| 
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
		Addressing the year 2000 computer problem is a substantial challenge
		  to the Federal government. Overall, the Federal government continues to make
		  progress in addressing the year 2000 problem -- but the rate for some agencies
		  is still not fast enough. President Clinton has taken action to accelerate
		  agencies' efforts by discussing the issue with his Cabinet and
		  establishing a year 2000 conversion council of senior executives from key
		  Federal agencies. 
		  As of May 15, 1998, Federal agencies identified 7,336
		  mission-critical systems. That number is 514 fewer than were reported in
		  February as senior Federal managers have reevaluated which systems are critical
		  to their organizations' missions and set priorities within their
		  organizations. Of those mission-critical systems, 40 percent are now year 2000
		  compliant (compared to 35 percent that were reported compliant in February), 42
		  percent are being repaired, 14 percent are being replaced, and 4 percent are
		  being retired. Of the systems being repaired, Federal agencies have completed
		  renovation of 55 percent of them and have fully implemented 27 percent.
		  Agencies now estimate they will spend $5.0 billion fixing the problem in
		  Federal systems. Through independent verification and validation efforts,
		  agencies are reducing the risk of failure of their mission critical systems
		  that are being fixed. They are also beginning to develop plans to assure
		  continuity of their functions in instances where system failures are possible. 
		  The Federal agencies are coordinating their efforts and making
		  progress government-wide in such areas as buildings systems,
		  telecommunications, and bio-medical devices and laboratory equipment. In
		  addition, the agencies are proactively working with their data exchange
		  partners to coordinate work on assuring that year 2000 problems with exchanged
		  data are addressed on time. 
		  Nine agencies are identified in the report as making adequate
		  progress on year 200; nine are identified as making progress, but with
		  concerns; and six are identified as not making adequate progress. OMB will ask
		  the 15 agencies that are either not making adequate progress or about which
		  there are concerns to provide their monthly schedule for completion of year
		  2000 repairs for all mission critical systems. Agencies will update their
		  status against that schedule each month. Also, for the six agencies not making
		  adequate progress, the Chair of the Year 2000 Conversion Council will attend
		  each agency's monthly year 2000 briefings for senior agency officials in
		  order to assist these agencies in managing the problem. 
		  Six agencies have identified systems that are either behind schedule
		  or that will miss the March 31, 1999 implementation deadline. OMB will ask
		  for more detailed information on the contingency plans for those systems, as
		  well as on the continuity of business planning for the organizations as a
		  whole. 
		  OMB asked 41 small and independent agencies to report on their
		  progress for the first time this quarter. A brief summary of each agency that
		  reported is included in the report. OMB will ask 10 of those agencies to begin
		  to report their progress quarterly. Progress on Year 2000 Conversion
 Report of
			 the U.S. Office of Management and Budget
 as of May 15, 1998
 I. INTRODUCTIONThis report is the fifth in a series of quarterly summary reports to
		  Congress on the Administration's progress in fixing the year 2000 computer
		  problem ("Y2K") in Federal systems. It outlines the continuing work to avert
		  the problems that could occur if systems are not able to correctly process the
		  year 2000. This report summarizes information received from the 24 agencies
		  that serve on the Federal Chief Information Officers' (CIO) Council and
		  describes the status of government-wide activities underway. OMB sends these
		  reports to the Congress on or before the 15th of March, June, September, and
		  December. For this report, information on the status of selected small and
		  independent agencies has also been included. This report and all previous
		  reports are available on the Federal Chief Information Officers' home page
		  (http://cio.gov). 
		  The Administration has taken several significant steps during the
		  last quarter. In addition to providing support to agencies as they work to fix
		  their own systems, the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, which
		  began operations in March and is chaired by John Koskinen, has initiated
		  efforts to increase awareness of the problem beyond the Federal Government.
		  Under the Council's direction, agencies are reaching out to private sector
		  organizations, State and local governments, and international institutions in
		  their policy areas and are participating on Council working groups to address
		  year 2000 activities in key infrastructure areas including energy,
		  telecommunications, and financial institutions. These working groups have met,
		  and will continue to meet, with industry representatives in these areas to
		  facilitate and coordinate information sharing on year 2000 progress and
		  possible solutions across business lines. 
		  In addition, for this quarter, OMB collected information from
		  selected small and independent agencies on their year 2000 progress for this
		  report. A summary of the responses to those requests is included in this report
		  under the heading, "Status of Small and Independent Agencies." OMB will
		  continue to collect information from these agencies. 
		  OMB's initial Y2K report, entitled "Getting Federal Computers
		  Ready for the Year 2000," was transmitted February 6, 1997. The report outlined
		  the Federal government's strategy to address the Y2K problem in its
		  systems, one that remains predicated on agency accountability. To assist in
		  that effort, OMB is requiring agencies to report quarterly on their progress on
		  the fifteenth of February, May, August, and November for each year until 2000.
		  This report summarizes the agencies' progress based on the agency reports sent
		  to OMB on May 15, 1998, and describes other actions being taken to assure
		  success. It also responds to requests for information contained in House Report
		  105-240 and Senate Report 105-49. 
		  The Federal government's strategy is based on the five phases of
		  the best practices for addressing the problem: awareness, assessment,
		  renovation, validation, and implementation. Working with the CIO Council, OMB
		  has set government-wide milestones for the completion of work in each of the
		  phases. Agencies have established plans to complete the work in each
		  phase. The five phases overlap -- for example, validation of some
		  systems can begin while renovation of others continues. 
		  II. SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT-WIDE PROGRESSThis summary report shows that: 
		   
			 Virtually all agencies have adopted accelerated schedules for the
				completion of their Y2K work. While three agencies' schedules (Energy,
				HHS, and AID) are behind the government-wide milestones, several agencies'
				schedules are in advance of these milestones (Justice, Treasury, OPM, SBA, GSA,
				and SSA).   
			 Agencies now identify 7,336 mission critical systems, which is
				less than the 7,850 identified in the February report. This change results
				principally because of senior management decisions that certain systems were
				not mission critical and therefore are a lower priority.   
			 Of the 7,336 mission critical systems, 2,913 (40 percent) are now
				year 2000 compliant, compared to 35 percent in the previous report. This
				includes systems repaired, replaced, and those that were already compliant.
				  
			 Of the 7,336 mission critical systems, 3,117 (42 percent ) are
				still being repaired; 1,020 (14 percent) are still being replaced; and 286 (4
				percent) will be retired.   
			 Of those systems that have been or will be repaired, the
				government-wide average for completion of renovation is 55 percent, while
				validation is 32 percent complete and implementation is 27 percent complete.
				  
