The Federal Government's intellectual property rights to these inventions are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license these inventions as the University of Hawaii and the Cornell Research Foundation have submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within ninety (90) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

The purpose of the Commission is to provide advice and recommendations to the President and Congress on the creation of an integrated, coordinated Federal policy, designed to prepare for and respond to serious drought emergencies. Tasks for the Commission include developing recommendations that will: (a) Better integrate Federal laws and programs with ongoing State, local, and tribal programs, (b) improve public awareness of the need for drought mitigation, prevention, and response and (c) determine whether all Federal drought preparation and response programs should be consolidated under one existing Federal agency, and, if so, identify the agency.

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended, directs the Secretary of Agriculture to periodically assess the status of National Forests and other forests and rangeland resources. Similar legislative assessment mandates form the basis for each of the other Federal agencies that sponsor the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. These agencies include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Economic Research Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The RPA Assessment Update must be completed by 2002.

Each Federal agency needs to keep abreast of public outdoor recreational trends and preferences. The survey assesses the demands the public places on Federal and other managed forest, rangeland and wilderness resources for recreational purposes and the perceptions the public has of the way agencies manage for meeting these demands. The collected information enables the agencies to be responsive to the trends and preferences of the public while achieving the agencies' missions through effective policy, planning, and management of Federal lands and other forests and wilderness resources.

The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment will be used to collect the data for the assessment update.

The first National Recreation Survey (NRS) was conducted in 1960 by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission and has assumed the role of being the United States' baseline survey for outdoor recreation and related public land interests. The NRS has served as the official source of recreation data for the population in the United States.

The Forest Service assumed the principle investigative role for the Survey in 1986 and, in 1994, conducted the sixth in this continuing national series. As the lead agency, Forest Service personnel led the conceptualization, design, and execution of the 1994-95 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. The Forest Service is coordinating NSRE 2000, which began in 1999. It is the seventh in this series of Federally-sponsored recreational surveys.

The NRS survey series has served not only Federal land managing agencies, but also educational institutions, industry, others in the private sector, State agencies, and other levels of government.

The following describes the information collection to be extended:

Title: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 2000.

OMB Number: 0596-0127.

Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2000.

Type of Request: Extension of a previously approved information collection.

Abstract: The collected information will be used to measure the recreational demands the public makes on Federally managed forest and wilderness resources and other public lands at all levels of government. The Forest Service will use the collected information in developing the 2000 and 2003 Renewable Resources Planning Act Assessments and the 2000 and 2003 Government Performance and Results Act Strategic Plans.

To enable analysis of trends, many of the interviewing protocols used in earlier surveys have been replicated. Interviews are being conducted by telephone with telephone numbers selected randomly. Persons who answer the phone are interviewed by University of Tennessee trained interview personnel. Bilingual interviewers are available to overcome language barriers.

Respondents are all age, ethnic, regional, gender, and household strata making up the United States' population. Data is collected from a random sample of adults residing in the United States and the District of Columbia. Sampling is by means of Random Digit Dialing (RDD), resulting in natural stratification of the sample by state, county, and area code. RDD samples provide an equal probability of reaching all households in the nation with telephone access (i.e., a unique telephone number that rings in that household only), whether or not that phone number is listed. University of Tennessee interviewers collect the data under an agreement with the Southern Research Station of the Forest Service.

Questions address the public's perception of recreational site accessibility for disabled persons; the public's perception of how Federal forests, forests on other public lands, and wilderness resources are managed; the public's perception of how well the Federal government delivers the preferred recreational services; and the demographics of the respondents.

Data gathered in this information collection is not available from other sources.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 18 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Consenting adults with access to a telephone.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 20,000.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 6,000 hours.

The agency invites comments on the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection will meet the stated purposes and is necessary to the performance of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the public burden and validity of the methods and assumptions used; (c) ways that might improve the quality, utility, and clarity of information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will become a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686).

A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on April 10, 2000, requesting panel review of the final antidumping duty administrative review described above.

The Rules provide that:

(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is May 10, 2000);

(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is May 25, 2000); and

(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted, variously, for swing, carryover and the recrediting of unused carryforward.

Upon the request of the Government of Costa Rica, the U.S. Government has agreed to increase the current Guaranteed Access Level for textile products in Category 447.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 50495, published on September 17, 1999.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these aspects to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: Projects with Industry.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 350—Burden Hours: 14,000.

Abstract: The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) requests OMB approval to extend currently approved data collection form for use through December 31, 2000.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov., or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 5624, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO__IMG__Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila__Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

On April 11, 2000, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson announced that the Department would begin preparation of an EIS on the proposed transfer of TA-18's capabilities and up to approximately 2 tons of special nuclear materials to another location. TA-18, known as the Pajarito Site, consists of a main building, three outlying remote-controlled critical assembly buildings known as “kivas”, several smaller laboratories, nuclear material storage vaults, and support buildings. The site is located on approximately 130 acres along Pajarito Road. The Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility (LACEF) and other experimental facilities are located at TA-18, which is situated in the base of a canyon whose walls rise approximately 200 feet on three sides. The three kivas are Category 2 nuclear facilities (i.e., hazard analysis shows the potential for significant on-site consequences) and are within fenced areas to keep personnel at a safe distance during criticality experiments. Additionally, the entire TA-18 is bounded by a security fence to aid in physically safeguarding special nuclear material. Site access is through a guarded portal.

The principal TA-18 activities are the design, construction, research, development, and applications of experiments on nuclear criticality. Excluding security and support personnel, about 80 full-time employees work at TA-18. They provide expertise and knowledge in advanced nuclear technologies that support three primary areas: (1) Critical experiments in support of Stockpile Stewardship and other programs; (2) emergency response in support of counter-terrorism activities; and (3) safeguards and arms control in support of domestic and international programs to control excess nuclear materials. TA-18 is the nation's only facility capable of performing general-purpose nuclear materials handling for a variety of experiments, measurements and training. TA-18 also houses the Western Hemisphere's largest collection of machines for conducting nuclear safety evaluations and establishing limits for operations.

Since 1948, thousands of criticality experiments and measurements have been performed at TA-18 on assemblies using uranium-233, uranium-235, and plutonium-239 in various configurations, including nitrate, sulfate, and oxide compounds as well as solid, liquid, and gas forms. Critical assemblies at TA-18 are designed to operate at low-average power and temperatures well below phase change transition temperatures (which sets them apart from normal reactors) with low fission production and minimal inventory. Special nuclear materials are stored at kivas or in a vault. The on-site TA-18 nuclear materials inventory (about 2 metric tons of special nuclear materials) is relatively stable, and consists primarily of isotopes of plutonium and uranium. The bulk of the plutonium is metal, and is either clad or encapsulated; plutonium oxide is double-canned. The use of toxic and hazardous chemicals is limited. The criticality experiments generate very small amounts of fission products and there is little radioactive waste. Criticality experiments do not release significant emissions to the atmosphere at the site. A more detailed description of TA-18 activities and associated impacts can be found in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (January 1999).

The Department proposes to provide a long-term capability to conduct criticality experiments and evaluations, develop emergency response procedures, and support non-proliferation safeguards and arms control. Since the 1980's, this capability has been based upon the operation of facilities at TA-18, some of which have been operational since 1946. Though TA-18 is judged secure by the Department of Energy's independent inspection office, its facilities are between 30 and 50 years old and are increasingly expensive to maintain and operate. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has recommended, in 1993 and 1997, that the Department continue to maintain the capability to support the only remaining criticality safety program in the nation. Consistent with this, the Department wishes to maintain the important capabilities currently provided by TA-18 in a manner that reduces the long-term costs for safeguards and security. Relocating the TA-18 missions would reduce life-cycle costs and improve safeguards and security.

Currently, the NNSA expects that the TA-18 Relocation EIS will evaluate the environmental impacts associated with TA-18 missions at the following DOE sites: (1) a different location at LANL (the preferred alternative); (2) NTS; (3) SNL; and (4) ANL-W. This preliminary list of sites is based on the initial efforts of a Department-wide Option Study Group chartered to develop reasonable alternatives for conducting TA-18 missions. Site screening criteria were developed by the Group that looked for sites with existing Category I (highest level) security infrastructure; nuclear environment, safety and health infrastructure; and compatibility between the site and TA-18 missions. These alternatives are described in greater detail below.

LANL Alternative. This alternative would involve constructing a new facility near the TA-55 Plutonium Facility 4. Consolidating the TA-18 missions near the existing TA-55 facilities could significantly reduce future costs associated with safeguards and security by consolidating safeguards and security requirements. Following construction, the existing Perimeter Intrusion Detection and Assessment System (PIDAS) fence would be expanded to encompass the new facility. Other possible LANL locations for a new facility may also be identified.

NTS Alternative. This alternative would house the TA-18 missions at or near the existing Device Assembly Facility (DAF). The DAF, which became operational in 1998, has the capability to support a variety of nuclear explosive operations (including device assembly, disassembly, modification, staging, testing, repair, and surveillance). Currently, the DAF is used for assembly of sub-critical assemblies, as well as miscellaneous other national security missions. The DAF is approximately 100,000 square feet and has capacity available to accept the TA-18 missions with internal modifications and some minor external construction.

SNL Alternative. This alternative would house the TA-18 missions within TA-V at SNL. Currently, SNL operates a variety of research-oriented nuclear facilities in TA-V. Because existing space in TA-V could accommodate the TA-18 missions, no new buildings would be needed for this alternative. Internal modifications to existing buildings would be required.

ANL-W Alternative. This alternative would house the TA-18 missions in the existing Fuel Manufacturing Facility, and possibly the Transient Reactor Test Facility and other existing facilities. New construction to expand the existing Fuel Manufacturing Facility would be required to accommodate the TA-18 missions. Security upgrades may also be necessary.

As required by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the TA-18 Relocation EIS will also evaluate the no-action alternative of maintaining the missions at the current TA-18 location. This alternative would maintain the current missions at Technical Area 18 as described in the expanded use alternative of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Associated Record of Decision (64 FR 50797, September 20, 1999). As stated in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, previously planned routine upgrades for infrastructure and security would be conduced in order to maintain the facility.

It is possible that this list of reasonable alternatives may change during the scoping process. In addition, as the EIS is being prepared, the NNSA will be examining the TA-18 missions in order to optimize the number and kind of facilities, and the amount of special nuclear material that would be required to carry out the missions. Following completion of the EIS process, the Secretary of Energy intends to decide where and how to conduct the TA-18 missions, as well as the future use of the existing TA-18 facilities.

The NNSA has identified the following issues for analysis in the EIS. Additional issues may be identified as a result of the scoping process.

1. Public and Worker Safety, Health Risk Assessment: Radiological and non-radiological impacts, including projected effects on workers and the public from construction, normal operations and accident conditions, and decommissioning and decontamination activities associated with relocating and carrying out the TA-18 missions.

2. Impacts from releases to air, water, and soil associated with relocating and carrying out the TA-18 missions.

3. Impacts to plants, animals, and habitats, including threatened or endangered species and their habitats, associated with relocating and carrying out the TA-18 missions.

4. The consumption of natural resources and energy associated with relocating and carrying out the TA-18 missions.

5. Socioeconomic impacts to affected communities from construction and operation associated with relocating and carrying out the TA-18 missions.

6. Environmental justice: Disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations associated with relocating and carrying out the TA-18 missions.

7. Impacts to cultural resources such as historic, archaeological, scientific, or culturally important sites associated with relocating and carrying out the TA-18 missions. Because some facilities at TA-18 are over 50 years old, and potentially important in the context of the Cold War, these will be evaluated for their historical significance under all alternatives.

8. Impacts associated with transportation and storage of nuclear materials.

9. Status of compliance with all applicable Federal, state, and local statutes and regulations; required Federal, state, and tribe environmental consultations and notifications; and DOE Orders on waste management, waste minimization, and environmental protection.

10. Cumulative impacts from the proposed action and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at the alternative sites.

11. Potential irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources associated with relocating and carrying out the TA-18 missions.

12. Pollution prevention and waste management practices, including characterization, storage, treatment and disposal of wastes associated with relocating and carrying out the TA-18 missions.

NNSA anticipates that certain classified information will be consulted in the preparation of this EIS and used by decision-makers to decide where and how the capabilities at TA-18 will be carried out. The EIS may contain a classified appendix. To the extent allowable, the EIS will summarize this information in an unclassified manner.

The importance of the TA-18 missions requires that the facilities remain operational until the final decision is made and implemented so there is minimal disruption to existing programs or commitments. To support a Record of Decision for this EIS by January 2001, the major milestones for the EIS are shown below.

To facilitate this schedule, the TA-18 Relocation EIS will tier from existing EISs for the four alternative sites, as appropriate. For example, the Department has previously prepared Site-Wide EISs for LANL (Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, January 1999), SNL (Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, November 1999), and NTS (Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada, August 1996) that are expected to provide much of the existing environmental information. Additionally, several NEPA documents for ANL-W facilities will be utilized, including the Electro-metallurgical Treatment Research and Demonstration Project at ANL-W Environmental Assessment (May 1996) and the Treatment and Management of Sodium-Bonded Spent Nuclear Fuel EIS (Final EIS expected to be published in May 2000).

To assist in defining the appropriate scope of the EIS and to identify significant environmental issues to be addressed, NNSA representatives will conduct public scoping meetings at the locations, dates, and times described above under DATES. Each scoping meeting will begin with an overview of the TA-18 missions, the current EIS alternatives, and the proposed EIS scope. Following the initial presentation, NNSA representatives will answer questions and accept comments. Copies of handouts from the meetings will be available to those unable to attend, by contacting the NNSA as described above under ADDRESSES.

The Notice of Solicitation Availability issued by the Chicago Operations Office, DOE, that appeared in the Federal Register , Volume 65, No. 21, on Tuesday, February 1, 2000 required, in part, that applicants propose a teaming arrangement of at least two glass industry companies. That requirement was eliminated as a qualification criterion from the solicitation which was issued on April 11, 2000. However, teaming arrangements are still desired and will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criterion identified in the solicitation.

PANGC, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum Company, a Delaware corporation. Marathon, an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas, is a wholly owned subsidiary of USX Corporation, also a Delaware corporation. PANGC and Marathon are not affiliated with each other. They own and operate natural gas liquefaction and marine terminal facilities at Kenai, Alaska.

The Applicants have maintained an uninterrupted export relationship with Japan's two largest utilities, The Tokyo Electric Power Company Inc. (Tokyo Electric) and Tokyo Gas Company Limited (Tokyo Gas) since 1967. 1 The most recent of numerous amendments  2 to the Applicant's original export authorization was granted by DOE/FE Opinion and Order No. 1473 (Order 1473) on April 2, 1999. It extended their authority to export up to 64.4 trillion British thermal units (TBtus)  3 of LNG per year through March 31, 2009. 4

DOE/FE Opinion and Order No. 261-D, issued March 21, 1995, approved the currently authorized pricing formula applicable to the Applicants' LNG export sales. 5 This formula is described in an April 19, 1994, “Third Amendatory Agreement” to the Applicants” June 17, 1988, LNG sales contract with Tokyo Electric and Tokyo Gas. It reflects the weighted average price over periods of three consecutive months relative to all crude oils imported into Japan each month. The crude oil prices are obtained from Japan Exports and Imports Monthly, a publication of the Japan Tariff Association. The arithmetic average price is subject to a ceiling of $26.00 per barrel and a floor of $13.00 per barrel. If the arithmetic price is outside this range, the formula provides for redetermination of the contract price.

In response to changes in the Japanese LNG markets, the parties met in 1999 to discuss the comparability of Alaska LNG pricing with that of other projects supplying LNG to Japan under long-term contracts. As a result of these discussions, they signed a “Fourth Amendatory Agreement” on November 16, 1999, which revises the authorized pricing formula. The applicants ask DOE to approve the new formula for use during the period April 1, 1998, to March 31, 2004.

Under the new formula proposed by the Applicants, the price is calculated monthly based primarily on the weighted average price of all crude oils imported into Japan in the third month prior to the time the LNG is unloaded. In addition, the revised price formula includes an adjustment factor to keep the Applicants' LNG competitive with other sales of LNG in the Japanese market. 6 Redetermination of the contract price is triggered when the weighted average price of crude oil is outside the range of $11.00 to $25.00 per barrel.

The Applicants assert the revised formula is similar to the price formulas used by most other LNG projects that sell into the Japanese market. They also assert the new formula will permit “more market responsive” pricing, thereby maintaining the competitiveness of their LNG exports.

The application of PANGC and Marathon to amend their authorization to export LNG from Alaska to Japan will be reviewed pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, 7 as amended by section 201 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-486), and the authority contained in DOE Delegation Order Nos. 0204-111 and 0204-127. 8 Under section 3, an export from Alaska to a foreign country must be authorized unless there is a finding “it will not be consistent with the public interest.”  9 Section 3 thus creates a statutory presumption in favor of approval of this application which opponents bear the burden of overcoming.

Furthermore, in evaluating an export application, the Department applies the principles described in DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-111, which focuses primarily on domestic need for the natural gas to be exported and the Secretary's natural gas import policy guidelines, which presume trade arrangements freely negotiated by commercial parties will benefit the public. 10

The Department previously determined there is no domestic need for the LNG exports affected by the revised price formula and will evaluate the requested amendment based on whether it is in accord with DOE's international gas trade policy. 11 Parties that may oppose this application should comment in their responses on this issue as it relates to the contract price revision. The Applicants assert the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Parties opposing the amendment bear the burden of overcoming this assertion.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. , requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its NEPA responsibilities.

