FIS ER E-signature Home

This is the home page for the Fisheries Information System (FIS) Electronic Reporting (ER) e-signature project. This is a project of the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service (NMFS).

The purpose of this project is to establish an approved process for implementing eSignatures for use with electronic reporting systems. This project will review the requirements of the Agency's eSignatures policy (32-110) and procedural directive (32-110-01), evaluate alternative methods and procedures, and develop a standard approach for implementing eSignatures for electronic reporting. This project is a planning, design, and plan approval exercise, and this project is not a system development process resulting in implemented production systems. Of course a development process (and/or procurement) is eventually intended, but it is not part of this phase.

Background

During the Electronic Reporting Planning Workshop held in July 2007, it was determined that a clear process for implementing e-signatures for electronic reporting would be of significant benefit to multiple regions. The FIS project management process annually considers proposals from members and partners for projects that can further FIS goals. A proposal was submitted requesting FIS funding for a project to review the requirements of the Agency's e-signatures policy (32-110) and procedural directive (32-110-01), evaluate existing methods and procedures, and develop a standard approach for implementing e-signatures for electronic reporting.

The proposal was funded in 2008. The FIS ER E-signature project was operational from June of 2008 through June of 2009. During the active period project collaboration was facilitated by this wiki space. As a final deliverable of the project, this wiki space has been re-oriented to provide guidance and structure to future e-signature initiatives. While the focus has been changed, most of the original content has been preserved under the assumption that the guidance and structure may be most useful when seen in the context of our project activities. In a few places the original documents have been edited to change present or future tense to past tense, or to annotate original deliberations with the benefit of hindsight. But mostly the original content has been left in place as it was drafted during the project, and, the refocusing for future relevance is primarily concerned with providing the roadmap, checklist and examples of deliverables sections.

At some future date e-signature alternatives, risks and benefits may become so well understood that e-signature solutions are readily transferable among problem domains. Or perhaps our agency may have a range of well-known solutions and a project seeking an e-signature solution can choose from a menu. However, while e-signatures remain novel, risk and cost/benefit tradeoffs are unclear, and legal precedents untested, each e-signature implementation should be individually vetted through the Agency's e-signatures policy (32-110) and procedural directive (32-110-01). This site should make it possible for e-signature projects to leverage experience from other practitioners and jump-start a new e-signature initiative.

Note that this project was all about a planning, design, and plan approval exercise, and this project does not specify a complete development process resulting in implemented production systems. Of course a development process (and/or procurement) may eventually be necessary, but if so, it will be documented elsewhere.

How to Use this Material

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) readers who seek approval for an e-signature implementation should become familiar with all the resources posted on this site, and most importantly they should be familiar with our Agency's e-signatures policy (32-110) and procedural directive (32-110-01). After studying the policy and procedure documents consider reviewing the roadmap, checklist and examples of deliverables sections. When an e-signature project begins to produce documents, consider contacting the team that developed this site, adding your work products to our collection, and participating in this wiki as an collaborative aid for your work, and as a means to improving our guidance for future e-signature initiatives.

Readers who are not associated with NMFS may find many particulars that don't apply to their situation. However, NMFS policy and procedure is based on policy and guidance from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Department of Justice, and related experts and authorities, so you may find that due diligence in your circumstances require most of the steps described here. And this site may have the most complete collection of examples and resources that are easily available.

