type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' Audit of the\n\nElectronic Records Archives\n\n System\xe2\x80\x99s\n\nAbility to Preserve Records\n\n\n\nOIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\n\n February 15, 2013\n\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\n\nExecutive Summary ........................................................................................ 3\n\n\nBackground ..................................................................................................... 4\n\n\nObjectives, Scope, Methodology .................................................................... 5\n\n\nAudit Results................................................................................................... 6\n\n\nAppendix A \xe2\x80\x93 Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................... 26\n\n\nAppendix B \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Report................................. 27\n\n\nAppendix C \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List ........................................................ 28\n\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nExecutive Summary\n\nThe National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Office of Inspector General\n(OIG) completed an audit of the Electronic Records Archives (ERA) System\xe2\x80\x99s ability to\npreserve records. NARA developed the ERA system to enable the agency to realize its\nstrategic vision: \xe2\x80\x9cERA will authentically preserve and provide access to any kind of\nelectronic record, free from dependence on any specific hardware or software, enabling\nNARA to carry out its mission into the future.\xe2\x80\x9d During this audit, we assessed NARA\xe2\x80\x99s\ncapability to preserve electronic records to ensure the continued existence, accessibility,\nand authenticity of electronic records over time. Further, we assessed future plans for\nincreased functionality.\n\nOMB Circular A-109, Major Systems Acquisitions, identifies a number of major system\nacquisition management objectives in ensuring each major system operates effectively in\nits intended environment and demonstrates a level of performance and reliability\njustifying the allocation of the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s limited resources for its acquisition and\nownership. Similarly, NARA 805, Systems Development Lifecycle and its supplemental\nhandbook, within the scope of this audit, provide policy on requirements establishment,\nand deployment and acceptance activity. The purpose of these activities is to install the\nsystem in the operational environment and conduct acceptance testing to ensure that the\nsystem and its associated products perform in accordance with specified technical and\ncontractual requirements.\n\nAlthough NARA\xe2\x80\x99s ERA System has completed its developmental phase, the preservation\nfunctionalities identified in the contract and used to promote the need for this major\nsystem acquisition were not fully achieved. This is particularly apparent in the system\xe2\x80\x99s\ninability to automate and scale the process of transforming electronic records into a\nformat independent of specific hardware or software. This condition exists due to a\nnumber of inadequacies involving requirements management, acceptance testing, project\ncommunication, and status representation. As a result, the ERA system is currently\nunable to mitigate the risk of electronic format obsolescence 1\xe2\x80\x94a major objective\nidentified by NARA in carrying out its mission into the future. Further, with the\ndecreased funding and limited resources available among competing priorities in the\nOperational and Maintenance phase of the program, the likelihood of the ERA system\nmeeting the preservation mission needs in the foreseeable future is further challenged.\n\nOur audit identified several improvements to be made in further ERA preservation\nenhancements and efforts. We made five recommendations to more accurately identify\nthe ERA\xe2\x80\x99s preservation functionality and to further ensure future enhancements are\nreflective of NARA\xe2\x80\x99s needs.\n\n\n\n\n1\n NARA\xe2\x80\x99s ERA Requirements Document defines this risk in terms of inaccessibility of electronic records.\n Page 3\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nBackground\n\nAccording to original contract documents, the Electronic Records Archives (ERA) system was\ndeveloped to enable the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to realize its\nstrategic vision: \xe2\x80\x9cERA will authentically preserve and provide access to any kind of electronic\nrecord, free from dependence on any specific hardware or software, enabling NARA to carry out\nits mission into the future.\xe2\x80\x9d The ERA system as a whole represents a major system acquisition at\nNARA both in terms of mission criticality and financial resources. Further, it is the largest\ninformation technology project ever undertaken by NARA.\n\nNARA began planning for the ERA system in the late 1990\xe2\x80\x99s, leading to the establishment and\nfunding of ERA Program Management Office (PMO) in 2000. The ERA PMO was approved and\nfunded under a separate line item of NARA\xe2\x80\x99s annual budget request to ensure annual funding for\nthis mission-critical program. After five years of study and research by NARA into the\npossibilities, approaches, and design requirements of the ERA system, two companies\xe2\x80\x94\nLockheed Martin Corporation (LMC) and Harris Corporation\xe2\x80\x94were selected to compete in\ndesigning a technical solution to preserve NARA\xe2\x80\x99s electronic information. At the time, NARA\ndescribed ERA as \xe2\x80\x9ca revolutionary system that [would] capture electronic information, regardless\nof its format, save it permanently, and make it accessible on whatever hardware or software is\ncurrently in use.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nIn 2005, LMC was awarded the design contract to build the foundation of the ERA system that\nwould be developed in five increments. In announcing the contract award, the former Archivist\nof the United States emphasized the importance of this mission-critical system, stating \xe2\x80\x9cthe need\nfor ERA is urgent, since there is an unprecedented number of electronic records now being\ncreated by the Government\xe2\x80\x99s departments and agencies. The most important of them will be\npreserved and will be accessible indefinitely. This simply must happen\xe2\x80\xa6ERA\xe2\x80\x99s failure is not an\noption.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nAs development continued into 2010, the ERA system became the subject of Office of\nManagement and Budget (OMB) TechStat 2 Reviews. NARA took actions to address TechStat\nconcerns, including accelerating ERA\xe2\x80\x99s development process for completion by the end of FY\n2011. In June 2011, NARA\xe2\x80\x99s newly appointed Chief Information Officer (CIO) cited the\nTechStat Accountability Sessions as being instrumental in helping NARA assess and plan a\nsuccessful path forward for ERA. During this timeframe, the ERA team revised requirements\ndocumentation, including those related to preservation.\n\nNARA has described ERA as a \xe2\x80\x9csystem of systems,\xe2\x80\x9d with multiple components performing\ndifferent archival functions. These include four essential functions the system must perform:\nSubmission, Metadata, Repository, and Access. The Repository function involves the review and\npreservation of electronic records. This audit focuses on the preservation component of the\nRepository function.\n\n\n\n\n2\n TechStat Accountability Session (TechStat) is a face-to-face, evidence-based accountability review of an\nIT investment; it enables the Federal Government to intervene to turn around, halt or terminate IT Projects\nthat are failing or are not producing the results for the American people.\n Page 4\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nObjectives, Scope, Methodology\n\nThe overall objective of this audit was to evaluate and report upon NARA\xe2\x80\x99s capability in\npreserving electronic records to ensure the continued existence, accessibility, and\nauthenticity of electronic records over time. Specifically, we assessed the ERA system\xe2\x80\x99s\ncurrent capability of preserving electronic records and evaluated future plans for\nincreased functionality.\n\nTo accomplish our objective, we interviewed key NARA and ERA personnel from the\nOffices of Research Services and Information Services. We reviewed the ERA contract,\nrequirements, and program documentation. In addition, we gathered and reviewed\nhistorical ERA information, meeting minutes, status updates, and presentation material.\nFurther, we examined NARA announcements and press releases regarding the ERA\nsystem and its preservation functionalities. We compared the capabilities of the\nproduction system with the latest system requirements 3, and identified plans for future\nenhancements. We examined applicable Federal and NARA policy and guidance\nincluding OMB Circular A-109, Major Systems Acquisitions; OMB Circular A-130,\nManagement of Federal Information Resources; Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 39,\nAcquisition of Information Technology; NARA 801, Capital Planning and Investment\nControl; NARA 805, Systems Development Lifecycle.\n\nOur audit work was performed at Archives II between February 2012 and November\n2012. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted\ngovernment auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the\naudit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our\nfindings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence\nobtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjectives.\n\n\n\n\n3\n Electronic Records Archives Requirements Document (RD v4.1) dated 17 April 2011.\n Page 5\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nAudit Results\n\nERA System\xe2\x80\x99s Preservation Capabilities\nAlthough NARA\xe2\x80\x99s ERA system has completed its developmental phase, the preservation\nfunctionalities identified in the contract and used to promote the need for this major\nsystem acquisition were not fully achieved. This is particularly apparent in the system\xe2\x80\x99s\ninability to automate and scale the process of transforming electronic records into a\npersistent, resilient format. This condition exists due to a number of inadequacies\ninvolving requirements management, acceptance testing, project communication, and\nstatus representation. As a result, despite the vast amount of time and resources devoted\nto this effort, the ERA system is currently unable to mitigate the risk of electronic format\nobsolescence\xe2\x80\x94a major objective identified by NARA in carrying out its mission into the\nfuture. In addition, with the decreased funding and limited resources available among\ncompeting priorities in the Operational and Maintenance phase of the program, the\nlikelihood of the ERA system meeting the preservation mission needs in the foreseeable\nfuture is further challenged.\n\nOMB Circular A-109, Major Systems Acquisitions, defines \xe2\x80\x9cmajor systems\xe2\x80\x9d as programs\nthat are critical to fulfilling an Agency mission, entail the allocation of relatively large\nresources, and warrant special management attention. OMB A-109 identifies a number\nof major system acquisition management objectives, which include ensuring each major\nsystem operates effectively in its intended environment and demonstrates a level of\nperformance and reliability that justifies the allocation of the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s limited resources\nfor its acquisition and ownership. In addition, OMB A-109 states each agency acquiring\nmajor systems should provide strong checks and balances by ensuring adequate system\ntest and evaluation.\n\nNARA 801, Capital Planning and Investment Control, which derives its authority, in\npart, from OMB A-109, establishes NARA\xe2\x80\x99s policy for Information Technology (IT)\ninvestment management. NARA 801 stipulates investments authorized under the\ndirective must follow NARA 805, Systems Development Lifecycle (SDLC). Further, if\ncontractor assistance is used in the development of an information system, NARA 805\nrequires the contractor to be informed of NARA\xe2\x80\x99s SDLC procedures. NARA 805 and its\nsupplemental handbook, within the scope of this audit, provide policy on requirements\nestablishment, and deployment and acceptance activity. The purpose of these activities is\nto install the system in the operational environment and conduct acceptance testing to\nensure the system and its associated products perform in accordance with specified\ntechnical and contractual requirements.\n\n\n Page 6\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nThe ERA system as a whole represents a major system acquisition at NARA both in\nterms of mission criticality and financial resources. In terms of criticality, the former\nDirector of ERA stated \xe2\x80\x9cERA equals NARA\xe2\x80\xa6NARA as a paper archive is going to\nshrink over time, and as an electronic records archive is going to grow over time.