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.
45474 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 1997 / Notices

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Scott on (202) 366–4104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Highway Administration

Title: Developing and Recording Costs

for Utility Adjustments.

OMB Number: 2125–0519.

Type of Request: Reinstatement, with

change, of a previously approved

collection for which approval has

expired.

Affected Public: 3,000 U.S. Utilities

Companies.

Form(s): N/A.

Abstract: Under the provisions of 23

U.S.C. 123, Federal-aid highway funds

may be used to reimburse State highway

agencies (SHAs) when they have paid

for the cost of relocation of utility

facilities necessitated by the

construction of Federal-aid highway

projects. This reimbursement is based

on actual costs incurred by a utility

company as a result of adjusting its

facilities. Payment for ‘‘costs incurred’’

is a basic tenet of the Federal-aid

program. This general principle is also

established in 23 U.S.C. 121 when

Federal-aid highway funds are being

used to reimburse the State highway

agencies for the cost of construction of

Federal-aid highway projects. To

implement these provisions of law,

Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) regulations, 23 CFR 645,

Subpart A, require that the utility be

able to document its costs or expenses

for adjusting its facilities. This record of

costs then forms the basis for payment

by the SHA to the utility company and

in turn FHWA reimburses the SHA for

its payments to the utility company. A

utility company’s cost accounting

records establish a means of identifying

the costs incurred in adjusting utility

facilities. The SHA uses these records to

verify the costs to base its payments on.

The FHWA payment is based on the

costs the State pays for. If the utility did

not keep a record of its costs, then there

would be no documentation of the

expenses it would have incurred in

adjusting its facilities. If this should

occur, there would be no basis for

Federal-aid highway fund participation

in the costs and, under 23 U.S.C. 123,

the FHWA would not be able to

reimburse the State for utility

adjustments. There are approximately

30,000 utility companies in the United

States. In any one year, it is estimated

that about 10 percent, or 3,000, of these

utilities will be involved with

reimbursable utility adjustments on

Federal-aid projects. It is further

estimated that each of these 3,000

utilities will have about 3 adjustments

of its facilities per year on Federal-aid

projects. The net impact is

approximately 9,000 reimbursable

utility adjustments. For a typical

adjustment, about 20 hours of staff time

(16 hours professional staff; 4 hours

secretarial staff) are expended to

establish and maintain the record of

costs.

Estimated Annual Burden: 180,000

hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725–17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503, Attention

FHWA Desk Officer.

Comments are invited on: whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Department,

including whether the information will

have practical utility; the accuracy of

the Departments estimate of the burden

of the proposed information collection;

ways to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 20,

1997.

Phillip A. Leach,

Clearance Officer, United States Department

of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 97–22741 Filed 8–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Task Force on Assistance to Families

in Aviation Disasters Open Meeting

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

SUMMARY: The Task Force on Assistance

to Families in Aviation Disasters will

hold a meeting to discuss assistance to

families of passengers involved in

aviation accidents. The meeting is open

to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

Thursday, September 18, 1997, from

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Friday,

September 19, 1997, from 8:30 a.m. to

5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will take

place in Room 2230 of Department of

Transportation (DOT) Headquarters, 400

7th Street, SW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven R. Okun, Task Force Executive

Director, telephone 202–366–4702, or

Marc C. Owen, Task Force Staff

Director, mailing address, 400 7th Street

SW., Room 5424, Washington, DC

20590, telecopier 202–366–7147, and

telephone 202–366–6823.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(5 U.S.C. Appendix), DOT gives notice

of a meeting of the Task Force on

Assistance to Families in Aviation

Disasters (Task Force). The Task Force

was established by the Aviation Disaster

Family Assistance Act of 1996 to

develop recommendations on ways to

improve the treatment of families of

passengers involved in aviation

accidents. The meeting is open to the

public both days. In particular, topics

for discussion at the September 18

session include a presentation by the

National Transportation Safety Board on

the lessons learned from the Korean Air

Flight 801 disaster as well as a review

of the recommendations to be issued by

the Task Force in its Final Report to

Congress, including a discussion of

passenger manifest requirements that

could be implemented to speed family

notification. On September 19, the Task

Force will hear testimony regarding the

treatment of families by lawyers and

continue the review of the

recommendations to be issued by the

Task Force in its Final Report to

Congress.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 21,

1997.

Steven R. Okun,

Task Force Executive Director, Department

of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 97–22740 Filed 8–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 97–28, Notice 2]

Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company

(Cooper) has determined that some of its

tires fail to comply with the labeling

requirements of 49 CFR 571.119,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 119, ‘‘New Pneumatic

Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger

Cars’’ and has filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’

Cooper has also applied to be exempted

from the notification and remedy

requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301,