Project Contents

• Roadmap
• Checklist — This checklist identifies the major steps of the process
• Examples of Deliverables — Examples of major project deliverables
• Background and Planning — A place for detailed context, history, and resource documents.
  • eSignature Legal Context and Precedents
    • Department of Justice eSignature Guidance for Federal Agencies
    • eSignature and Evidentiary Presumption of Attribution
    • eSignature Case Law
    • Statutes, Policy, and Guidelines
  • eSignature Stakeholders
    • General Council
    • Agency Operational Staff (RAM and SF)
    • Assistant Administrator (HQ)
    • Vendors
    • Chief Information Officer
    • Professional and Trade Groups
    • Office of Law Enforcement
    • Office of Policy
  • FIS ER eSignature Project Proposal
    • Project Description
    • Management Approach
    • Project Plan Summary
      • Proposed Project Tasks
      • Project Challenges
      • Project Environment
    • Project Estimates
      • Detailed Project Outline
    • Consultant Contribution
      • eReporting eSignature Statement of Work
  • Prior Art in Citizen-to-Government eSignature
    • USDA eAuthentication
    • Other Federal eAuthentication-enabled Services
    • Australian Fisheries Management Authority e-Logbooks
    • Usability Issues with eSignatures and E-authentication
    • IRS e-File
    • OMB (somewhat dated) framework for e-auth
    • Southwest Fisheries Science Center Electronic Logbook Signature Certification
    • VA paperless benefits application enabled by e-signature
    • State of Alaska eSignature (myAlaska)
    • EPA Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR)
    • Identity Mangement Task Force Report 2008
  • Concepts
    • Document Binding, Integrity, and Audit Trails — Some distinctive mark must be affixed to the original document as evidence of the electronic signature, binding the document to the signing party's identity, indicating their approval or adoption, and providing evidence of the document's integrity.
    • Identity Assertion, Person Proofing and Registration — The requirement to identify and authenticate a particular person establishes a need for an initial person proofing and registration process and an authentication process to support an identity assertion implied in each eSignature transaction.
    • E-Signature User Experience - Terms and Conditions, Signing Ceremony, Receipt
      • Receipt
• Participant and Resource Contact Info — Contact info for project participants and resources.
• Activity Summaries — Summaries of project activity are drafted and emailed periodically to the "in the loop" mailgroup as a means of communicating with stakeholders and the curious.
  • NMFS E-Signature Project Activities for June and July 2008
  • NMFS E-Signature Project Activities for August and September 2008
  • NMFS E-Signature Project Activities for October 2008
  • NMFS E-Signature Project Activities from November 2008 through June 2009
• Meetings — Meeting agendas are posted here prior to the meetings, and after the meetings these pages are turned into meeting summaries documenting decisions and work assignments.
  • Proposed Meeting Schedule
  • Meeting of November 19, 2008
  • Meeting of November 12, 2008
    • Participant Feedback
  • Meeting of October 29, 2008
  • Meeting of October 15, 2008
  • Meeting of October 1 2008
  • Meeting of September 17 2008
  • Meeting of September 3 2008
  • Meeting of August 20 2008
  • Meeting of July 30 2008
  • Meeting of July 11 2008
  • Meeting of June 30 2008
• Deliverables — Key project documents and deliverables are assembled here.
  • Charter for eSignature Team — is not a deliverable but is published here to establish context for the other information.
  • Stakeholder Impact Analysis — also known as the grid, characterizes potential pilot projects and stakeholders.
  • Alternatives Analysis — complete and documented through Think Tank notes - characterizes alternative approaches to e-signatures.
  • Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis — complete in draft, final formatting in progress – a risk assessment, cost estimates, benefits statement, and cost-benefits analysis prepared according to NMFS procedural directive 32-110-02 http://reefshark.nmfs.noaa.gov/f/pds/publicsite/documents/procedures/32-110-01.pdf.
  • Presentation — in draft - of proposed e-signature plan to stakeholders.
  • Critique — not begun – the critique or postmortem finalizes the project, wraps up any loose ends, and documents lessons learned for future initiatives.
  • Risk Notes — a notepad to record thoughts about project risk which is not a deliverable, but may inform the formal Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis.
  • ToDo List for Business Plans — task assignments as we finalize pilot project business plans.
  • Observations on the Process
  • Completion Summary as of June 10, 2009
• Pilot Candidates — Potential e-signature applications under consideration as pilot projects. This section will include an overview of the e-signature pilot projects the team will review in September and then evaluate using Think Tank in October.  This is an important in the OMB e-authentication evaluation process, which requires the team to identify the risks inherent in the business application.  One outcome of the analysis is to assign the applicaiton to one of the four levels of assurance identified in the OMB
  • Hawaii Longline Logbook
    • Hawaii Longline Logbook E-Signature Business Plan
      • HLL Introduction
      • HLL Current "As is" Process
      • HLL Demand for Electronic Signature Support
      • HLL Proposed Electronic Process
      • HLL Risk Assessment
      • HLL Cost Estimates
      • HLL Benefits Statement
      • HLL Cost Benefits Analysis (steve)
      • HLL Implementation Details
      • HLL Implementation Plan Outline
  • Hawaii Non-Commercial Bottomfish Logbook
    • Hawaii Non-Commercial Bottomfish Logbook Risk Assessment
    • Hawaii Non-Commercial Bottomfish Logbook E-Signature Business Plan
      • NCBF Introduction
      • NCBF Current "As is" Process (Larry)
      • NCBF Demand for Electronic Signature Support
      • NCBF Proposed Electronic Process (Larry)
      • NCBF Risk Assessment (steve)
      • NCBF Cost Estimates (Larry)
      • NCBF Benefits Statement
      • NCBF Cost Benefits Analysis (steve)
      • NCBF Implementation Details (Larry)
      • NCBF Implementation Plan Outline (Larry)
  • National Permit System
  • West Coast Federal Fixed Gear eLogbook
  • West Coast E-fishticket
    • West Coast E-Fishticket E-Signature Business Plan
      • WCEFT Introduction
      • WCEFT Current "As is" Process
      • WCEFT Demand for Electronic Signature Support
      • WCEFT Proposed Electronic Process
      • WCEFT E-Signature Risk Assessment
      • WCEFT Cost Estimates
      • WCEFT Benefits Statement
      • WCEFT Cost Benefits Analysis
      • WCEFT Implementation Details
      • WCEFT Implementation Plan Outline
  • Categories of Harm and Impact Definitions
  • Table B - Maximum Potential Impacts for Each Assurance Level