\xe2\x80\x9d The\nERA system is the largest information technology project ever undertaken by NARA.\nFurther, for the final year of ERA\xe2\x80\x99s development contract, the system represented over\n18% of NARA\xe2\x80\x99s total requested appropriations. In total, NARA has recognized actual\nexpenses exceeding $380 million in the development of the ERA system. To put this into\nperspective, NARA\xe2\x80\x99s annual appropriation for the entire agency in FY 2012 was $391.5\nmillion. Therefore, a program of this magnitude and criticality is clearly subject to the\ndevelopmental controls and oversight policies established at the Federal and agency\nlevels for major system acquisitions. A common emphasis of these controls pertains to\nthe establishment and definition of mission needs and system requirements.\n\nRequirements Definition and Management\n\nIn order to gain an understanding of the early requirements related to ERA preservation,\nwe reviewed the original ERA contract awarded to Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMC).\nThe original contract was provided by ERA program office and Information Services\npersonnel and included NARA\xe2\x80\x99s initial ERA Requirements Document. In the section\nentitled \xe2\x80\x9cMajor System Capabilities,\xe2\x80\x9d the initial Requirements Document states:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cTo achieve NARA\xe2\x80\x99s mission and support the broad range of its responsibilities,\n the system should eliminate or minimize records\xe2\x80\x99 dependence on any specific\n hardware or software. The system should maximize the types of electronic\n records and types of digital data it can handle. The system should be able to\n ingest electronic records from a wide variety of sources, including any entity in\n the Federal Government or private donors, created using any type of application\n on any computing platform. The system should be able to ingest electronic\n records currently in the holdings of NARA. The system should provide discovery\n and delivery of documentary material to anyone with interest and legal right of\n access, from now until the end of the republic. The system must accommodate\n unscheduled, permanent, and temporary electronic records regardless of record\n type, format, or physical media.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nFurther, the initial Requirements Document states the system must provide capabilities\nfor automated archival processing of electronic records. Specific to preservation, these\nautomated processes must include long term storage of electronic records and\ntransformations of electronic records to maintain accessibility and authenticity. In\n\n\n Page 7\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\naddition, within the scope of preservation, the initial Requirements Document states the\nfollowing:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t ERA will authentically preserve and provide access to any kind of electronic\n record, free from dependence on any specific hardware or software, enabling\n NARA to carry out its mission into the future;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t ERA will ensure that electronic records transferred to NARA remain free from\n corruption and accessible regardless of changes in information technology;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The system must provide capabilities for automated archival processing of\n electronic records themselves, including long term storage of electronic records\n and transformation of electronic records to maintain accessibility and authenticity;\n and\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t ERA shall provide the capability to transform electronic records/data types into a\n hardware and software independent format.\n\nThe initial Requirements Document also describes NARA\xe2\x80\x99s preservation goal, which is\nto preserve electronic records in persistent formats enabling access to authentic electronic\nrecords indefinitely into the future. Based on these early requirements, it is clearly\nevident that the ability to preserve records in a persistent format is a required\nfunctionality and attribute of the ERA system. Many of these preservation requirements\nhave remained throughout the revisions to the ERA Requirements Document.\nFurthermore, ERA Requirements Personnel indicated the Statement of Objectives (SOO)\nwere the primary basis by which NARA and LMC negotiated the scope of the ERA\nincrement requirements. In reviewing the SOO contained within the original ERA\ncontract package, we identified a number of performance objectives developed by\nNARA. The following ERA performance objectives pertain specifically to preservation:\n\n Measurement\n 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012\n Indicator\n Percentage of archival\n electronic holdings\n managed at the 60% 80% 85% 88% 92% 95%\n planned Preservation\n and Access Level\n Percentage of archival\n electronic records\n 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%\n preserved in a\n persistent format\n\nIn a memorandum issued to the GAO on 21 May 2010, the current Archivist of the\nUnited States stated \xe2\x80\x9cNARA has not made any changes to the original [ERA]\n\n Page 8\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nrequirements documented in the 2003 Requirements Document.\xe2\x80\x9d However, in the same\nmemorandum, the Archivist states functional priorities will be mapped to the underlying\ncontract requirements and the ERA Requirements Document will be updated as\nappropriate. Revisions made to the initial ERA Requirements Document in 2010 and\n2011 removed some of the early requirements related to preservation. However, the last\nrevision of the Requirements Document drafted for the ERA development contract, dated\n17 April 2011, still contained many of the preservation requirement attributes identified\nin the original contract package. Further, additional preservation requirements were\nincluded in the latest Requirements Document, such as:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The system shall provide the capability to select a set of ingested data files to be\n transformed to a different format;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The system shall provide the capability to transform data files into ASCII 4 to\n ensure hardware and software independence;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The system shall store the files output from transformations to XML format 5; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t ERA will enable the creation and management of preservation plans and\n strategies in order to drive the process of transforming electronic records to\n different persistent formats while maintaining their authenticity.\n\nNARA\xe2\x80\x99s SDLC Handbook states Requirements Definition Activity focuses on\ndeveloping detailed system specifications for the end product. As such, it begins to refine\nthe Concept of Operations and define expected systems behavior in terms of\nperformance, capacity, data inputs and outputs, processing, etc. From a project\nmanagement perspective, the Requirements Definition activity will provide the inputs\nnecessary to begin a detailed risk assessment and continued systems development\nplanning. It is during this activity that the project scope should be closely examined to\ndetermine if resource allocation and project expectations have been assessed accurately.\nThe Project Manager should use this information in discussions with Product Owners and\nthe Guidance Team to revise project and product plans as needed to ensure success.\n\nWhile interviewing and discussing preservation requirements with ERA Requirements\nPersonnel, they acknowledged the requirements negotiation and definition process with\nLMC \xe2\x80\x9cwasn\xe2\x80\x99t that great.\xe2\x80\x9d In describing this process, ERA Requirements Personnel stated\nNARA would start by providing LMC with a SOO which expressed the basic, top-level\nobjectives of the acquisition for the particular increment. Next, NARA and LMC would\nnegotiate the scope of the requirements for that increment based on the SOO. LMC\n\n4\n American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) is a set of digital codes representing letters,\nnumerals, and other symbols, widely used as a standard format in the transfer of text between computers.\n5\n Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a flexible text format for creating structured computer documents\nin machine-readable form.\n Page 9\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nwould then issue a proposal, and following NARA approval, LMC would decompose 6\nthe requirements. However, the requirements LMC decomposed did not map to those in\nNARA\xe2\x80\x99s initial Requirements Document. Therefore, when an increment was complete,\nNARA performed acceptance testing based upon the requirements decomposed by LMC\nbecause NARA\xe2\x80\x99s SOO was too high level and NARA\xe2\x80\x99s Requirements Document did not\nmap to those in which LMC performed during the increment.\n\nThe ERA program office eventually decomposed NARA\xe2\x80\x99s requirements in July 2010.\nERA Requirements personnel stated it was something they \xe2\x80\x9cshould have done a long time\nago, but hadn\xe2\x80\x99t.\xe2\x80\x9d Until then, NARA\xe2\x80\x99s decomposed requirements were not mapped back\nto those developed and used by LMC in executing the contract. In terms of having LMC\ngoing back and mapping requirements for previous increments, ERA Requirements\npersonnel stated at that point there would have been no real benefit for the effort. Despite\ndeveloping their own decomposed set of requirements, NARA still tested against those\ndeveloped by LMC in the final increment of the development contract.\n\nA number of prior OIG audits and evaluations identified similar issues with ERA\nrequirements management. Most recently, in July 2011 the OIG issued an advisory\nreport in part highlighting ongoing concerns related to the lack of updated system\nrequirements in accordance with SDLC criteria and policies 7. The GAO had previously\nidentified similar concerns. For example, in a June 2010 report 8 the GAO stated \xe2\x80\x9cNARA\nhas not effectively defined or managed requirements for the ERA system\xe2\x80\xa6Although\nNARA established an initial set of high-level requirements to guide the system\xe2\x80\x99s\ndevelopment, these requirements are not traceable to work in later phases, or increments,\nof the system.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nPreservation Framework Prototype and Demonstration\n\nAccording to the ERA Business Analysis Team 9, for most of FY 2009, efforts were taken\nto develop and vet\xe2\x80\x94on a conceptual level\xe2\x80\x94what the ERA system would do in terms of\npreservation. Starting in FY 2009, during Increment 3 of the ERA contract, LMC began\ndesigning a preservation framework prototype based upon these concepts. According to\nthe Increment 3 SOO, the preservation framework design was to incorporate the\n\n\n6\n Requirements decomposition involves breaking down the work needed to execute the project objectives\n\nand required deliverables. Each descending level represents and increasingly detailed definition of the\n\nproject work.\n\n7\n OIG Advisory Report No. 11-16, Implementation Status of the Electronic Records Archives System\n\nRequirements.\n\n8\n GAO Report No. 10-657, Electronic Records Archive: Status Update on the National Archives and\n\nRecords Administration\xe2\x80\x99s Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan.\n\n9\n The Business Analysis Team was later dissolved into the ERA Preservation Board and Working Group.\n\n Page 10\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nfunctionality necessary to plan, schedule, execute, monitor, and report preservation\nactivities in ERA.\n\nBeginning in December 2009, demonstrations of the preservation prototype were given to\nthe user and stakeholder communities. During a meeting with the Advisory Committee\nfor Electronic Records Archives (ACERA) in April 2010, the former ERA Program\nDirector provided a status of the preservation efforts, indicating the prototype will\nidentify the formats of ingested records and provide the ability to select tools to do\npreservation and preservation planning. The former ERA Program Director stated\n\xe2\x80\x9cEverything we heard back from the users, this went very well.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe final preservation prototype demonstration took place during the April 2010 ACERA\nmeeting. During this meeting, the former ERA Program Director detailed the\npreservation prototype functionality as follows:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t A flexible framework to enable the deployment of various software tools for the\n purpose of transforming electronic records from one format to another;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Enhanced capabilities to identify formats of ingested electronic records, and to\n persist their important archival and technical characteristics; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Initial electronic records preservation planning.