In response to this notice, any person may file a protest, motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable, and written comments. Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding and to have their written comments considered as the basis for any decision on the application must, however, file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. The filing of a protest with respect to this application will not serve to make the protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the application. All protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590. Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, requests for additional procedures, and written comments should be filed with the Office of Natural Gas & Petroleum Import & Export Activities at the address listed above.

It is intended that a decisional record on this application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. A party seeking intervention may request that additional procedures be provided, such as additional written comments, an oral presentation, a conference, or trial-type hearing. Any request to file additional written comments should explain why they are necessary. Any request for an oral presentation should identify the substantial question of fact, law, or policy at issue, show that it is material and relevant to a decision in the proceeding, and demonstrate, why an oral presentation is needed. Any request for a conference should demonstrate why the conference would materially advance the proceeding. Any request for a trial-type hearing must show that there are factual issues genuinely in dispute that are relevant and material to a decision and that a trial-type hearing is necessary for a full and true disclosure of the facts.

If an additional procedure is scheduled, a notice will provide notice to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final opinion and order may be issued based on the official record, including the application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

The application filed by PANGC and Marathon is available for inspection and copying in the Natural Gas & Petroleum Import & Export Activities Docket Room, 3E-042, at the above address. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance.

The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

OMB Control No.: 3060-0168.

Title: Section 43.43—Reports of Proposed Changes in Depreciation Rates.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 10.

Estimated Time Per Response: 4,000-6,000 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, on occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 40,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: In Report and Order, CC Docket No. 98-91, the Commission streamlined its depreciation prescription process by permitting summary filings and eliminating the prescription of depreciation rates for incumbent LECs, expanding the prescribed range for the digital switching plant account, and eliminating the theoretical reserve study requirement for mid-sized LECs. The Commission also established a waiver process whereby price cap incumbent LECs can free themselves of depreciation regulation. Also, see the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-137 for additional proposals soliciting comment to further reduce burden placed on price cap ILECs.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0395.

Title: The ARMIS USOA Report; The ARMIS Service Quality Report; and the ARMIS Infrastructure Report.

Report No.: FCC Reports 43-02, 43-05, and 43-07.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Time Per Response: 5.7 hours to 550 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, on occasion and annual reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 29,366 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The USOA Report provides the annual results of the carriers' activities for each account of the Uniform System of Accounts. The Service Quality Report provides service quality information in the areas of interexchange access service, installation and repair intervals, local service installation and repair intervals, trunk blockage, and total switch downtime for price cap companies. The Infrastructure Report provides switch deployment and capabilities data. The Commission modified the requirements for FCC Report 43-02 in CC Docket 99-253, Report and Order. FCC Reports 43-05 and 43-07 remain unchanged.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0734.

Title: Accounting Safeguards, CC Docket 96-150, (47 U.S.C. Sections 260, 271-276 and 47 CFR Sections 53.209, 53.211 and 53.213).

Form No.: SEC 10-K Form.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 27.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour to 6,056 hours.

Frequency of Response: Biennial, annual and on occasion reporting requirements, third party disclosure requirement, recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 172,560 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $633,000.

Needs and Uses: In the Report and Order in CC Docket 96-150, the Commission addressed the accounting safeguards necessary to satisfy the requirements of Sections 260 and 271 through 276 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Report and Order prescribed the way ILECs, including the BOCs, must account for transactions with affiliates involving, and allocate costs incurred in the provision of, both regulated telecommunications services and nonregulated services, including telemessaging, interLATA telecommunications and information services, telecommunications equipment and CPE manufacturing and others. The information collected under this submission enables the Commission to ensure that the subscribers to regulated telecommunications services do not bear the costs of these new nonregulated services and that transactions between affiliates and carriers will be at prices that do not ultimately result in unfair rates being charged to ratepayers.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0463.

Title: Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 47 CFR Part 64 (Sections 64.601-64.605).

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 5,052.

Estimated Time Per Response: .166 hours to 365 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual, on occasion, and every 5 years reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement, third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 26,832 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: Title IV of the ADA requires the Commission to ensure that telecommunications relay services are available to persons with hearing and speech disabilities in the United States. The Commission is required by 44 U.S.C. 225(d)(3) to enact and oversee a shared-funding mechanism (TRS Fund) for recovering the costs of providing interstate TRS. The Commission recently modified its rules to, among other things, require the notification of substantive changes to a state's TRS program and to allow for the filing of informal complaints. The information is needed to ensure compliance with agency policy.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0551.

Title: Sections 76.1002 and 76.1004, Specific Unfair Practices Prohibited.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 52.

Estimate Time Per Response: 1 to 25 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeep- ing; On occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 676 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $97,500.

Needs and Uses: The Commission staff will use this information to determine on a case-by-case basis whether particular exclusive contracts for cable television programming comply with the statutory public interest standard of section 19 of the 1992 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act and section 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 301(j) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act amends the restrictions in section 628 to include common carriers and their affiliates that provide video programming.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0057.

Title: Application for Equipment Authorization, 47 CFR 2.911, 2.960, and 2.1033(a).

Form Number: FCC 731.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 5,600.

Estimate Time Per Response: 18 to 30 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeep- ing; On occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 134,400 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $1,120,000.

Needs and Uses: The Commission Rules require approval prior to marketing of equipment regulated under certain sections of Parts 15 and 18, based on the showing of compliance with technical standards established in the Rules for each device operated under the applicable Rule part. Rules governing certain equipment operating in the licensed service also require equipment authorization as established in the procedural Rules in Part 2. Such a showing of compliance aids in controlling potential interference to radio communications, and the data gathered, as is necessary, may be used for investigating complaints of harmful interference.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0055.

Title: Application for Cable Television Relay Service Station Authorization.

Form Number: FCC 327.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Individuals or households; State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Number of Respondents: 973.

Estimate Time Per Response: 3.166 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 3,081 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $184,000.

Needs and Uses: Cable television system owners or operators and MMDS operators use FCC Form 327 to apply for cable television relay service station authorizations (CARS). The Commission uses the information to determine whether applicants meet basic statutory requirements and are qualified to become or continue as Commission licensees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0568.

Title: Commercial Leased Access Rates, Terms, and Conditions.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 6,330.

Estimate Time Per Response: 2 minutes to 10 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 94,171 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $74,000.

Needs and Uses: The Commission and prospective leased access programmers use this information to verify rate calculations for leased access channels and to eliminate uncertainty in negotiations for leased commercial access. The Commission's leased access requirements are designed to promote diversity of programming and competition in programming delivery as required by section 612 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

This meeting will be open to the public with limited seating available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the general public who plan to attend the meeting should contact William Troup, United States Fire Administration, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727, (301) 447-1231, on or before Tuesday, May 30, 2000.

Minutes of the meeting will be prepared and will be available upon request 30 days after they have been approved at the next FICEMS Committee Meeting on September 7, 2000.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Under section 903(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)), FDA is authorized to conduct research relating to foods and to conduct educational and public information programs relating to the safety of the nation's food supply. FDA is planning to conduct a consumer survey about food safety under this authority. The food safety survey will provide information about consumers' food safety awareness, knowledge, concerns, and practices. A nationally representative sample of 2,000 adults in households with telephones and cooking facilities will be selected at random and interviewed by telephone. Participation will be voluntary. Detailed information will be obtained about risk perception, perceived sources of food contamination, knowledge of particular microorganisms, safe care label use, food handling practices, consumption of raw foods from animals, information sources, and perceived foodborne illness and food allergy experience.

Most of the questions to be asked are identical to ones asked in the 1998 Food Safety Survey. Because of recent national consumer education campaigns about food safety and the large amount of media attention to food safety issues in the past few years, consumer attitudes, knowledge, and practices are likely to have changed greatly since the 1998 survey. FDA needs current information to support consumer education programs and regulatory development. In addition, FDA needs information from the consumer perspective on several new areas related to food safety. New areas include attitudes toward genetically modified foods, irradiated foods, and organically grown foods; handling of leftovers and foods associated with listeria monocytogenes contamination; washing practices for fresh fruits and vegetables; reaction to warning statements on unpasteurized juice and to handling statements on eggs; disability status; and perceived food allergy.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The burden estimate is based on FDA's experience with the 1998 survey mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Section 353 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), as amended by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1988 (CLIA), requires laboratories that perform tests on human specimens to meet the requirements we establish. Laboratories that also request to be paid for services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries must meet the requirements of section 353 of the PHSA, as stipulated in section 6141 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Public Law 101-239. Subject to specific exceptions, laboratories must have a current and valid CLIA certificate to test human specimens to receive payment from the Medicare or Medicaid programs. Regulations implementing section 353 of the PHSA are contained in 42 CFR part 493 (Laboratory Requirements).

Section 353(p) of the PHSA authorizes us to exempt from the CLIA requirements laboratories located in a State that applies laboratory licensure requirements equal to or more stringent than those of CLIA. Part 493, subpart E (Accreditation by a Private, Nonprofit Accreditation Organization or Exemption Under an Approved State Laboratory Program) implements section 353(p) of the PHSA.

Section 493.553 sets forth the information that must be submitted with a State licensure program's application for CLIA approved status. Sections 493.551 and 493.553 provide that we may exempt from CLIA requirements, for a period not to exceed 6 years, State licensed or approved laboratories in a State if the State licensure program meets specific conditions. After that time, the State must re-apply to us for continued exemption. Section 493.575(f) provides that we will publish a notice in the Federal Register containing justification for removing the CLIA approved status of a State licensure program.

The State of Oregon's period of exemption began on June 13, 1996, with the publication of our notice entitled, “Medicare, Medicaid, and CLIA Programs; Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 Exemption of Laboratories in the State of Oregon,” in the Federal Register (61 FR 30072). That exemption period expired December 31, 1999. The State of Oregon has formally notified us that it will not be re-applying for exemption of its licensed laboratories located within the State. Without an application for continued approval of Oregon's licensure program, we cannot continue to exempt Oregon laboratories from the CLIA requirement.

The nearly 4 1/2 -year exemption period that we granted to laboratories in the State of Oregon expired on December 31, 1999. Therefore, we are removing the CLIA approved status of Oregon's licensure program effective May 2, 2000.

Background

As suggested by the report language accompanying section 219 of the Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-113), we are announcing the first of two “town hall” meetings to discuss our current policy regarding Medicare coverage of drugs and biologicals which cannot be self-administered and are furnished as an incident to a physician's professional service.

The purpose of the May 18th meeting is to obtain focused input on how this statutory provision should reasonably be interpreted; how the evolution of medical technology has affected physician practice in self-administration; how different interpretations of the provision might affect considerations of fairness and equity among beneficiary populations; and how physician practice may be affected by different interpretations. Due to time constraints and the need to focus on the above topics, the agency is unable to undertake a discussion of options or ideas that require a statutory change.

The format of the meeting will include an introduction and opening statements by the administration, followed by 15-minute presentations by panel members. These statements will discuss the historical development of the “self-administered” issue and will examine the current policy and information that has been gathered on the issue. Following the short presentations, the meeting will move to an open dialogue.

Individuals interested in making a presentation at the meeting or who need special arrangements should contact Heidi Adams at (410) 786-1620 or via e-mail at HAdams@hcfa.gov no later than May 7, 2000. Individuals should identify the topics they wish to discuss during their presentation. Because of time constraints, only a limited number of individuals will be able to make presentations. In an effort to assure that all viewpoints are represented, we will notify participants who are selected to make a presentation. We will not assign presentation times until after May 7, 2000.

While the meeting is open to the public, attendance is limited to space available. Individuals must register in advance as described below.

The Center for Health Plans and Providers will handle registration for the meeting. Individuals may register by sending a fax to the attention of Heidi Adams at (410) 786-0169. At the time of registration, please provide your name, address, telephone number, company name and fax number.

Receipt of your fax will constitute confirmation of your registration. Meeting materials will be provided at the time of the meeting.

If you have questions regarding registration, please contact Heidi Adams. We will accept written comments, questions, or other materials specifically dealing with the issue that are received no later than 5 p.m. on May 7, 2000. Written submissions must be sent to: Health Care Financing Administration, ATTN: Heidi Adams, C4-07-07, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

The purpose of the working groups is to provide the ISAC and the Council advice on a broad array of issues related to preventing the introduction of invasive species and providing for their control and minimizing the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. Six working groups have been established as follows:

The working groups will help maintain a regular dialogue with stakeholders to provide national leadership regarding invasive species issues. They will assist the ISAC and the Council to (1) Prepare and issue a Management Plan; (2) encourage planning and action at local, tribal, State, regional and ecosystem-based levels to achieve the goals and objectives of the management plan; (3) develop recommendations for international cooperation in addressing invasive species; (4) develop, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality, guidance to Federal agencies pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act on invasive species matters; (5) facilitate development of a coordinated network to document, evaluate, and monitor impacts from invasive species; (6) facilitate establishment of an information-sharing system on invasive species that utilizes, to the greatest extent practicable, the Internet; and (7) support long-term continuance and effective implementation of the Management Plan.

Working groups have been organized with federal and non-federal co-leaders. The groups will utilize electronic communications (email, listservers, and web-based postings) to accelerate development of Management Plan input. The vision or scoping statements developed by each working group will reflect a more specific refinement of the draft guiding principles now under development by the ISAC. Priority issues will be identified and the groups will develop draft responses or actions to be taken for consideration by the ISAC. As part of the management planning process, model projects will be identified which improve coordination and effectiveness and stimulate action.

The working groups will report to the ISAC at least twice before the Management Plan is due to be completed in August, 2000. After issuance of the plan, the working groups will help implement the plan and begin developing input for its biennial revision.

Members of the working groups serve without pay.

Title: 30 CFR 250, Subpart K, Production Rates.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0041.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. , gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) the responsibility to preserve, protect, and develop oil and gas resources in the OCS, consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; balance orderly energy resource development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments; ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Section 1334(g)(2) states “. . . the lessee shall produce such oil or gas, or both, at rates . . . to assure the maximum rate of production which may be sustained without loss of ultimate recovery of oil or gas, or both, under sound engineering and economic principles, and which is safe for the duration of the activity covered by the approved plan.”

Regulations at 30 CFR 250, subpart K, implement these statutory requirements. We use the information collected to determine if produced gas can be economically put to beneficial use, to analyze the risks of transporting the liquid hydrocarbons against the value of the resource, and to account for volumes of flared gas and burned liquid hydrocarbons. The MMS uses the information in its efforts to conserve natural resources, prevent waste, and protect correlative rights including the Government's royalty interest. Specifically, MMS uses the information to review records of burning liquid hydrocarbons and venting and flaring actions to ensure that they are not excessive; to determine maximum production and maximum efficient rates; to compare the volume of hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) flared and the sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) emitted to the specified amounts in approved contingency plans; to monitor monthly atmospheric emissions of SO 2 for air quality; to review applications for downhole commingling to ensure that action does not result in harm to ultimate recovery or undervalued royalties.

We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.196. No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.

The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We published a Federal Register notice with the required 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this ICR on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63053).

Frequency: On occasion or monthly.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil and gas lessees.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 14,189 burden hours, averaging approximately 110 hours per respondent. Refer to the following chart.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no cost burdens for this collection.

Comments: All comments are made a part of the public record. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency “. . . to provide notice . . . and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information . . . .” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Send your comments directly to the offices listed under the addresses section of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by July 3, 2000.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Jo Ann Lauterbach, (202) 208-7744.

The MMS prepares EA's and FONSI's for proposals which relate to exploration for and the development/production of oil and gas resources on the Gulf of Mexico OCS. The EA's examine the potential environmental effects of activities described in the proposals and present MMS conclusions regarding the significance of those effects. Environmental Assessments are used as a basis for determining whether or not approval of the proposals constitutes major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment in the sense of NEPA Section 102(2)(C). A FONSI is prepared in those instances where the MMS finds that approval will not result in significant effects on the quality of the human environment. The FONSI briefly presents the basis for that finding and includes a summary or copy of the EA.

This notice constitutes the public notice of availability of environmental documents required under the NEPA Regulations.

Title: NPS Minerals Management Program.

Form: None.

OMB Number: 1024-0064.

Expiration Date: April 2000.

Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

Description of Need: While surprising, outstanding mineral rights exist in many units of the National Park System. In most cases, these rights predate the establishment of the units. Currently, a little over 2,000 mining claims, which were located under the 1872 Mining Law, exist in a total of 20 park units. The majority of these claims are located in Mojave National Preserve that was added to the National Park System through the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa). With respect to non-Federal oil and gas rights in park units, 597 non-Federal oil and gas operations exist in 11 park units. The potential for additional non-Federal oil and gas operations in additional units is tied to market forces and the quality and quantity of oil and gas reserves in park boundaries that coincide with the presence of private rights.

The NPS regulates mineral development activities inside park boundaries on mining claims and on non-Federal oil and gas rights under regulations codified at 36 CFR Part 9, Subpart A for mining claims (i.e., “9A regulations”), and Subpart B for non-Federal oil and gas rights (i.e., “9B regulations”). The NPS promulgated both sets of regulations in the late 1970's. In the case of mining claims, the NPS did so under congressional authority granted under the Mining in the Parks Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. ) and individual park enabling statutes. For non-Federal oil and gas rights, the NPS regulates development activities pursuant to authority under the NPS Organic Act of 1916 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq. ) and individual enabling statutes. As directed by Congress, the NPS developed the regulations in order to protect park resources and visitor values from the adverse impacts associated with mineral development in park boundaries.

