[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71993-71998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30649]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Postage Evidencing Product Submission Procedures; Correction

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final notice of procedures; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is correcting an error in the printing of 
the final product submission procedures published in the Federal 
Register November 5, 2002 (Vol. 67, No. 214, pages 67425-67430).

DATES: The procedures were effective November 5, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Wilkerson, manager, Postage 
Technology Management, by fax at 703-292-4050.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When the notice of the final Product 
Submission Procedures was published on November 5, 2002, several lines 
were inadvertently omitted from the table of Required Documentation in 
section 4.2 on pages 67428 to 67429. We are reprinting the final 
procedures here in full for reader convenience.

Product Submission Procedures for Postage Meters (Postage Evidencing 
Systems)

1. General Information

1.1 Independent Testing Laboratory
    To receive authorization from the Postal Service to manufacture, 
produce, or distribute a postage meter (postage evidencing system) 
under 39 CFR part 501, Authorization to Manufacture and Distribute 
Postage Meters, the provider must obtain approval under these product 
submission procedures. These

[[Page 71994]]

procedures also apply to providers requesting approval to manufacture, 
produce, or distribute a product under proposed 39 CFR part 502, 
Authority to Produce and Distribute Postage-Evidencing Systems that 
Generate Information-Based Indicia (IBI) (65 FR 58689).
    The provider must select an independent testing laboratory 
accredited by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 
(NVLAP) to conduct the detailed product review and testing required by 
these procedures. When the product contains a postal security device 
(PSD) or cryptographic module, the laboratory must be an NVLAP-
accredited cryptographic module testing laboratory.
    Technical documentation (section 4) and production systems (section 
5) must be provided to the selected test laboratory in sufficient 
detail to support testing. The testing laboratory will submit an 
executive summary containing the information referenced in the Required 
Documentation table set forth in paragraph 4.2 and the results of the 
product evaluation directly to the Postal Service. All supporting 
documentation, products, PSDs and cryptographic modules, and other 
materials used or generated during testing will be maintained by the 
testing laboratory for the life of the test. At the time of product 
approval, the manager, Postage Technology Management (PTM), will 
determine the ongoing disposition of all supporting documentation, 
products, PSDs and cryptographic modules, and other materials used or 
generated during testing.
    During the product's life cycle, the provider may choose to use a 
different laboratory. In that event, all materials used or generated 
during testing and product evaluation must be transferred to the new 
laboratory.
    Upon completion of the testing, the Postal Service may require that 
any or all of the following categories of information be forwarded 
directly from the accredited laboratory to the manager, PTM:
    (a) A copy of all information that the provider gives to the 
laboratory, including a summary of all information transmitted orally.
    (b) A copy of all instructions from the provider to the testing 
laboratory with respect to what is and what is not to be tested.
    (c) Copies of all proprietary and nonproprietary reports and 
recommendations generated during the test process.
    (d) Written full disclosure identifying any contribution by the 
test laboratory to the design, development, or ongoing maintenance of 
the system.
1.2 Product Submission Procedures
    To submit a postage meter (postage evidencing system) for Postal 
Service approval, the provider will complete the following steps:
    (a) Submit a letter of intent (section 2).
    (b) Complete and sign the nondisclosure agreements (section 3).
    (c) Submit the required documentation (section 4).
    (d) Submit the postage evidencing system for evaluation (section 
5).
    (e) Enable the Postal Service to review the provider's system 
infrastructure (section 6).
    (f) Place the product into limited distribution for field testing 
(section 7), after completing any additional security testing that the 
Postal Service requires.
1.3 Additional Security Testing
    The Postal Service may choose to use resources under direct 
contract to the Postal Service to support the product review for 
additional security testing. The activities of these resources are 
independent of the testing laboratory selected by the provider and must 
be covered by nondisclosure agreements (section 3).
1.4 Product Approval Process
    When the field testing (section 7) is completed successfully, the 
Postal Service performs an administrative review of the test and 
evaluation results and, when appropriate, grants authorization to 
distribute the product, as described in section 8.
    At each stage of the product submission process, the manager, PTM, 
reserves the right to terminate testing if a review shows that the 
system as proposed will adversely impact Postal Service processes. The 
provider may resubmit the product after the problems have been 
resolved.
    The provider can avoid unnecessary delays in the review and 
evaluation process by testing the product thoroughly prior to 
submitting it to the independent testing laboratory and to the Postal 
Service. If the Postal Service determines that there are significant 
deficiencies in the product or in the required supporting materials, 
then the Postal Service will return the submission to the provider 
without reviewing it further.