\n\nThe preservation prototype was expected to represent the framework that would be put\ninto the production system, allowing for the identification of the formats of ingested\nelectronic records and the ability to select tools to perform preservation activities in ERA.\nHowever, during the demonstration, the ERA Business Analysis Team stated the\nprototype was limited in scope, specifically, it did not:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Determine the optimal strategy for a given digital format;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Determine the optimal tool for each transformation;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Include ingest, archival catalog entries, search, or file extract services;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Include preservation planning or risk assessment; or\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Allow for scalability.\n\nIn addition, the preservation prototype was limited in the format code types in which files\ncould be transformed. The transformation tool used within the preservation framework\nprototype during the ACERA demonstration converted the Extended Binary Coded\nDecimal Interchange Code (EBCDIC) 10 to American Standard Code for Information\nInterchange (ASCII). The Business Analysis Team explained this tool was selected\n\n10\n A standard eight-bit character code used in computing and data transmission.\n Page 11\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nbecause it represented a number of NARA\xe2\x80\x99s record holdings, and specifically, because\nthe tool was available for free. The Business Analysis Team stated the next step was to\nget technical experts on staff to produce white papers identifying the optimal tools and\nformats used in electronic records preservation. In a meeting held in April 2012, the\nTeam Leader of the ERA Preservation Working Group stated three such technical white\npapers had been written. However, in June 2012, the Team Leader announced only one\nwhite paper had been reviewed and approved at that point. The approved technical white\npaper pertained to the EBCDIC format\xe2\x80\x94the same format used in the April 2010 ACERA\npreservation prototype demonstration.\n\nFurther, concerns were discussed during the ACERA preservation prototype\ndemonstration related to the registry application used to identify the files in need of\ntransformation. A member of the Business Analysis Team stated \xe2\x80\x9cif you don\xe2\x80\x99t have the\nright tools to recognize formats, if [the format] comes back as \xe2\x80\x98unknown,\xe2\x80\x99 you\xe2\x80\x99re kind of\nstuck.\xe2\x80\x9d The ERA system uses the PRONOM 11 application to perform this function.\nHowever, early prototype testing discovered the application was unable to identify a\nnumber of file signatures of records ingested into ERA. In the minutes of an ERA\nProgram Management meeting held on 13 August 2010, it was mentioned that there were\npotential issues involving the sole use of PRONOM as the file format registry and the\nability to maintain file format identification if additional registries are added. These were\nidentified as issues NARA must address. By the time ERA system was placed into\nproduction two years later, these issues had not been resolved.\n\nAs of April 2012, according to Preservation Programs (RX) personnel, PRONOM is\nunable to identify formats of between 20 and 70 percent of the records ingested into\nERA. This further complicates efforts elsewhere in the ERA system (including the\ndevelopment of technical white papers mentioned earlier). The Team Leader of the ERA\nPreservation Working Group stated the preservation of electronic records begins with the\nidentification of an inventory of the different formats; however, the ERA system\xe2\x80\x99s ability\nto perform this function remains insufficient.\n\nAdditionally, during the April 2010 ACERA meeting, the Business Analysis Team stated\nthe preservation prototype was based upon Conceptual Framework version 1.1, however,\nthey stated version 2.0 was to be completed in the summer of that year. Two years later,\nwhile interviewing the Team Leader of the ERA Preservation Working Group, he stated\nthe conceptual framework is still in draft and efforts are still being taken to incorporate\ncomments made during a peer review.\n\n\n11\n A web-based technical registry to support digital preservation services, developed by the National\nArchives of the United Kingdom.\n Page 12\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nAcceptance Testing\n\nNARA\xe2\x80\x99s IT Architecture Systems Development Lifecycle Handbook identifies\ndeployment and acceptance activity as part of the systems development phase. The\nSDLC Handbook includes two types of testing activity: system testing and acceptance\ntesting. Of these, system testing is conducted to validate the built system against the\nrequirements. The purpose of the deployment and acceptance activity is to install the\nsystem in the operational environment and conduct acceptance testing ensuring the\nsystem and its associated products perform in accordance with specified technical and\ncontractual requirements. According to the SDLC Handbook, acceptance testing\ninvolves the users and operators in understanding system usage and ensures the system is\ndelivered and performing as intended.\n\nWhile interviewing the Director of Preservation Programs, we inquired about the results\nof the preservation framework acceptance testing. She stated the Chief of Electronic\nRecords Preservation (RXE) and his staff \xe2\x80\x9care on the front lines in terms of acceptance\ntesting.\xe2\x80\x9d The Director stated that although it fell under her office\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility starting\nin the June-August 2011 timeframe, she could not really speak of the acceptance testing\nresults. The Director stated she realizes at the end of FY 2011 there was a big push to\ncomplete ERA development, but due to NARA\xe2\x80\x99s ongoing reorganization, she did not\nbelieve it was her responsibility at that time.\n\nIn a separate interview, the Chief of Electronic Records Preservation indicated his staff\nparticipated in acceptance testing of the ERA preservation requirements. However, he\nstated it was not \xe2\x80\x9cfull fledged acceptance testing\xe2\x80\x9d as compared to past projects. In\naddition, he stated the tests were all \xe2\x80\x9ccanned\xe2\x80\x9d and did not reflect real world usage.\nFurther, although RXE will be responsible for preservation and transformation aspects of\nthe ERA system, the Chief of Electronic Records Preservation stated he did not sign off\non any of the acceptance testing; instead he indicated the acceptance testing was\napproved by other senior ERA officials. NARA\xe2\x80\x99s CIO stated he delegated acceptance\ntesting approval authority to the ERA Program Management Office (PMO) Test Lead.\nThe CIO stated the process in place at the time stipulated test approval could not be\ngranted if severity level 1 problems existed. The ERA PMO Test Lead reported 53 issues\nidentified during acceptance testing of ERA preservation functionality; none of which\nreached the highest severity level (severity level 1). Even though a number of issues\nwere identified at lower severity levels, one of the considerations cited in the Team\nLead\xe2\x80\x99s acceptance recommendation was that there was no additional time left in the\ndevelopment contract for another build.\n\n\n\n Page 13\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nIn addition, after interviewing ERA PMO personnel who conducted the preservation\nrequirements acceptance testing and reviewing testing documentation, we found only\nlimited preservation testing was performed. Further, despite SDLC Handbook\nguidelines, the preservation framework was never tested in a production representative\nenvironment. The ERA PMO Test Lead stated she performed the preservation\nacceptance testing in the Customer Acceptance Test (CAT) environment. She stated a\ntest environment should be similar to the production environment; however the CAT\nenvironment used was \xe2\x80\x9cnothing like the production system.\xe2\x80\x9d Further, the ERA PMO\nTest Lead indicated that LMC handed off products that appeared to be incomplete.\n\nAs described earlier, LMC\xe2\x80\x99s requirements decomposition was used instead of NARA\xe2\x80\x99s\nduring acceptance testing, therefore the Test Report reviewed did not map back to\nNARA\xe2\x80\x99s Requirements Document. Although the Test Report indicated capabilities\ngenerally functioned as expected, it also highlighted concerns about limitations in the\ntesting environment restricting the degree of testing performed. Despite an\nannouncement at the ACERA meeting in April 2010 that the production version of\nERA\xe2\x80\x99s preservation framework would be built in Increment 4, it was not actually\ndelivered until the end of Increment 5\xe2\x80\x94days before the conclusion of the development\ncontract. Therefore, due to the short timeframe remaining for acceptance testing, LMC\ncontract staff were limited in their availability to research and address issues identified by\nNARA\xe2\x80\x99s testers.\n\nProduction Environment and Current Status\n\nAccording to ERA PMO personnel, at the end of the development phase, LMC had set up\na \xe2\x80\x9cgeneric\xe2\x80\x9d preservation framework, however, only one algorithm\xe2\x80\x94which allows for the\nconversion of EBCDIC to ASCII\xe2\x80\x94was developed for the ERA production system. This\nis despite announcements made to stakeholders in April 2010 that additional tools would\nbe developed in increments 4 and 5. Similarly, the Team Leader of the ERA Preservation\nWorking Group stated the framework provided at the end of development is \xe2\x80\x9cbare\nbones.\xe2\x80\x9d When asked if the preservation framework is currently functional, the Team\nLeader of the ERA Preservation Working Group stated he believes there is a good chance\nit works, adding he \xe2\x80\x9csure as hell hopes it works.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe \xe2\x80\x9cERA Status and Accomplishments\xe2\x80\x9d webpage on NARA\xe2\x80\x99s public website\xe2\x80\x94which\nwas last updated on 11 April 2012\xe2\x80\x94states the electronic preservation processing\ncapability in ERA is not yet occurring. According to the website, \xe2\x80\x9calthough a framework\nhas been developed into ERA, [NARA has] not yet converted records from one format to\nanother, although the basic capability to do so has been designed into the system.\xe2\x80\x9d The\nTeam Leader of the ERA Preservation Working Group reiterated this by stating the\npreservation framework delivered at the end of FY 2011 and accepted by NARA had not\n Page 14\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nactually been used in production, further adding \xe2\x80\x9cso far it hasn\xe2\x80\x99t been needed.\xe2\x80\x9d However,\naccording to NARA\xe2\x80\x99s Performance Measurement and Reporting System (PMRS), during\nFY 2012, RXE was responsible for transforming 100 percent of standard EBCDIC\nrecords to ASCII records in accordance with NARA\xe2\x80\x99s preservation and access plan using\nthe ERA system.\n\nDespite the ERA preservation framework being accepted and placed into production at\nthe end of FY 2011, it was not put into use by RXE until the end of April 2012. It was at\nthat time RXE determined the preservation framework was non-functional. RXE\ncontacted the ERA help desk, which led to the discovery that all preservation servers\nwere inoperable. It took until June 2012 to resolve the issue enough to allow for limited\nfunctionality. However, RXE had already concluded it would not be possible to meet the\nPMRS goal of 100 percent EBCDIC conversion using ERA due to the system\xe2\x80\x99s inability\nto query a specific file format type from the Asset Catalog Database. As mentioned\npreviously, the PRONOM application used by NARA has not consistently or adequately\nidentified the file formats of records ingested into ERA. Further, RXE indicated the\npreservation framework did not include a workflow capability to assign and review\npreservation jobs. As a result of these functionality issues with the ERA preservation\nframework, the Chief of Electronic Records Preservation and the RXE staff continue to\nrely on legacy systems outside of ERA to perform preservation tasks. In a recent\nmeeting, the CIO acknowledged ERA was unable to subsume legacy systems used for\npreservation. He stated that legacy preservation systems are now a required part of the\nERA workflow. The CIO stated preservation activities will continue to utilize legacy\nsystems for some time as opposed to replacing them with the ERA system.