been deleted from the change document that the ASAG members received earlier in the month to review. A. Mears stated they will be working with S. Baird to ensure that section addresses her concerns and will be submitting as another change at a later date.

There was general discussion on the document itself, its contents and identification of comments received and addressed. The discussion included comments about who would provide and fund system safety support to the teams. In addition, it was determined that A. Politano’s comments were inadvertently not received by the initiator. J. Long was requested to ensure these were received by the initiator.

A. Mears stated the software safety section is key to some programs and C. Keegan is waiting for it to be final so he can require adherence. D. Sirk asked the ASAG if they would endorse the change as submitted without section 6.3 and pending A. Politano’s comments being resolved. The members agreed to the removal of section 6.3 and requested a week to review once more after A. Politano’s comments were incorporated.

ACTION: (1) J. Long forward final document to ASAG members once receive. (2) ASAG members review and provide any final comments by April 2^nd.

Future Meeting Schedule:

(Note: All conference rooms are located in FOB10A unless otherwise indicated)