2. Letter of Intent

    The provider must submit a letter of intent to Manager, Postage 
Technology Management (PTM), United States Postal Service, 1735 N. Lynn 
Street, Room 5011, Arlington, VA 22209-6050. The manager, PTM, will 
assign a point of contact to coordinate the submission and review 
process. The letter of intent must be dated and must include the 
following:
    (a) Identification (name, mailing address, e-mail address, and 
telephone number) of all parties involved in the proposed product, 
including the provider, those responsible for the product's assembly, 
product management, hardware/firmware/software development and testing, 
and any other party involved (or expected to be involved) with the 
design or construction of the product, including all suppliers of 
product components which could affect the security of Postal Service 
revenues.
    (b) Provider's business qualifications, including proof of 
financial viability and proof of the provider's ability to be 
responsive and responsible.
    (c) System concept narrative, including the provider's 
infrastructure that will support the product.
    (d) Target Postal Service market segment the proposed system is 
envisioned to serve.
    When there is a significant change to any aspect of the product 
described in the letter of intent, or of the parties involved in 
developing or producing the product, prior to submission of the concept 
of operations (section 4), the provider must revise the letter of 
intent and resubmit it.

3. Nondisclosure Agreements

    When the Postal Service uses resources under direct contract to the 
Postal Service to support the product review, the provider must 
establish a nondisclosure agreement with these resources. These 
nondisclosure agreements may require extension to third-party suppliers 
or others identified in the letter of intent (section 2). Providers are 
encouraged to share copies of nondisclosure agreements provided by the 
Postal Service with all parties identified in the letter of intent, to 
ensure that these parties will execute the agreement if needed to 
support Postal Service review of the product. Failure to sign 
nondisclosure agreements, provided by the Postal Service to support 
review activities, might adversely affect a product submission. 
Questions regarding this process should be directed to the manager, 
PTM.

[[Page 71995]]

4. Technical Documentation

4.1 Introduction
    The provider must submit the materials listed in the Required 
Documentation table. If the provider considers that a given requirement 
is not applicable to the product, the provider should note this in the 
document submission. The table is not meant to be an exhaustive list of 
all possible areas that need to be documented to support the evaluation 
of a postage meter (postage evidencing system). Ongoing advances and 
changes in technology and new approaches to providing postage 
evidencing can add other components that must be considered. The 
provider should submit any additional information that it considers 
necessary or desirable to describe the product fully. The independent 
testing laboratory may determine the level of detail that must be 
submitted to meet its test and evaluation requirements. The laboratory 
or the Postal Service may request additional information if needed for 
a complete evaluation.
    Documentation must be submitted to the independent laboratory and 
the Postal Service as indicated in the Required Documentation table. 
The laboratory will prepare an executive summary and submit it to the 
Postal Service when required. Documentation must be in English and must 
be formatted for standard letter size (8.5'' x 11'') paper, except for 
engineering drawings, which must be folded to letter size. Where 
appropriate, documentation must be marked as ``Confidential.'' The 
document recipient will determine the number of paper copies and the 
format of electronic copies of each document at the time of submission 
based on current technology and review requirements.
    The provider should schedule a meeting with PTM staff shortly after 
or simultaneously with the submission of technical data and the concept 
of operations to permit full discussion and understanding of the 
technical concepts being presented for evaluation. The manager, PTM, 
will indicate Postal Service agreement or concerns relevant to the 
concept, as appropriate. However, no Postal Service communication or 
acknowledgement of receipt of documentation or other submission is 
meant to imply acceptance or approval of the concept of operation, of 
any documentation, or of the product. Approval of the product is 
granted only after the product prototype has been developed and testing 
has been successfully completed in accordance with all requirements of 
these procedures.
4.2 Required Documentation
    The following table details the documents that the provider must 
prepare. Providers are responsible for submitting any additional 
documentation the Postal Service may require during the product 
submission process. The table shows which documents must be submitted 
directly to the Postal Service and which must be submitted to the 
independent testing laboratory.