			 Agencies now estimate they will spend $5.0 billion fixing the
				problem from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000, a slight increase from
				$4.7 billion in the previous report. At this time, we believe the increased
				costs for fiscal year 1999 can be met within existing agency requests. These
				estimates cover the costs of identifying necessary changes, evaluating the cost
				effectiveness of making those changes (fix or scrap decisions), making changes,
				testing systems, and preparing contingencies for failure recovery. They include
				the costs for fixing both mission critical and non-mission critical systems, as
				well non-information technology products and systems such as air conditioning
				and heating. They do not include the costs of upgrades or replacements that
				would otherwise occur as part of the normal systems life cycle. They also do
				not include the Federal share of the costs for state information systems that
				support Federal programs. In the event that additional year 2000 requirements
				are identified, the President's FY 1999 Budget contained an allowance to
				pay for emergencies, including unforseen Defense and non-Defense costs, natural
				disasters, and unanticipated, non-emergency expenses of the year 2000
				conversion. OMB expects that future quarterly reports will continue to refine
				cost estimates as agencies gain more experience about how much it costs to
				renovate, validate, and implement their systems. These figures do not include the information reported by the small
		  and independent agencies. A summary of the status of these agencies is provided
		  in the table in the section entitled, "Status of Small and Independent
		  Agencies." 
		  Evaluation of ProgressOverall, the Federal government continues to make progress in
		  addressing the year 2000 problem -- but the rate for some agencies is still not
		  fast enough. OMB has categorized agencies into one of three tiers based on
		  evidence of progress in their reports. Tier 1 comprises agencies where there is
		  insufficient evidence of adequate progress. For agencies in Tier 2, OMB sees
		  evidence of progress, but also has concerns. The remaining nine agencies in
		  Tier 3 are making satisfactory progress. 
		  Although 71 percent of the systems in Tier 3 are compliant, only 31
		  percent of the systems of the Tier 1 agencies are compliant. It is critical
		  that those agencies most at risk devote more management attention to the
		  problem in order to ensure that solving the year 2000 problem is the
		  agency's highest information technology priority. The following table
		  provides detail on the progress of the agencies by tier. 
 Government-wide Summary -- Year 2000 StatusMission-Critical Systems
  
			  
				| 
 
 Agency Status
 | All Systems | Systems Being Renovated |   
				| Y2K Compliant*
 | Renovation Complete* | Implementation Complete* |   
				| Tier Three  (VA, EPA, FEMA, GSA, NASA, NRC, NSF, SBA, SSA) |   71% |   79% |   65% |   
				| Tier Two  (Agriculture, Commerce, HUD, Interior, Justice, Labor, State,
					 Treasury, OPM) |   45% |   55% |   34% |   
				| Tier One (Defense, Education, Energy, HHS, Transportation, AID)
					  |   31% |   50% |   16% |   
				| All Agencies | 40% | 55% | 27% |  * "Y2K Compliant" means that the system will
			 accurately process data through the century change. "Renovation complete" means
			 that necessary changes to a system's databases and/or software have been
			 made. "Implementation Complete" means that the system has been tested for
			 compliance and has been integrated into the system environment where the agency
			 performs its routine information processing activities. For more information on
			 definitions, see GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, "Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment
			 Guide," September 1997, available at http://cio.gov under Year 2000 Documents.
			  
To improve on this progress, the Administration is taking several
		  additional steps. First, the Chair of the President's Council on Year 2000
		  Conversion will attend the monthly briefings for the senior management of all
		  Tier 1 Cabinet agencies in order to assist these agencies in managing the
		  problem. Second, all agencies that are rated as Tier 1 or Tier 2 will be
		  required to provide to OMB their monthly benchmarks for renovation, validation,
		  and implementation of systems necessary to meet the government-wide milestones.
		  These agencies will also be asked to provide to OMB a monthly chart reporting
		  on their progress against these benchmarks. The first monthly reports will be
		  due to OMB on Friday, June 26. Updates will be due August 1 and the first of
		  each month thereafter. OMB's next quarterly report will provide summary
		  information based on those progress reports. Third, OMB will require agencies
		  to provide more detailed information on contingency planning for those systems
		  that are expected to miss the March 1999 deadline for implementation, as well
		  as on their continuity of business plans as a whole. 
		  III. GOVERNMENT-WIDE ISSUES  Accelerated GoalsIn January 1998, OMB and the CIO Council set accelerated
		  government-wide goals for the completion of renovation, validation, and
		  implementation. The goals are completion of renovation by September 1998,
		  completion of validation by January 1999, and completion of implementation by
		  March 1999.  Four agencies, the Departments of Transportation, Justice,
		  Health and Human Services, and Treasury, report that they have not completed
		  their assessments. The Department of Energy reported that it will complete
		  validation by February 1999, but plans to complete implementation on schedule.
		  All other agencies' schedules are consistent with the government-wide
		  goals. Seven Departments (the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and
		  Human Services, Interior, Transportation, Treasury, and State) report they have
		  systems that will not be implemented by March 31, 1999, or systems that are
		  behind schedule. These Departments also described the steps they are taking to
		  develop contingency plans. A discussion of systems is included at the end of
		  the report. 
		  Non-Information Technology Systems/ Embedded ChipsMany products or systems, such as diagnostic equipment, security
		  systems, elevators, or heating and air conditioning systems, contain embedded
		  chips. Frequently, these chips include a date function that helps run the
		  system -- for example, to time maintenance procedures or to regulate
		  temperature. If this date function is not year 2000 compliant, then the chip
		  may not work. Although all agencies indicated that they are making progress in
		  this area, and many are fixing such products, others still need to complete
		  their assessments. In areas where affected products are widely used, OMB has
		  established government-wide working groups. (More information is provided under
		  "Government-wide Areas.") 
		  Telecommunications NetworksAll agencies indicated that they have begun their assessments of
		  their telecommunications systems. Many indicated that they are making progress
		  on ensuring that their telecommunications systems will be ready for the year
		  2000. In most cases, agencies must work with vendors to receive system upgrades
		  and are somewhat dependent on these vendors in terms of timing. GSA also chairs
		  a working group that is working with vendors government-wide to ensure
		  readiness. (More information is provided under "Government-wide Areas.") 
		  Non-mission-critical SystemsAll agencies reported that they completed or nearly completed their
		  assessments of non-mission critical systems. By definition, such systems are
		  less critical to the functioning of the agencies, but many are still important.
		  All of the agencies reported they have an active program to fix these systems,
		  albeit as a lower priority. 
		    Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)Because the year 2000 problem is so widespread, it is unlikely that
		  immediate assistance will be available to organizations if they have a problem
		  in January 2000. Therefore, it is essential that managers take every action
		  possible now to identify and fix any problems that could occur, particularly as
		  they may affect mission critical systems. Independent validation and
		  verification assists senior management by providing a double-check that their
		  mission critical systems will be ready. All large agencies have independent
		  verification programs underway for that reason. These activities are paying off
		  as some agency systems, which were considered compliant, have been found not to
		  be, allowing sufficient time for management to take action. 
		  It is essential that accurate information be reported to senior
		  management in a timely manner, so that they can take appropriate action. Agency
		  Inspectors General have been helpful to senior management in this regard as
		  well. They have, for example, taken an active role in verifying the accuracy of
		  reports to senior agency management and reports to OMB and the Congress. 
		  Business Contingency PlanningOverall, the agencies need to focus more attention on contingency
		  planning for systems that are at risk of not meeting the March 1999 deadline
		  for implementation. In addition, all agencies, regardless of the status of
		  their systems, should be developing continuity of business plans. Such plans
		  should address, in addition to an agency's internal systems, implications
		  of the year 2000 problem that are outside of the agency's control, such as
		  the inability of suppliers to provide products to the agency or the loss of
		  critical infrastructure. These continuity of business plans will be a primary
		  activity in Federal agencies between now and the year 2000. Most Federal
		  agencies are just beginning to prepare them. To assist in this effort, the CIO
		  Council's Year 2000 Committee, working with the General Accounting Office,
		  is developing guidance on such planning. The Social Security Administration
		  recently completed its plan. That plan was circulated to the other Federal
		  agencies as a model and will be reflected in the CIO Council's guidance. 
		   