The heart of the regulations is the approved “plan of operations” requirement. Essentially, a plan of operations is a prospective operator's blueprint setting forth all intended activities from access to extraction to reclamation related to developing a particular mineral right in a given park unit. The information required in a plan of operations is set forth in NPS regulations. Before an operator can commence development activities in a park unit, the NPS must approve the plan of operations and the operator must secure a bond in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of reclamation to the Federal Government in the event the operator defaults on his/her obligations.

Usually, an approved plan of operations covers the life of the mine or well, from development and production to reclamation. Under NPS regulations, such plans may be revised. No set form is required for a plan of operations. Each plan is tailored to the intended activities of an operator and the particulars of the environment, e.g., hardwood forest or desert, presence of endangered species or cultural resources, location and extent of water resources including wetlands.

Because of the variability among plans of operations and the duration of such plans, assessing the annual paperwork burden of complying with the NPS's mining regulations is difficult. Below is the NPS's best estimate, pro-rated on an annual basis, as to the number of respondents and number of hours involved in complying with the Service's regulations governing mining claims and non-Federal oil and gas rights.

Respondents: 1/3 medium to large publicly owned companies and 2/3 private entities.

Estimate of Number of Respondents: On an annual basis, the NPS estimates that it receives a range of between 15 to 30 plans of operations under its regulations: 5 to 10 plans of operations for mining claims, and 10 to 20 plans of operations for non-Federal oil and gas rights. For analysis purposes, the NPS used an overall estimate of 23 plans of operations per year: 8 plans of operations for mining claims, and 15 plans of operations for non-Federal oil and gas rights.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: One. To conduct mineral development operations in park units, a prospective operator must submit a proposed plan of operations to the NPS for review and approval. Once approved, such a plan covers the life of the operation. If the plan is for geophysical work associated with private oil and gas rights it may only cover a period of a few months. In contrast, a plan for a production oil and gas well or a hardrock mine may cover a period of 10 or more years.

Estimate of Burden Per Respondent: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 176 hours per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 4048 hours. This number breaks down to 1408 total hours to comply with the information requirements of the 9A regulations governing mining claim operations in parks, and 2650 total hours to comply with the information requirements of the 9B regulations governing non-Federal oil and gas operations in parks.

Methodology and Assumptions Underlying the Hour Estimate: Under the Service's 9A regulations and the 9B regulations, a complete plan may consist of 10 pages of text plus 2-10 pages of illustrations inclusive of location maps, site plans and cross-sections to 100 pages of text plus several volumes of supporting material depending on the complexity of the proposed operations. The latter type of plan for hardrock mining is a rarity in the NPS. The time to prepare a plan could range from 24 hours to 6 months for a very complicated plan. Because the content of each plan is specific to the operation and site, and each operation and site present a unique set of circumstances, it is difficult to identify an “average” plan on which to base an estimate of preparation time. The NPS thus chose to use 160 hours (4 weeks) plus 10% for purposes of this analysis. In the case of the 9A regulations where an average of 8 complete proposed plans are expected per year, the estimated total amount of time involved to prepare plans of operations is 1408 hours ( i.e., 760 hours x 8 complete proposed plans). In the case of the 9B regulations where an average of 15 complete proposed plans are expected per year, the estimated total amount of time involved to prepare plans of operations is 2640 hours.

Estimated Cost Per Respondent to Comply with the Paperwork Requirements: The NPS estimates that the annualized cost to all respondents to comply with the 9A regulations ranges from $14,080 to $140,800. The NPS estimated the cost per plan at $1,760 to $17,600. In the case of the 9B regulations, the NPS estimates the annualized cost to all respondents ranges from $75,000 to $225,000 based on a likely individual compliance cost range of $5,000 to $15,000.

Methodology and Assumptions Underlying the Cost Estimate: For the 9A regulations, the annualized estimated cost to all the respondents was determined as follows:

(1) Nationwide, 8 plans of operations and associated information (e.g., bond, commercial vehicle registration) are expected annually from different operators;

(2) Using an estimate of 160 hours to prepare a plan complete with attachments at a cost of $10 to $100 per hour (assuming the use of consultants for some or all parts of the plan requirements), the cost to prepare a plan could range from $1600 to $16,000.

(3) The NPS added ten percent (i.e., $160 to $1,600) of the cost to prepare a plan of operations to account for administrative costs associated with changes in claim ownership, etc.

An operator with experience in preparing plans of operations likely can prepare an acceptable plan for a moderately complex operation in a few weeks, since most of the components of the plan are compiled during the course of normal business activities. Many of the information requirements of the regulations should be compiled by a responsible operator as part of normal business activities, to minimize liabilities, maintain business records for tax and other purposes, obtain financial backing, and ensure a safe, efficient, and well-planned operation. Under the regulations, information may be submitted in the manner in which it is customarily maintained in the industry. The reclamation plan and environmental report requirements [36 CFR § 9.9(b)(6) and (9), respectively] comprise the bulk of the information collection burden associated with these regulations. There is no standard form for submitting information. The NPS makes pertinent environmental information in park files available to prospective operators to aid in the preparation of proposed plans of operations.

For the 9B regulations, the NPS used a likely individual compliance cost range of $5,000 to $15,000. The range reflects the differences in types and numbers of operations that may be included in a single plan and the wide variations in the environmental settings in which non-Federal oil and gas development occurs in parks, and the availability of pre-existing environmental data from parks. Much of the information required by 36 CFR § 9.36 should be compiled by a responsible operator as part of his/her normal business activities to minimize liabilities, maintain business records for tax and other purposes, obtain financial backing, and ensure a safe, efficient, and well-planned operation. The information may be submitted in the manner in which it is customarily maintained in the industry. The NPS does not require conformance with a standardized format. The reclamation plan and environmental report requirements [36 CFR § 9.36(a)(12) and (16), respectively] comprise the bulk of the information collection burden associated with these regulations. The NPS makes pertinent environmental information in park files available to prospective operators to aid in the preparation of proposed plans of operations.

Response to 60-Day Notice: On December 27, 1999, the NPS issued a notice in the Federal Register as to its intent to request an extension and revision to the information collection budget associated with the Service's minerals management program pursuant to 36 CFR Part 9 (see 64 FR 72358-72359). The comment period closed on February 25, 2000. The NPS received one comment that questioned whether the NPS had adequately assessed the burden for compliance with NEPA. While NEPA compliance is the responsibility of the NPS and not respondents, the Service's Part 9 regulations do require respondents to submit environmental data to the Service. As a result of the comment, the NPS reassessed the amount of time estimated for respondents to comply with the regulations. The NPS increased that time estimate to 160 hours plus 10% per respondent to more accurately account for time spent collecting and assembling data on the affected environment and possible resource impacts.

The Subsistence Resource Commissions are authorized under Title VIII, section 808, of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Public Law 96-487 and operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committees Act.

The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta system) is a critically important part of California's natural environment and economy. In recognition of the serious problems facing the region and the complex resource management decisions that must be made, the state of California and the Federal government are working together to stabilize, protect, restore, and enhance the Bay-Delta system. The State and Federal agencies with management and regulatory responsibilities in the Bay-Delta system are working together as CALFED to provide policy direction and oversight for the process.

One area of Bay-Delta management includes the establishment of a joint State-Federal process to develop long-term solutions to problems in the Bay-Delta system related to fish and wildlife, water supply reliability, natural disasters, and water quality. The intent is to develop a comprehensive and balanced plan which addresses all of the resource problems. This effort, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (Program), is being carried out under the policy direction of CALFED. The program is exploring and developing a long-term solution for a cooperative planning process that will determine the most appropriate strategy and actions necessary to improve water quality, restore health to the Bay-Delta ecosystem, provide for a variety of beneficial uses, and minimize Bay-Delta system vulnerability. A group of citizen advisors representing California's agricultural, environmental, urban, business, fishing, and other interests who have a stake in finding long-term solutions for the problems affecting the Bay-Delta system has been chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The BDAC provides advice to CALFED on the program mission, problems to be addressed, and objectives for the Program. BDAC provides a forum to help ensure public participation, and will review reports and other materials prepared by CALFED staff.

Minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Program, Suite 1155, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, and will be available for public inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday within 30 days following the meeting.

The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta system) is a critically important part of California's natural environment and economy. In recognition of the serious problems facing the region and the complex resource management decisions that must be made, the state of California and the Federal government are working together to stabilize, protect, restore, and enhance the Bay-Delta system. The State and Federal agencies with management and regulatory responsibilities in the Bay-Delta system are working together as CALFED to provide policy direction and oversight for the process.

One area of Bay-Delta management includes the establishment of a joint State-Federal process to develop long-term solutions to problems in the Bay-Delta system related to fish and wildlife, water supply reliability, natural disasters, and water quality. The intent is to develop a comprehensive and balanced plan which addresses all of the resource problems. This effort, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (Program), is being carried out under the direction of the CALFED Policy Group. The Program is exploring and developing a long-term solution for a cooperative planning process that will determine the most appropriate strategy and actions necessary to improve water quality, restore health to the Bay-Delta ecosystem, provide for a variety of beneficial uses, and minimize Bay-Delta system vulnerability. The CALFED Policy Group provides general policy direction on all aspects of the CALFED Program.

The meeting will be open to the public up to seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows: • Overview, status and metrics for Office of Space Flight programs. • Shuttle upgrades review.

It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register.

Title: Application for Literacy Information aNd Communication System (LINCS) Special Collection Development Partners Awards to organizations to support the creation and maintenance of subject specific web resources.

Abstract: The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) was created by the National Literacy Act of 1991 and amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide a national focal point for literacy activities and to facilitate the pooling of ideas and expertise across a fragmented field. The Act authorizes the NIFL to conduct basic and applied research and demonstrations on literacy; collect and disseminate information to Federal, State, and local entities with respect to literacy; and improve and expand the system for delivery of literacy services. The NIFL will provide funding to organizations for the creation of in-depth literacy-related collections of subject specific information on LINCS. Evaluations to determine successful applications will be made by a panel of literacy experts and information specialists using the published criteria. The NIFL will use this information to make up to 10 cooperative agreement awards for a period of up to three years.

Burden Statement: The burden for this collection of information is estimated at 40 hours per response for the first year. This estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, complete the form, and review the collection of information. A three-year cooperative agreement grant will be awarded to no more than 10 applicants. Each awardee will have an annual update of the application requiring an average of 30 hours per response for each continuation year.

Respondents: Public and private non-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 25.

Estimated Number of Responses Per Respondent: 2.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 52 hours.

Frequency of Collection: One time.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The NIFL Director publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection contains a burden statement that includes the estimated burden hours and other relevant information.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from www.nifl.gov/lincs or comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be addressed to William B. Hawk, National Institute for Literacy, 1775 I Street, NW, Suite 730, Washington, DC 20006. Requests also may be electronically mailed to the internet address whawk@nifl.gov or faxed to 202-233-2050. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Title: Application for Literacy Information aNd Communication System (LINCS) Regional Technology Centers Awards to organizations to support the creation of regional technology coordinating centers to expand and coordinated LINCS services at the regional and state level.

Abstract: The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) was created by the National Literacy Act of 1991 and amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide a national focal point for literacy activities and to facilitate the pooling of ideas and expertise across a fragmented field. The Act authorizes the NIFL to conduct basic and applied research and demonstrations on literacy; collect and disseminate information to Federal, State and local entities with respect to literacy; and improve and expand the system for delivery of literacy services. The NIFL will provide funding to organizations for the creation of regional technology centers that will represent and promote LINCS within their region; work with the NIFL and other regional technology centers to improve and expand LINCS; provide literacy-related resources through LINCS; and train organizations and individuals in the use of LINCS and technology and carry out such other tasks as called for in the information collection request. Evaluations to determine successful applications will be made by a panel of literacy experts and information specialists using the published criteria. The NIFL will use this information to make up to 5 cooperative agreement awards for a period of up to three years.

Burden Statement: The burden for this collection of information is estimated at 55 hours per response for the first year. This estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, complete the form, and review the collection of information. No more than five applicants will be awarded a three-year cooperative agreement grant. Each awardee will have an annual update of the application requiring an average of 40 hours per response for each continuation year.

Respondents: Public and private non-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 15.

Estimated Number of Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 79 hours.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The NIFL director publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection contains a burden statement that includes the estimated burden hours and other relevant information.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from www.nifl.gov/lines or comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be addressed to Jaleh Behroozi Soroui, National Institute for Literacy, 1775 I Street, NW, Suite 730, Washington, DC 20006. Requests also may be electronically mailed to the internet address jbehroozi@nifl.gov or faxed to 202-233-2050. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

In 1967, the State of Louisiana and the United States Atomic Energy Commission (now the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) entered into an agreement for the discontinuance of the Commission's regulatory responsibilities over the use and possession of certain types of radioactive material in Louisiana. This agreement was noticed in the Federal Register on May 3, 1967 (32 FR 6806). The State of Louisiana, in turn, assumed authority over these regulatory activities formerly exercised by the Commission. The Commission entered into this agreement with the State of Louisiana pursuant to section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. This agreement for the discontinuance of the Commission's authority became effective May 1, 1967 and, at the same time, established Louisiana as an Agreement State. Additionally, on May 3, 1967 (32 FR 6807), the Commission published in the Federal Register a notice of an agreement between the State of Louisiana and the Commission which permitted the State to perform inspections or other functions in offshore waters adjacent to Louisiana on behalf of the Commission. This inspection agreement, entered into pursuant to section 274i of the Act, did not expand the State's regulatory authority but rather specifically authorized the State to conduct inspection activities and other functions on the Commission's behalf.

The NRC has received a letter from Louisiana Governor M. J. “Mike” Foster, Jr., dated March 22, 2000 requesting termination of the section 274i agreement, effective 30 days from receipt of the letter. The request was filed in accordance with section 6 of the inspection agreement, which states

Governor Foster noted that difficulties arranging transportation and a lack of both financial and personnel resources have made in burdensome to conduct field activities for the NRC. The State has concluded that the section 274i inspection agreement is no longer needed and should be terminated.

Effective April 26, 2000, the inspection agreement entered into by the State of Louisiana and the Commission has been terminated. On that date, the NRC, not the State, will conduct inspections of NRC-licensed activities in offshore waters adjacent to Louisiana. In addition, NRC plans to issue a conforming amendment to its reciprocity regulations at 10 CFR 150.20(d) which will remove the specific reference to the Commission's inspection agreement with Louisiana. As part of the rulemaking or in a separate communication, the NRC will provide guidance to Louisiana licensees regarding the impacts that the termination of this agreement will have on the notification and fee requirements for activities conducted in offshore waters.

Termination of the section 274i inspection agreement, however, does not in any way affect the existing agreement between the Commission and the State of Louisiana entered into pursuant to section 274b of the Act. Accordingly, termination of the inspection agreement does not affect Louisiana's status as an Agreement State.

This document provides Executive agencies the guidance required under Sections 1703 and 1705 of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), Public Law 105-277, Title XVII, which was signed into law on October 21, 1998. GPEA is an important tool to improve customer service and governmental efficiency through the use of information technology. This improvement involves transacting business electronically with Federal agencies and widespread use of the Internet and its World Wide Web.

As public awareness of electronic communications and Internet usage increases, demand for on-line interactions with the Federal agencies also increases. Moving to electronic transactions and electronic signatures can reduce transaction costs for the agency and its partner. Transactions are quicker and information access can be more easily tailored to the specific questions that need to be answered. As a result data analysis is easier. These access and data analysis benefits often have a positive spillover effect into the rest of the agency as awareness of the agency's operations is improved. In addition, reengineering the work process associated with the transaction around the new electronic format can give rise to other efficiencies.

Public confidence in the security of the government's electronic information processes is essential as agencies make this transition. Electronic commerce, electronic mail, and electronic benefits transfer can require the exchange of sensitive information within government, between the government and private industry or individuals, and among governments. These electronic systems must protect the information's confidentiality, ensure that the information is not altered in an unauthorized way, and make it available when needed. A corresponding policy and management structure must support the hardware and software that delivers these services.

To provide for a broad framework for ensuring the implementation of electronic systems in a secure manner, the Administration has taken a number of actions. In February 1996, OMB revised Appendix III of Circular A-130, which provided guidance to agencies on securing information as they increasingly rely on open and interconnected electronic networks to conduct business. In May 1998, the President issued Presidential Decision Directive 63, which set a goal of a reliable, interconnected, and secure information system infrastructure by the year 2003, and significantly increased security for government systems by the year 2000 based on reviews by each department and agency. In September, 1998, OMB and the Federal Public Key Infrastructure Steering Committee published “Access With Trust” (available at http://gits-sec.treas.gov/). This report describes the Federal government's goals and efforts to develop a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) to enable the widespread use of cryptographically-based digital signatures. On December 17, 1999, the President issued a Memorandum, “Electronic Government,” which called on Federal agencies to use information technology to ensure that governmental services and information are easily accessible to the American people (Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, vol. 35, pp. 2641-43, (December 27, 1999); also available at http://cio.gov/). Among other things, the President charged the Administrator of General Services, in coordination with agencies, to assist agencies in the development of private, secure and effective electronic communication across agencies and with the public through the use of public key technology. This technology can offer significant benefits in facilitating electronic commerce through a shared, interoperable, government-wide infrastructure.