                         Required Documentation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Submit to test       Postal Service
        Document/section            laboratory?         requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Concept of Operations (CONOPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System overview, including:      Yes.............  Provider submits in
[sbull] Concept overview and                        full. Executive
 business model.                                    summary prepared by
[sbull] Postal security device                      laboratory.
 (PSD) implementation,
 features, and components,
 including the digital
 signature algorithm.
[sbull] System life cycle
 overview.
[sbull] Adherence to industry
 standards, such as FIPS PUB
 140-1 or 140-2 (after May 25,
 2002), as required by Postal
 Service
System design details,           Yes.............  Executive summary
 including:                                         prepared by
[sbull] PSD features and                            laboratory.
 functions.                                         Laboratory report on
[sbull] All aspects of key                          indicium compliance
 management.                                        with Postal Service
[sbull] Client (host) system                        requirements as
 features and functions.                            given in the
[sbull] Other components                            performance
 required for system use                            criteria.
 including, but not limited to,
 the proposed indicia design
 and label stock.
Indicium Specification for       No..............  Provider submits in
 Human Readable Data.                               full.
System life cycle, including:    Yes.............  Provider submits in
[sbull] Manufacturing                               full. Executive
[sbull] Postal Service                              summary prepared by
 certification of the system.                       laboratory.
[sbull] Production.
[sbull] Distribution.
[sbull] Meter licensing.
[sbull] Initialization.
[sbull] System authorization
 and installation.
[sbull] Postage value download
 or resetting process.
[sbull] System and support
 system audits.
[sbull] Inspections.
[sbull] Procedures for system
 withdrawal and replacement,
 including procedures for
 system malfunctions.
[sbull] Procedures to destroy
 scrapped systems.

[[Page 71996]]

 
Finance overview, including:     Yes.............  Provider submits in
[sbull] Customer account                            full. Executive
 management (payment methods,                       summary prepared by
 statements, and refunds).                          laboratory.
[sbull] Individual product
 finance account management
 (resetting or postage value
 download, refunds).
[sbull] Daily account
 reconciliation (provider
 reconciliation, Postal Service
 detailed transaction
 reporting).
[sbull] Periodic summaries
 (monthly reconciliation, other
 reporting as required by the
 Postal Service).
Interfaces, including:           Yes.............  Provider submits in
[sbull] Communications and                          full. Executive
 message interfaces with the                        summary prepared by
 Postal Service infrastructure                      laboratory.
 for resetting or postage value
 downloads, refunds,
 inspections, product audits,
 and lost or stolen product
 procedures.
[sbull] Communications and
 message interfaces with Postal
 Service financial functions
 for resetting or postage value
 downloads, daily account
 reconciliation, and refunds.
[sbull] Communications and
 message interfaces with
 customer infrastructure for
 cryptographic key management,
 product audits, and
 inspections.
[sbull] Message error detection
 and handling.
Configuration management and     Yes.............  Executive summary
 detailed change control                            prepared by
 procedures for all components,                     laboratory.
 including, but not limited to:
[sbull] Software.
[sbull] Hardware and firmware.
[sbull] Indicia.
[sbull] Provider
 infrastructure.
[sbull] Postal rate change
 procedures.
[sbull] Interfaces.
Physical security..............  Yes.............  Executive summary
                                                    prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Personnel/site security........  Yes.............  Executive summary
                                                    prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Update the identification of     No..............  Provider submits in
 all parties involved in the                        full.
 proposed product as originally
 submitted in accordance with
 the letter of intent.
--------------------------------
  Softeware and Documentation
--------------------------------
Detailed design................  Yes.............  Executive summary
                                                    prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Executable code................  Yes.............  On request.
Source code....................  Yes.............  On request.
Operations manuals.............  Yes.............  Executive summary
                                                    prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Communications interfaces......  Yes.............  Executive summary
                                                    prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Maintenance manuals............  Yes.............  Executive summary
                                                    prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Schematics.....................  Yes.............  Executive summary
                                                    prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Product initialization           Yes.............  Executive summary
 procedures.                                        prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Finite state machine models/     Yes.............  Executive summary
 diagrams.                                          prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Block diagrams.................  Yes.............  Executive summary
                                                    prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Details of security features...  Yes.............  Executive summary
                                                    prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Description of cryptographic     Yes.............  Executive summary
 operations, as required by                         prepared by
 FIPS PUB 140-1 or 140-2 (after                     laboratory.
 May 25, 2002), Appendix A.
--------------------------------
                                Test Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postal Service requirements....  Yes.............  Executive summary
                                                    prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
FIPS PUB 140-1 or 140-2 (after   Yes.............  Executive summary
 May 25, 2002) requirements.                        prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Physical security of provider's  Yes.............  Executive summary
 Internet server,                                   prepared by
 administrative site, and                           laboratory.
 firewall.
Security for remote              Yes.............  Executive summary
 administrative access and                          prepared by
 configuration control.                             laboratory.
Secure distribution or           Yes.............  Executive summary
 transmission of software and                       prepared by
 cryptographic keys.                                laboratory.
Test plan for system             Yes.............  Executive summary
 infrastructure:                                    prepared by
[sbull] Test parameters.                            laboratory.
[sbull] Infrastructure systems.
[sbull] Interfaces.
[sbull] Reporting requirements.
Test plan for limited-           Yes.............  Executive summary
 distribution field tests:                          prepared by
[sbull] Test parameters                             laboratory.
[sbull] System quantities
[sbull] Geographic location
[sbull] Test participants
[sbull] Test duration
[sbull] Test milestones
[sbull] Systems recall plan
--------------------------------