\n\nIn comparing NARA\xe2\x80\x99s ERA contract and Requirements Document to the preservation\nframework delivered and deployed by LMC on 24 September 2011, it is apparent the\ncapabilities provided are not as robust as those established in NARA\xe2\x80\x99s requirements and\nadvertised to stakeholder, users, and the public. This is due in part to NARA\xe2\x80\x99s\ninadequate requirements tracking and management during system development as\ndescribed earlier. In addition, this negatively impacted acceptance testing, as NARA put\nitself in the position where it had to perform this testing based on LMC decomposed\nrequirements. The delivery of the ERA preservation framework was further impaired due\nto the rushed and unrepresentative acceptance testing that took place in the days before\nthe LMC contract ended.\n\nIn addition to those identified above, the Chief of Electronic Records Preservation and\nthe RXE staff voiced concerns about the production version of the preservation\nframework in terms of the one conversion tool delivered at the end of the contract. As\nnoted previously, part of the reason the EBCDIC to ASCII conversion tool was selected\n Page 15\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nwas because it was free. RXE is hesitant about relying on this tool without a thorough\nunderstanding of its makeup. If the free tool is not reliable and sound, the Chief of\nElectronic Records Preservation stated it will only create unusable outputs.\n\nCommunication/Management Concerns\n\nBased on interviews of ERA officials and personnel, as well as analysis of ERA meeting\nminutes, it became evident that communication channels involving the development of\nthe ERA preservation framework were not always effective. Furthermore, important\ninformation and concerns did not consistently reach or were not fully acknowledged by\nNARA senior management. This disconnect was present in efforts involving both\ninternal and external stakeholders.\n\nNARA established ACERA as a deliberative body to advise the Archivist of the United\nStates on technical, mission, and service issues related to ERA. This includes, but is not\nlimited to, advising and making recommendations to the Archivist on issues related to the\ndevelopment, implementation, and use of the ERA system. However, comments made by\nthe expert and stakeholder panels at such meetings have illustrated a level of frustration\nin the lack of information shared on a timely basis and the straightforwardness of the\ninformation provided by ERA officials. During the 7 April 2010 meeting, the former\nCIO stated \xe2\x80\x9cwe didn\xe2\x80\x99t want to show you something that was giving bad results.\xe2\x80\x9d Further,\nit was demonstrated during such meetings that user input was not always solicited.\nDuring the meeting, one user asked \xe2\x80\x9cwhen is someone going to come and ask us about\nuser requirements?\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nConversely, input provided by ACERA expert and user panels were often not given\nadequate consideration as evidenced by the same recommendations being brought up\nmeeting after meeting with no resolution. One such concept involved \xe2\x80\x9ctechnology\nchasing\xe2\x80\x9d which, in terms of preservation, places NARA in a position of constantly\nneeding to retool its transformation capabilities to meet the ever growing universe of\nrecord file formats. ACERA members suggested taking a less costly policy based\napproach that would define common formats federal agencies use in creating records, and\nthen place the burden on the agencies to provide conversion tools with their records if\nthey choose to depart from the formats NARA manages.\n\nFurthermore, an ACERA member recommended NARA give consideration to\ncommercial preservation vendors who might be able to provide this service at less cost to\nNARA than developing evolving preservation capabilities in-house. Other\nrecommendations related to placing the responsibility of preservation and storage of\nrecords on the agencies in a cloud environment. ACERA members explained that NARA\n\n Page 16\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\ncontinues to take a paper archives approach by centralizing its storage of electronic\nrecords. As a result, a member of the panel voiced concern NARA\xe2\x80\x99s budget would\nincreasingly go toward electronic storage costs at the expense of other NARA services.\nSuch cloud concepts were also recommended by the Federal CIO. Following the\ncompletion of the development contract, the CIO and ERA program office have\ndiscussed moving some of the ERA system to the cloud.\n\nAs with the ACERA members, user input into requirements was also recently voiced as a\nconcern by the Chief of Electronic Records Preservation, specifically in terms of the ERA\npreservation framework. During an April 2012 interview, he stated he was surprised no\nconsideration was given to the preservation framework workflow process. Without such\na process, there is no capability to assign transformation assignments or provide layers of\nreview. The Chief of Electronic Records Preservation stated as a result \xe2\x80\x9caccuracy and\nauthenticity is a big question mark.\xe2\x80\x9d Further, he expressed concern that even though his\nteam is responsible for preservation, they were not consulted or involved in the\ndevelopment of the ERA preservation process. However, Business Analysis Team\nmeeting minutes during the FY 2010 timeframe indicate some degree of participation by\nElectronic Records Preservation staff in the ERA preservation prototype design and\nreview efforts.\n\nAdditionally, during our meeting with the Chief of Electronic Records Preservation, he\nprovided a list of needs and concerns his team identified related to ERA Preservation\nTransformation. The list identified issues related to the lack of a workflow process,\ninability to accurately query the ERA asset catalog, inexistence of processes for\nverification and running statistical reports, and inability to differentiate between certain\nfile formats. The Chief of Electronic Records Preservation indicated he voiced his\nconcerns and provided this list to the Director of Preservation Programs and other ERA\nofficials after it was compiled in October 2011.\n\nDuring a meeting with the Preservation Programs Department\xe2\x80\x99s ERA Transition Officer\n(who also serves as the Team Leader of the ERA Preservation Working Group), he also\nprovided a list of ERA deficiencies. The list was developed by the Electronic Records\nPreservation Working Group. The list included concerns related to records\ncharacterization, compound records, contextual metadata, transformation tools,\nenhancements to preservation framework, the capability to fully verify structured data,\nand the incorporation of the planning portion of the ERA framework.\n\nDespite discussing major deficiencies and concerns of the ERA preservation framework\nwith both the Preservation Programs Department\xe2\x80\x99s Chief of Electronic Records\nPreservation and ERA Transition Officer, when we later interviewed the Director of\n Page 17\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nPreservation Programs Department, she indicated she had not received a report on things\nthat need to be done, or the need for strengthening or enhancements. Another\nPreservation Programs official at the meeting stated the transformation tool works fine,\nbut there are concerns with the record search capability. However, the Preservation\nPrograms official stated it is \xe2\x80\x9creally early days to evaluate that framework,\xe2\x80\x9d and it is more\nof a \xe2\x80\x9cconfidence\xe2\x80\x9d issue, indicating the RXE staff does not yet have much experience in\ntransforming records in ERA. Based on these interviews, it appeared as though there was\na major disconnect between the staff with knowledge of the production system and those\nresponsible for the management of the system. Further, when we asked about the results\nof the preservation framework acceptance testing, the Director of Preservation Programs\nstated she did not oversee the ERA preservation function at the time of the testing,\nalthough she indicated the reorganization involving her office had taken place prior to the\nend of the ERA\xe2\x80\x99s development phase.\n\nIn addition, as mentioned earlier: ACERA members, the Federal CIO, NARA\xe2\x80\x99s CIO, and\nERA PMO personnel all discussed moving elements of the ERA system to the cloud.\nHowever, when we asked the Director of Preservation Programs if she was aware of such\nefforts or considerations, she stated she had not heard anything regarding ERA and the\ncloud. Further, an RX official at the meeting added \xe2\x80\x9cthere is a lot more [we] would have\nto know before considering an ERA cloud as a viable alternative.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nPromotional/Status Reporting\n\nFrom the program\xe2\x80\x99s early inception until present, NARA has used various methods to\ncommunicate the capabilities, functionality, status, and progress of the ERA system.\nSome of these methods included conferences, press releases, white papers, enterprise\narchitecture updates, web pages, and advisory committee discussions. Despite the\nreduction in scope of the ERA\xe2\x80\x99s preservation framework functionality, most of the\npromotional documentation reviewed remained consistent with the originally defined\nmission needs and requirements. Further, a number of status updates provided to\nstakeholders reflecting the progress of ERA preservation efforts were often inaccurate.\nExamples of the promotional and status documentation spanning the ERA development\ntimeframe are summarized below:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t In terms of preservation, as early as 2003, during the 18th Annual Preservation\n Conference at NARA, the director of the ERA program pressed for an archival\n approach to preserving electronic records focused on the properties of records that\n must be preserved, rather than the artifacts of specific technologies used to create,\n store, or communicate them. Further, the director discussed preserving the data in\n\n\n Page 18\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\n a persistent form, which makes the records independent of any particular\n\n hardware or software.\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t In a press release dated 8 September 2005 announcing the award of the ERA\n contract to LMC, NARA announced \xe2\x80\x9cThe ERA system will capture and preserve\n the electronic records of the federal government, regardless of format, ensure\n hardware and software independence, and provide access to the American public\n and federal officials.\xe2\x80\x9d Further, in the press release, the former Archivist of the\n United States described the purpose of the system, stating \xe2\x80\x9cThe Electronic\n Records Archives\xe2\x80\x99 goal is clear and simple: a system that accepts, preserves, and\n makes accessible\xe2\x80\x94far into the future\xe2\x80\x94any type of electronic document.\xe2\x80\x9d The\n NARA press release continues, stating \xe2\x80\x9cERA will be a comprehensive,\n systematic, and dynamic means for preserving virtually any kind of electronic\n record, free from dependence on any specific hardware or software. When\n operational, ERA will support NARA\xe2\x80\x99s mission by making it easy for the public\n and government officials to discover, use, and trust the records of our\n government, and to make it easy for NARA to deliver those records in formats\n people can use.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Shortly after the press release mentioned above, NARA Notice 2005-292 was\n issued. In terms of preservation, the NARA Notice states \xe2\x80\x9cERA will enable\n NARA to authentically preserve any type of electronic record created by any\n entity in the Federal Government and provide this electronic information anytime\n and anyplace to anyone with a legal right to access it.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t In the February 2007 issue of the ERA publication \xe2\x80\x9cFor the e-Record,\xe2\x80\x9d the ERA\n Transition Officer states \xe2\x80\x9cthe problem is that there is a plethora of other kinds of\n electronic records that also must be preserved for the long term\xe2\x80\x94independent of\n any particular hardware or software.\xe2\x80\x9d In the same publication, an article states\n NARA and LMC are working hard to tell the users how ERA will work and what\n impact it will have on NARA. Further, it states \xe2\x80\x9cbe assured\xe2\x80\xa6we will do the best\n we can to keep everyone informed about ERA\xe2\x80\x99s progress.\xe2\x80\x9d Lastly, the\n publication includes a chart indicating initial appraisal and preservation plans\n were developed in Increment 1, search and preservation frameworks and full\n preservation plans will be completed in Increment 2 (FY 2008), and expanded\n preservation and capacity will take place in Increment 3-5 (FY 2009-2012). As\n described previously, these dates were not met.