GPEA seeks to “preclude agencies or courts from systematically treating electronic documents and signatures less favorably than their paper counterparts”, so that citizens can interact with the Federal government electronically (S. Rep. 105-335). It requires Federal agencies, by October 21, 2003, to provide individuals or entities that deal with agencies the option to submit information or transact with the agency electronically, and to maintain records electronically, when practicable. It also addresses the matter of private employers being able to use electronic means to store, and file with Federal agencies, information pertaining to their employees.

GPEA states that electronic records and their related electronic signatures are not to be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability merely because they are in electronic form. It also encourages Federal government use of a range of electronic signature alternatives.

This guidance implements GPEA, fosters a successful transition to electronic government as contemplated by the President's memorandum, and employs where appropriate the work described in “Access with Trust.”

On March 5, 1999, OMB published the “Proposed Implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act” for public comment. (64 FR 10896). It was also sent directly to Federal agencies for comment and made available via the Internet. In addition, OMB met with relevant committees and staff of many interested organizations including: American Bar Association (both the Business Law and the Science and Technology Sections); American Bankers Association; National Automated Clearing House Association; National Governors Association; National Association of State Information Resource Executives; National Association of State Auditors, Controllers and Treasurers; National Association of State Purchasing Officers; the Government of Canada; the Government of Australia; and relevant industry forums. All were uniformly positive about the content and tone of the guidance. OMB received specific comments from 24 organizations. Most comments proposed changes in clarity and detail. Where the comments added clarity and did not contradict the goals of the guidance, they were incorporated. The principal substantive issues raised in the comments and our responses to them are described below.

A number of comments, including those from the Justice Department and the General Accounting Office, requested that the guidance contain further information on how to conduct the assessments of practicability needed to determine the proper combination of technology and management controls to manage the risk of converting transactions and record keeping to electronic form, and then conducting transactions electronically. Each assessment should contain elements of risk analysis and measurements of other costs and benefits. Most comments on assessment referred to the risk analysis portion.

Risk analyses provide decisionmakers with information needed to understand the factors that can degrade or endanger operations and outcomes and to make informed judgments about what actions need to be taken to reduce risk. Consistent with the Computer Security Act (40 U.S.C. 759 note), Appendix III of OMB Circular No. A-130, “Security of Federal Automated Information Resources,” (34 FR 6428, February 20, 1996), Federal managers should design and implement their information technology systems in a manner that is commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm from unauthorized use, disclosure, or modification of the information in those systems. To determine what constitutes adequate security, a risk-based assessment must consider all major risk factors, such as the value of the system or application, threats, vulnerabilities, and the effectiveness of current and proposed safeguards. Low-risk information processes may need only minimal consideration, while high-risk processes may need extensive analysis. OMB reiterated these principles on June 23, 1999, in OMB Memorandum No. 99-20, “Security of Federal Automated Information Resources,” and reminded agencies to continually assess the risk to their computer systems and maintain adequate security commensurate with that risk, particularly as they take increasing advantage of the internet and the world wide web in providing information and services to citizens. (Available at: http://cio.gov/ and http://whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m-99-20.html).

The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) also recognizes the importance of conducting risk analyses for securing computer-based resources. NIST provides guidance on risk analysis (available at http://csrc.nist.gov/nistpubs):

• “Good Security Practices for Electronic Commerce, Including Electronic Data Interchange,” Special Publication 800-9 (December 1993);

• “An Introduction to Computer Security: The NIST Handbook,” Special Publication 800-12 (December 1995);

• “Generally Accepted Principles and Practices for Securing Information Technology Systems,” Special Publication 800-14 (September 1996); and

• “Guide for Developing Security Plans for Information Technology Systems,” Special Publication 800-18 (December 1998).

More recently, the General Accounting Office published “Information Security Risk Assessment: Practices of Leading Organizations,” GAO/AIMD-00-33 (November 1999) (Available at http://www.gao.gov/). This document is intended to help Federal managers implement an ongoing information security risk analysis process by suggesting practical procedures that have been successfully adopted by organizations known for their good risk analysis practices. This document describes various models and methods for analyzing risk, and identifies factors that are important in a risk analysis.

A quantitative risk analysis generally attempts to estimate the monetary cost of risk compared with that of risk reduction techniques based on (1) the likelihood that a damaging event will occur, (2) the costs of potential losses, and (3) the costs of mitigating actions that could be taken. Availability of data affects the extent to which risk analysis results may be quantified reliably. The GAO report recognizes, however, that reliable data on likelihood and risks often may not be available, in which case a qualitative approach can be taken by defining risk in more subjective and general terms such as high, medium, and low. In this regard, qualitative analyses depend more on the expertise, experience, and good judgment of the Federal managers conducting the analysis. It also may be possible to use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Other commenters wanted more guidance on how to weigh the risk analysis with other costs and benefits. In combination with the risk analysis, the results of a cost-benefit analysis should be used to judge the practicability of such a process transformation. All major information technology investments are evaluated under the Appendices of OMB Circular No. A-130, “Management of Federal Information Resources” and Part 3 of OMB Circular No. A-11 “Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets.” Specific guidance on information technology cost-benefit analysis is available from the Capital Planning and IT Investment Committee of the Federal CIO Council in the recently published “ROI and the Value Puzzle.” (Available at: http://cio.gov/). When developing collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies currently address the practicality of electronic submission, maintenance, and disclosure. The GPEA guidance builds on the requirements and scope of the PRA; all transactions that involve Federal information collections covered under the PRA are also covered under GPEA. In addition, agencies should follow OMB Memorandum 00-07 “Incorporating and Funding Security in Information Systems Investments”, issued February 28, 2000, which provides information on building security into information technology investments (also available at: http://cio.gov/).

The Department of Justice commented on the need for each agency to consider the broad range of legal risks involved in electronic transactions. Justice's comments are especially appropriate for particularly sensitive transactions, including those likely to give rise to civil or criminal enforcement proceedings and we expect them to be further developed in Juctice's forthcoming practical guidance. The risk analysis process required by the Computer Security Act and by good practice must be tailored to the risks and related mitigation costs that pertain to each system, as understood by the Federal managers most knowledgeable with the systems. When evaluating legal risks, Federal managers should consult with their legal counsel about any specific legal implications due to the use of electronic transactions or documents in the application in question. Agencies should also keep in mind that GPEA specifically states that electronic records and their related electronic signatures are not to be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability merely because they are in electronic form. We are not, therefore, prescribing specific “one size fits all” requirements applicable to transactions regardless of sensitivity.

In light of all the above comments, we have added greater detail to the practicability aspects of the guidance, and an expanded discussion of cost-benefit analysis and its relation to risk analysis. We have also placed additional emphasis on the need for risk analyses to identify and address the full range of risks, including reasonably expected legal and enforcement risks, and technological risks. Further, we included a reporting mechanism in Part I Section 3 to facilitate the assessment of practicability. Although many of the comments concern the costs and risks of changing to electronic transactions, it is also important to consider the full range of benefits that electronic transactions can provide. Possible benefits include: increased partner participation and customer satisfaction; reduced transaction costs and increased transaction speed; improved record keeping and new opportunities for analysis of information; and greater employee productivity and enhanced quality of their output. An agency's consideration of risks needs to be balanced with a full consideration of benefits.

A number of comments concerned the emphasis on technology neutrality with regard to the various electronic signature alternatives. They suggested we endorse one electronic signature technology in order to promote interoperability and ease of use. Other commenters disagreed. They expressed concern that promoting one technology requires predicting the direction and future of information technology standards and practices, which is a notoriously difficult task. Further, there are sometimes technologies that naturally fit particular electronic transactions and are easier to implement from a security, privacy, technical, or operational perspective than others. For example, implementing a technology that is easy to use would naturally fit when encouraging citizens to participate in electronic transactions.

We do not believe it would be appropriate to endorse one technology, and we share the concerns of those commenters who argued against such an endorsement. At the same time, we recognize that cryptographically-based digital signatures (i.e., public key technology) hold great promise for ensuring both authentication and privacy in networked interactions, and may be the only technology available that can foster interoperability across numerous applications. There are, however, applications where personal identification numbers (PINs) and other shared secret techniques may well be appropriate. These are generally relatively low risk applications where interoperability is of lesser importance. A number of agencies have successfully used PINs in groundbreaking applications, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission for regulatory filings and the Internal Revenue Service for tax filings. They have recognized the benefits of using PINs, but at the same time they are planning for an eventual transfer to digital signatures.

Accordingly, the final guidance maintains the basic policy of technology neutrality for automated transactions while recognizing that agencies should select an alternative relative to the risk of the application, and calls on agencies to consider all of the available electronic signature technologies (including the advantages of public key technology) as part of their assessments.

Several comments suggested that the guidance should give further emphasis to the role of the National Archives and Records Administration in working with the agencies to address the maintenance, preservation, and disposal of Federal records that are associated with electronic government transactions. We agree. The final guidance explicitly addresses NARA's role in the area of electronic records management, particularly as it relates to the use of electronic signature technologies.

Some commenters were concerned with the privacy implications of the guidance. They want to ensure that any move to electronic transactions does not encourage the gathering of unnecessary information, and that Federal agencies adequately protect the personal information that does need to be collected. We agree that agencies must incorporate privacy protections when developing electronic processes. Several helpful suggestions were made that have been incorporated into the final guidance. With respect to a commenters' concern that agencies not collect unnecessary information, the Privacy Act requires an agency to “maintain in its records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency.” 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1); see e.g. Reuber v. United States, 829 F. 2d 133, 138-40 (D.C.C. 1987). Furthermore, the collection by agencies of unnecessary information would be contrary to the Paperwork Reduction Act's mandate that agencies collect only information that is “necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency” and “has practical utility.” 44 U.S.C. 3508.

A number of comments were received from non-Federal entities. These comments were primarily concerned with the broader implications of the Act itself rather than the draft guidance. Specifically, some governmental entities expressed concern that Federal adoption of routine electronic transactions would require state and local governments to provide equivalent access for citizens. Some commenters were also concerned that they would be required to make all future transactions with the Federal government in an electronic format. Consultations with the state government groups identified above, during and subsequent to the comment period, seem to have alleviated these concerns significantly, particularly as we explained that GPEA contemplates optional rather than mandatory electronic transactions with the Federal government. Agencies are required to provide the option to their transaction partners. Transaction partners are not required to use the electronic option.

We intend to place this guidance into an appendix of OMB Circular A-130 as it is updated. OMB's final procedures and guidance on implementing the Government Paperwork Elimination Act are set forth below.

This document provides Executive agencies with the guidance required under Sections 1703 and 1705 the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), Public Law 105-277, Title XVII.

GPEA requires agencies, by October 21, 2003, to provide for the (1) option of electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information, when practicable as a substitute for paper; and (2) use and acceptance of electronic signatures, when practicable. GPEA specifically states that electronic records and their related electronic signatures are not to be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability merely because they are in electronic form.

GPEA is an important tool in fulfilling the vision of improved customer service and governmental efficiency through the use of information technology. This vision contemplates widespread use of the Internet and its World Wide Web, with Federal agencies transacting business electronically as commercial enterprises are doing. Members of the public who wish to do business this way may avoid traveling to government offices, waiting in line, or mailing paper forms. The Federal government can also save time and money transacting business electronically.

This guidance also implements part of the President's memorandum of December 17, 1999, “Electronic Government,” which calls on Federal agencies to use information technology in ensuring that governmental services and information are easily accessible to the American people. Among other things, the President charged the Administrator of General Services, in coordination with appropriate agencies and organizations, to assist agencies in developing private, secure, and effective communication across agencies and with the public through the use of digital signature technology.

Creating more accessible and efficient government requires public confidence in the security of the government's electronic information communication and information technology systems.

Electronic commerce, electronic mail, and electronic benefits transfer can involve the exchange of sensitive information within government, between government and private industry or individuals, and among governments. Electronic systems must be able to protect the confidentially of citizens' information, authenticate the identity of the transacting parties to the degree required by the transaction, guarantee that the information is not altered in an unauthorized way, and provide access when needed.

To reach these goals, agencies must meet objectives outlined by GPEA guidance. First, each agency must build on their existing efforts to implement electronic government by developing a plan and schedule that implement, by the end of Fiscal Year 2003, optional electronic maintenance, submission, or transactions of information, when practicable as a substitute for paper, including through the use of electronic signatures when practicable.

Agencies must submit a copy of the plan to OMB by October 2000 and coordinate the plan and schedule with their strategic IT planning activities that support program responsibilities consistent with the budget process (as required by OMB Circular A-11).

Implementation of the Government Paper Work Elimination Act contains:

The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) requires Federal agencies, by October 21, 2003, to provide individuals or entities the option to submit information or transact with the agency electronically and to maintain records electronically when practicable. GPEA specifically states that electronic records and their related electronic signatures are not to be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability merely because they are in electronic form. It also encourages Federal government use of a range of electronic signature alternatives.

Sections 1703 and 1705 of GPEA charge the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with developing procedures for Executive agencies to follow in using and accepting electronic documents and signatures, including records required to be maintained under Federal programs and information that employers are required to store and file with Federal agencies about their employees. These procedures reflect and are to be executed with due consideration of the following policies:

a. maintaining compatibility with standards and technology for electronic signatures generally used in commerce and industry and by State governments;

b. not inappropriately favoring one industry or technology;

c. ensuring that electronic signatures are as reliable as appropriate for the purpose in question;

d. maximizing the benefits and minimizing the risks and other costs;

e. protecting the privacy of transaction partners and third parties that have information contained in the transaction;

f. ensuring that agencies comply with their recordkeeping responsibilities under the FRA for these electronic records. Electronic record keeping systems reliably preserve the information submitted, as required by the Federal Records Act and implementing regulations; and

g. providing, wherever appropriate, for the electronic acknowledgment of electronic filings that are successfully submitted.

a. GPEA recognizes that building and deploying electronic systems to complement and replace paper-based systems should be consistent with the need to ensure that investments in information technology are economically prudent to accomplish the agency's mission, protect privacy, and ensure the security of the data. Moreover, a decision to reject the option of electronic filing or record keeping should demonstrate, in the context of a particular application and upon considering relative costs, risks, and benefits given the level of sensitivity of the process, that there is no reasonably cost-effective combination of technologies and management controls that can be used to operate the transaction and sufficiently minimize the risk of significant harm. Accordingly, agencies should develop and implement plans, supported by an assessment of whether to use and accept documents in electronic form and to engage in electronic transactions. The assessment should weigh costs and benefits and involve an appropriate risk analysis, recognizing that low-risk information processes may need only minimal consideration, while high-risk processes may need extensive analysis.

b. Performing the assessment to evaluate electronic signature alternatives should not be viewed as an isolated activity or an end in itself. Agencies should draw from and feed into the interrelated requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Privacy Act, the Computer Security Act, the Government Performance and Results Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act, the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, the Federal Records Act, and the Chief Financial Officers Act, as well as OMB Circular A-130 and Presidential Decision Directive 63.

c. The assessment should develop strategies to mitigate risks and maximize benefits in the context of available technologies, and the relative total costs and effects of implementing those technologies on the program being analyzed. The assessment also should be used to develop baselines and verifiable performance measures that track the agency's mission, strategic plans, and tactical goals, as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act.

d. In addition to serving as a guide for selecting the most appropriate technologies, the assessment of costs and benefits should be designed so that it can be used to generate a business case and verifiable return on investment to support agency decisions regarding overall programmatic direction, investment decisions, and budgetary priorities. In doing so, agencies should consider the effects on the public, its needs, and its readiness to move to an electronic environment.

a. To ensure a smooth and cost-effective transition to an electronic government that provides improved service to the public, each agency must:

(1) Develop a plan (including a schedule) by October, 2000 that provides for continued implementation, by the end of Fiscal Year 2003, of optional electronic maintenance, submission, or transaction of information when practicable as a substitute for paper, including through the use of electronic signatures when practicable. The plan must address, among other things (and where applicable), the optional use by employers of electronic means to store and file with Federal agencies information about their employees. The plan should prioritize agency implementation of systems or modules of systems based on achievability and net benefit. The plan must be an addition to the agency's strategic IT planning activities supporting program responsibilities, as required by OMB Circular A-11. A copy of the plan should be provided to OMB.

(2) For each agency information system identified in the plan required in #1 above, consider relative costs, risks, and benefits given the level of sensitivity of the process(es) that the system supports. Agency considerations of cost, risk, and benefit, as well as any measures taken to minimize risks, should be commensurate with the level of sensitivity of the transaction. Low-risk information processes may need only minimal consideration, while high-risk processes may need extensive analysis.

(3) Based on the considerations in #2 each agency in its plan must include:

(a) The name of the information process or group of processes being automated.

(b) A brief description of the information processes being automated. In addition, the description must:

1. Indicate whether further risk management measures are appropriate.

2. Where such measures are appropriate, indicate when and how a combination of information security practices, authentication technologies, management controls, or other business processes for each application will be practicable. In addition, if a particular application is not practicable for conversion to electronic interaction as part of the plan, agencies should explain the reasons and report any strategy to make such conversion practicable.

(c) The date of automation for the information process(es). If the implementation is judged to be not practicable by October 2003, that conclusion may be noted instead of the date. The dates should reflect the prioritization based on achievability and net benefit as discussed in #1 above.

(4) Consistent with the plan take measures (including, if necessary, amending regulations or policies to remove impediments to electronic transactions) to: (a) implement optional electronic submission, maintenance, or disclosure of information and the use of any necessary electronic signature alternatives; and (b) permit private employers who have record keeping responsibilities imposed by the Federal government to store and file information pertaining to their employees electronically.