		  Data Exchanges with States and Other PartnersFederal agencies exchange data with each other; with foreign, State,
		  and local governments; and with private entities. Of particular importance are
		  data exchanges with the States, because States operate many important Federal
		  programs. To help assure that these exchanges are Y2K compliant, the CIO
		  Council is working with the National Association of State Information Resource
		  Executives (NASIRE) to specifically focus on the exchanges between the Federal
		  government and State governments. All agencies have inventoried their data
		  exchanges and initiated discussions with their data exchange partners regarding
		  both the format of their data exchanges and the timing of making fixes to the
		  data exchanges. 
		  In addition, on May 19, 1998, OMB issued instructions to the agencies
		  on reporting the status of their year 2000 fixes to their data exchanges with
		  the States. The General Services Administration (GSA) will provide a format to
		  Federal agencies for them to provide an electronic report on the status of data
		  exchanges. The status of each data exchange will be broken down by State and
		  must be shown as one of four categories: (1) compliant and successfully tested
		  by both parties; (2) successfully bridged with both parties concurring in the
		  format; (3) Federal side ready but not yet tested; and, (4) not yet compliant
		  or testing still in progress. In July, agencies will provide their first
		  submissions of this information to GSA. This information will be updated on a
		  monthly basis. 
		  Other Government-wide AreasOMB has identified and is working on three government-wide areas
		  where the Y2K problem occurs in other than computer systems:
		  telecommunications; bio-medical devices and laboratory equipment; and
		  buildings. In these areas, the problem occurs in commercial products that rely
		  on computers or have computer chips inside them; the problem needs to be fixed
		  by the manufacturers of those products. OMB has established interagency working
		  groups, each chaired by a key program agency, to raise awareness and to work
		  with manufacturers to assure that products are fixed. Each group is contacting
		  vendors on behalf of the entire Federal government, performing tests to verify
		  compliance, and sharing information through electronic databases. 
		  The Telecommunications Working GroupGovernment, like the private sector, is reliant upon commercial
		  vendors and the information they supply to address the compliance of their
		  telecommunications systems. GSA owns, manages, or resells consolidated
		  telecommunications services to Federal agencies throughout the United States.
		  The Telecommunications Working Group is chaired by the Federal
		  Telecommunications Service (FTS) of the GSA. 
		  The Telecommunications Working Group is working with industry to
		  ensure that the telecommunications services and systems provided to the Federal
		  government are year 2000 compliant. As vendors continually evaluate the year
		  2000 status of products, agency year 2000 plans, schedules, budgets, and
		  deadlines continue to evolve. Through special interest groups for testing
		  telecommunications equipment, the Working Group is learning more about
		  compliant and non-compliant telecommunications products. Inventory data has
		  been added to a government-wide database of agency information. This database
		  is available for vendors to post the status of their products at
		  http://y2k.fts.gsa.gov. The Working Group has been leading discussions with
		  vendors and has received positive responses from the major telecommunication
		  providers and manufacturers. The Working Group is also investigating how the
		  Federal government can participate in testing of certain critical systems. 
		  GSA is using a two-fold approach to ensuring that the Federal
		  government's local telecommunications services will be year 2000
		  compliant. First, as a reseller of service using Government wide-owned Private
		  Branch Exchange (PBX) equipment, GSA has direct control over the equipment. At
		  this point, testing has shown that 90 percent of the PBXs owned by GSA are
		  already compliant. For the remaining 10 percent, manufacturers have indicated
		  that they will provide upgrade solutions. Second, as a reseller of service
		  using Central Exchange (CENTREX) service obtained from Local Exchange Carriers
		  (LECs), GSA has limited authority or leverage over the internal networks of
		  these carriers. Currently, there are 247 CENTREX systems which are wholly
		  owned, managed, and maintained by LECs, but which sell service to the Federal
		  government. The Federal government has designated GSA regional points of
		  contact and instructed them to contact their respective LEC service providers
		  and request information on the year 2000 status for the CENTREX service they
		  receive. This information will then be provided to other Federal agency users. 
		  The Biomedical and Laboratory Equipment Working Group The Biomedical Equipment Working Group is chaired by the Department
		  of Health and Human Services. On January 21, 1998, the HHS Deputy Secretary
		  wrote to over 16,000 manufacturers of biomedical devices and laboratory
		  equipment, asking them to verify the compliance of their products. Responses
		  were due to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on March 23, 1998. As of May
		  1, the FDA had received approximately 1,600 responses. Many of these responses
		  were from companies that manufacture no electronic equipment and for which
		  developing a response was easy. The information received is being posted to a
		  public web site at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/yr2000. The FDA must aggressively
		  pursue responses from the remaining equipment manufacturers. 
		  The web site contains information about products that are compliant
		  as well as information about products that are not. For those that are not
		  compliant, it also provides detailed information as to how it is not compliant,
		  and most importantly, the solutions that the manufacturer will offer to
		  mitigate the problem, such as software updates, along with the date on which a
		  compliant product will be available. 
		  The overall response has been limited, indicating a possible lack of
		  awareness or even denial of the problem in this industry. On the other hand,
		  those who have responded have thanked the Working Group for providing them with
		  an easy way to publicize the compliance of their products. In fact, the request
		  for web site posting of product year 2000 compliance status is designed to
		  provide an opportunity for manufacturers to communicate and better serve
		  customers in a responsible and proactive manner and to avoid the necessity for
		  manufacturers and vendors to field numerous calls and letters from individual
		  organizations. The Working Group hopes that the web site will be useful to
		  hospitals, doctors, government health facilities, as well as patients. 
		  The FDA is planning to conduct follow-up with the manufacturers of
		  medical devices containing microprocessors. The follow-up to manufacturers by
		  FDA will be targeted toward the manufacturers of medical devices which are the
		  most critical and the most likely to have year 2000 date related problems. The
		  FDA also plans to conduct outreach to both manufacturers and the health care
		  industry through speeches, contact with the professional associations, and the
		  placement of articles in prominent medical and medical equipment-related
		  journals. The first two articles, which appear in the FDA Medical
		  Bulletin and the Journal of the American Medical  
		  Association, appeared on June 1 and June 3 respectively. The FDA
			 will also publish a Federal Register notice elaborating on the FDA's
			 expectations of medical device manufacturers  under current laws and regulations. Publication of this notice is
			 expected by July 1. Buildings Systems Working GroupThe Building Systems Working Group of the CIO Council is chaired by
		  the Public Buildings Service at GSA. Their charge is to ensure that building
		  system equipment containing embedded microchips and software is year 2000
		  compliant. 
		  The Working Group has surveyed approximately 60 percent of its
		  building inventory and identified equipment considered susceptible to year 2000
		  issues. Vendors and manufacturers of this equipment are being contacted to
		  determine the compliance/non-compliance of the equipment and to determine any
		  necessary remedial action. GSA has established a website
		  (http://y2k.lmi.org/gsa/y2kproducts) that provides all year 2000
		  compliance/non-compliance information for building systems products that has
		  been gathered thus far. While there are now over 6000 products listed on this
		  site, only 5 percent of all products are identified as non-compliant. The list
		  of non-compliant items includes items which will experience nuisance problems
		  (e.g., print reports dated "1900" rather than "2000" but will not experience
		  operational degradation. All building systems in Federal buildings considered
		  at risk are being evaluated. At this juncture, elevators are somewhat less of a
		  concern while security/access systems are coming under closer scrutiny. 
		  All lessors that provide GSA space were sent letters between February
		  and April that describe potential problems associated with building systems
		  containing embedded microchips and requested that they certify their space as
		  year 2000 compliant. Response rates varied greatly by region, although the
		  typical response rate was between 50 and 70 percent. The Working Group is using
		  the Logistics Management Institute (LMI) to follow-up with non-responsive
		  lessors. LMI follow-up includes offers to help lessors determine compliance of
		  their major building systems and equipment. For lessors that fail to respond to
		  both of these letters, a risk assessment will be made for each location and a
		  more stringent approach may be implemented if warranted (e.g., inspect leased
		  locations to determine year 2000 compliance of major components/systems).
		  Additionally, for all new leased space, a year 2000 clause was developed for
		  inclusion in all Solicitations For Offers. 
		  Finally, another website is currently under construction which will
		  allow personnel from Federal agencies to determine the year 2000 compliance
		  status of Federally owned and leased facilities. This site will be for Federal
		  government use only. 
		  IV. AGENCY SPECIFIC PROGRESS  Agency EvaluationWhile many agencies appear to be making good progress in addressing
		  this problem, some are not. In evaluating agency progress, OMB used the same
		  basic criteria as in previous reports. For this report, the detailed criteria
		  are: 
		   