[[Page 71997]]

 
                      Provider Infrastructure Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public key infrastructure......  Yes.............  Executive summary
                                                    prepared by
                                                    laboratory.
Procedures for enforcement of    Yes.............  Executive summary
 all provider-related, customer-                    prepared by
 related, and Postal Service-                       laboratory.
 related processes, procedures,
 and interfaces discussed in
 CONOPS or required by Postal
 Service regulations..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Product Submission and Testing

5.1 General Submission Requirements
    The provider must submit complete production systems to the 
independent testing laboratory for evaluation. The laboratory will 
determine how many systems are needed for a complete evaluation. The 
provider must also provide any equipment and consumables required to 
use the submitted systems in the manner described in the CONOPS. The 
provider must also submit complete production systems, supporting 
equipment, and consumables directly to the Postal Service, if 
requested. The Postal Service may test these for compliance with Postal 
Service regulations and processes under section 6, System 
Infrastructure Testing.
5.2 Submission Requirements for Products Containing a Postal Security 
Device or Cryptographic Module
    The NVLAP-accredited cryptographic modules testing (CMT) laboratory 
must evaluate all PSDs and cryptographic modules for FIPS PUB 140-1 or 
140-2 certification, or equivalent, as authorized by the Postal 
Service. After May 25, 2002, FIPS PUB 140-2 certification will be 
required. The Postal Service requires that the PSD or cryptographic 
module receive FIPS PUB 140-1 or 140-2 certification as it is 
implemented. That is, the PSD or cryptographic module and the installed 
application must be considered as a whole in determining whether or not 
it receives FIPS certification. The FIPS certification of the PSD or 
cryptographic module is dependent on the application. Since any 
certification could be in question once any noncertified or untested 
software is installed, the PSD or cryptographic module must be 
certified as it will be implemented, and the accredited CMT lab must 
reevaluate any changes that would risk the certification.
    Upon completing FIPS PUB 140-1 or 140-2 certification, or 
equivalent, the CMT laboratory must forward the following documentation 
directly to the manager, PTM:
    (a) A copy of the letter of recommendation for certification of the 
PSD or cryptographic module that the laboratory submitted to NIST.
    (b) A copy of the certificate, if any, issued by NIST for the PSD 
or cryptographic module.