(5) Ensure that measures taken under the plan reflect appropriate information system confidentiality and security in accordance with the Privacy Act, the Computer Security Act, as amended, and the guidance contained in OMB Circular A-130, Appendices I and III; and ensure that these measures use, to the maximum extent practicable, technologies that are either prescribed in Federal Information Processing Standards promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce or are supported by voluntary consensus standards as defined in OMB Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and Conformity Assessment Activities,” (63 FR 8546; February 19, 1998).

(6) Report progress annually against the plan (including any appropriate revisions to the schedule) above along with annual performance reporting required under OMB Circular A-11.

(7) Consider the record keeping functionality of any systems that store electronic documents and electronic signatures, to ensure users have appropriate access to the information and can meet the agency's record keeping needs.

(8) In developing collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act, address whether optional electronic submission, maintenance, or disclosure of information (including the electronic storage and filing by employers of information about their employees) would be practicable as a means of decreasing the burden and/or increasing the practical utility of the collection.

b. Department of Commerce

The Department of Commerce must promulgate, in consultation with the agencies and OMB, Federal Information Processing Standards as appropriate to further the specific goals of GPEA. The Department should also develop guidance in the area of authentication technologies and implementations, including cryptographic digital signature technology, with assistance from the Chief Information Officers Council and the Public Key Infrastructure Steering Committee.

c. Department of the Treasury

The Department of the Treasury must develop, in consultation with the agencies and OMB, policies and practices for the use of electronic transactions and authentication techniques for use in Federal payments and collections and ensure that they fulfill the goals of GPEA.

d. Department of Justice

The Department of Justice must develop, in consultation with the agencies and OMB, practical guidance on legal considerations related to agency use of electronic filing and record keeping.

e. National Archives and Records Administration

The National Archives and Records Administration must develop, in consultation with the agencies and OMB, policies and guidance on the management, preservation, and disposal of Federal records associated with electronic government transactions, and must give particular consideration to records issues associated with the use of electronic signature technologies.

f. General Services Administration

The General Services Administration must support agencies' implementation of digital signature technology and related electronic service delivery.

g. Office of Management and Budget

OMB must provide continuing guidance and oversight for the implementation of GPEA, including through its review of collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

This part provides Federal managers with basic information to assist in planning for an orderly and efficient transition to electronic government. Agencies should begin their planning promptly to ensure compliance with the timetable in GPEA.

a. As required by GPEA, this Part provides guidance to agencies for deciding whether to use electronic signature technology for a particular application. GPEA requires Federal agencies, by October 21, 2003, to allow individuals or entities the option to submit information or transact with the agencies electronically and to maintain records electronically, when practicable. It specifically states that electronic records and their related electronic signatures are not to be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability merely because they are in electronic form. It also encourages Federal government use of a range of electronic signature alternatives. The guidance helps agencies consider which electronic signature technology may be most appropriate and suggests methods to maximize the benefit of electronic information while minimizing risk when implementing a particular electronic signature technology to secure electronic transactions.

The guidance builds on the requirements and scope of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). According to the PRA agencies must, “consistent with the Computer Security Act of 1987 (CSA) (40 U.S.C. 759 note), identify and afford security protections commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the harm resulting from the loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of information collected or maintained by or on behalf of an agency.” 44 U.S.C. 3506(g)(3). In addition, we note that all transactions that involve Federal information collections covered under the PRA are also covered under GPEA.

b. As GPEA, PRA, CSA, and the Privacy Act recognize, the goal of information security is to protect the integrity and confidentiality of electronic records and transactions that enable business operations. Different security approaches offer varying levels of assurance in an electronic environment and are appropriate depending on a balance between the benefits from electronic information transfer and the risk of harm if the information is compromised. Among these approaches (in an ascending level of assurance) are:

Combinations of approaches (e.g., digital signatures with biometrics) are also possible and may provide even higher levels of assurance than single approaches by themselves. Deciding which to use in an application depends first upon finding a balance between the risks associated with the loss, misuse, or compromise of the information, and the benefits, costs, and effort associated with deploying and managing the increasingly secure methods to mitigate those risks. Agencies must strike a balance, recognizing that achieving absolute security is likely to be highly improbable in most cases and prohibitively expensive if possible.

a. GPEA defines “electronic signature” as follows:

“* * * a method of signing an electronic message that—

(A) identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic message; and

(B) indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic message.” (GPEA, section 1709(1)).

This definition is consistent with other accepted legal definitions of signature. The term “signature” has long been understood as including “any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing.” (Uniform Commercial Code, 1-201(39)(1970)). The “Uniform Electronic Transactions Act,” recently adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws, and which is being enacted by the States, contains a similar definition (see http://www.nccusl.org). These flexible definitions permit the use of different electronic signature technologies, such as digital signatures, personal identifying numbers, and biometrics (section 7 provides more detail on electronic signature technologies). While it is the case that, for historical reasons, the Federal Rules of Evidence are tailored to support the admissibility of paper-based evidence, the Federal Rules of Evidence have no actual bias against electronic evidence.

b. In enacting GPEA, Congress addressed the legal effect and validity of electronic signatures or other electronic authentication:

“Electronic records submitted or maintained in accordance with procedures developed under this title, or electronic signatures or other forms of electronic authentication used in accordance with such procedures, must not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability because such records are in electronic form” (GPEA, section 1707).

To evaluate the suitability of electronic signature alternatives for a particular application, the agency needs to perform an assessment. The assessment should include a risk analysis, in cases where the sensitivity of the transaction is sufficiently great, and a cost-benefit analysis. The assessment identifies the particular technologies and management controls best suited to minimizing the risk and cost to acceptable levels, while maximizing the benefits to the parties involved. Often parts of the assessment can be quantified, but some factors—particularly the risk analysis usually can only be estimated qualitatively.

Availability of data affects the extent to which risk can be reliably quantified. A quantitative approach to risk analysis generally attempts to estimate the monetary cost of risk compared to the cost of risk reduction techniques based on:

(i) the likelihood that a damaging event will occur,

(ii) the costs of potential losses, and

(iii) the costs of mitigating actions that could be taken.

Reliable data on likelihood and costs may not be available. In this case a qualitative approach can be taken by defining risk in more subjective and general terms such as high, medium, and low. In this regard, qualitative analyses depend more on the expertise, experience, and good judgment of the Federal managers conducting them than on quantified factors.

The same can be true with other costs and benefits. Some factors, such as the value of deterring fraud, are difficult to quantify. If a new automated system is less secure than an old, paper-based system, attempts to commit fraud or to repudiate transactions may increase. It usually is not possible to quantify in monetary terms attitudes such as increased customer satisfaction and willingness to cooperate with an agency, which may result from electronic processes designed to be user-friendly. However, many costs (design, development, and implementation) and benefits (reduced transaction costs, saved time etc.) can be quantified, as is the case for other IT projects. Clearly, then, the assessment should use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to judge the practicability of any electronic transaction method and should include a comprehensive risk analysis when warranted by the sensitivity of the data and/or the transaction.

Those alternatives that minimize risk to an acceptable level should be assessed in terms of net benefit to the agency and the customer in order to determine the electronic signature most appropriate for the transaction. If the net benefits are negative, the agency may determine that using an electronic process is not practicable at this time. In any event, all risk analyses are exercises in managerial judgment.

a. Consider the costs of risk mitigation. The assessment must recognize that neither handwritten signatures nor electronic signatures are totally reliable and secure. Every method of signature, whether electronic or on paper, can be compromised with enough skill and resources, or due to poor security procedures, practices, or implementation. Setting up a very secure, but expensive, automated system may in fact buy only a marginal benefit of deterrence or risk reduction over other alternatives and may not be worth the extra cost. For example, past experience with fraud risks, and a careful analysis of those risks, shows that exposure is often low. If this is the case a less expensive system that substantially deters fraud is warranted, and not an absolutely secure system. Overall, security determination should conform to the Computer Security Act: the level of security should be commensurate with the level of sensitivity of the transaction.

b. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine if an electronic transaction is practicable. The primary goal of a cost-benefit analysis should be to find a cost-effective package of security mechanisms and management controls that can support automated systems using electronic communications. In estimating the cost of any system, agencies should include costs associated with hardware, software, administration, and support of the system, both short-term and long-term. Agencies should consider the following issues when framing the cost-benefit analysis:

(1) Offering more than one way to communicate electronically may enable more people to conduct electronic transactions. If different partners have different skills and differing security concerns, providing a combination of mechanisms will meet the needs of a greater number of possible partners. While admittedly adding cost, offering multiple alternatives can add greater benefit, as well. Under GPEA, the agency must considered this option whenever it expects to receive over 50,000 electronic submittals (per year) of a particular form.

(2) Electronic transactions can impose costs on the transaction partners. Many electronic signature techniques require specialized computer hardware and technical knowledge. The higher these threshold costs are, the higher the participation costs are for users. Higher costs will tend to narrow the range of potential users, which in turn limits the benefits of electronic communications.

(3) Agencies should assess the costs of developing and maintaining electronic transactions. Information technology costs continue to fall and electronic signature techniques continue to evolve. As a result, the agency should periodically redo its risk and cost-benefit analyses on those programs where electronic transactions were initially deemed impracticable to determine whether costs and/or technologies have changed enough so that electronic transactions have become practicable.

(4) If the cost-benefit analysis of a proposed solution indicates that the electronic solution is not cost effective, the agency should seek to identify opportunities to reengineer the underlying process being automated. Occasionally, practices and rules under the control of an agency are based on factors or circumstances that may no longer apply. In these cases new practices and rules should be proposed if the changes do not undermine the objective or impair security, and if the changes lead to a more efficient process.

c. Document the decision. The Computer Security Act gives agency managers the responsibility to select an appropriate combination of technologies, practices, and management controls to minimize risk cost-effectively while maximizing benefits to all parties to the transaction. Agency managers should document these decisions, however qualitative, in the system security plan (see the NIST “Guide for Developing Security Plans for Information Technology Systems,” Special Publication 800-18 (December 1998)) for later review and adjustment.

Benefits from moving to electronic transactions and electronic signatures include reduction in transaction costs for the agency and the transaction partner. Transactions are quicker and it is often easier to access information related to the transaction because it is in electronic form. The electronic form often allows more effective data analysis because the information is easier to access. Better data analysis often improves the operation of the newly electronic transaction. In addition, if many transactions are electronic and data analysis can be done across transactions the benefits can spillover into the rest of the agency as operational awareness of the entire organization is improved. Moreover, business process reengineering should accompany all attempts to facilitate a transaction through information technology. Often the full benefits will be realized only by restructuring the process to take advantage of the technology. Merely moving an existing paper based process to an electronic one is unlikely to reap the maximum benefits from the electronic system.

In order to account for all the benefits associated with electronic transactions, agencies should keep common information technology benefits in mind and look at the benefits realized by other agencies.

a. What are the benefits? Agencies should identify all the benefits of automating program transactions and making those transactions secure, such as:

(1) Increased speed of the transaction. The partner and the agency may spend less time completing the transaction. The quicker speed combined with putting the transaction online allows real-time help to the transaction partner, providing a benefit not found in a paper based transaction.

(2) Increased partner participation and customer satisfaction. Often a decrease in partner transaction costs leads to more partners completing the transaction. In addition, partners tend to have a more positive view of the process given its speed and ease of use.

(3) Improved record keeping efficiency and data analysis opportunities. If data are easier to access and store then they can enhance program evaluation and expand awareness of the effects of the government program in question.

(4) Increased employee productivity and improved quality of the final product. Electronic transactions tend to have fewer errors because often the system minimizes retyping and automatically detects certain errors. These benefits allow the employees to concentrate more time on other matters.

(5) Greater information benefits to the public. Moving to electronic transactions and electronic signatures often can make the related information more accessible to the public and Freedom of Information Act requests.

(6) Improved security. Designed, implemented, and managed properly, electronic transactions can have fewer opportunities for fraud and more robust security measures than paper and envelope transactions.

(7) Extensive security for highly sensitive information. Even though implementing a more secure electronic signature option often is more expensive initially than implementing less secure alternatives, there could be larger expected benefits if the information being protected is particularly sensitive.

b. What are examples of benefits from electronic signatures and transactions? The following examples highlight agencies' experience in gaining significant benefits from electronic transactions and electronic signatures.

(1) The Internal Revenue Service uses electronic identification to strengthen validation by incorporating electronic links between the user and preexisting data about that user in the agency's records in its TeleFile program. It enables selected taxpayers to file 1040EZs with a touch-tone phone. Taxpayers get Customer Service Numbers (CSNs, i.e., PINs) that they then use to sign their returns and which help to validate their identities to the agency. Even though a CSN is not unique to an individual taxpayer (since it is only five digits long), the IRS authenticates the filer by using other identifying factors, such as the taxpayer's date of birth, taxpayer identification number, and by using additional procedures. This approach is not used over the Internet. Instead, it occurs in short-term connections over telephone lines, an environment where it is comparatively difficult for persons to eavesdrop and steal information or substitute false information.

(2) Taxpayers who transmit their tax returns electronically give high marks to the Internal Revenue Service's electronic filing programs. The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) shows customer satisfaction scores for IRS e-file exceed those for both the government and retail sectors and rival those of the financial services sector. For electronic tax return filers, the overall ACSI customer satisfaction index is 74. This surpasses the rating among paper return filers and compares with a government-wide satisfaction rating of 68.6. In addition, 78% of customers with electronic filing experiences say they are more satisfied now than two years ago. Other benefits of the electronic filing program include:

(a) Refunds are received in half the time and even faster with Direct Deposit.

(b) Its accuracy rate of over 99% reduces the chance of getting an error notice from the IRS.

(c) It provides an IRS acknowledgment within 48 hours that the return has been received.

(3) The General Services Administration, Federal Technology Service conducted the FTS2001 Procurement in a totally paperless environment. Beginning with the Request for Proposals (RFP) release, which was digitally signed and posted on the internet along with a utility for verifying the signature, through the issuance of the contracts to the winning bidders in an electronic signing ceremony, no paper changed hands at any time during the process. Bids from the offerors were delivered on a single CD, in contrast with the previous FTS2000 solicitation that required several pallets of documentation for each submission. It is estimated that the paper equivalent of this bid would have resulted in a stack of paper approximately 5 stories high. This electronic process resulted in efficiencies and savings to the government of approximately $1,500,000 in time previously required to process paperwork. The paperless process was enabled by issuing each potential bidder a cryptographically-based digital signature certificate housed on a hardware token.

(4) EDGAR, the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system, performs automated collection, validation, indexing, acceptance, and forwarding of submissions by companies and others who are required by law to file forms with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Its primary purpose is to increase the efficiency and fairness of the securities market for the benefit of investors, corporations, and the economy by accelerating the receipt, acceptance, dissemination, and analysis of time-sensitive corporate information filed with the agency. Other benefits include:

(a) Elimination of the burdens and delays associated with microfiching 10-12 million pages of information annually in a paper format.

(b) Free SEC web site experiences over half a million hits daily, many from individuals trying to improve the quality of their investment decisions by examining disclosure documents. Prior to EDGAR, individuals simply could not afford the typical, minimum cost of $25 per document.

(c) Full search capability allows improved ability to identify incidents of new or unusual conditions in the reports that are filed and allow rapid access to the information.

(5) The U.S. Customs Service automated much of the information transactions with its import-export partners. It has allowed improved accuracy, efficiency, speed, and the ability to analyze the electronically filed data which has led to enforcement improvements. The Automated Commercial System (ACS) is the system used to track, control, and process all commercial goods imported into the United States. ACS facilitates merchandise processing, significantly cuts costs, and reduces paperwork requirements for both Customs and the trade community.

Properly implemented electronic signature technologies can offer degrees of confidence in authenticating identity that are greater than a handwritten signature can offer. These digital tools should be used to control risks in a cost-effective manner. In determining whether an electronic signature is sufficiently reliable for a particular purpose, agency risk analyses need at a minimum to consider the relationships between the parties, the value of the transaction, the risk of intrusion, and the likely need for accessible, persuasive information regarding the transaction at some later date. In addition, agencies should consider any other risks relevant to the particular process. Once these factors are considered separately, an agency should consider them together to evaluate the sensitivity to risk of a particular process, relative to the benefit that the process can bring.

a. What is the relationship between the parties? Agency transactions fall into seven general categories, each of which may be vulnerable to differing security risks:

(1) Intra-agency transactions (i.e., those which remain within the same Federal agency).

(2) Inter-agency transactions (i.e., those between Federal agencies).

(3) Transactions between a Federal agency and state or local government agencies.

(4) Transactions between a Federal agency and a private organization such as: contractor, business, university, non-profit organization, or other entity.

(5) Transactions between a Federal agency and a member of the general public.

(6) Transactions between a Federal agency and a foreign government, foreign private organization, or foreign citizen.

