U n i t e d S t a t e s G o v e r n m e n t FORM 0-1151(142)

R a i l r o a d R e t i r e m e n t B o a r d MEMORANDUM

October 2, 2001 

L-200M 5

TO Ronald Russo

Director of Policy and Systems

FROM: Steven A Bai

General Coun

SUBJECT: Requirements for RUIA Benefits by Internet

This is in response to your memorandum dated August 30, 2001, wherein you set forth a general 

outline of your plans to provide for the acceptance of applications and claims for benefits under 

the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) via the Internet. You ask for a statement of 

the legal requirements for such a system.

The Department of Justice, in its paper entitled “Legal Considerations In Designing and 

Implementing Electronic Processes: A Guide For Federal Agencies” set forth four main 

considerations that must be addressed in considering the legal aspects of moving to electronic 

processes. Those considerations are as follows:

(1) Will the electronically gathered and stored information be collected, retained, 

and accessible whenever needed?

(2) Will the electronic collection, transmission, or storage of "documents" or 

information comply with applicable legal requirements, including, for example, 

laws requiring that certain records be maintained in a particular form or format?

(3) Will electronic records be sufficiently reliable to be useful to Congress, 

agency decision-makers, private disputants, judges, juries, and others who must 

determine the facts underlying agency actions?

(4) Will the agency’s use of electronic methods to obtain, send, disclose and store 

information comply with applicable laws, such as those governing record keeping, 

privacy, confidentiality, and accessibility?

Before turning to an analysis of these considerations, it will be helpful to provide a general 

explanation of the requirements contained in the Federal Records Act as they pertain to your 

proposed systems. The Federal Records Act defines the term “records” as
Ronald Russo

all books, papers, *** or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form 

or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States 

Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public 

business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency *** as 

evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, 

operations, or other activities of the Government ***. 44 USC § 3301.

“Appropriate for preservation” means documentary materials made or received that, in the 

judgment of the agency, should be filed, stored, or otherwise systematically maintained by the 

agency because they constitute evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, 

procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational 

value of the material. The applications and claims for benefits that you plan to accept via the 

Internet fall within the definition of “records” under the Federal Records Act.

The Act also provides that the records obtained by the Government must be maintained and 

disposed of only in accord with schedules approved by the Archivist of the United States. Since 

the electronic information that you propose to gather via the Internet will constitute records, just 

as the same information gathered via a paper application constitutes a record, that electronic 

information will be subject to retention schedules that must be approved by the National 

Archives and Records Administration.

The first consideration set forth in the Department of Justice Guidance provides that the

electronic records are to be collected, retained and be accessible whenever needed. It is my 

understanding that the agency will be obtaining the same information electronically as it does 

currently on paper applications and claims. The information obtained electronically, like the 

information obtained via a paper medium, must be retained and be accessible to those with a 

need to consider that information. It is my understanding that the information received 

electronically will be entered into our current systems for processing. It thus appears that the 

information will be accessible in the same way as is the information obtained via a paper 

application or claim. If that is not the case and new or additional software and/or computer 

programs will be needed in order for agency staff to access the applications and claims, you will, 

of course, need to obtain those prior to accepting applications or claims on the Internet. Agency 

staff should also receive appropriate training regarding any new means of accessing these 

applications and claims. In addition, there might be certain information, such as postmarks on 

envelopes, that will not be present in an electronic format. The electronic process and perhaps 

the Board’s regulations may have to be modified to account for such matters as when a claim is 

received.

The electronic process must also provide that the information will be retained and be accessible 

for many years. Currently, paper and imaged documents under the RUIA retention schedule are 

retained for six years and three months after the end of the benefit year. A new retention 

schedule for electronic records would have to be established. A similar length of retention would
Ronald Russo

appear to be required for any electronic records. As noted earlier in this discussion, the Archivist 

must approve records retention schedules. See 44 USC § 3303. In accord with those revised 

record retention schedules, the records will be available and accessible for the needed period of 

time.

With regard to the second consideration, the legal sufficiency of the electronic records, there is 

no definitive answer to the acceptability of electronic records in legal proceedings. The area is 

too new for there to have been established a record of legal precedent that can be relied upon. 

However, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), P.L. 105-277, provides that 

electronic records and signatures shall not be denied legal effect because they are in electronic 

format. Neither the RUIA nor the Board’s regulations expressly require that an application or a 

claim form be signed. They do, however, require that an application or a claim be made on the 

form provided by the Board. The application and claim forms have required a signature. This 

signature serves many purposes, to authenticate that the person is who he or she claims to be, to 

impress upon the applicant/claimant the significance of the filing, and for use in any court 

proceeding with regard to that application or claim.

It is my understanding that in the filing of an application and claim forms via the Internet, no 

signature will be required. Rather, you intend to use the PIN/password system being used for 

other Internet applications. As I understand this process, the applicant will contact the Board and 

request a password recognition code (PRC). This code will be sent by the U.S. mail to the last 

address in the agency’s records. If the person has moved, he or she will have to contact the 

district office to obtain a PRC. After a PRC is received, the person can enter the system and 

create a unique password for that individual. You intend to use this PIN/password system to 

identify the individual and authenticate that the person is who he or she claims to be. This serves 

one of the main purposes of a signature. Due to the newness of electronic processing and the 

lack of legal precedent in this area, we cannot be certain that a reviewing court would permit the 

Board to enforce a claim based on such a system. However, we do believe that through the use 

of other extrinsic evidence, any claim based on this system could be enforced. The claim for 

benefits will in most cases be paid directly into the employee’s bank account. In fact, this might 

be a requirement for this system, since it adds to the enforceability of any claim that the Board 

may try to make. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the claimant to argue that he or she 

did not know that the payments were being made when those payments were being consistently 

transferred to his or her account. In addition, the authorization contained in the GPEA would be 

of assistance in enforcing any claim by the Board in a court. Finally, the PIN/password system 

by requiring an initial contact to establish the PRC will serve the function of impressing the 

applicant with the significance of the filing. In conclusion, it is my opinion that there are no 

legal objections to using the PIN/password system as an alternative to a signature.

The third consideration stated above concerns the reliability of electronic records to be useful to 

Congress, agency decision makers, or other parties who must determine the facts underlying an 

agency action. As I understand the proposed system, there will be little if any change in the 

processing of applications and claims. The information collected will be the same as is currently 

collected on paper applications and claims. The entry point will be via the Internet, however, 

rather than a paper application or claim form. When the application or claim form is received, it
Ronald Russo

will then be processed through the Board’s existing Railroad Unemployment Claims System 

(RUCS). RUCS currently provides the necessary reliability to provide the information required 

for decision makers, Congress, and other parties. Since, as indicated above in response to the 

second consideration, it is my opinion that the electronic system you propose will be sufficient to 

verify that the claimant is the person he or she claims to be, the current RUCS system will 

provide all of the information it currently does for various parties. Again as noted above, the 

reliability of the records will be established both by the security provided by the electronic 

system and other extrinsic evidence that will support the decisions reached by the various 

decision makers.

The final consideration identified by the Department of Justice Guidance is whether the use of 

electronic methods will comply with existing laws regarding record keeping, privacy, 

confidentiality, and accessibility. According to your memorandum, you will be using a secure 

socket layer (SSL) communications technology between the public and the contractors hosting 

any services. A secure virtual private network between the contractor and the RRB will employ 

encryption. I am unable to comment on the technical aspect of these security matters; however, 

any system must ensure that the information gathered by the RRB in connection with its 

administration of the RUIA is not available except in accord with sections 12(d) and 12(n) of the 

RUIA and with the Privacy Act. In general, section 12(d) of the RUIA precludes disclosure of 

information except to certain named entities without the authorization of the claimant. Section 

12(n) of the RUIA precludes the disclosure of any medical information. Since, at this time, the 

system will only involve unemployment claims, there should be no medical information 

transmitted. In general, the Privacy Act again precludes release of information about an 

individual without that individual’s authorization.

In conclusion, any system that relies on the electronic input of data must, as a minimum, address 

the concerns outlined above. We are available to assist you in the development of the specific 

systems.

AAArfa:aaa:ik 

c. 2858-01

H:\MISC\ruianet2858.doc