6. System Infrastructure Testing and Provider System Security Testing

    To achieve Postal Service approval of a postage evidencing system, 
the provider must demonstrate that the system satisfies all applicable 
Postal Service regulations and reporting requirements and that it is 
compatible with Postal Service mail processing functions and all other 
functions with which the product or its users interface. The tests must 
involve all entities in the proposed architecture, including the 
postage evidencing system, the provider infrastructure, the financial 
institution, and Postal Service infrastructure systems and interfaces. 
The tests may be conducted in a laboratory environment in accordance 
with the test plan for system infrastructure testing. Test and approval 
of system infrastructure functions must be completed before the postage 
evidencing system can be field tested under section 7. The functions to 
be tested include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (a) Meter licensing, including license application, license update, 
and license revocation.
    (b) System status activity reporting.
    (c) System distribution and initialization, including system 
authorization, system initialization, customer authorization, and 
system maintenance.
    (d) Total system population inventory, including leased and 
unleased systems; new system stock; and system installation, 
withdrawal, and replacement.
    (e) Irregularity reporting.
    (f) Lost and stolen reporting.
    (g) Financial transactions, including cash management, individual 
system financial accounting, account reconciliation, and refund 
management.
    (h) Financial transaction reporting, including daily summary 
reports, daily transaction reporting, and monthly summary reports.
    (i) System initialization.
    (j) Cryptographic key changes and public key management.
    (k) Postal rate table changes.
    (l) Print quality assurance.
    (m) Device authorization.
    (n) Postage evidencing system examination and inspection, including 
physical and remote inspections.
    In addition to testing the system infrastructure, the Postal 
Service must be assured that the provider's support systems and 
infrastructure are secure and not vulnerable to security breaches. This 
will require site reviews of provider manufacturing, distribution, and 
other support facilities, and reviews of network security and system 
access controls.

7. Limited-Distribution Field Test

    To achieve Postal Service approval of a postage evidencing system, 
the provider must demonstrate that the system satisfies all applicable 
Postal Service processing and interface requirements in a real-world 
environment. This is achieved by placing a limited number of systems in 
distribution for field testing. The Postal Service will determine the 
number of systems to be tested. The test will be conducted in 
accordance with the Postal Service-approved test plan for limited-
distribution field testing. The purpose of the limited-distribution 
field test is to demonstrate the product's utility, security, audit and 
control, functionality, and compatibility with other systems, including 
mail entry, acceptance, and processing when in use. The field test will 
employ available communications and will interface with current 
operational systems to exercise all system functions.
    The manager, PTM, will review the executive summary of the 
provider-proposed test plan for limited-distribution field testing. The 
review will be based on, but not limited to, the assessed revenue risk 
of the system, system impact on Postal Service operations, and 
requirements for Postal Service resources. Approval may be

[[Page 71998]]

based in whole or in part on the anticipated mail volume, mail 
characteristics, and mail origination and destination patterns of the 
proposed system. For systems designed for use by an individual meter 
user, product users engaged in field testing must be approved by the 
Postal Service before they are allowed to participate in the test. 
These participants must sign a nondisclosure/confidentiality agreement 
when reporting system security, audit and control issues, deficiencies, 
or failures to the provider and the Postal Service. This requirement 
does not apply to users of systems designed for public use.

8. Postage Evidencing System Approval

    Postal Service approval of the postage meter (postage evidencing 
system) is based on the results of an administrative review of the 
materials and test results generated during the product submission and 
approval process. In preparation for the administrative review, the 
provider must update all documentation submitted in compliance with 
these procedures to ensure accuracy. When approval is granted, the 
Postal Service will prepare a product approval letter detailing the 
conditions under which the specific product may be manufactured, 
distributed, and used. The provider must submit the following materials 
for the Postal Service administrative review:
    (a) Materials prepared for the Postal Service by the independent 
testing laboratory.
    (b) The final certificate of evaluation from the NVLAP laboratory, 
where required.
    (c) The results of system infrastructure testing.
    (d) The results of field testing of a limited number of systems.
    (e) The results of any other Postal Service testing of the system.
    (f) The results of provider site security reviews.

9. Intellectual Property

    Providers submitting postage evidencing systems to the Postal 
Service for approval are responsible for obtaining all intellectual 
property licenses that may be required to distribute their product in 
commerce and to allow the Postal Service to process mail bearing the 
indicia produced by the product.

Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 02-30649 Filed 12-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P