			 Status of agency assessment -- Has the agency completed its
				assessment of mission critical and non-mission critical systems? Has the agency
				completed its assessment of non-IT systems, including embedded chips? Has the
				agency completed its inventory of data exchanges with outside entities?   
			 Measurable improvement -- Is there measurable and adequate
				progress on renovation, validation, and implementation of computer systems,
				including its data exchanges? Is there progress on addressing other systems,
				including telecommunications systems and embedded chips?  
			 Schedule for completion of the phases of best practices and
				overall prognosis -- Has the agency adopted a realistic schedule that is
				consistent with the government-wide goals? Has there been a change in the
				number of mission critical systems that are expected to miss the March 1999
				implementation date? Does the agency have a strong management team and a
				credible strategy in place?  
			 Risk management -- Is the agency preparing a workable continuity
				of business plan for its core business functions? Does the agency have a
				deadline for when plans must be complete? Does the agency have an effective
				independent validation and verification program in place? Is there adequate
				oversight of efforts to replace non-compliant systems? Are systems previously
				reported behind being brought back on schedule?  
			 Dramatic changes in previously reported information or other
				indications of concern -- Have there been dramatic changes in cost, schedule,
				changes to the number of systems, or changes to the number of systems behind
				schedule? Are there any concerns with the availability of key personnel?Tier One comprises agencies where there is insufficient evidence of
		  adequate progress. The six agencies in the first tier are: 
		  Department of Defense The Department has a massive year 2000 challenge which must be
		  accomplished on a tight schedule. Since its February report, progress has
		  slowed. The percentage of compliant mission critical systems has only increased
		  from 24 percent to 29 percent, the percentage of mission critical systems being
		  renovated has only increased from 53 percent to 58 percent, while the
		  percentage of mission critical systems that has completed implementation has
		  increased from 9 percent to 17 percent. At this pace, the Department will not
		  meet its goals and complete its work on time. To accelerate its work, the
		  Department has streamlined and strengthened its oversight mechanisms, including
		  establishing an executive program office. The Department is now treating the
		  year 2000 problem as a high-priority national security operations and readiness
		  issue, and the Deputy Secretary is regularly briefed on the Department's
		  progress. Overall, the Department has implemented a coordinated management
		  program and appears poised for improvement despite a slower rate of progress in
		  the last quarter. 
		  Department of Education The Department of Education has continued to make progress in
		  addressing its year 2000 problem. It has significantly increased staff
		  resources committed to this task, has finalized its year 2000 work plan, and
		  has accelerated schedules to complete all work by March 1999. The Deputy
		  Secretary is providing strong leadership and is personally tracking progress.
		  The Department has established a schedule for its year 2000 work, developed a
		  detailed plan for fixing its mission-critical systems, begun renovation, and
		  has hired a consultant to assist with key project management and technical
		  tasks. The Department has contracted with two firms for independent
		  verification and validation services for all mission critical systems. The
		  Department has undertaken an extensive outreach effort to communicate with the
		  entire education community, beyond those customers that are data exchange
		  partners, on the year 2000 problem. However, the Department remains behind most
		  other Federal agencies, with renovation of eight mission critical systems only
		  14 percent complete, and with zero percent complete on validation and
		  implementation. Three of these eight systems have completed 30 percent or less
		  of the work necessary to finish the renovation phase. 
		  Department of Energy The Department has identified all mission-critical systems at its
		  government and contractor sites; however, assessment of the Department's
		  embedded chips systems and lab equipment continues. On the positive side, the
		  percent of renovation completed has improved from 19 percent in the February
		  report to 34 percent in the May report, and progress in the other phases is
		  also improved. Moreover, the Department indicates that it is on schedule to
		  complete implementation by March 1999 for all but six of its 411 systems; those
		  six will complete implementation not later than October 1999. While there has
		  been improvement against its internal schedule, DOE remains behind the
		  government-wide schedule. 
		  In response to concerns identified in the November 1997 report, the
		  Department required all program officials to certify to the CIO that adequate
		  progress was being made in achieving year 2000 compliance prior to receiving
		  information technology funding. All but one program official (Environmental
		  Management) has provided this certification, and non-Y2K information technology
		  funds remain unavailable to that program. One site, Savannah River, has been
		  unable to certify that adequate progress is being made in achieving Y2K
		  compliance. (Although nuclear materials are processed at Savannah River, the
		  systems that will miss the March 1999 deadline do not pose a health, safety, or
		  environmental threat.) In time for the May report, the Department completed a
		  survey of all sites regarding data exchanges. The survey is a good start on
		  ensuring that all mission critical data exchanges are Y2K compliant. Although
		  the Department's CIO is conducting site compliance reviews in cooperation with
		  the Office of the Inspector General, independent verification and validation
		  contractors are not being used by the Department for compliance reviews.
		  Overall, the Department has improved its management coordination and has made
		  real progress in some areas; yet until its progress comes closer to the
		  government-wide goals, it will remain on the troubled list. 
		  Department of Health and Human Services The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as a whole, has
		  made some progress from the last quarterly report. However, some operating
		  divisions and individual systems continue to raise concerns. In two specific
		  cases, HHS reports systems that are projected to achieve compliance later than
		  the HHS-wide deadline for implementation of 12/31/98. These systems are
		  described later under "Exceptions." In addition, the Department reevaluated
		  which systems should be designated as "mission critical." Although this has
		  resulted in fewer mission critical systems for some operating divisions, this
		  has also resulted in a lower percentage of compliant mission-critical systems. 
		  The focal point of HHS' efforts is the Health Care Financing
		  Administration (HCFA), which has almost finished assessing the system that its
		  external contractors, such as Medicare fiscal intermediaries and carriers, use
		  to process Medicare claims. The success or failure of HCFA's overall Y2K effort
		  is closely linked to the success or failure of Medicare contractor systems. It
		  is critical that these contractors complete their assessments and begin
		  renovations to ensure compliance by December 31, 1998. Given the
		  government's limited ability under current law to influence Medicare
		  contractors, the Administration submitted a draft bill to Congress on May 19,
		  1998, that would increase the Secretary's contracting flexibility. The
		  Administration encourages Congress to pass this legislation as soon as possible
		  to ensure that HCFA has all the tools it needs to achieve full compliance. HCFA
		  is performing on-site visits to every Medicare contractor and is using an
		  independent verification and validation contractor to perform a risk assessment
		  of Medicare contractors. HCFA's independent verification and validation
		  efforts also examines all other aspects of the Y2K project. HCFA
		  is in the early stages of developing detailed contingency plans to
		  ensure the continuity of operations of its health programs into the next
		  millennium. HCFA and HHS must continue closely tracking progress in this
		  critical area. 
		  Department of TransportationThe Department of Transportation has greatly improved its management
		  oversight in the last quarter and appears to be devoting considerable resources
		  to the problem; nevertheless, reported progress since the last report was
		  minimal. With 14.9 percent of its mission critical systems validated and 7.4
		  percent implemented, the Department lags well behind the government-wide
		  schedule, and its assessments of four systems had not been completed as of the
		  May reporting date. 
		  Although the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has a strong
		  management team in place and a good organizational commitment to remediation,
		  the FAA continues to be at significant risk. It needs to determine
		  priorities for system conversion and replacement based on systems'
		  mission criticality; develop plans for validating and testing all converted or
		  replaced systems; and continue working to develop realistic contingency plans
		  for all business lines to ensure the continuity of critical operations,
		  including the availability of critical telecommunications support. Of
		  particular concern is the FAA's HOST computer system, which is the
		  backbone en route air traffic control. The FAA intends to replace the HOST
		  computers at a pace sufficient to guarantee an adequate supply of spare parts
		  for the remaining computers. FAA is continuing to assess the potential
		  vulnerability of the system's micro-code and is validating the feasibility
		  of a date roll-back as one of its potential contingency plans. The FAA's
		  contingency planning must provide for continuity of operational capability of
		  the National Airspace System (NAS), including scenarios when the HOST computer
		  is not available. 
		  The United States Coast Guard is falling behind schedule in the
		  repair of three safety-related systems, with one, the Marine Safety Information
		  System, having problems with old hardware and archaic software similar to that
		  being experienced by FAA. 
		  U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentUSAID has reported no new progress in terms of the total number of
		  systems renovated, validated, or implemented. While USAID has made a number of
		  management improvements, including plans to increase independent validation and
		  verification of contractor deliverables and increasing agency-wide awareness of
		  the year 2000 problem, these steps are too recent to have resulted in
		  measurable progress. However, since the last report, standard code to process
		  date/time data for USAID's mission critical systems has reached the design
		  phase under a new contract. In addition, a new prime contract for year 2000
		  project management was awarded May 29, 1998. Both actions are consistent with
		  best practice recommendations of independent studies. 
		  Other AgenciesFor agencies in the second tier, OMB sees evidence of progress, but
		  also has concerns. Some of these agencies have strong Y2K programs and OMB
		  expects them to continue to improve. The nine agencies in the second tier are:
		  the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development,
		  Interior, Justice, Labor, State, and Treasury, and the Office of Personnel
		  Management. A summary of progress and concerns for these agencies appears
		  below. 
		  