Risks tend to be relatively low in cases where there is an ongoing relationship between the parties. Generally speaking, there will be little risk of a partner later repudiating inter-or intra-governmental transactions of a relatively routine nature, and almost no risk of the governmental trading partner committing fraud. Similarly, transactions between a regulatory agency and a publicly traded corporation or other known entity regulated by that agency can often bear a relatively low risk of repudiation or fraud, particularly where the regulatory agency has an ongoing relationship with, and enforcement authority over, the entity. For the same reasons, risks tend to be relatively low within rulemaking contexts, as all parties can view the submissions of others so the risk of imposture is minimized. Other types of transactions, involving an ongoing relationship between an agency and non-governmental entities and persons, can have varying degrees of risk depending on the nature of the relationship between the parties; the same would apply in the case of those Federal programs in which the ongoing relationship is between entities that are acting (and collecting information under the PRA) on behalf of an agency and such non-governmental entities and persons—e.g., transactions between a lender, guaranty agency, or other institution participating in a Federal loan or financial aid program and another program participant or a member of the general public, such as a borrower or grant recipient. On the other hand, the highest risk of fraud or repudiation is for a one-time transaction between a person and an agency that has legal or financial implications. Agencies should also pay attention to transactions with non-Federal entities, where the agency has a law enforcement responsibility but does not have an ongoing relationship. Transactions between a Federal agency and a foreign entity may entail unique legal risks due to varying national laws and regulations. In all cases, the relative value of the transaction needs to be considered as well.

b. What is the value of the transaction? Agency transactions fall into five general categories, each of which may be vulnerable to different security risks:

(1) Transactions involving the transfer of funds.

(2) Transactions where the parties commit to actions or contracts that may give rise to financial or legal liability.

(3) Transactions involving information protected under the Privacy Act or other agency-specific statutes, or information with national security sensitivity, obliging that access to the information be restricted.

(4) Transactions where the party is fulfilling a legal responsibility which, if not performed, creates a legal liability (criminal or civil).

(5) Transactions where no funds are transferred, no financial or legal liability is involved and no privacy or confidentiality issues are implicated.

Agency risk analyses should attempt to identify the relative value of the type of transaction being automated and factor that against the costs associated with implementing technological and management controls to mitigate risk. Note that the value of the transaction depends on the perspective of the agency and the transaction partner. In general, electronic signatures are least necessary in very low value transactions and need not be used unless specifically required by law or regulation (i.e. #5). Where authentication is necessary, the method of electronic signature should be appropriate to the level of risk.

c. What is the risk of intrusion? The probability of a security intrusion on the transaction can depend on the benefit to the potential attackers and their knowledge that the transaction will take place. Agency transactions fall into three categories:

(1) Regular or periodic transactions between parties are at a higher risk than intermittent transactions because of their predictability, causing higher likelihood that an outside party would know of the scheduled transaction and be prepared to intrude on it.

(2) The value of the information to outside parties could also determine their motivation to compromise the information. Information relatively unimportant to an agency may have high value to an outside party.

(3) Certain agencies, because of their perceived image or mission, may be more likely to be attacked independent of the information or transaction. The act of disruption can be an end in itself.

d. What is the likely need for accessible, persuasive information regarding the transaction at a later point? Agency transactions fall into seven general categories:

(1) Transactions where the information generated will be used for a short time and discarded;

(2) Transactions where the information generated may later be subject to audit or compliance;

(3) Transactions where the information will be used for research, program evaluation, or other statistical analyses;

(4) Transactions where the information generated may later be subject to dispute by one of the parties (or alleged parties) to the transaction;

(5) Transactions where the information generated may later be subject to dispute by a non-party to the transaction;

(6) Transactions where the information generated may later be needed as proof in court;

(7) Transactions where the information generated will be archived later as permanently valuable records.

When analyzing the benefits of converting from paper systems to electronic systems, agencies should reflect on what information would be lost in the conversion, e.g., an envelope containing a postmark and the sender's fingerprints and handwriting, or the specific questions that were asked on a questionnaire. Agencies should determine whether collecting the potentially lost information is truly important and whether an electronic system could cost-effectively collect and store similarly useful information.

In some paper transactions requiring a party's signature, the signature both identifies the party and establishes that party's intent to submit a truthful answer. Sometimes a notary or other third party signs as witness to the signature. When converting these transactions to electronic systems, agencies should ensure that the selected technology and its implementation are able to provide similar functions.

Section 1708 of GPEA limits the use of information collected in electronic signature services to communications with a Federal agency. It directs agencies and their staff and contractors not to use such information for any purpose other than for facilitating the communication. Exceptions exist if the person (or entity) that is the subject of the information provides affirmative consent to the additional use of the information, or if such additional use is otherwise provided by law. Accordingly, agencies should follow several privacy principles:

a. Electronic signatures should only be required where needed. Many transactions do not need, and should not require, identifying or other information about an individual. For example, individuals generally should not be required to provide personal information in order to download public documents.

b. When electronic signatures are required for a transaction, agencies should not collect more information from the user than is required for the application of the electronic signature. When appropriate, agencies are encouraged to use methods of electronic signing that do not require individuals to disclose their identity. This includes the ability of individuals in a group to be identified by a group identifier rather than an individual identifier if the only information needed to authenticate is the fact that the individual is a member of the group.

c. Users should be able to decide how, when, and what type of electronic authentication to use of those made available by the agency. If none are acceptable the user should be able to opt out to a paper process. If a user wants a certain mechanism for authentication to apply only to a single agency or to a single type of transaction, the user's desires should be honored, if practicable. Conversely, if the user wishes the authentication to work with multiple agencies or for multiple types of transactions, that should also be permitted where practicable. Specifically, it should be consistent with how the agency employs such means of authentication and with relevant statute and regulation and only if it conforms to practicable costs and risks.

d. Agencies should ensure, and users should be informed, that information collected for the purpose of issuing or using electronic means of authentication will be managed and protected in accordance with applicable requirements under the Privacy Act, the Computer Security Act, and any agency-specific statute mandating the protection of such information, as well as with any relevant Executive Branch and agency specific privacy policies.

Questions regarding the following should be directed to the Department of Commerce. This section addresses two categories of security: (1) Non-cryptographic methods of authenticating identity; and (2) cryptographic control methods. The non-cryptographic approach relies solely on an identification and authentication mechanism that must be linked to a specific software platform for each application. Cryptographic controls may be used for multiple applications, if properly managed, and may encompass both authentication and encryption services. A highly secure implementation may combine both categories of technologies. The spectrum of electronic signature technologies currently available is described below.

a. Non-Cryptographic Methods of Authenticating Identity. (1) Personal Identification Number (PIN) or password: A user accessing an agency's electronic application is requested to enter a “shared secret” (called “shared” because it is known both to the user and to the system), such as a password or PIN. When the user of a system enters her name, she also enters a password or PIN. The system checks that password or PIN against data in a database to ensure its correctness and thereby “authenticates” the user. If the authentication process is performed over an open network such as the Internet, it is usually essential that at least the shared secret be encrypted. This task can be accomplished by using a technology called Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), which uses a combination of public key technology and symmetric cryptography to automatically encrypt information as it is sent over the Internet by the user and decrypt it before it is read by the intended recipient. SSL currently is built into almost all popular Web browsers, in such a fashion that its use is transparent to the end user. Assuming the password is protected during transmission, as described above, impersonating the user requires obtaining the user's password. This may be relatively easy if users do not follow appropriate guidelines for password creation and use. Agencies should establish adequate guidelines for password creation and protection.

(2) Smart Card: A smart card is a plastic card the size of a credit card containing an embedded integrated circuit or “chip” that can generate, store, and/or process data. It can be used to facilitate various authentication technologies also embedded on the same card. By having different authentication choices the user can pick the authentication technique that meets but does not exceed the information requirement for the transaction. A user inserts the smart card into a card reader device attached to a computer or network input device. Information from the card's chip is provided to the computer only when the user also enters a PIN, password, or biometric identifier recognized by the card. Thus, the user authenticates to the card, making available electronic credentials which can then be used by the computer or network to strongly authenticate the user for transactions. This method offers far greater security than the typical use of a PIN or password, because the shared secret is between the user and the card, not with a remote server or network device. Moreover, to impersonate the user requires possession of the card as well as knowledge of the shared secret that activates the electronic credentials on the card. Thus, proper security requires that the card and the PIN or password used to activate it be kept separate. This is not a concern if a biometric is used for the latter purpose.

(3) Digitized Signature: A digitized signature is a graphical image of a handwritten signature. Some applications require an individual to create his or her hand-written signature using a special computer input device, such as a digital pen and pad. The digitized representation of the entered signature may then be compared to a previously-stored copy of a digitized image of the handwritten signature. If special software judges both images comparable, the signature is considered valid. This application of technology shares the same security issues as those using the PIN or password approach, because the digitized signature is another form of shared secret known both to the user and to the system. The digitized signature can be more reliable for authentication than a password or PIN because there is a biometric component to the creation of the image of the handwritten signature. Forging a digitized signature can be more difficult than forging a paper signature since the technology digitally compares the submitted signature image with the known signature image, and is better than the human eye at making such comparisons. The biometric elements of a digitized signature, which help make it unique, are in measuring how each stroke is made—duration, pen pressure, etc. As with all shared secret techniques, compromise of a digitized signature image or characteristics file could pose a security (impersonation) risk to users.

(4) Biometrics: Individuals have unique physical characteristics that can be converted into digital form and then interpreted by a computer. Among these are voice patterns (where an individual's spoken words are converted into a special electronic representation), fingerprints, and the blood vessel patterns present on the retina (or rear) of one or both eyes. In this technology, the physical characteristic is measured (by a microphone, optical reader, or some other device), converted into digital form, and then compared with a copy of that characteristic stored in the computer and authenticated beforehand as belonging to a particular person. If the test pattern and the previously stored patterns are sufficiently close (to a degree which is usually selectable by the authenticating application), the authentication will be accepted by the software, and the transaction allowed to proceed. Biometric applications can provide very high levels of authentication especially when the identifier is obtained in the presence of a third party to verify its authenticity, but as with any shared secret, if the digital form is compromised, impersonation becomes a serious risk. Thus, just like PINs, such information should not be sent over open networks unless it is encrypted. Moreover, measurement and recording of a physical characteristic could raise privacy concerns where the biometric identification data is shared by two or more entities. Further, if compromised, substituting a different, new biometric identifier may have limitations (e.g., you may need to employ the fingerprint of a different finger). Biometric authentication is best suited for access to devices, e.g. to access a computer hard drive or smart card, and less suited for authentication to software systems over open networks.

b. Cryptographic Control. Creating electronic signatures may involve the use of cryptography in two ways: symmetric (or shared private key) cryptography, or asymmetric (public key/private key) cryptography. The latter is used in producing digital signatures, discussed further below.

(1) Shared Symmetric Key Cryptography

In shared symmetric key approaches, the user signs a document and verifies the signature using a single key (consisting of a long string of zeros and ones) that is not publicly known, or is secret. Since the same key does these two functions, it must be transferred from the signer to the recipient of the message. This situation can undermine confidence in the authentication of the user's identity because the symmetric key is shared between sender and recipient and therefore is no longer unique to one person. Since the symmetric key is shared between the sender and possibly many recipients, it is not private to the sender and hence has lesser value as an authentication mechanism. This approach offers no additional cryptographic strength over digital signatures (see below). Further, digital signatures avoid the need for the shared secret.

(2) Public/Private Key (Asymmetric) Cryptography—Digital Signatures

(a) To produce a digital signature, a user has his or her computer generate two mathematically linked keys—a private signing key that is kept private, and a public validation key that is available to the public. The private key cannot be deduced from the public key. In practice, the public key is made part of a “digital certificate,” which is a specialized electronic file digitally signed by the issuer of the certificate, binding the identity of the individual to his or her private key in an unalterable fashion. The whole system that implements digital signatures and allows them to be used with specific programs to offer secure communications is called a Public Key Infrastructure, or PKI.

(b) A “digital signature” is created when the owner of a private signing key uses that key to create a unique mark (the signature) on an electronic document or file. The recipient employs the owner's public key to validate that the signature was generated with the associated private key. This process also verifies that the document was not altered. Since the public and private keys are mathematically linked, the pair is unique: only the public key can validate signatures made using the corresponding private key. If the private key has been properly protected from compromise or loss, the signature is unique to the individual who owns it, that is, the owner cannot repudiate the signature. In relatively high-risk transactions, there is always a concern that the user will claim someone else made the transaction. With public key technology, this concern can be mitigated. To claim he did not make the transaction, the user would have to feign loss of the private key. By creating and holding the private key on a smart card or an equivalent device, and by using a biometric mechanism (rather than a PIN or password) as the shared secret between the user and the smart card for unlocking the private key to create a signature this concern can be mitigated. In other words, combining two or three distinct electronic signature technology approaches in a single implementation can enhance the security of the interaction and lower the potential for fraud to almost zero. Furthermore, by establishing clear procedures for a particular implementation of digital signature technology, so that all parties know what the obligations, risks, and consequences are, agencies can also strengthen the effectiveness of a digital signature solution.

The reliability of the digital signature is directly proportional to the degree of confidence one has in the link between the owner's identity and the digital certificate, how well the owner has protected the private key from compromise or loss, and the cryptographic strength of the methodology used to generate the public-private key pair. The cryptographic strength is affected by key length and by the characteristics of the algorithm used to encrypt the information. Further information on digital signatures can be found in “Access with Trust” (September 1998) (http://gits-sec.treas.gov/).

c. Technical Considerations of the Various Electronic Signature Alternatives. (1) To be effective, each of these methods requires agencies to develop a series of policy documents that provide the important underlying framework of trust for electronic transactions and which facilitate the evaluation of risk. The framework identifies how well the user's identity is bound to his authenticator (e.g., his password, fingerprint, or private key). By considering the strength of this binding, the strength of the mechanism itself, and the sensitivity of the transaction, an agency can determine if the level of risk is acceptable. If an agency has experience with the technology, existing policies and documents may be available for use as guidance. Where the technology is new to an agency, this may require additional effort.

(2) While digital signatures (i.e. public key/private key) are generally the most certain method for assuring identity electronically, the policy documents must be established carefully to achieve the desired strength of binding. The framework must identify how well the signer's identity is bound to his or her public key in a digital certificate (identity proofing). The strength of this binding depends on the assumption that only the owner has sole possession of the unique private key used to make signatures that are validated with the public key. The strength of this binding also reflects whether the private key is placed on a highly secure hardware token, such as a smart card, or is encapsulated in software only; and how difficult it is for a malefactor to deduce the private key using cryptographic methods (which depends upon the key length and the cryptographic strength of the key-generating algorithm).

A Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) is one mechanism to support the binding of public keys with the user's identity. A PKI can provide the entire policy and technical framework for the systematic and diligent issuance, management and revocation of digital certificates, so that users who wish to rely on someone's certificate have a firm basis to check that the certificate has not been maliciously altered, and to confirm that it remains active (i.e., has not been revoked because of loss or compromise of the corresponding private key). This same infrastructure provides the basis for interoperability among different agencies or entities, so that a person's digital certificate can be accepted for transactions by organizations external to the one that issued it.

(3) By themselves, digitized (not digital) signatures, PINs, biometric identifiers, and other shared secrets do not directly bind identity to the contents of a document as do digital signatures which actually use the document information to make the signature. For shared secrets to bind the user's identity to the document, they must be used in conjunction with some other mechanism. Biometric identifiers such as retinal patterns used in conjunction with digital signatures can offer far greater proof of identify than pen and ink signatures.

(4) While not as robust as biometric identifiers and digital signatures, PINs have the decided advantage of proven customer and citizen acceptance, as evidenced by the universal use of PINs for automated teller machine transactions. PINs combined with encrypted Internet sessions, particularly through the use of Secure Sockets Layer technology on the World Wide Web, are very popular for retail consumer transactions requiring credit card or other personal authenticating information. This may well be suited for a variety of government applications. Also, secure Web browsers are increasingly being designed to accommodate digital signatures, making this approach a possible interim step towards implementing the more robust authentication provided by digital signatures.

(5) It is important to remember that technical factors are but one aspect to be considered when an agency plans to implement electronic signature-based applications. Other important aspects are considered in the following sections.

After the agency has conducted the assessment and identified an appropriate electronic signature technology alternative that may be used to secure an automated business process, the agency will proceed to implement this decision. For any electronic transaction, agencies should collect and record adequate information regarding the content, process, and identities of the parties involved. In doing so, agencies should consider the following:

a. Build from a policy framework. GPEA applies to interactions between outside entities and the Federal government, as well as to transactions and record keeping required by parties under Federal programs. Accordingly, agencies should consider whether their policies or programmatic regulations support the use and enforceability of electronic signature alternatives to handwritten signatures as well as to electronic record keeping under Federal programs. If necessary, agencies should develop a strategy to make any revisions needed to achieve this goal. In addition, by clearly informing the transaction partners that electronic signatures and records will be acceptable and used for enforcement purposes, their legal standing is enhanced. Several agencies have already chosen to promulgate policies or regulations on this issue, including:

(1) Securities and Exchange Commission (17 C.F.R. Part 232), electronic regulatory filings;

(2) Environmental Protection Agency (55 FR 31,030 (1990)), policy on electronic reporting;

(3) Food and Drug Administration (21 C.F.R. Part 11), electronic signatures and records;

(4) Internal Revenue Service (Treasury Reg. 301.6061-1), signature alternatives for tax filings;

(5) Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 C.F.R. Parts 2 and 4), electronic contracts;

(6) General Services Acquisition Regulation (48 C.F.R. Part 552.216-73), electronic orders;

(7) Federal Property Management Regulations (41 C.F.R. Part 101-41), electronic bills of lading.

(8) Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (1 C.F.R. Part 18.7), electronic signatures on documents submitted for publication in the Federal Register .

(9) Commodity Futures Trading Commission (17 C.F.R. Part 1.4 and Part 1.3(tt)), electronic signatures for filings.

