Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 1997 / Notices 45471

DPR-27 from a licensed power level of

1518 megawatts thermal to 1518.5

megawatts thermal. A similar revision is

made in the bases of Technical

Specification 15.3.1.B, ‘‘Pressure/

Temperature Limits.’’

Date of issuance: August 6, 1997

Effective date: August 6, 1997

Amendment Nos.: 175 and 179

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR24 and DPR-27: Amendments revised

the licenses.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: October 9, 1996 (61 FR 52972)

The July 14, 1997, supplement provided

a corrected bases page and did not affect

the staff’s no significant hazards

considerations determination. The

Commission’s related evaluation of the

amendments is contained in a Safety

Evaluation dated August 6, 1997. No

significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Local Public Document location: The

Lester Public Library, 1001 Adams

Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241

Wisconsin Electric Power Company,

Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point

Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and

2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc

County, Wisconsin

Date of application for amendments:

February 12, 1997, as supplemented on

March 11, 1997 (TSCR 196)

Brief description of amendments:

These amendments revise Point Beach

Nuclear Plant’s (PBNP) Technical

Specifications (TSs) to relocate turbine

overspeed protection specifications,

limiting conditions for operation,

surveillance requirements, and

associated bases from TS Section 15.3.4,

‘‘Steam and Power Conversion System,’’

and Section 15.4.1, ‘‘Operational Safety

Review,’’ to the Final Safety Analysis

Report (FSAR) in accordance with

Generic Letter 95-10.

Date of issuance: August 6, 1997

Effective date: These license

amendments are effective as of the date

of issuance and shall be implemented

by incorporating the turbine overspeed

protection specifications, limiting

conditions for operation, surveillance

requirements, and associated bases into

the FSAR by June 30, 1998.

Amendment Nos.: 176 and 180

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR24 and DPR-27: Amendments revised

the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19838)

The Commission’s related evaluation of

the amendments is contained in a Safety

Evaluation dated August 6, 1997. No

significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Local Public Document location:

Joseph P. Mann Library, 1516 Sixteenth

Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day

of August 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

John A. Zwolinski,

Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects

- I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[Doc. 97–22635 Filed 8–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–F

POSTAL SERVICE

Specifications for Information Based

Indicia Program (IBIP) Postal Security

Devices and Indicia (Postmarks)

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Notice of USPS response to

public comments and availability of

Specifications.

SUMMARY: The Postal Service received

hundreds of comments in response to

our Federal Register notices on the draft

specifications for Information Based

Indicia Program Postal Security Device

(PSD) and Indicium. The Postal Service

has reviewed all those comments and

developed a response. Some of the

comments were within the scope of the

draft proposed specifications and some

of the comments were not. Those within

the scope of the draft proposed

specifications have responses included

herein. Those outside the scope of the

draft proposed specifications will be

included in subsequent responses. Some

of the topics not dealt with herein

include key management, host system

specifications, cash management,

certificate authority, product life-cycle

management, mail classes, customer

usage requirements, market research,

procurement policy, product

submission requirements, product/

service provider infrastructure, and

program development activities.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft PSD and

Indicium specifications dated July 23,

1997, may be obtained from Ed

Zelickman, United States Postal Service,

475 L’Enfant Plaza SW Room 1P801,

Washington, DC 20260–6807.

Comments should be submitted to the

same address. These documents

supersede all previously issued

Indicium and PSD Specifications.

Copies of all written comments may be

inspected between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, at the above

address.

DATES: All written comments must be

received on or before October 27, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed

Zelickman at (202) 268–3940.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal

Service received hundreds of comments

on the proposed draft Information Based

Indicia Program (IBIP) Indicia and

Postal Security Device specifications (62

FR 37631, July 14, 1997). Those outside

the scope of the draft proposed

specifications will be dealt with in

subsequent specifications and

documents and will not be addressed

herein.

Indicium Specification

Many comments were received

regarding Indicium data contents.