 Tier 2 Agencies -- Progress, But Concerns  
			  
				| Agency | Progress | Concerns |   
				| USDA | Progress in renovation, validation, and
					 implementation of systems; actively working on data exchange issues with
					 states. States report that all Food Stamp systems will be Y2K compliant by
					 12/31/99. | Embedded systems, facilities, and
					 telecommunications issues are not yet resolved; contingency planning and
					 proactive independent validation and verification efforts have not yet been
					 established. Based on current information from States, all but two State WIC
					 systems will be compliant by 12/31/99. New York plans to use its existing
					 manual WIC system until 8/1/00, at which time its system will be compliant.
					 Complete information from Ohio on telecommunications progress is not available
					 so USDA is unable to determine whether the State will be fully compliant by
					 12/31/99. (USDA will work to receive more information from Ohio on the status
					 of its WIC system.)  |   
				| DOC | Overall, making progress. Undertaking IV&V
					 and contingency planning. | PTO, OS/ADMIN, and ITA lag government-wide
					 goals; Department must find a CIO.  |   
				| HUD | Good management team with some improvement in
					 the number of systems validated. Chief Information Officer recently hired.
					 Actively working on embedded chip, telecommunications, and data exchange
					 issues. | Need greater progress in renovating
					 mission-critical systems. Independent validation and verification efforts have
					 not been formally established although the Inspector General is examining HUD
					 efforts. |   
				| DOI | Strong management team with good progress on
					 data exchange issues. Good progress on embedded technology and
					 telecommunications issues. | Limited progress in renovation, validation, and
					 implementation. |   
				| DOJ | Progress is being shown and independent reviews
					 continue to demonstrate value. | Pace of renovation, validation and
					 implementation must improve if Department and government-wide goals are to be
					 met.  |   
				| DOL | Top priority of the Secretary; significant
					 progress on renovation; good progress on data exchanges, especially with State
					 unemployment systems. | Despite progress, still lags behind the
					 government-wide goals. Must complete assessment of embedded
					 chips. |   
				| State | Permanent CIO in place; actively assessing and
					 upgrading non-IT systems; taking steps to improve IV&V
					 process. | Some progress, but evidence of schedule
					 slippage; consolidation of some systems is a complicating factor; progress
					 needs to be accelerated on overseas financial systems.  |   
				| Treasury | Strong management team; leader in work on
					 embedded systems, buildings, and telecommunications. Actively working on data
					 exchange issues with the States. Good progress in Customs and
					 IRS. | Greater progress is needed in FMS, particularly
					 with respect to the Government On-line Accounting Link System (GOALS), which
					 supports 18 separate financial management applications used by the agencies.
					 The GOALS system has yet to be fully assessed for year 2000 conversion; if the
					 system is not made compliant, the accuracy of government-wide payments,
					 collections, debt management, and accounting information could be
					 compromised. |   
				| OPM | Strong continued senior management involvement
					 has resulted in a credible strategy and progress; contingency planning is much
					 improved with well defined goals and milestones. | Rate of validation and implementation must
					 increase in order to meet government-wide goals. | The remaining nine agencies in Tier 3 appear to be making
		  satisfactory progress. These nine agencies are the Environmental Protection
		  Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Social Security
		  Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the General Services
		  Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Nuclear Regulatory
		  Commission, the Small Business Administration, and the Department of Veterans
		  Affairs. 
		   