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t In the November 2009 ACERA meeting, NARA ERA Preservation personnel\n indicated a prototype based on the conceptual framework for digital preservation\n Page 19\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\n was to be constructed. Further, they stated that sustainable format is so important\n that NARA has promulgated guidance regarding sustainable formats to the federal\n community. The ERA preservation personnel stated NARA contemplates\n building a staff of IT specialists with the task of working with archivists to\n identify those formats that will be most challenging, and to assess the needs of the\n research community for certain formats. This would be a collaborative process,\n determination would be recorded into a reference-driven transformation plan, and\n the ERA system would execute the transformation on specific groups of records.\n These efforts have not yet been completed.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t In the April 2010 ACERA meeting, the ERA Transition Officer indicated the\n ERA preservation conceptual framework would be completed by the summer of\n 2010. Further, he stated technical white papers for various file formats would be\n completed in 2010. Lastly, the ERA Transition Officer stated \xe2\x80\x9cfirst we have to\n ingest everything into ERA and now we have a tool that tells us what we have.\xe2\x80\x9d\n However, as described previously, none of these statements were accurate.\n ERA\xe2\x80\x99s preservation conceptual framework was only recently completed, the first\n technical white paper for the EBCDIC format was not approved until June 2012,\n and up until recently the tool used to identify the records ingested into ERA was\n unsuccessful in identifying file formats as high as 70% of the time.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t ERA\xe2\x80\x99s Requirements Document version 4.0, dated 30 July 2010, was posted on\n NARA\xe2\x80\x99s public webpage and remains available for view under the header \xe2\x80\x9cERA\n Project Information.\xe2\x80\x9d This version of the Requirements Document for the most\n part contains the same preservation requirements as those contained in the\n original LMC contract, which reflect the capability to \xe2\x80\x9celiminate or minimize\n records\xe2\x80\x99 dependence on any specific hardware or software.\xe2\x80\x9d Further, there is little\n indication the scope of the preservation functionalities and capabilities has been\n reduced based on the project documentation available on the ERA\xe2\x80\x99s public\n website.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t During the November 2011 ACERA meeting, the CIO stated the core focus is on\n effective collection and preservation of electronic records. The CIO further stated\n there is currently a framework associated with preservation but it still needs to be\n incorporated into a standard process as new file formats and preservation needs\n arise. These comments were made despite the preservation framework not\n functioning when it was put into the production environment after the end of the\n development contract in September 2011. Further, during this meeting the\n Electronics Records Lifecycle Coordinator stated the original preservation\n\n\n Page 20\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\n requirements statements became obsolete between 2009 and 2010; however, this\n was not reflected in the revised Requirements Documents.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Further, the Application Architecture component of NARA\xe2\x80\x99s Enterprise\n Architecture specifies the business applications and service components of the\n agency. In the most recent version, dated 13 September 2011, the Application\n Architecture description of the ERA system states \xe2\x80\x9cERA is a comprehensive and\n dynamic means for preserving virtually any kind of electronic record, free from\n dependence on specific hardware or software. ERA will make it easy for\n customers to find records and easy for NARA to deliver them.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t On 20 December 2011, the Archivist of the United States approved a charter for\n the Electronic Records Preservation Board and Electronic Records Preservation\n Working Group on Electronic Formats. The charter states \xe2\x80\x9cERA has the\n capability to ingest, validate, and verify records from agencies, store them in\n secure locations, and use \xe2\x80\x98plug-in\xe2\x80\x99 tools to \xe2\x80\x98transform\xe2\x80\x99 records to new digital file\n formats when needed to avoid obsolesce or improve access.\xe2\x80\x9d However, this\n Charter was drafted without the knowledge of whether or not the deployed\n version of the preservation framework was even functional.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Up until recently, Archives.gov contained a webpage entitled \xe2\x80\x9cERA\n Misconceptions and Facts.\xe2\x80\x9d One of the misconceptions listed pertained to the\n ERA system not being able to solve the problem of long-term preservation of\n electronic records as hardware and software technology changes over time. The\n webpage refuted this, stating \xe2\x80\x9cERA allowed NARA to make a quantum leap\n forward in the preservation of electronic records and building a flexible and\n adaptable framework that will let NARA evolve as electronic recordkeeping\n evolves.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nNARA officials expressed the importance of ensuring information provided to the ERA\nstakeholders is accurate and representative of the program. On June 28, 2012, the\nElectronics Records Lifecycle Coordinator in coordination with the CIO and COO, issued\na document entitled \xe2\x80\x9cLessons Learned from NARA\xe2\x80\x99s Electronic Records Archives\nProject.\xe2\x80\x9d As an introduction to the paper the Electronics Records Lifecycle Coordinator\nstates she and the CIO \xe2\x80\x9cagree that NARA\xe2\x80\x99s future credibility depends on being very\nhonest about what the ERA experience was like so it\xe2\x80\x99s clear that we understand and are\nprepared to move forward.\xe2\x80\x9d In the Lessons Learned paper, the Electronics Records\nLifecycle Coordinator states:\n\n\n\n Page 21\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cERA has laid the groundwork for a sustainable preservation solution for the\n National Archives, but work remains to be done in several areas. NARA is\n continuing work on preservation policies, including a risk assessment\n methodology, which will determine when staff would intervene to preserve the\n content of a record using something other than its transfer format. ERA also faces\n challenges in improving the process of format identification, a necessary\n precondition to format migration. The existing NARA collection of electronic\n records includes many records in older formats or encoding schemes that are not\n currently recognized by tools such as DROID. NARA is actively supporting the\n expansion of the set of formats included in PRONOM through sharing of the\n work of research partnerships but more work needs to be done to automate format\n identification in ERA.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nAlthough the Lessons Learned paper describes a number of ERA preservation\ndeficiencies\xe2\x80\x94including those identified previously in this report\xe2\x80\x94it does not provide a\nclear picture of where the preservation capabilities currently stand. According to the\nRXE personnel responsible for performing this activity, the preservation framework is\nbarely operable. Further, the issue involving the PRONOM format identification\napplication was identified over two years ago with little indication of any resolution.\n\nFuture ERA Preservation Efforts and Constraints\n\nFollowing the conclusion of the development phase of the ERA system at the end of\nFY 2011, the Archivist of the United States issued a charter establishing the Business\nRequirements Group (BRG). The BRG \xe2\x80\x9cexists to identify and express the business\nrequirements of NARA business units for ERA and provide guidance to the ERA\nProgram Management Office on these subjects.\xe2\x80\x9d The BRG is responsible for providing\nhigh-level business direction for ERA\xe2\x80\x99s ongoing evolution, in part by prioritizing\npotential changes from a NARA-wide perspective and reviewing and approving changes\nto the business requirements, goals, and prioritization agreed on by the group.\n\nDuring our interviews we inquired about the future functionality of the ERA preservation\nframework. A member of the BRG from the Preservation Programs Office indicated\nthere is not enough money to address all the preservation priorities, \xe2\x80\x9cso it can be very\nfrustrating.\xe2\x80\x9d Further, the ERA Transition Officer stated he submitted proposals to the\nBRG with preservation requirements. However, he explained that with the new\nOperations and Maintenance contract award (and subsequent protest) no preservation\nwork was planned for FY 2012. He stated the executive management team had not\nselected the preservation requirements as top priority. BRG members from the ERA\nPMO provided a similar response, indicating of a list of over 100 BRG tasks submitted,\nnone of the preservation tasks has \xe2\x80\x9crisen to the top of the BRG list.\xe2\x80\x9d Preservation\n Page 22\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\ncapabilities and requirements will have to continue competing for limited funds in future\nyears against other ERA priorities.\n\nAccording to the Electronic Records Preservation Board and Electronic Records\nPreservation Working Group on Electronic Formats charter, future work will focus on\nidentifying\xe2\x80\x94for each digital format\xe2\x80\x94the action needed to prevent format obsolescence\nwhich potentially makes the records difficult to use or unusable. Part of these efforts\ninvolve preparing additional technical white papers (such as that mentioned earlier for the\nEBCDIC file format). In a meeting with the Director of Preservation Programs and RX\nofficial, the RX official stated NARA does not have to write every technical white\npaper\xe2\x80\x94as a lot of the documentation is being globally developed\xe2\x80\x94so NARA is not alone\nin these efforts. Further, she stated \xe2\x80\x9calthough the technical white papers may sound like a\nbig piece of the work, technically it\xe2\x80\x99s not.\xe2\x80\x9d Based on the charter, future preservation\nefforts will also include developing preservation and access plans, identifying formats\nand records characteristics in NARA\xe2\x80\x99s stewardship universe, identifying emerging\nformats, and conducting an ongoing technology review.\n\nThe \xe2\x80\x9cLessons Learned\xe2\x80\x9d paper issued by the ERA Electronic Records Lifecycle\nCoordinator also mentions these efforts, stating NARA is continuing work on\npreservation policies, including a risk assessment methodology, which will determine\nwhen staff would intervene to preserve the content of a record using something other than\nits transfer format. The paper also indicates NARA is actively supporting the expansion\nof the current set of formats included in PRONOM through sharing of the work of\nresearch partnerships, but more work needs to be done to automate format identification\nin ERA. Further, the ERA Electronic Records Lifecycle Coordinator states NARA\nanticipates someday it will request funding to begin a new development phase to create\nERA 2.0. The Coordinator states since ERA\xe2\x80\x99s purpose is to preserve electronic records\npermanently, the current ERA system was designed to evolve. It will need to take\nadvantage of better hardware and software as it becomes available so it can continuously\nimprove to better meet the changing needs of federal agencies, researchers, and NARA\nstaff.\n\nIn a recent meeting, the CIO emphasized NARA\xe2\x80\x99s early vision \xe2\x80\x9cto develop a\nrevolutionary system that [would] capture electronic information, regardless of its format,\nsave it permanently, and make it accessible on whatever hardware or software currently\nin use\xe2\x80\x9d did not represent the actual ERA system development requirements, but instead\noutlines what needs to be considered for future needs. He stated digital preservation is\nstill immature and requires further invention and innovation. The CIO stated digital\npreservation research has not yet resulted in the tools needed to reach NARA\xe2\x80\x99s\npreservation vision, which may still be decades away. Further, he stated it may be more\n Page 23\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\ncost effective to continue using legacy systems and manual processes to perform\npreservation activities. The CIO stated there has been a lot of effort within the Federal\nGovernment related to digital preservation, but NARA\xe2\x80\x99s efforts are just part of the\njourney and it needs to be recognized that we are still in the early stages of solving a very\ncritical problem.