Generally, these comments fall into six

categories:

1. Reserve Field Usage

The specific use of the reserved field

has not been defined. Product Service

Providers are welcome to suggest how

the customer or service provider could

best use this field. This field was

installed in the indicia data set as a

customer defined field.

2. The PSD Certificate in the Indicium

The USPS has included in the initial

draft the PSD certificate in the indicia.

The removal of the certificate in

subsequent releases of these

specifications is dependent upon the

key management infrastructure.

3. Size and Format of the Indicium

Fields

The USPS feels that all fields (except

the reserve field) in the indicia

contribute to either the security/

verification of the indicia or the audit

control of IBIP products. We will

continue to explore replacement

methods in an effort to reduce indicia

size.

4. Rate Category Definition

The Rate category is defined in the

draft DMM and CFR policies and is not

defined in these documents.

5. Ascending Register as a Data Element

The ascending register along with the

device ID provides absolute uniqueness

to each indicium. The inclusion of the

ascending register also provides one

audit control data element.

6. Special Purpose Field

The special purpose field is included

as an audit control field. This data

element within the barcode should

match the human readable value on the

mailpiece. If these two do not match,

this could be a fraud indicator.

Many comments were received

regarding the use of digital signatures

and associated technology. Specifically,

a question arose on use of varying hash
45472 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 1997 / Notices

functions within a given digital

signature algorithm. Additionally, use of

alternate algorithms was suggested.

Recent discoveries concerning the use

of one of the hash functions (MD5)

specified in the PSD specification have

prompted the USPS to modify the

requirements to read that the hash

function required is now SHA–1. The

specification also indicates that the

USPS will consider other equally secure

digital signature algorithms. These

changes will be included in the next

release of the specifications.

A few comments were received

regarding the selection of the error

correction level.

The recommended minimum error

correction level was selected based on

the data capacity of the Indicium.

Product service providers are at liberty

to use a higher error correction level. If

additional data is added to the

Indicium, the error correction level

must be chosen to comply with the

PDF417 standard.

A few comments were received

regarding envelope issues.

There is no requirement for indicia to

be printed directly on the envelopes.

Indicia could be printed on labels and

those labels subsequently applied to

envelopes, or indicia-window envelopes

could be used.

Numerous comments were received

regarding the size and position of the

Indicium on the mailpiece.

The PDF 417 barcode symbology

offers great flexibility in tailoring its

dimensions to the particular

application. The 2-inch maximum

barcode width was chosen so as not to

infringe on the FIM or the OCR region.

The X dimension feature size was the

minimum considered acceptable for

processing using USPS equipment.

Larger feature sizes can be used at the

discretion of the product service

provider to achieve the specified read

rates. However, other issues such as

printing technologies, paper physics,

and required read rates should also be

considered by the product service

provider to arrive at an appropriate rate.

All issues regarding positioning, format,

and content of the envelope should be

referred to the DMM, which is being

updated to include provisions for IBIP.

The Indicium must be visible from the

front of the mailpiece. The Postal

Service will continue to explore

methods to minimize real estate

requirements on envelopes while

continuing to satisfy security, audit and

control, administration, and customer

value-added functions. Our position

will be reflected in the next version of

the specifications.

Numerous comments were received

regarding reflectance issues.

All issues regarding ink, reflectance

and fluorescence should be referred to

the DMM, which is being updated to

include provisions for IBIP. The product

service provider must evaluate the

Indicium to ensure USPS readability

and quality specifications are met. The

product service provider is required to

correct any deficiencies that are

discovered from this evaluation.

A few comments were received

regarding the minimum and maximum

postage value issue.

These values will be set by USPS

policy.

Numerous comments were received

regarding the aesthetics of the sample

Indicium.

Use of IBIP indicia is not mandatory;

the Information Based Indicia represents

a fourth form of postage. Design of

mailpieces with regard to evidence of

postage is left to the discretion of the

product service provider so long as it is

a USPS-recognized form of postage. As

a result, the IBIP indicia design is left

to the discretion of the product service

provider so long as it is in compliance

with the Indicium Specification and the

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM).