		  Status of Small and Independent Agencies  Based on the results of a one-time request for reports from 41 small
		  and independent agencies, OMB is asking several agencies to report again on
		  their progress on August 15, 1998. OMB is asking for these reports in the next
		  quarter because of the importance of these agencies' missions, because of
		  concerns about the rate of progress, or because their initial reports did not
		  provide sufficient detail. Those agencies are: the Federal Communications
		  Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Board, the National Archives and
		  Records Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, the Office of
		  Administration in the Executive Office of the President, the Peace Corps, the
		  Tennessee Valley Authority, the U.S. Postal Service, and the U.S. Trade
		  Representative in the Executive Office of the President. 
		  A summary of their progress will be included in the next quarterly
		  report to Congress. OMB is asking all small and independent agencies to report
		  again on May 15, 1999. OMB will continue to work with all small and independent
		  agencies, as appropriate, to ensure that they are prepared for the year 2000. 
		  Summary of Small and Independent Agency
			 Reports  
			  
				| Agency | Progress | Concerns |   
				| Armed Forces Retirement Home Board
					  | Agency has completed assessment, including
					 non-IT systems; non-mission critical systems are compliant. | Although the agency has adopted government-wide
					 milestones for its two systems under repair, there has been no progress on
					 renovation.  |   
				| Commodities Futures Trading
					 Commission | Good progress on all phases. Good outreach.
					  | Weak contingency plan.  |   
				| Consumer Product Safety
					 Commission | Satisfactory progress overall; good outreach
					 efforts.  | No contingency plan; no independent validation
					 and verification. |   
				| Corporation for National and Community
					 Services | Sound management; progress on certification and
					 IV&V.  | Assessment incomplete; accounting system will
					 be finished late.  |   
				| Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
					 Board | Small number of office systems are on schedule;
					 verification in progress. | None. |   
				| Equal Employment Opportunity
					 Commission | Good progress on all phases, including non-IT
					 systems.  | Need contingency plan; need independent
					 verification and validation.  |   
				| Export-Import Bank of the United
					 States | Excellent progress on phases; good management
					 oversight; using contingency planning and IV&V.  | None. |   
				| Farm Credit Administration | Good progress on phases.  | Weak contingency planning. |   
				| Federal Communications
					 Commission | Has recently improved management oversight;
					 good outreach efforts. | Renovation to be completed 3/99; no contingency
					 plan; no IV&V.  |   
				| Federal Deposit Insurance
					 Corporation | Good progress on phases.  | Weak contingency plan.  |   
				| Federal Elections Commission |   | Progress behind schedule. No contingency plan;
					 no IV&V.  |   
				| Federal Energy Regulatory
					 Commission | Progress satisfactory.  | No IV&V. Needs to improve outreach efforts.
					  |   
				| Federal Home Loan Mortgage
					 Corporation |   | Report pending.  |   
				| Federal Housing Finance Board | Satisfactory progress on phases.
					  | No IV&V; weak contingency plan.
					  |   
				| Federal Reserve System | Excellent progress on all phases; excellent
					 outreach.  | None. |   
				| Federal Retirement Thrift Investment
					 Board | Working closely with National Finance Center,
					 which has responsibility for major systems. Most other systems consist of
					 office automation.  | Good progress on non-IT systems and data
					 exchanges.  |   
				| Federal Trade Commission | Good progress on all phases. Good outreach
					 efforts.  | None. |   
				| JFK Center for the Performing
					 Arts | States that all systems are compliant.
					  | No mention of contingency plan; no IV&V.
					  |   
				| Legal Services Corporation |   | Report pending. |   
				| National Archives and Records
					 Administration | Good management team; working with DoD &
					 OPM on personnel records; working with GPO on data exchanges with the Office of
					 the Federal Register. | Assessment of mission-critical systems is only
					 75% complete; contingency planning just beginning. |   
				| National Credit Union
					 Administration | Excellent progress on phases.  | Weak contingency plan.  |   
				| National Gallery of Art | Progress slightly behind schedule.
					  | No IV&V; no contingency plan; need to
					 improve outreach. |   
				| National Labor Relations Board | Completed assessment of non-IT systems; data
					 exchanges.  | Three systems will miss target; no IV&V; no
					 outreach.  |   
				| National Mediation Board | On schedule for phases.  | Needs IV&V. |   
				| National Transportation Safety
					 Board |   | Submitted response to GAO survey in lieu of
					 report.  |   
				| Neighborhood Reinvestment
					 Corporation | Good progress; independent audit planned.
					  | No mention of continuity of business plan;
					 could improve outreach. |   
				| Office of Administration, Executive Office of
					 the President | Senior management working aggressively to
					 continue progress and enhance communications.  | Need additional contingency plans; progress
					 dependent on FY99 appropriations.  |   
				| Overseas Private Investment
					 Corporation | Putting in place an IV&V contractor.
					  | No continuity of business plan.
					  |   
				| Peace Corps | Started risk management steps.  | Complications as a result of international
					 operations.  Risk associated with Financial Management System. Assessment
					 incomplete. Report lacks detail. |   
				| Pension Benefit Guaranty
					 Corporation | Explicit management strategy; has hired
					 IV&V contractors.  | Behind on phases.  |   
				| Railroad Retirement Board | Good progress. | May need to work more on contingency plans.
					  |   
				| Securities and Exchange
					 Commission | Moderate progress, excellent outreach.
					  | Pace of renovation needs to quicken.
					  |   
				| Selective Service System | Good progress on internal systems; relies on
					 larger agencies for some systems. | May need to work more on contingency plan.
					  |   
				| Smithsonian Institution | Good management of the problem; provided
					 detailed status of systems.  | No IV&V; no contingency plan; no outreach.
					  |   
				| Tennessee Valley Authority | Good management tracking system. Good progress
					 on renovation. Contingency planning in place.  | Assessment incomplete. A number of systems will
					 miss March 1999 target.  |   
				| U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament
					 Agency | Good progress; major thrust is replacement of
					 COTS.  | Planning should include continuity of business
					 plan.  |   
				| U.S. Enrichment Corporation |   | Report pending. |   
				| U.S. Information Agency |  Good management. Good progress. Assisting
					 overseas offices.  | Status complicated by uncertainty of merger
					 with State Department. |   
				| U.S. International Trade
					 Commission | IV&V scheduled for summer; all systems to
					 be implemented by fall.  | Minimal attention to non-mission critical data
					 exchanges; no contingency planning. |   
				| U.S. Postal Service | Full senior management involvement. Independent
					 verification process implemented. Critical systems targeted for implementation
					 by 9/98.   | Better crosswalk needed between USPS program
					 measures and government-wide benchmarks. Greater detail needed on certain key
					 items such as contingency planning and IV&V.  |   
				| U.S. Trade Representative Executive, Office of
					 the President |   | Although systems are limited to office
					 automation/ databases, progress is modest. No outreach; no independent
					 verification and validation. May miss March 1999 date.  |  Exception ReportsIn addition, agencies are required to report on any mission-critical
		  systems for which year 2000 renovation or replacements have fallen more than
		  two months behind schedule. In addition, agencies are required to report on any
		  system that will not meet the March 1999 target for completion of
		  implementation. The following agencies report specific systems that are behind
		  schedule or that will miss the March 1999 target. 
		   