\n\nOther future concerns the ERA system must contend with relate to the need for a\nTechnology Refresh for the continued successful operation of the ERA system. The\nInformation Systems Business Needs Summary sponsored by the CIO indicates the\nhardware and software comprising the ERA system is over five years old\xe2\x80\x94the majority\nof which has either surpassed the manufacturers\xe2\x80\x99 End of Life (EOL) date or will do so\nwithin the next 12 months. According to the summary, as the system components\napproach and surpass EOL dates, their reliability greatly decreases and poses increased\nrisks of unreliability, data loss, or unavailability of the ERA system. Based on its\nresearch and industry best practices, the ERA Program Management Office has\ndetermined all ERA system hardware, software and components shall be planned to be\nrefreshed during a repeating four year cycle. The summary indicates this refresh will\nprovide the system with newer, more reliable hardware and software incorporating\nimprovements in efficiency and security.\n\nConclusion\n\nThe ERA system is the largest information technology project ever undertaken by\nNARA. However, the development of ERA\xe2\x80\x99s Preservation Framework was not\nconducted in accordance with Federal and Agency system development and acquisition\npolicy. This is particularly apparent in the ERA system\xe2\x80\x99s inability to automate and scale\nthe process of transforming electronic records into a persistent, resilient format. The\ninitial contract for the ERA system states \xe2\x80\x9cthe purpose of the ERA system is to enable\nNARA to realize its strategic vision: \xe2\x80\x98ERA will authentically preserve and provide access\nto any kind of electronic record, free from dependence on any specific hardware or\nsoftware, enabling NARA to carry out its mission into the future.\xe2\x80\x99\xe2\x80\x9d After over six years\nof development and an evolving system purpose, the preservation framework delivered is\nbarely functional and the scope of its capabilities has been greatly reduced.\n\nThroughout its development, NARA announcements and status updates have described\nthe ERA preservation achievements in terms of \xe2\x80\x9ca quantum leap forward.\xe2\x80\x9d However,\nafter the end of the development phase, NARA\xe2\x80\x99s ERA status and accomplishments\nwebsite simply states \xe2\x80\x9cthe electronic preservation processing capability in ERA is not yet\noccurring.\xe2\x80\x9d This lack of functionality is a direct result of numerous inadequacies\nidentified during this audit involving requirements management, acceptance testing,\nproject communication, and status representation. Now in the operations and\n Page 24\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nmaintenance phase, without efforts to correct these issues, NARA\xe2\x80\x99s ERA system\npreservation needs will remain unrealized.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend NARA\xe2\x80\x99s Chief Information Officer:\n\n 1.\t Ensure the ERA Program Manager follows NARA 805 SDLC Handbook and\n System Development Guidelines for any enhancements or modifications to ERA,\n including the Requirements Definition Activity and Requirements Review\n Process.\n 2.\t Establish a test environment for ERA that is representative of the production\n environment and use this test environment to ensure future enhancements or\n modifications to the system perform in accordance with specified technical and\n contractual requirements.\n 3.\t Implement a process for documenting, analyzing, and tracking suggestions and\n recommendations made by ERA stakeholders and ACERA.\n 4.\t Conduct and document a thorough assessment of the production version of the\n ERA system\xe2\x80\x99s preservation framework capabilities.\n 5.\t Establish a quality control process for reporting ERA preservation status to\n internal and external stakeholders and the public.\n\nManagement Response\n\nManagement concurred with the recommendations.\n\n\n\n\n Page 25\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nAppendix A \xe2\x80\x93 Acronyms and Abbreviations\n\nACERA Advisory Committee for Electronic Records Archives\nASCII American Standard Code for Information Exchange\nBRG Business Requirements Group\nCAT Customer Acceptance Testing\nCIO Chief Information Officer\nCOO Chief Operating Officer\nDROID Digital Record Object Identification\nEBCDIC Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code\nEOL End of Life\nERA Electronic Records Archives\nGAO Government Accountability Office\nIT Information Technology\nLMC Lockheed Martin Corporation\nNARA National Archives and Records Administration\nOIG Office of Inspector General\nOMB Office of Management and Budget\nPMO Program Management Office\nPMRS Performance Measurement and Reporting System\nSDLC Systems Development Lifecycle\nSOO Statement of Objectives\nXML Extensible Markup Language\n\n\n\n\n Page 26\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03 \n\n\n\nAppendix B - Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Report \n\n\n\n\n\n L\n NATIONAL\n ARCHIVES\n\n\n Date: FEB 11 2013\n To: James Springs, Acting Inspector General\n\n From: David S. Ferriero, Archivist of the United States\n\n Subject: Comments on revised draft of OIG Draft Audit Report 13-03, "Audit of the\n Electronic Records Archives System\'s Ability to Preserve Records"\n\n\n\n We thank you for your revised draft report entitled, "Audit of the Electronic Records\n Archives System\'s Ability to Preserve Records." I n particular, we appreciate your efforts\n to work with the Information Services office to obtain feedback and make several\n changes to the report in preparation of the final draft.\n\n We concur with the recommendations in the report.\n\n\n\n ~t~\n DAVID S. FERRIERO\n Archivist of the United States\n\n\n\n\n NAT IONA l ARCH I VES and\n RECOR DS ADMIN IST RATION\n\n 8601 A DElHI I ROAD\n COLLEGE PARK. MD 207<0\xc2\xb76001\n www. archives.gov\n\n\n\n\n Page 27 \n\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c OIG Audit Report No. 13-03\n\n\nAppendix C - Report Distribution List\n\nDavid S. Ferriero, Archivist of the United States (N)\n\nJay Bosanko, Chief Operating Officer (C)\n\nMichael Wash, Executive for Information Services and Chief Information Officer (I)\n\nMary Drak, Performance and Accountability Staff (CP)\n\n\n\n\n\n Page 28\n National Archives and Records Administration\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 16.10.2017
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 347/47
 Žaloba podaná 28. augusta 2017 – Wall Street Systems UK/ECB
 (Vec T-579/17)
 (2017/C 347/62)
 Jazyk konania: angličtina
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobkyňa: Wall Street Systems UK Ltd (Londýn, Spojené kráľovstvo) (v zastúpení: A. Csaki, lawyer)
 Žalovaná: Európska centrálna banka (ECB)
 Návrhy
 Žalobkyňa navrhuje, aby Všeobecný súd:
 —
 zrušil rozhodnutie Európskej centrálnej banky (ECB) o zadaní zákazky inému uchádzačovi vo forme rozhodnutia o odvolaní zo 17. augusta 2017, ako aj všetky súvisiace budúce rozhodnutia,
 —
 uložil žalovanej povinnosť nahradiť trovy konania.
 Dôvody a hlavné tvrdenia
 Na podporu svojej žaloby žalobkyňa uvádza nasledujúci žalobný dôvod.
 Žalobkyňa spochybňuje rozhodnutie žalovanej o zadaní zákazky inému uchádzačovi vo forme rozhodnutia o odvolaní zo 17. augusta 2017 a navrhuje, aby toto rozhodnutie a všetky budúce súvisiace rozhodnutia (najmä rozhodnutia o zadaní zákaziek) boli zrušené. Vyššie uvedené rozhodnutie bolo podľa názoru žalobkyne prijaté v rozpore s rozhodnutím Európskej centrálnej banky (EÚ) 2016/245 (1) a platným právom Únie, a najmä v rozpore so zásadami transparentnosti, zákazu diskriminácie a hospodárnosti vynaložených nákladov.
 (1) Rozhodnutie Európskej centrálnej banky (EÚ) 2016/245 z 9. februára 2016 ustanovujúce pravidlá obstarávania (Ú. v. EÚ L 45, 2016, s. 15).


type: legislation

text:
ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
 DE LA COMMISSION
 COLLECTION RELIEE DES
 DOCUMENTS "COM"
 COM (88) 686
 Vol. 1988/0224
 ---pagebreak--- Disclaimer
 Conformément au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 concernant
 l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique européenne et de
 la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, p. 1) modifié en dernier
 lieu par le règlement (UE) 2015/496 du Conseil du 17 mars 2015 (JO L79 du 25. 3.2015, p. 1), ce
 dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents classifiés présents dans ce dossier
 ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit règlement ou sont considérés déclassifiés
 conformément aux articles 26(3) et 59(2) de la décision (UE, Euratom) 2015/444 de la
 Commission du 13 mars 2015 concernant les règles de sécurité aux fins de la protection des
 informations classifiées de l'Union européenne.
 In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 concerning
 the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic Community and the
 European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as last amended by Council
 Regulation (EU) 2015/496 of 17 March 2015 (OJ L 79, 27.3.2015, p. 1), this file is open to the
 public. Where necessary, classified documents in this file have been declassified in conformity
 with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation or are considered declassified in conformity with
 Articles (26.3) and 59(2) of the Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015
 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information.
 In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom 1. Februar
 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und
 der Europäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L 43 vom 15.2.1983, S. 1), zuletzt geändert durch die
 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 2015/496 vom 17. März 2015 (ABI. L 79 vom 25.3.2015, S. 1), ist dieser Akt
 der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in diesem Akt in
 Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5 der genannten Verordnung freigegeben; beziehungsweise werden
 sie auf Grundlage von Artikel 26(3) und 59(2) der Entscheidung der Kommission (EU, Euratom)
 2015/444 vom 13. März 2015 über die Sicherheitsvorschriften für den Schutz von EU-
 Verschlusssachen als herabgestuft angesehen.
 ---pagebreak--- COMISIÓN DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS
 COM(88 ) 686 final .
 Bruselas , 25 de noviembre de 1988
 Propuesta de
 DECISION DEL CONSEJO
 relativa a la celebración de un nuevo Acuerdo en forma de Canje de Notas
 referente a los intercambios mutuos de queso entre la Comunidad
 Económica Europea y el Reino de Noruega
 (presentada por la Comisión )
 ---pagebreak--- EXPOSE DES MOTIFS
 1 . L' accord sous forme d' échange de lettres de 1986 concernant les échanges
 mutuels de fromages entre la CEE et la Norvège ^ 1 ) est un accord de durée
 illimitée qui comporte essentiellement des contingents tarifaires
 réciproques . Cependant , ces contingents n' ont été fixés que pour les trois
 premières années . Il convient donc de déterminer les quantités et les droits
 à l' importation applicables pour les années suivantes .
 2 . Sur la base des directives adoptées par le Conseil , La Commission a mené à
 cet effet des négociations avec la Norvège . Au cours de ces négociations , il
 a été convenu de maintenir inchangés , pour les trois prochaines années , les
 quantités et les droits applicables en 1988 , étant entendu que des
 consultations auront lieu en 1990 en vue d' un réexamen éventuel . Par
 ailleurs , pour des raisons de clareté et pour des raisons pratiques , il a été
 jugé préférable de renouveler l' accord dans sa totalité .
 Le projet d' accord cl-joint , qui constitue le résultat de ces négociations ,
 ne comporte aucune Incidence financière pour le budget de la Communauté .
 3 . Dans ces conditions , il est proposé que le Conseil :
 - approuve le projet d' échange de lettres annexé à la présente
 proposition ;
 - autorise le Président du Conseil à désigner la personne habilitée à
 signer cet échange de lettres au nom de la Communauté .
 ( 1 ) J.O. n° L 22 du 29.1.1986 , p.25
 ---pagebreak--- Propuesta de
 DECISIÓN DEL CONSEJO
 relativa a la celebración de un nuevo Acuerdo en forma de Canje de
 Notas referente a los intercambios mutuos de queso entre la Comuni ¬
 dad Económica Europea y el Reino de Noruega
 EL CONSEJO DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS ,
 Visto el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Económica Europea y , en particular , su
 articulo 113 ,
 Vista la propuesta de la Comisión ,
 Considerando que en el Acuerdo entre el Reino de Noruega y la Comunidad referente a
 los intercambios mutuos de quesos ( 1 ), firmado el 31 de enero de 1986 , sólo se es ¬
 tablecen los contingentes arancelarios que deben abrir la Comunidad y el Reino de
 Noruega , respectivamente , de 1986 a 1988 ; que es conveniente , por lo tanto , renovar
 el Acuerdo y fijar los contingentes para los próximos años ;
 Considerando que la Comisión ha comenzado negociaciones al respecto con el Reino de
 Noruega y que ha alcanzado un acuerdo satisfactorio con dicho país ,
 DECIDE :
 Articulo 1
 Queda aprobado , en nombre de la Comunidad , el Acuerdo en forma de
 Canje de Notas entre la Comunidad Económica Europea y el Reino de Noruega referente
 a los intercambios mutuos de quesos .