Numerous comments were received

regarding print contrast ratio issues.

IBIP does not limit requirements for

paper selection and printing options.

We encourage mailers to take sample

mailpieces to their product service

provider for evaluation. Mailpiece

design analysis will determine pass or

fail on a case-by-case basis.

A few comments were received

regarding a Postal Service predisposition on print technology. No

specific technology has been assumed

for printing of the new indicia.

Numerous comments were received

regarding readability rate.

Mail submitted must comply with

USPS read rate regulations. The

readability of a barcode that represents

postage is quite a different issue than

reading a Postnet barcode. There are a

number of modifiable factors that

contribute to the readability of a

barcode, and the product service

provider must weigh the advantages and

disadvantages of the particular path

they have chosen to implement IBIP

products.

Many comments were received

regarding the selection of PDF–417 as

the two-dimensional symbology.

Alternate symbologies may be

submitted for consideration, as part of

product/service provider proposals.

Several comments were received

regarding barcode characteristics.

Most of the comments received

concerned the specifications of a

minimum mil feature size with a

statement of concern that it was too

small because it would lead to the

USPS’ not being able to achieve a 99.9

percent read rate. The USPS plans to

hand scan/sample mailpieces in the

initial phases of the IBIP program. The

USPS will consider raising the

minimum X dimension to 15 mils. With

regard to the alignment (skew) tolerance

of the barcode, the USPS has not

specified the tolerance levels at this

time.

Many comments were received

regarding the requirement to use the

facing identification mark (FIM).

Additionally, comments were made

suggesting changes to the existing FIM

printing requirements because of the

difficulty of printing close to the edge of

an envelope.

FIM marks are needed for any IBIP

mail subject to entry through our

opening 010 operation. This includes

mail dropped in collection boxes. No

changes to existing FIM requirements

are proposed in this rulemaking.

Many comments were received

regarding the applicability of

automation requirements to First-Class

Mail.

In order to provide customer

capabilities to print evidence of postage

using open systems including use of

current desktop laser and ink jet

printing technologies, fluorescent ink is

not required. To compensate the

handling of these mailpieces for facing,

a facing identification mark (FIM) is

required for IBIP mail. The requirement

for inclusion of delivery point barcode

and standardized addresses is for IBIP

open systems only. This is a securitybased requirement.

A few comments were received

regarding mailpiece design issues.

The USPS is not contemplating

address block placement of the IBI

symbology on letter/flat mail at this

time. The USPS will entertain the

placement of the indicia in a window of

an envelope in the upper right corner as

long as the read rate is met.

A few comments were received

regarding use of ink types.

If fluorescent ink is used, the facing

identification mark is not required.

Additionally, black ink is not required

per se. It is the intent of IBIP for indicia

to be produced using black ink.

Several questions and comments were

received regarding key lengths with the

digital signature. Some comments

argued that the key length proposed is

unnecessarily strong, increasing

computation requirements and indicia
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 1997 / Notices 45473

size and resulting in more expensive

meters.

The key lengths chosen were selected

to ensure adequate device lifetime

against cryptographic attack.

Many comments were received

regarding intellectual property and

patent issues.

The specifications included

references to intellectual property and

patent issues to remind product service

providers that technologies they chose

to use in implementing IBIP may be

subject to third party intellectual

property rights. By including or

referring to any specific technology in

the specifications, the USPS does not

purport to grant product service

providers the right to use such

technologies. The indemnification

provision is included to protect the

USPS against claims by third parties

that a particular product service

provider’s product infringes third party

intellectual property rights. Product

service providers are responsible for

securing any right, such as license

rights, that may be necessary to develop

IBIP systems.