		  Department of AgricultureTwo agencies reported slippage in dates beyond March 1999, the
		  Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and Departmental Administration (DA). The
		  Agricultural Marketing Service Financial Information System is being
		  redeveloped using year 2000 compliant hardware and software. Since the
		  submission of the May report, approval for support services for year 2000
		  compliance has been granted. Two additional AMS systems are under development,
		  therefore the approval process for these systems required additional steps. The
		  AMS Field Infrastructure System has received approval to proceed based on the
		  condition that the newly developed system would be validated and verified as
		  year 2000 compliant through independent means. Milestones for this system are
		  being developed. The AMS Data Repository has received approval to proceed based
		  on the condition that the newly developed system would be validated and
		  verified as year 2000 compliant through independent means. Milestones for this
		  system are being developed. 
		  The Departmental Administration Systems are no longer an exception.
		  The Department will make the current systems that were scheduled for
		  replacement compliant by January 1999. 
		  Department of Defense The Department of Defense reported that nine mission critical systems
		  have fallen behind schedule: one Army system, two Air Force systems, two
		  systems at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, one system at the
		  Defense Logistics Agency, and three systems at the National Security Agency. Of
		  those nine, one was previously reported behind schedule: the Air Force's
		  MARK V system, which remains behind schedule due to a COTS vendor delivery
		  problem. The Department also reported 34 mission critical systems being
		  repaired or replaced that had completion dates after March 1999: seven Army
		  systems, eighteen Navy systems, two Air Force systems, one system at the
		  Defense Intelligence Agency, one system at the Defense Information Systems
		  Agency, one system at the Defense Logistics Agency, one system at the National
		  Imagery and Mapping Agency, two systems at the Office of the Secretary of
		  Defense, and one system at the On-site Inspection Agency. The DOD CIO is
		  establishing a special review board to focus leadership actions on mission
		  critical systems such as these that are not meeting the DOD required dates for
		  implementation. 
		  Department of Health and Human ServicesThe Health Care Financing Administration's Financial Accounting
		  Systems (FACS) is behind schedule as a result of a delay in validation.
		  Validation will commence, contingent upon the installation of a year 2000
		  compliant version of the commercial, off-the-shelf database system, known as
		  IDMS, and the availability of future date testing tools. These problems are
		  being addressed, and HCFA anticipates that FACS will be in the validation phase
		  soon. 
		  HHS reported two other systems that are projected to achieve
		  compliance later than the HHS-wide deadline of December 31, 1998. The first is
		  the system called IMPACT which is used to process personnel actions
		  Department-wide. It was to be replaced by a new system, 
		  FED HR-21, which is already year 2000 compliant. However, FED HR-21
		  will not be implemented until late 1999. As a contingency plan, PSC is making
		  the legacy system compliant by February 1999. The second system reported late
		  is the Health Resources and Services Administration's contractor-operated
		  National Organ Transplant System, which is not projected to be compliant until
		  a new replacement system is implemented in July, 1999. 
		  Department of InteriorThe Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System at the
		  Bureau of Reclamation is used to manage the Glen Canyon Powerplant. Preliminary
		  estimates to renovate the system were significantly higher than anticipated, so
		  a statement of work was developed requiring a three-phase effort to reassess
		  costs, make repairs, and test the system for year 2000 compliance. An estimate
		  of the costs for renovation is anticipated by the Department in May 1998. In
		  the meantime, a waiver to the Dual-Compensation Act has been granted for 10
		  Powerplant Operators. This is part of the bureau's contingency planning so that
		  all dams can be operated in a manual mode. The Bureau's estimate is that
		  SCADA's renovation, testing, and implementation will be completed before
		  January 1999. 
		  State Department The Supply Automated Receiving System (SARS), Enhanced Automated
		  Procurement System (EAPCS), Mail Sorting Equipment Network (MSE), and the
		  Electronic Receipts System (ERS) within the Bureau of Administration are
		  planned to be on a reestablished schedule by June. Early delays involved
		  evaluation of commercial off-the-shelf system alternatives, funding requests
		  and contract modifications. Virtually all of these issues have been resolved
		  with only the contract modifications awaiting finalization in June. Renovation
		  of the SARS and the Medical Archiving Retrieval System (MARS) within the Bureau
		  of Personnel will extend beyond the September 1998 renovation milestone, but
		  other applications (including EAPCS, MSE, and ERS) will meet this deadline.
		  SARS will be renovated by January 1999, and the MARS will be renovated by
		  November 1998.   
		  Department of TransportationThe United States Coast Guard reported that three of its mission
		  critical systems have fallen behind the OMB target dates for work in the
		  remaining phases. Two of these systems are projected to miss interim target
		  dates, but are still on track to comply with the March 1999 implementation
		  phase deadline. The third system, the Marine Safety Information System (MSIS),
		  is experiencing difficulties achieving its milestone targets largely due to the
		  complexity of custom-built code, usage of what are now archaic programming
		  languages, and some hardware components that are unique to the MSIS. The MSIS
		  technical staff is training additional people to work on the software issues
		  and at this time, is projecting a year 2000 solution to be tested and
		  implemented by September 1999. 
		  Treasury DepartmentThe Government On-Line Accounting Link System (GOALS) at the
		  Financial Management Service is comprised of 18 application subsystems that
		  collect, edit, and telecommunicate data. GOALS-II was initiated in September
		  1995 to replace GOALS-I. Based on the analysis of the current development
		  schedule, not all of the 18 subsystems of GOALS-II will be completed and
		  implemented prior to the year 2000. Consequently, FMS has determined that it
		  must renovate the existing GOALS-I system to ensure year 2000 compliance. FMS
		  is working with the program areas responsible for each of the subsystems to
		  develop contingency plans. These plans are scheduled for completion in June
		  1998. 
		  Key Federal Web Sites on the Year 2000  
			  
				| Sponsor | URL |   
				| FDA site on biomedical devices | www.fda.gov/cdrh/yr2000 |   
				| Federal CIO Council | http://cio.gov |   
				| Small Businesses Administration | www.sba.gov/y2k |   
				| GSA site on compliant commercial products | http://y2k.policyworks.gov |   
				| GSA site on telecommunications equipment | http://y2k.fts.gsa.gov  |   
				| GSA site on buildings and facilities  | http://globe.lmi.org/lmi_pbs/y2kproducts |  TABLE 1  Progress and Plans for Year
			 2000 Compliance of Mission Critical Systems   
			  
				|  | Assessment Date | Renovation Date | Validation Date | Implementation
				  Date |   
				| Gov't-wide Goal | 6/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| Agriculture | 11/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| Commerce | 3/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| Defense | 12/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| Education | 11/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| Energy | 1/97 | 9/98 | 2/99 | 3/99 |   
				| HHS | 6/98 | 9/98 | 12/98 | 7/99 |   
				| HUD | 6/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| Interior | 3/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| Justice | 6/97 | 7/98 | 10/98 | 1/99 |   
				| Labor | 6/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| State | 6/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| Transportation | 8/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| Treasury | 7/97 | 10/98 | 12/98 | 12/98 |   
				| VA | 1/98 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| AID | 11/97 | 6/99 | 8/99 | 9/99 |   
				| EPA | 6/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| FEMA | 6/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| GSA | 6/97 | 7/98 | 9/98 | 1/99 |   
				| NASA | 8/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| NRC | 9/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| NSF | 6/97 | 9/98 | 1/99 | 3/99 |   
				| OPM | 6/97 | 9/98 | 11/98 | 11/98 |   
				| SBA | 5/97 | 8/98 | 9/98 | 9/98 |   
				| SSA | 5/96 | 9/98 | 12/98 | 1/99 |  Table 2 Mission Critical Systems  
			  