When specifying the requirements for electronic record keeping by regulated entities or government business partners (e.g. contractors or grantees), particularly the maintenance of electronic forms pertaining to employees by employers, agencies should consult the “Performance Guideline for the Legal Acceptance of Records Produced by Information Technology Systems,” developed by the Association for Information and Image Management (ANSI/AIIM TR31). This set of documents offers suggestions for maximizing the likelihood that electronically filed and stored records will be accorded full legal recognition. If an agency chooses to use digital signature technology, a regulation might specify that each individual will be issued a unique digital signature certificate to use, agree to keep the private key confidential, agree to accept responsibility for anything that is submitted using that key, or accept other conditions under which the agency will accept electronic submissions.

b. Where necessary, use a mutually understood, signed agreement between the person or entity submitting the electronically-signed information and the receiving Federal agency. As a matter of efficiency, arrangements with large numbers of customers may be best accomplished by setting forth an agency's terms and conditions in a policy or regulation. Arrangements with smaller numbers of customers may lend themselves to one or more agreements, using a document referred to as a “terms and conditions” agreement. These agreements can ensure that all conditions of submission and receipt of data electronically are known and understood by the submitting parties. This is particularly the case where terms and conditions are not spelled out in agency programmatic regulations.

c. Minimize the likelihood of repudiation. Agencies should develop well-documented mechanisms and procedures to tie transactions to an individual in a legally binding way. For example, the integrity of even the most secure digital signature rests on the continuing confidentiality of the private key, so instituting procedures for ensuring the confidentiality of the private key would be in an agency's interest. Similarly, in the case of electronic signatures based on the use of shared secrets like PINs or passwords, the integrity of the transaction depends on the user not disclosing the shared secret, so an agency should have procedures for encouraging the maintenance of the PIN's integrity. If a defendant is later charged with a crime based on an electronically signed document, he or she would have every incentive to show a lack of control over (or loss of) the private key or PIN, or in the case of a PIN, that the government failed to protect the PIN on its computer system. Indeed, if that defendant plans to commit fraud, he or she may intentionally compromise the secrecy of the key or PIN, so that the government would later have a more difficult time uniquely linking him or her to the electronic transaction. Promulgating policies and procedures that ensure the integrity of security tools helps counter such fraudulent attempts.

Thus, transactions which appear to be at high risk for fraud, e.g., one-time high-value transactions with persons not previously known to an agency, may require extra safeguards or may not be appropriate for electronic transactions. One way to mitigate this risk might be to require that private keys be generated and kept on hardware tokens, making possession of the token a critical requirement. Another way to guard against fraud is to include other identifying data in the transaction that links the key or PIN to the individual, preferably something not readily available to others.

It is also important to establish that the user of the digital signature or PIN/password is fully aware of obligations he or she is agreeing to by signing at the time of signature. This can be ensured by programming appropriate ceremonial banners into the software application that alert the individual of the gravity of the action she is about to undertake. The presence of such banners can later be used to demonstrate to a court that the user was fully informed of and aware of what he or she was signing.

d. Carefully control access to the electronic data, after receipt, yet make it available in a meaningful and timely fashion. Security measures should be in place that ensure that no one is able to alter a transaction, or substitute something in its place, once it has been received by the agency unless the alteration is a valid correction contained in an electronically certified re-transmission. This can be achieved with a digital signature because it binds the identity of the individual making the signature to the entire document, so any subsequent change would be detected. Thus, the receiving agency needs to take prudent steps to control access to the electronic transaction through such methods as limiting access to the computer database containing the transaction, and performing processing with the data using copies of the transaction rather than the original. The information may be needed for audits, disputes, or court cases many years after the transaction itself took place. Agencies should make plans for storing data and providing meaningful and timely access to it for as long as such access will be necessary.

e. Ensure the “Chain of Custody.” Electronic audit trails must provide a chain of custody for the secure electronic transaction that identifies sending location, sending entity, date and time stamp of receipt, and other measures used to ensure the integrity of the document. These trails must be sufficiently complete and reliable to validate the integrity of the transaction and to prove, (a) that the connection between the submitter and the receiving agency has not been tampered with, and (b) how the document was controlled upon receipt.

f. Consider providing an acknowledgment of receipt. The agency's system for receiving electronic transactions may be required by statute to have a mechanism for acknowledging receipt of transactions received and acknowledging confirmation of transactions sent, with specific indication of the party with whom the agency is dealing.

g. Obtain legal counsel during the design of the system. Collection and use of electronic data may raise legal issues, particularly if it is information that bears on the legality of the process, may eventually be needed for proof in court, or involves questions of privacy, confidentiality, or liability.

To summarize the process and restate the principles that agencies should employ to evaluate authentication mechanisms (electronic signatures) for electronic transactions and documents, the following steps apply:

a. Examine the current business process that is being considered for conversion to employ electronic documents, forms or transactions, identifying customer needs and demands as well as the existing risks associated with fraud, error or misuse.

b. Identify the benefits that may accrue from the use of electronic transactions or documents.

c. Consider what risks may arise from the use of electronic transactions or documents. This evaluation should take into account the relationships of the parties, the value of the transactions or documents, and the later need for the documents.

d. Consult with counsel about any agency specific legal implications about the use of electronic transactions or documents in the particular application.

e. Evaluate how each electronic signature alternative may minimize risk compared to the costs incurred in adopting an alternative.

f. Determine whether any electronic signature alternative, in conjunction with appropriate process controls, represents a practicable trade-off between benefits on the one hand and cost and risk on the other. If so, determine, to the extent possible at the time, which signature alternative is the best one. Document this determination to allow later reevaluation.

g. Develop plans for retaining and disposing of information, ensuring that it can be made continuously available to those who will need it, for managerial control of sensitive data and accommodating changes in staffing, and for ensuring adherence to these plans.

h. Develop management strategies to provide appropriate security for physical access to electronic records.

i. Determine if regulations or policies are adequate to support electronic transactions and record keeping, or if “terms and conditions” agreements are needed for the particular application. If new regulations or policies are necessary, disseminate them as appropriate.

j. Seek continuing input of technology experts for updates on the changing state of technology and the continuing advice of legal counsel for updates on the changing state of the law in these areas.

k. Integrate these plans into the agency's strategic IT planning and regular reporting to OMB.

l. Perform periodic review and re-evaluation, as appropriate.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-942-8090).

1. Marshall Funds, a Wisconsin corporation, is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company and consists of eleven separate series. The Adviser, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marshall & Ilsley Corporation (“M&I Corp.”), a bank holding company, is registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Adviser serves as investment adviser to each series of Marshall Funds. M&I Trust, also a wholly-owned subsidiary of M&I Corp., is the custodian for Marshall Funds. Applicants also request relief for each future series of Marshall Funds and any other registered management investment companies or series thereof, whether currently existing or organized in the future, that are advised or subadvised by the Adviser, or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the Adviser (together, the “Adviser”) (collectively, “Future Funds”). Marshall Funds and the Future Funds are collectively referred to as the “Funds”. 1

2. Each of the Funds is, or will be, permitted by its investment objectives, policies, and restrictions to lend its portfolio securities. Several of the Funds currently participate in a securities lending program (the “Program”) administered by M&I Trust, which acts as lending agent. Under the Program, M&I Trust enters into agreements with certain unaffiliated borrowers that have been pre-approved by the Fund or the Adviser (“Borrowers”) that wish to borrow securities owned by a Fund. Applicants represent that the duties performed by M&I Trust as lending agent will not exceed those set forth in Norwest Bank, N.A. (pub. avail. May 25, 1995).

3. With respect to loans that are collateralized by cash (“Cash Collateral”), the Borrower is entitled to receive a fixed fee based on the amount of Cash Collateral. The Fund is compensated on the spread between the net amount earned on the investment of the Cash Collateral and the Borrower's fee. In the case of collateral other than cash, the Fund receives a loan fee paid by the Borrower equal to a percentage of the market value of the loaned securities specified in the loan agreement. Applicants seek relief to permit the funds to pay, and M&I Trust to accept, fees based on a share of the revenues generated from securities lending transactions.

4. Securities lending guidelines adopted by each Fund authorize and instruct M&I Trust, at the direction of the Adviser, to invest Cash Collateral on behalf of the Fund in investment options pre-approved by the Fund or the Adviser. The Funds also may be expected to have uninvested cash (“Uninvested Cash”), which may result from a variety of sources, including dividends or interest received on portfolio securities, unsettled transactions, reserves held for investment strategy purposes, scheduled maturity of investments, liquidation of investment securities to meet anticipated redemptions, dividend payments, or new monies received from investors (Uninvested Cash, together with Cash Collateral, “Cash Balances”).

5. Applicants propose to deposit Cash Balances into one or more joint accounts (“Joint Accounts”) established at M&I Trust for the purpose of investing in one or more of the following: (a) repurchase agreements “collateralized fully” as defined in rule 2a-7 under the Act, 2 (b) U.S. dollar-denominated commercial paper (including securities issued or backed by the U.S. Government or its agencies or instrumentalities), and (c) any other short-term money market instruments that constitute “Eligible Securities” (as defined in rule 2a-7 under the Act) (collectively, “Short-Term Investments”).

6. Any repurchase agreements entered into through a Joint Account will comply with the terms of Investment Company Act Release No. 13005 (Feb. 2, 1983). Applicants acknowledge that they have a continuing obligation to monitor the Commission's published statements on repurchase agreements, and represent that repurchase agreement transactions will comply with future positions of the Commission to the extent that such positions set forth different or additional requirements regarding repurchase agreements. In the event that the commission sets forth guidelines with respect to other Short-Term Investments made through the Joint Accounts, the investments will comply with those guidelines.

7. Each Fund will invest through a Joint Account only in conformity with its own investment objectives, policies and restrictions. The Adviser will have sole responsibility for determining a Fund's participation in a joint Account, subject to standards and procedures established by the Fund's board of directors (“Board”). Neither the Adviser nor M&I Trust will receive any additional fees from the Funds for the administration of the Joint Accounts.

1. Section 17(b) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit any affiliated person of or principal underwriter for a registered investment company or any affiliated person of such person or principal underwriter, acting as principal, from effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit sharing plan, in which the investment company participates. Rule 17d-1 permits the Commission to approve a proposed joint transaction covered by the terms of section 17(d). In determining whether to approve a transaction, the Commission is to consider whether the proposed transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation of the investment companies is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.

2. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an affiliated person to include any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person and, if the other person is an investment company, its investment adviser. The adviser is an affiliated person of each Fund. Because M&I Trust and the Adviser are under the common control of M&I Corp., M&I Trust is an affiliated person of an affiliated person of each Fund. Accordingly, applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to the extent necessary to permit each Fund to pay, and M&I to accept, fees based on a share of the revenues generated from securities lending transactions.

3. Applicants propose that each Fund adopt the following procedures to ensure that the proposed fee arrangement and the other terms governing the relationship with M&I Trust, as lending agent, will meet the standards of rule 17d-1:

1. As noted above, section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 generally prohibit joint transactions involving registered investment companies and certain of their affiliates unless the Commission has approved the transaction. Applicants state that the Funds, by participating in the proposed Joint Accounts, M&I Trust, by administering the proposed Joint Accounts, and the Adviser, by acting as the adviser for the Joint Accounts, could be deemed to be “joint participants” in a transaction within the meaning of section 17(d) of the Act. In addition, the proposed Joint Accounts could be deemed to be a “joint enterprise or other joint arrangement” within the meaning of rule 17d-1 under the Act. Accordingly, applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit them to participate in the proposed Joint Accounts.

2. Applicants submit that the requested relief meets the standards of rule 17d-1 for issuance of an order. Each Fund will participate in any Joint Account on the same basis as every other Fund, subject to and in conformity with its own investment objectives, polices, and restrictions. Each Fund's liability on any Short-Term Investment would be limited to its own interest in such investment. Applicants also assert that the proposed method of operating the Joint Accounts will not result in any conflicts of interest among any of the Funds, M&I Trust and the Adviser.

3. Applicants state that the operation of the Joint Accounts could result in certain benefits. Applicants state that, although M&I Trust may gain some benefit from the administrative convenience of the Funds investing in Short-Term Investments on a joint basis, and may experience some reduction in clerical costs, the Funds will be the primary beneficiaries due to increase efficiencies realized through use of the Joint Accounts, the possible increase in rates of return available, and, for some Funds, the opportunity to invest in Short-Term Investments

Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:

1. The securities lending program of each Fund will comply with all present and future applicable guidelines of the Commission and staff regarding securities lending arrangements.

2. The approval of a Fund's Board, including a majority of the Disinterested Directors or Trustees, shall be required for the initial and subsequent approvals of M&I Trust's service as lending agent for the Fund pursuant to the Program, for the institution of all procedures relating to the Program as it relates to the Fund, and for any periodic review of loan transactions for which M&I Trust acted as lending agent pursuant to the Program.

1. The Joint Accounts will not be distinguishable from any other accounts maintained by a Fund with M&I Trust except that Cash Balances from various Funds will be deposited in the Joint Accounts on a commingled basis. The Joint Accounts will not have a separate existence and will not have indicia of a separate legal entity. The sole function of the Joint Accounts will be to provide a convenient way of aggregating individual transactions that would otherwise require daily management and investment by each Fund of its Cash Balances.

2. Short-Term Investments that are repurchase agreements will be “collateralized fully” as defined in rule 2a-7 under the Act and all Short-Term Investments will have a remaining maturity of 397 days or less as calculated in accordance with Rule 2a-7 under the Act. Uninvested Cash in a Joint Account will be invested in Short-Term Investments with remaining maturities of 90 days or less, or if repurchase agreements, with remaining maturities of 60 days or less.

3. All Short-Term Investments invested in through the Joint Accounts will be valued on an amortized cost basis to the extent permitted by applicable Commission releases, rules or orders.

4. Each Fund that is a money market fund will use the dollar-weighted average maturity of the Short-Term Investments in the Joint Accounts in which the Fund has an interest for the purpose of computing that Fund's average portfolio maturity with respect to the portion of the assets held by it in the Joint Account.

5. To ensure that there will be no opportunity for any Fund to use any part of a balance of a Joint Account credited to another Fund, no Fund will be allowed to create a negative balance in any Joint Account for any reason, although each Fund will be permitted to draw down its share of the entire balance at any time, provided that the Adviser determines that such draw down would have no significant adverse impact on any other Fund in that Joint Account. Each Fund's decision to invest through the Joint Accounts would be solely at its option, and no Fund will be obligated to invest in a Joint Account or maintain a minimum balance in a Joint Account. In addition, each Fund will retain the sole rights of ownership to any of its assets invested in the Joint Accounts, including interest payable on such assets invested in the Joint Accounts.

6. The Adviser will administer the investment of Cash Balances in, and the operation of, the Joint Accounts as part of its general duties under its advisory agreements with the Funds and neither M&I Trust nor the Adviser will receive additional or separate fees for administering the Joint Accounts.

7. The administration of the Joint Accounts will be within the fidelity bond coverage required by section 17(g) of the Act and rule 17g-1 under the Act.

8. The Board for each Fund investing in Short-Term Investments through the Joint Accounts will adopt procedures pursuant to which the Joint Accounts will operate, which procedures will be reasonably designed to provide that the requirements of the requested order will be met. In addition, not less frequently than annually, the Board will evaluate the Joint Account arrangements, will determine whether the Joint Accounts have been operated in accordance with the adopted procedures, and will authorize a Fund's continued participation in the Joint Accounts only if the Board determines that there is a reasonable likelihood that such continued participation would benefit that Fund and its shareholders.

9. Investment in a Joint Account by a particular Fund will be consistent with the Fund's investment objectives and policies.

10. The Adviser and M&I Trust will maintain records documenting, for any given day, each Fund's aggregate investment in a Joint Account and each Fund's pro rata share of each Short-Term Investment made through such Joint Account. The records maintained for each Fund shall be maintained in conformity with section 31 of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.

11. Short-Term Investments held in a Joint Account generally will not be sold prior to maturity except if: (a) The Adviser believes the investment no longer presents minimal credit risks; (b) the investment no longer satisfies the investment criteria of all Funds in the Joint Account because of downgrading or otherwise; or (c) in the case of a repurchase agreement, the counterparty defaults. Any Short-Term Investment (or any fractional portion thereof), however, may be sold on behalf of some or all of the Funds prior to the maturity of the investment if the cost of such transaction will be borne solely by the selling Funds and the transaction will not adversely affect other Funds participating in that Joint Account. In no case would an early termination by less than all Funds be permitted if it would reduce the principal amount or yield received by other Funds in a particular Joint Account or otherwise adversely affect the other Funds. Each Fund in a Joint Account will be deemed to have consented to such sale and partition of the investments in the Joint Account.

12. Short-Term Investments held through a Joint Account with a remaining maturity of more than seven days, as calculated pursuant to rule 2a-7 under the Act, will be considered illiquid and will be subject to the restriction that a Fund may not invest more than 15% or, in the case of a money market fund, more than 10% (or, in either case, such other percentage as set forth by the Commission from time to time) of its net assets in illiquid securities, if the Short-Term Investment or fractional interest therein cannot be sold pursuant to the preceding condition.

13. Every Fund in the Joint Accounts will not necessarily have its Cash Balances invested in every Short-Term Investment. However, to the extent that a Fund's Cash Balances are applied to a particular Short-Term Investment, the Fund will participate in and own its proportionate share of such Short-Term Investment, and any income earned or accrued thereon, based upon the percentage of such Short-Term Investment purchased with Cash Balances contributed by the Fund.