 El texto del Acuerdo figura anejo a la presente Decisión .
 Articulo 2
 Se autoriza al Presidente del Consejo para que designe a la persona facultada para
 firmar el Acuerdo a fin de obligar a la Comunidad .
 Hecho en Bruselas ,
 Por el Consejo
 El Presidente
 ( 1 ) DO n° L 22 , de 29.1.1986 , p. 25
 Λ
 ---pagebreak--- - 2 -
 ACUERDO
 en forma de Canje de Notas entre La Comunidad Económica Europea
 y el Reino de Noruega referente a Los intercambios mutuos de quesos
 A. Nota de La Comunidad Económica Europea
 Excino . Senor :
 Tengo eL honor de referirme a Las consuLtas que tuvieron Lugar entre la Comunidad
 Económica Europea y Noruega según Lo dispuesto en el apartado 6 del Acuerdo referen¬
 te a Los intercambios mutuos de queso , firmado el 31 de enero de 1986 . Considerando
 eL interés común de La Comunidad Económica Europea y de Noruega por ofrecer a los
 consumidores , como complemento de Los quesos de producción autóctona , otros tipos
 de quesos importados , propongo que , con efecto del 1 de enero de 1989/ dicho Acuerdo
 sea reemplazado por Las disposiciones siguientes :
 1 . Los derechos de importación , para Las cantidades anuales de queso que se indican
 a continuación , no podrán superar Los siguientes niveles :
 a ) importación en La Comunidad
 ( excepto España y Portugal )
 Quesos del código NC 04 06 del arancel aduanero común , de origen y procedencia de
 Noruega , acompañados de un certificado aprobadod ):
 Derecho de
 Cantidad anual
 ( en toneladas ) importación
 ( en ECU /
 para Los años 1989,1990 100 kg )
 y 1991
 - Jarlsberg , con un contenido mínimo de
 materia grasa del 45% en peso del ex ¬
 tracto seco y de un contenido en peso
 del extracto seco de un 56% , como mí ¬
 nimo , y de una maduración de 3 meses ,
 como mínimo :
 - en ruedas con cortezad ), de 8 a
 12 kg de peso
 - en bloques rectangulares de peso
 neto inferior o igual a 7 kg(2 )
 - en trozos envasados al vacío o en
 gas inerte de peso neto igual o su- 2.020 55
 perior a 150 g e inferior o igual
 a 1 kg ( 2 )
 - Ridder , con un contenido mínimo de ma ¬
 teria grasa del 60% en peso del extrac ¬
 to seco y de una maduración de 4 sema ¬
 nas , como mínimo :
 - en ruedas con cortezad ), de 1 kg
 a 2 kg de peso
 (1 ) El certificado será expedido por La " Norske Meierier " ( Centrales Lecheras
 norueqas ) /
 7
 ---pagebreak--- - 3 -
 Cantidad anual Derecho
 ( en toneladas ) de importaciôn
 para los años ( en ECU /
 1989,1990 y 1991 100 kg )
 - en trozos envasados al vacio o en
 gas inerte , que presenten , por lo
 menos , la corteza de un lado(1 ), de
 peso neto igual o superior a 150 g(2 )
 ( 1 ) Se considerarán formas enteras normalizadas " los quesos en ruedas con corteza ".
 Para la aplicación de estas disposiciones , se define la corteza de la siguien ¬
 te manera : parte exterior que se forma a par
 tir de la pasta del queso , que presenta una consistencia claramente más sóli ¬
 da y un color manifiestamente más oscuro .
 ( 2 ) Las menciones que figuren en el envase deberán permitir la identificación del
 queso por el consumidor .
 b ) importación en Noruega
 Cantidad anual Derecho
 ( en toneladas ) de importación
 para los años ( coronas n /
 1989,1990 y 1991 100 kg )
 - Quesos de cualquier tipo y variedad , de
 origen y procedencia de la Comunidad
 2 160 1,20
 2 . Noruega tomará las medidas necesarias para :
 - limitar la expedición de los certificados mencionados en la letra a ) del punto 1
 a las cantidades establecidas en el presente Acuerdo;
 - velar por que el régimen autónomo de concesión de certificados de importación
 se administre teniendo en cuenta las exigencias del mercado, y de forma que las
 importaciones puedan llevarse a cabo regularmente y las cantidades establecidas
 para la importación en Noruega desde de la Comunidad puedan efectivamente
 importarse .
 3 . La Comunidad y Noruega procurarán que las ventajas mutuamente acordadas no se vean
 comprometidas por otras medidas de importación .
 i
 ---pagebreak--- - 4 -
 4 . La Comunidad y Noruega se comprometen , cada uno por su parte , a velar por que
 los precios aplicados por sus exportadores no provoquen dificultades en el mei–
 cado del pais importador .
 Convienen , a este respecto , en establecer un sistema de información y de coope¬
 ración mutuas cuyos elementos figuran en el Anexo del presente Acuerdo .
 Si se presentasen dificultades provocadas por los precios aplicados , se lleva ¬
 rán a cabo consultas , si una de las Partes lo solicita y en el plazo más breve
 posible , con la finalidad de adoptar medidas correctoras apropiadas .
 5 . Si lo solicitase una de las Partes , se celebrarán consultas sobre cualquier pro¬
 blema relativo a la aplicación del presente Acuerdo . Ambas Partes podrán
 modificarlo de común acuerdo, en función , principalmente , de la evolución de los
 precios de mercado , la producción , la comercialización y el consumo de los que ¬
 sos autóctonos e importados .
 6 . En el transcurso del primer semestre de 1990 , se celebrarán consultas para re¬
 visar la aplicación del Acuerdo y modificar las cantidades , si fuera necesa¬
 rio .
 7 . En el transcurso del primer semestre de 1991 , se celebrarán consultas para de ¬
 terminar las cantidades y los derechos de importación que se aplicarán los años
 siguientes .
 8 . Se podrá proceder a la terminación del presente Acuerdo mediante un aviso previo
 por escrito de un año .
 En caso de que se recurra a la presente disposición , cada una de las Partes se
 reservará los derechos de que gozaba antes de la celebración del presente Acuerdo .
 Le agradecería tuviera a bien confirmarme el acuerdo de su Gobierno sobre lo que
 procede .
 Le ruego acepte , Señor ... , el testimonio de mi más alta consideración .
 En nombre del Consejo
 de las Comunidades Europeas
 ---pagebreak--- 5
 B. Nota del Reino de Noruega
 Excmo . Senor :
 Tengo el honor de acusar recibo de su Nota con fecha de hoy , redactada en los si ¬
 guientes términos :
 " Tengo el honor de referirme a las consultas que tuvieron lugar entre la Comunidad
 Económica Europea y Noruega según lo dispuesto en el apartado 6 del Acuerdo refe¬
 rente a los intercambios mutuos de queso , firmado el 31 de diciembre de 1986 . Con ¬
 siderando el interés común de la Comunidad Económica Europea y de Noruega por
 ofrecer a los consumidores , como complemento de los quesos de producción autóctona ,
 otros tipos de quesos importados , propongo que , con efecto del 1 de enero de 1989
 dicho Acuerdo sea reemplazado por las disposiciones siguientes :
 1 . Los derechos de importación , para las cantidades anuales de queso que se indican
 a continuación , no podrán superar los siguientes niveles :
 a ) importación en la Comunidad
 ( excepto España y Portugal )
 Quesos del código NC 04 06 del arancel aduanero común , de origen y procedencia
 de Noruega , acompañados de un certificado aprobadod ):
 Derecho de
 Cantidad anual
 ( en toneladas )
 importaciôn
 ( en ECU /
 para los años 1989 , 100 kg )
 1990 y 1991
 - Jarlsberg , con un contenido mínimo de materia
 grasa del 45% en peso del extracto seco y de
 un contenido en peso del extracto seco de un
 56% , como mínimo , y de una maduración de 3
 meses , como mínimo :
 - en ruedas con cortezad ), de 8 a 12 kg de peso
 - en bloques rectangulares de peso neto
 inferior o igual a 7 kg ( 2 )
 - en trozos envasados al vacio o en gas
 inerte de peso neto igual o superior a
 150 g e inferior o igual a 1 kg(2 )
 - Ridder , con un contenido mínimo de materia
 grasa del 60% en peso del extracto seco y
 de una maduración de 4 semanas , como mínimo :
 - en ruedas con corteza ( 1 ), de 1 kg a 2 kg
 de peso
 d ) El certificado será expedido por la " Norske Meierier " ( Centrales lecheras
 noruegas ) .
 '–>
 ---pagebreak--- 6
 •
 Derecho de
 Cantidad anual importación
 ( en toneladas ) ( en ECU /
 para los años 1989 100 kg )
 1990 y 1991
 - en trozos envasados al vacio o en gas
 inerte , que presenten , por lo menos , la
 corteza de un lado ( 1 ), de peso neto
 igual o superior a 150 g(2 )
 ( 1 ) Se considerarán formas enteras normalizadas " los quesos en ruedas con corteza ".
 Para la aplicación de estas disposiciones , se define la corteza de la siguien¬
 te manera : parte exterior que se forma a par
 tir de la pasta del queso , que presenta una consistencia claramente más sólida
 y un color manifiestamente más oscuro .
 ( 2 ) Las menciones que figuren en el envase deberán permitir la identificación del
 queso por el consumidor .
 b ) importación en Noruega
 Derecho de
 Cantidad anual importación
 ( en. toneladas ) ( coronas n / kg )
 para los años 1989,
 1990 y 1991
 - Quesos de cualquier tipo y variedad ,
 de origen y procedencia de la Comunidad 2 160 1,20
 2 . Noruega tomará las medidas necesarias para :
 - limitar la expedición de los certificados mencionados en la letra a ) del
 punto 1 a las cantidades establecidas en el presente Acuerdo ;
 - velar por que el régimen autónomo de concesión de certificados de importa ¬
 ción se administre teniendo en cuenta las exigencias del mercado,y de for¬
 ma que las importaciones puedan llevarse a cabo regularmente y las canti ¬
 dades establecidas para la importación en Noruega desde de la Comuni ¬
 dad puedan efectivamente importarse .
 3 . La Comunidad y Noruega procurarán que las ventajas mutuamente acordadas no se
 vean comprometidas por otras medidas de importación .
 ---pagebreak--- 7
 4 . La Comunidad y Noruega se comprometen , cada uno por su parte , a velar por
 que los precios aplicados por sus exportadores no provoquen di f i cul t ades
 el mercado del país importador .
 Convienen , a este respecto , en establecer un sistema de información y de coo¬
 peración mutuas cuyos elementos figuran en el Anexo del presente Acuerdo .