The USPS is internally studying

intellectual property issues that may be

raised by the specifications based on

USPS use of this technology. The USPS

does not intend to release the results of

our internal studies at this time. The

USPS will consider amendments to the

specifications that may be helpful to the

product service provider community

and the public in avoiding or resolving

intellectual property issues. Product

service providers are encouraged to

bring any known issues to USPS’

attention as soon as possible.

Postal Security Device Specification

A few questions were received

regarding postage loading amounts and

the maximum and minimum postage

value.

It is not the intent of section 3.2.1.5

of the Draft PSD specification to imply

that only rate break postage can be

selected. The maximum and minimum

postage value will be announced in the

policy documents.

A few questions were received

regarding the print function and

whether the print functions are to be

controlled by the PSD.

The PSD specifications do not state

that the PSD controls the print function.

A few comments were received

regarding the use of the transaction ID.

The transaction ID is PSD unique. All

messages containing the transaction ID

will be signed.

Many comments were received

regarding the use of the term ‘‘IBIP

Infrastructure’’ and its definition.

The use of the term IBIP Infrastructure

in the document was generalized at the

time of the writing of the document to

be referable to either the USPS or the

product service provider. For further

definition of the responsibilities of

these, the Product Service Provider

should contact the USPS under the

Interim Product Submission Procedures.

The proposed draft IBIP specifications

are written with respect to a target

system that assumes that a USPS

infrastructure is in place to handle

postage download, device audit, and

other interactions. Until that

infrastructure is in place, an interim

product service provider-focused system

will be used.

Many comments were received

regarding resetting functions.

At this time all postage value

downloads or resettings will be handled

by the product service providers

through CMRS. All details for this issue

can be found in draft CFR section

502.26, Computerized Remote Postage

Resetting, and in The Cash Management

Operating Specifications for the

Computerized Remote Postage Meter

Resetting System.

Several comments were received

regarding the device audit message.

Because of the digital signature

creation and verification process that

the Device Audit Message will be

subjected to, both the format and

content of this message must be

specified.

Many comments were received

regarding PSD functionality.

The PSD will not be a general

signature device, it will be used only for

IBIP signatures. Additionally, the PSD is

anticipated to be limited to the

functionality detailed in the PSD

specification. This will be reflected in

the next iteration of the PSD

documentation. In terms of remote

loading of cryptographic keys into the

PSD, the Postal Service is considering

the possibility of this action. Our

response will be reflected in the soon to

be published draft Key Management

Plan.

Several comments were received

requiring PSD specification

clarification.

The proposed draft IBIP specifications

are written with respect to a target

system that assumes that a USPS

infrastructure is in place to handle

postage download and device audit,

among other things. Until that

infrastructure is in place, an interim

product service provider-centric system

will be used.

A comment was received regarding

device authorization.

When security is an issue, the USPS

has a vested interest in the

communications link between the

customer and the product service

provider even though the product

service provider may own both ends of

that communication circuit. All such

communications, formats, protocols,

and content will be subject to the

approval of the USPS or its

representatives.

A comment was received regarding

the watchdog timer function.

Yes, the watchdog timer is reset only

after a successful device audit.

A large number of comments were

received regarding PSD physical

characteristics and FIPS 140–1

certification.

The PSD must conform to the FIPS

140–1 requirements. All questions

concerning FIPS validation testing

should be directed to the specific NIST

Cryptographic Module Testing

laboratory chosen by the product service

provider for validation testing. For

further explanation regarding specific

PSD design issues, please contact one of

the NIST certified labs.

One comment was received regarding

PSD testing. Testing of the PSD by the

product service provider should ensure

that the registers cannot be altered

except as specified in the PSD

specification.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 97–22695 Filed 8–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping

Requirements; Agency Information

Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that

the Information Collection Request (ICR)

abstracted below has been forwarded to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and comment. The

ICR describes the nature of the

information collection and its expected

burden. The Federal Register Notice

with a 60-day comment period soliciting

comments on the following collection of

information was published on April 18,

1997 [62 FR 19160].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before September 26, 1997.