14. The Joint Accounts will be established as one or more separate cash accounts on behalf of the Funds at M&I Trust. Each Fund may deposit daily all or a portion of its Cash Balances into the Joint Accounts. Each Fund whose regular custodian is a custodian other than M&I Trust Fund and that wishes to participate in a Joint Account would appoint M&I Trust as a sub-custodian for the limited purposes of: (a) Receiving and disbursing Cash Balances; (b) holding any Short-Term Investments; and (c) holding any collateral received from a transaction effected through a Joint Account. All Funds that so appoint M&I Trust will have taken all necessary actions to authorize M&I Trust as its legal custodian, including all actions required under the Act.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0102 (telephone (202) 942-8090).

1. SSgA Funds, organized as a Massachusetts business trust, is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. Each Fund is a series of SSgA Funds and has a separate investment objective and policies. State Street serves as the investment adviser for each of the Funds. State Street is a bank and is not required to register as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Applicants also request relief for all other registered management investment companies and series thereof now or hereafter existing for which State Street, or a person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with State Street (collectively, “State Street”), acts as investment adviser (together with the Funds, the “Funds”). 1

2. Each Fund (“Participating Fund”) has, or may be expected to have, cash that has not been invested in portfolio securities (“Uninvested Cash”) held by its custodian bank. Such Uninvested Cash may result from a variety of sources, including dividends or interest received from portfolio securities, unsettled securities transactions, reserves held for investment strategy purposes, scheduled maturity of investments, liquidation of investment securities to meet anticipated redemptions and dividend payments, and new monies received from investors. Certain of the Participating Funds also may participate in a securities lending program under which a Participating Fund may lend its portfolio securities to registered broker-dealers or other institutional investors. The loans are continuously secured by collateral equal at all times to at least the market value of the securities loaned. Collateral for these loans may include cash (“Cash Collateral,” and together with Uninvested Cash, “Cash Balances”).

3. Applicants request relief to permit Participating Funds to use Cash Balances to purchase shares of one or more of the funds that are money market funds or short-term bond funds (the “Central Funds”), and the Central Funds to sell shares to and purchase shares from the Participating Funds (the “Proposed Transactions”). Certain of the Central Funds are money market funds operating pursuant to rule 2a-7 under the Act. The other Central Funds are or will be short-term bond funds that seek high current income consistent with the preservation of capital by investing in fixed-income securities and maintaining a dollar-weighted average maturity of three years or less (the “Short-Term Bond Funds.”) Applicants believe that the Participating Funds' investment in the Central Funds may reduce the risk of counterparty default on repurchase agreements and the market risk associated with direct purchases of short-term obligations, while providing high current money market rates of return, ready liquidity, and increased diversity of holdings.

1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act provides that no registered investment company may acquire securities of another investment company if such securities represent more than 3% of the acquired company's outstanding voting stock, more than 5% of the acquiring company's total assets, or if such securities, together with the securities of other acquired investment companies, represented more than 10% of the acquiring company's total assets. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act provides that no registered open-end investment company sell its securities to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies.

2. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person or transaction from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if, and to the extent that, the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Applicants request an exemption from the provisions of sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) to the extent necessary to permit each Participating Fund to invest Cash Balances in the Central Funds.

3. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement would not result in the abuses that sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) were intended to prevent. Applicants state that because each Central Fund will maintain a highly liquid portfolio, a Participating Fund will not be in a position to gain undue influence over a Central Fund. Applicants represent that the proposed arrangement will not result in an inappropriate layering of fees because shares of the Central Funds sold to the Participating Funds will not be subject to a sales load, redemption fee, distribution fee under a plan adopted in accordance with rule 12b-1 or service fee (as defined in rule 2830(b)(9) of the National Association of Securities Dealers' (“NASD”) Conduct Rules) or, if such shares are subject to any such distribution fee or service fee, State Street will waive its advisory fee for each Participating Fund in an amount that offsets the amount of such distribution and/or service fees incurred by the Participating Fund. In connection with approving any advisory contract for a Participating Fund, the Participating Fund's board of trustees (the “Board”), including a majority of the trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Disinterested Trustees”) will consider to what extent, if any, the advisory fees charged to the Participating Fund by the Adviser should be reduced to account for reduced services provided to the Participating Fund by the Adviser as a result of the investment of Uninvested Cash in the Central Funds. Applicants represent that no Central Fund will acquire securities of any other investment company in excess of the limitations contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act.

4. Section 17(a) of the Act makes it unlawful for any affiliated person of a registered investment company, acting as principal, to sell or purchase any security to or from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” of an investment company to include the investment adviser, any person that owns 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of that company, and any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment company. Applicants state that the Participating Funds and Central Funds may share a common investment adviser and a common Board. Therefore, each Participating Fund and each Central Fund may be an affiliated person of every other Fund. In addition, applicants state that a Participating Fund may become an affiliated person of a Central Fund by owning more than 5% of the outstanding voting securities of a Central Fund. Accordingly, applicants seek an exemption from the provisions of section 17(a) to permit the sale of shares of the Central Funds to the Participating Funds and the redemption of such shares by the Central Funds.

5. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if the terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved, and with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the Act provides, in part, that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of person, securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act if, and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.

6. Applicants submit that the request for relief satisfies the standards of sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act. Applicants state that the terms of the Proposed Transactions are fair and reasonable, and do not involve overreaching because the consideration paid and received on the sale and redemption of shares of a Central Fund will be based on the Central Fund's net asset value per share. In addition, under the Proposed Transactions, the Participating Funds will retain their ability to invest their Cash Balances directly in money market instruments and other short-term obligations, as permitted by each Participating Fund's investment objectives and policies. Applicants state that each of the Central Funds reserves the right to discontinue selling shares to any of the Participating Funds if its Board determines that such sales would adversely affect its portfolio management and operations. Applicants note that the investment of assets of the Participating Funds in shares of the Central Funds will be affected in accordance with each Participating Fund's investment restrictions and will be consistent with each Participating Fund's policies as set forth in its registration statement.

7. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibits an affiliated person of an investment company, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company participates. Applicants state that the Participating Funds and the Central Funds, by participating in the Proposed Transactions, and State Street, by managing the Proposed Transactions, could be deemed to be participants in a joint enterprise or arrangement within the meaning of section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.

8. Rule 17d-1 permits the Commission to approve a proposed joint transaction covered by the terms of section 17(d) of the Act. In determining whether to approve a transactions, the Commission is to consider whether the proposed transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants. Applicants submit that the investment by the Participating Funds in shares of the Central Funds would be indistinguishable from any other shareholder account maintained by the Central Fund and that the transactions will be consistent with the Act.

Applicants agree that the order of the Commission granting the requested relief shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. The shares of the Central Funds sold to and redeemed from the Participating Funds will not be subject to a sales load, redemption fee, distribution fee under a 12b-1 plan, or service fee (as defined in rule 2830(b)(9) of the Conduct Rules of the NASD), or if such shares are subject to any such distribution fee or service fee, State Street will waive its advisory fee for each Participating Fund in an amount that offsets the amount of such distribution and/or service fees incurred by the Participating Fund.

2. If State Street collects a fee from any Central Fund for acting as its investment adviser with respect to assets invested by a Participating Fund, before the next meeting of the Board of that Participating Fund is held for the purpose of voting on the Participating Fund's advisory contract pursuant to section 15 of the Act, State Street will provide the Board with specific information regarding the approximate cost to State Street for, or portion of the advisory fee under the existing advisory contract attributable to, managing the assets of the Participating Fund that can be expected to be invested in such Central Funds. Before approving the Participating Fund's advisory contract pursuant to section 15, the Board, including a majority of the Disinterested Trustees shall consider to what extent, if any, the advisory fees charged to the Participating Fund by State Street should be reduced to account for reduced services provided to the Participating Fund by State Street as a result of Uninvested Cash being invested in the Central Funds. The minute books of the Participating Fund will record fully the Board's consideration in approving the advisory contract, including the considerations relating to fees referred to above.

3. Each of the Participating Funds will invest Uninvested Cash in, and hold shares of, the Central Funds only to the extent that the Participating Fund's aggregate investment in the Central Funds does not exceed 25% of the Participating Fund's total assets. For purposes of this limitation, each Participating Fund or series thereof will be treated as a separate investment company.

4. Investment in shares of the Central Funds will be in accordance with each Participating Fund's respective investment restrictions, if any, and will be consistent with each Participating Fund's policies as set forth in its prospectus(es) and statement(s) of additional information. Participating Funds that are money market funds will not acquire shares of any Central Fund that does not comply with the requirements of rule 2a-7 under the Act.

5. Each Participating Fund, each Central Fund, and any future Fund that may rely on the order shall be advised by State Street.

6. No Central Fund shall acquire securities of any other investment company in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform the public and local, State and Federal government agencies of the availability of the draft supplemental EA. It also provides interested parties with an opportunity to present to the FAA their opinions, comments, information or other relevant observations relating to the potential environmental impacts of these proposals.

The DEA is not being published in today's Federal Register due to its size and the detailed graphics on the charts contained in it. However, to maximize the opportunities for public participation in this environmental process, copies of the draft EA are available for review at the following libraries:

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Executive Committee to be held on May 10, 2000, at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1014, Washington, DC 20590. The agenda will include:

• Use of proxy votes

• ARAC Chair and Vice Chair

• New ARAC members

Attendance is open to the interested public but will be limited to the space available. The public must make arrangements by May 3, to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to the executive committee at any time by providing 25 copies to the Executive Director, or by bringing the copies to the meeting.

If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Burlington International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

On April 14, 2000, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the City of Burlington was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than August 1, 2000.

The following is a brief overview of the impose and use application.

PFC Project #: 00-03-C-00-BTV.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Charge effective date: February 1, 2011.

Estimated charge expiration date: February 1, 2012.

Estimated total net PFC revenue impose authority: $1,788,581.

Estimated total net PFC revenue use authority: $3,002,002.

Brief description of use project: Air Carrier Apron Expansion—North End.

Brief description of impose and use projects:

Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: On demand Air Taxi/Commercial Operators (ATCO).

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Burlington International Airport, 1200 Airport Drive, #1, South Burlington, Vermont 05403.

Title: Nondiscrimination as it Applies to FTA Grant Programs ( OMB Number: 2132-0542 )

Abstract: All entities receiving federal financial assistance from FTA are prohibited from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, age, or disability. To ensure that FTA's equal employment opportunity (EEO) procedures are followed, FTA requires grant recipients to submit written EEO plans to FTA for approval. FTA's assessment of this requirement shows that the formulating, submitting, and implementing of EEO programs should minimally increase costs for FTA applicants and recipients.

To determine a grantee's compliance with applicable laws and requirements, grantee submissions are evaluated and analyzed based on the following criteria. First, an EEO program must include an EEO policy statement issued by the chief executive officer covering all employment practices, including recruitment, selection, promotions, terminations, transfers, layoffs, compensation, training, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. Second, the policy must be placed conspicuously so that employees, applicants, and the general public are aware of the agency's EEO commitment.

The data derived from written EEO and affirmative action plans will be used by the Office of Civil Rights in monitoring grantees' compliance with applicable EEO laws and regulations. This monitoring and enforcement activity will ensure that minorities and women have equitable access to employment opportunities and that recipients of Federal funds do not discriminate against any employee or applicant because of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, age, or disability.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 4,500 hours.

Title: Title VI as it Applies to FTA Grant Programs ( OMB Number: 2132-0542 )

Abstract: Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” This information collection is required by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Title VI Regulation, 28 CFR Part 42, Subpart F (Section 42.406), and DOT Order 1000.12. FTA policies and requirements are designed to clarify and strengthen these regulations. This requirement is applicable to all applicants, recipients, and subrecipients receiving Federal financial assistance. Experience has demonstrated that a program requirement at the application stage is necessary to assure that benefits and services are equitably distributed by grant recipients. The requirements prescribed by the Office of Civil Rights accomplish that objective while diminishing possible vestiges of discrimination among FTA grant recipients. FTA's assessment of this requirement indicated that the formulation and implementation of the Title VI program should occur with a decrease in costs to such applicants and recipients.

All FTA grant applicants, recipients, and subrecipients are required to submit applicable Title VI information to the FTA Office of Civil Rights for review and approval. If FTA did not conduct pre-award reviews, solutions would not be generated in advance and program improvements could not be integrated into projects. FTA's experience with pre-award reviews for all projects and grants suggests this method contributes to maximum efficiency and cost effectiveness of FTA dollars and has kept post-award complaints to a minimum. Moreover, the objective of the Title VI statute can be more easily attained and beneficiaries of FTA funded programs have a greater likelihood of receiving transit services and related benefits on a nondiscriminatory basis.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 4,680 hours.

Title: Reporting of Technical Activities by FTA Grant Recipients ( OMB Number: 2132-0549 )

Abstract: 49 U.S.C. Sections 5303 and 5313(a) and (b) authorize the use of Federal funds to assist metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), states, and local public bodies in developing transportation plans and programs to serve future transportation needs of urbanized areas and nonurbanized areas throughout the nation. As part of this effort, MPOs are required to consider a wide range of goals and objectives and to analyze alternative transportation system management and investment strategies. These objectives are measured by definable activities such as planning certification reviews and other related activities.

The information collected by these forms is used to report annually to Congress, the Secretary, and to the Federal Transit Administrator on how grantees are responding to national emphasis areas and congressional direction, and allows FTA to track grantees' use of Federal planning and research funds.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 150 hours.

Title: Bus Testing Program ( OMB Number: 2132-0550 )

Abstract: 49 U.S.C. Section 5323(c) provides that no Federal funds appropriated or made available after September 30, 1989, may be obligated or expended for the acquisition of a new bus model (including any model using alternative fuels) unless the bus has been tested at the Bus Testing Center (Center) in Altoona, Pennsylvania. 49 U.S.C. Section 5318(a) further specifies that each new bus model is to be tested for maintainability, reliability, safety, performance (including braking performance), structural integrity, fuel economy, emissions, and noise.

The operator of the Bus Testing Center, the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute (PTI), has entered into a cooperative agreement with FTA. PTI operates and maintains the Center, and establishes and collects fees for the testing of the vehicles at the facility. Upon completion of the testing of the vehicle at the Center, a test report is provided to the manufacturer of the new bus model. The bus manufacturer certifies to an FTA grantee that the bus the grantee is purchasing has been tested at the Center. Also, grantees about to purchase a bus use this report to assist them in making their purchasing decisions. PTI maintains a reference file for all the test reports which are made available to the public.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 60 hours.

Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.

Title: Prevention of Prohibited Drug Use in Transit Operations ( OMB Number: 2132-0556 )

Background: The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-143, October 28, 1991, now codified in relevant part at 49 U.S.C. Section 5331) requires any recipient of federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Sections 5309, 5307, or 5311 or under 23 U.S.C. Section 103(e) (4) to establish a program designed to help prevent accidents and injuries resulting from the misuse of drugs and alcohol by employees who perform safety-sensitive functions. FTA's regulation, 49 CFR Part 653, “Prevention of Prohibited Drug Use in Transit Operations,” effective March 17, 1994, requires recipients to submit to FTA annual reports containing data which summarize information concerning the recipients' drug testing program, such as the number and type of tests given, number of positive test results, and the kinds of safety-sensitive functions the employees perform. FTA uses these data to ensure compliance with the rule, to assess the misuse of drugs in the transit industry, and to set the random testing rate. The data will also be used to assess the effectiveness of the rule in reducing the misuse of drugs among safety-sensitive transit employees and making transit safer for the public.

Respondents: State and local government, business or other for-profit institutions, non-profit institutions, and small business organizations.

Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 14.6 hours for each of the 2,317 respondents.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 33,883 hours.

Frequency: Annual.

DEMPS is to be used by the Emergency Management Strategic Healthcare Group (EMSHG) primarily in times of national emergencies caused by catastrophic events. This system may be used to respond to internal emergencies occurring within the Veterans integrated Service Networks (VISNs).

It is the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) policy to use DEMPS to respond to internal emergencies occurring within the VISNs. In order to provide sufficient health care medical personnel to respond to disasters, it is necessary to develop a nationwide VHA system of special-skilled personnel. These persons would be available to serve for limited periods of time in response to Presidentially-declared and internal VA national emergencies. VHA maintains a nationwide register of clinical personnel who volunteer their special medical skills in response to emergencies.

Information in DEMPS comes from VHA full-time employees who provide the information voluntarily. Information collected and maintained in DEMPS includes personal and demographic information initiated, provided, and authenticated by the employee and contains the necessary approvals and signatures of supervisory officials. Information includes the employee's full name, social security number, station and VISN assignment, station address and phone number, home address and phone number, emergency contact and phone number, professional/job series, grade, speciality, current job assignment, description of advanced degree/certification (if any); physical limitations (if any); prior experience in disaster response (if any); specialized training; related military medical training, other relevant training and dates thereof. DEMPS constitutes a system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and data contained therein are considered private information.

A notice of intent and an advance copy of the new system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (61 FR 6428), February 20, 1996.

A “Report of Intention to Publish a Federal Register Notice of a New System of Records” and an advance copy of the new system notice have been provided to the chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as required by the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended (Privacy Act), and guidance issued by OMB (50 FR 52730), December 24, 1985, and revisions thereto, published on (58 FR 36068), July 2, 1993; (59 FR 37906), July 25, 1994; and (61 FR 6428), February 20, 1996.

For further information, contact the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Program Assistance (045A), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20420—(202) 273-8127.