 Si se presentasen dificultades provocadas por los precios aplicados , se lle ¬
 varán a cabo consultas,si una de las Partes lo solicita y en el plazo más
 breve posible , con la finalidad de adoptar medidas correctoras apropiadas .
 5 . Si lo solicitase una de las Partes , se celebrarán consultas sobre cualquier
 problema relativo a la aplicación del presente Acuerdo . Ambas Partes po¬
 drán modificarlo de común acuerdo , en función , principalmente , de la evolu ¬
 ción de los precios de mercado , la producción , la comercialización y el con ¬
 sumo de los quesos autóctonos e importados .
 6 . En el transcurso del primer semestre de 1990 , se celebrarán consultas para
 revisar la aplicación del Acuerdo y modificar las cantidades , si fuera
 necesario .
 7 . En el transcurso del primer semestre de 1991 se celebrarán consultas para de ¬
 terminar las cantidades y los derechos de importación que se aplicarán los
 años siguientes .
 8 . Se podrá proceder a la terminación del presente Acuerdo mediante un aviso previo por escrito
 de un año .
 En caso de que se recurra a la presente disposición , cada una de las Partes se
 reservará los derechos de que gozaba antes de la celebración del presente
 Acuerdo .
 Le agradecería tuviera a bien confirmarme el acuerdo de su Gobierno sobre lo
 que precede ".
 Tengo el honor de confirmarle el acuerdo de mi Gobierno con el contenido de su
 Nota .
 Le ruego acepte . Señor _ , el testimonio de mi más alta consideración .
 Por el Gobierno
 del Reino de Noruega
 ---pagebreak--- 8
 ANEXO
 Sistema de información mutua
 Con el fin de evitar que los precios aplicados por los exportadores provoquen
 dificultades en el mercado del país importador , se creará el siguiente sistema
 de información :
 1 . Noruega suministrará a la Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas la siguiente
 información :
 - dos semanas antes del inicio de cada trimestre del año civil* las perspecti ¬
 vas de las exportaciones noruegas a la Comunidad para el trimestre siguien¬
 te ( cantidades previstas , precios franco frontera noruega previstos , posi ¬
 bles mercados de destino ).
 - tres semanas después del fin de cada trimestre del año civil * las exportacio¬
 nes noruegas efectivamente realizadas a la Comunidad durante el trimestre
 precedente ( cantidades exportadas , precios franco frontera noruega efectiva ¬
 mente aplicados , países miembros de la Comunidad destinatarios ).
 2 . La Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas suministrará trimestralmente las co¬
 tizaciones así como cualquier otra información útil que se refiera al mercado
 de quesos autóctonos e importados .
 XV
 ---pagebreak--- 9
 CANJE DE NOTAS
 relativo a la no aplicación de montantes compensatorios monetarios a las
 importaciones en la Comunidad de quesos procedentes de Noruega
 Nota n° 1
 Excmo . 5enor :
 Tengo el honor de referirme al Acuerdo en forma de Canje de Notas celebrado el día de hoy entre la
 Comunidad Económica Europea y el Reino de Noruega referente a los intercambios de quesos .
 Como complemento a dicho Acuerdo , puedo confirmarle que la Comunidad no aplicará
 ningún montante compensatorio monetario a las importaciones de los quesos in ¬
 cluidos en el mencionado Acuerdo .
 Le agradecería tuviera a bien acusar recibo de la presente Nota .
 Le ruego acepte el testimonio de mi más alta consideración .
 En nombre del Consejo
 de las Comunidades Europeas
 Nota n° 2
 Excmo . Senor :
 Tengo el honor de acusar recibo de su Nota con fecha de hoy , redactada en los
 siguientes términos :
 " Tengo el honor de referirme al Acuerdo en forma de Canje de Notas celebrado el día de hoy entre
 la Comunidad Económica Europea y el' Reino de Noruega referente a los intercam¬
 bios de quesos .
 Como complemento a dicho Acuerdo , puedo confirmarle que la Comunidad no aplica ¬
 rá ningún montante compensatorio monetario a las importaciones de los quesos
 incluidos en el mencionado Acuerdo .
 Le agradecería tuviera a bien acusar recibo de la presente Nota ".
 Le ruego acepte el testimonio de mi más alta consideración .
 Por el Gobierno
 del Reino de Noruega
 1
 ---pagebreak--- FICHE FINANCIERE
 1 . LIGNE BUDGETAIRE : Recettes 100 CREDITS : 1.594^4 |y,i 0 (- Q y
 2 . INTITULE DE LA MESURE : Proposition de décision du Conseil relative à la conclusion
 d' un nouvel accord sous forme d' un échange de lettres concernant les échanges
 mutuels de fromages entre la CEE et la Norvège .
 3 . BASE JURIDIQUE : Article 113 du Traité
 4 . OBJECTIFS DE LA MESURE : Prorogation pour 1989 , 1990 et 1991 des contingents et des
 droits réciproques existant entre la Communauté et la Norvège
 dans le secteur des fromages .
 5 . INC I DENCES FINANCIERES PERIODE DE 12 MOIS EXERCICE EN COURS ( 88 , EXERCICE SUIVANT (89 )
 5 . 0 DEPENSES A LA CHARGE
 - OU BUDGET DES CE
 ( RESTITUTIONS / INTERVENT IONS )
 - DES BUDGETS NATIONAUX
 - D' AUTRES SECTEURS
 5.1 RECETTES
 - RESSOURCES PROPRES DES CE
 ( PRELEVEMENTS#fet?gihffi|tiikttt) - 3,4 Mio ECU
 1990 1991
 5.0.1 PREVISIONS DES DEPENSES
 5.1.1 PREVISIONS DES RECETTES - 3,4 MioECU - 3,4 MioECUl
 5.2 MODE DE CALCUL :
 Prélèvement normal à l' importation : 2.088,8 Ecu / t
 Prélèvement réduit à l' importation : 550 ,- Ecu / t
 Perte de prélèvement par tonne : 1 . 538,8 Ecu / t
 Perte de prélèvement totale : 2.020 t x 1.538,8 x 1,100 ( DT ) = 3,4 Mio ECU ( B )
 Les exportations vers la Norvège ne bénéficient pas de restitutions à l' expor¬
 tation
 6.0 FINANCEMENT POSSIBLE PAR CREDITS INSCRITS AU CHAPITRE CONCERNE DU BUDGET EN COURS D' EXECUTION
 6.1 FINANCEMENT POSSIBLE PAR VIREMENT ENTRE CHAPITRES DU BUDGET "EN COURS D'-EXECUTION EtëBKÜ
 6.2 NECESSITE D' UN BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAIRE
 6.3 CREDITS A INSCRIRE DANS LES BUDGETS FUTURS kfcyfaft
 OBSERVATIONS :
 Etant donné que le nouvel accord représente la continuation de l' arrangement déjà
 en vigueur avec des quantités et droits inchangés , les incidences financières
 sont déjà comprises dans le projet de budget 1989 .
 42


type: contracts

text:
 11.10.2007
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 L 266/24
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉNS BESLUT
 nr 60/2007
 av den 8 juni 2007
 om ändring av bilaga XX (Miljö) till EES-avtalet
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉN HAR BESLUTAT FÖLJANDE
 med beaktande av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, ändrat genom protokollet med justeringar av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, nedan kallat ”avtalet”, särskilt artikel 98, och
 av följande skäl:
 (1)
 Bilaga XX till avtalet ändrades genom gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslut nr 36/2007 av den 27 april 2007 (1).
 (2)
 Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1366/2006 av den 6 september 2006 om ändring av förordning (EG) nr 2037/2000 i fråga om referensåret för tilldelningen av kvoter av klorfluorkolväten med hänsyn till de medlemsstater som anslöt sig till Europeiska unionen den 1 maj 2004 (2) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.
 Artikel 1
 Följande strecksats skall läggas till i punkt 21aa (Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 2037/2000) i bilaga XX till avtalet:
 ”—
 32006 R 1366: Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1366/2006 av den 6 september 2006 (EUT L 264, 25.9.2006, s. 12)”.
 Artikel 2
 Texten till förordning (EG) nr 1366/2006 på isländska och norska, som skall offentliggöras i EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning, skall vara giltig.
 Artikel 3
 Detta beslut träder i kraft den 9 juni 2007 under förutsättning att alla anmälningar enligt artikel 103.1 i avtalet har gjorts till gemensamma EES-kommittén (3).
 Artikel 4
 Detta beslut skall offentliggöras i EES-delen av och EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning.
 Utfärdat i Bryssel den 8 juni 2007.
 På gemensamma EES-kommitténs vägnar
 Alan SEATTER
 Ordförande
 (1) EUT L 209, 9.8.2007, s. 65.
 (2) EUT L 264, 25.9.2006, s. 12.
 (3) Inga konstitutionella krav angivna.


text:
 20.7.2015
 FI
 Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
 C 236/40
 Unionin yleisen tuomioistuimen tuomio 3.6.2015 – Lithomex v. SMHV – Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX)
 (Asia T-273/14) (1)
 ((Yhteisön tavaramerkki - Mitättömäksi julistamista koskeva menettely - Yhteisön tavaramerkiksi rekisteröity sanamerkki LITHOFIX - Aikaisemmat kansalliseksi ja kansainväliseksi tavaramerkiksi rekisteröidyt sanamerkit LITHOFIN - Suhteellinen hylkäysperuste - Sekaannusvaara - Merkkien samankaltaisuus - Tavaroiden samankaltaisuus - Velvollisuutta tutkia samankaltaisuutta suhteessa kaikkiin aikaisemman tavaramerkin kattamiin tavaroihin ei ole - Asetuksen (EY) N:o 207/2009 8 artiklan 1 kohdan b alakohta ja 53 artiklan 1 kohdan a alakohta))
 (2015/C 236/54)
 Oikeudenkäyntikieli: englanti
 Asianosaiset
 Kantaja: Lithomex ApS (Langeskov, Tanska) (edustaja: asianajaja L. Ullmann)
 Vastaaja: sisämarkkinoiden harmonisointivirasto (tavaramerkit ja mallit) (SMHV) (asiamies: S. Bonne)
 Vastapuoli SMHV:n valituslautakunnassa ja väliintulija unionin yleisessä tuomioistuimessa: Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG (Wendlingen, Saksa) (edustaja: asianajaja T. Krüger)
 Oikeudenkäynnin kohde
 Kanne SMHV:n viidennen valituslautakunnan 17.2.2014 tekemästä päätöksestä (asia R 2280/2012-5), joka koskee Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG:n ja Lithomex ApS:n välistä mitättömäksi julistamista koskevaa menettelyä
 Tuomiolauselma
 1)
 Kanne hylätään.
 2)
 Lithomex ApS velvoitetaan korvaamaan oikeudenkäyntikulut.
 (1) EUVL C 253, 4.8.2014.