				|  | Total
					 Number | Number
					 Compliant | Percent of
					 Total | Number Being
					 Replaced | Number Still Being
					 Repaired | Number Being
					 Retired |   
				| Agriculture  | 1080 | 430 | 40% | 271 | 317 | 62 |   
				| Commerce  | 472 | 343 | 73% | 57 | 72 | 0 |   
				| Defense  | 2803 | 812 | 29% | 255 | 1566 | 170 |   
				| Education | 14 | 4 | 29% | 2 | 8 | 0 |   
				| Energy | 411 | 149 | 36% | 131 | 119 | 12 |   
				| HHS | 289 | 98 | 34% | 62 | 129 | 0 |   
				| HUD  | 63 | 31 | 49% | 11 | 21 | 0 |   
				| Interior  | 91 | 37 | 41% | 11 | 43 | 0 |   
				| Justice  | 197 | 57 | 29% | 10 | 130 | 0 |   
				| Labor  | 61 | 21 | 34% | 18 | 22 | 0 |   
				| State | 64 | 24 | 38% | 27 | 13 | 0 |   
				| Transportation  | 630 | 237 | 38% | 69 | 297 | 27 |   
				| Treasury  | 323 | 125 | 39% | 46 | 150 | 2 |   
				| VA  | 11 | 2 | 18% | 0 | 9 | 0 |   
				| AID | 7 | 1 | 14% | 2 | 4 | 0 |   
				| EPA | 61 | 40 | 66% | 5 | 14 | 2 |   
				| FEMA | 47 | 29 | 62% | 11 | 7 | 0 |   
				| GSA | 58 | 39 | 67% | 10 | 9 | 0 |   
				| NASA  | 158 | 79 | 50% | 6 | 69 | 4 |   
				| NRC | 7 | 2 | 29% | 2 | 3 | 0 |   
				| NSF | 21 | 10 | 48% | 1 | 6 | 4 |   
				| OPM | 118 | 40 | 34% | 12 | 64 | 2 |   
				| SBA | 42 | 19 | 45% | 0 | 23 | 0 |   
				| SSA | 308 | 284 | 92% | 1 | 22 | 1 |   
				| TOTAL | 7336 | 2913 | 40% | 1020 | 3117 | 286 |  TABLE 3 Mission Critical Systems Repaired and
			 Being Repaired  
			  
				|  | Number of
					 Systems | Assessment Percent
					 Complete | Renovation Percent
					 Complete | Validation Percent
					 Complete | Implementa-tion
					 Percent Complete |   
				| Agriculture  | 484 | 100% | 56% | 32% | 31% |   
				| Commerce  | 148 | 100% | 67% | 53% | 51% |   
				| Defense  | 1898 | 100% | 58% | 24% | 17% |   
				| Education | 8 | 100% | 13% | 0% | 0% |   
				| Energy | 139 | 100% | 34% | 25% | 23% |   
				| HHS | 232 | 92% | 29% | 17% | 12% |   
				| HUD  | 35 | 100% | 51% | 40% | 31% |   
				| Interior  | 67 | 100% | 52% | 33% | 27% |   
				| Justice  | 164 | 98% | 59% | 32% | 29% |   
				| Labor  | 27 | 100% | 25% | 21% | 21% |   
				| State | 22 | 100% | 38% | 23% | 0% |   
				| Transportation  | 323 | 99% | 25% | 15% | 7% |   
				| Treasury  | 248 | 98% | 55% | 40% | 38% |   
				| VA  | 10 | 100% | 83% | 63% | 49% |   
				| AID | 4 | 100% | 14% | 14% | 14% |   
				| EPA | 30 | 100% | 77% | 60% | 53% |   
				| FEMA | 14 | 100% | 57% | 57% | 50% |   
				| GSA | 20 | 100% | 71% | 66% | 55% |   
				| NASA  | 101 | 100% | 59% | 39% | 32% |   
				| NRC | 4 | 100% | 25% | 25% | 25% |   
				| NSF | 12 | 100% | 83% | 67% | 50% |   
				| OPM | 86 | 100% | 35% | 33% | 33% |   
				| SBA | 30 | 100% | 52% | 52% | 52% |   
				| SSA | 289 | 100% | 92% | 89% | 86% |   
				| TOTAL | 4395 | 99% | 55% | 32% | 27% |  TABLE 4  AGENCY YEAR 2000 COST ESTIMATESFiscal Years
			 1996-2000
 (Dollars in Millions, by Fiscal Year)
 
  
			  
				|  | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | TOTAL |   
				| Agriculture | 4.2 | 20.9 | 62.0 | 29.4 | 7.5 | 124.0 |   
				| Commerce | 2.6 | 12.4 | 33.5 | 28.3 | 6.5 | 83.3 |   
				| Defense | 20.7 | 444.5 | 1045.1 | 372.9 | 45.8 | 1929.0 |   
				| Education | 0.1 | 1.7 | 23.5 | 7.4 | 1.5 | 34.2 |   
				| Energy | 1.0 | 20.0 | 94.3 | 86.1 | 24.8 | 226.2 |   
				| HHS | 7.1 | 29.1 | 137.9 | 112.8 | 3.0 | 289.9 |   
				| HUD | 0.7 | 6.2 | 19.4 | 15.0 | 6.2 | 47.5 |   
				| Interior | 0.2 | 2.8 | 10.6 | 21.1 | 0.7 | 35.4 |   
				| Justice | 1.7 | 6.2 | 18.0 | 5.3 | 0.5 | 31.7 |   
				| Labor | 1.7 | 5.4 | 11.6 | 6.8 | 1.4 | 26.9 |   
				| State | 0.5 | 49.2 | 62.0 | 38.0 | 3.1 | 152.8 |   
				| Transportation | 0.4 | 12.4 | 96.0 | 64.3 | 9.4 | 182.5 |   
				| Treasury | 8.4 | 210.9 | 681.6 | 368.6 | 181.0 | 1450.5 |   
				| VA | 4.0 | 22.0 | 69.0 | 96.0 | 5.0 | 196.0 |   
				| AID | 1.1 | 3.0 | 18.3 | 13.7 | 3.2 | 39.3 |   
				| EPA | 0.8 | 5.3 | 13.0 | 6.1 | 1.0 | 26.2 |   
				| FEMA | 3.8 | 4.4 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 15.6 |   
				| GSA | 0.2 | 0.8 | 4.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 6.4 |   
				| NASA | 0.1 | 6.4 | 27.0 | 11.2 | 0.8 | 45.5 |   
				| NRC | 0.0 | 2.4 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 0.6 | 10.9 |   
				| NSF | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 1.4 |   
				| OPM | 1.7 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 6.4 |   
				| SBA | 1.7 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 9.7 |   
				| SSA | 2.2 | 13.3 | 12.2 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 33.2 |   
				| TOTAL | 65.0 | 885.2 | 2451.7 | 1298.5 | 304.1 | 5004.5 |  Notes: These estimates do not include the Federal share of the costs
			 for State information systems that support Federal programs. For example, the
			 Agriculture total does not include the potential 50 percent in Federal matching
			 funds provided to States by Food and Consumer Services to correct their Year
			 2000 problems. Similarly, the HHS total does not include the Medicaid baseline
			 costsfor the Federal share of state systems. And, while Labor's FY 1998
			 appropriation includes $200 million for States to correct Year 2000 problems in
			 State unemployment insurance systems,that amount is not included in this
			 estimate.    | OMB Home Page |
			 Budget Information |
			 Legislative Information |
			 Management Reform/GPRA |
 |
			 Grants Management |
			 Financial Management |
			 Procurement Policy |
 |
			 Information & Regulatory Policy |
			 Special Topics |
         
 		The Budget	 | 		Legislative Information	 | 		Management Reform/GPRA		 | 		Grants Management		Financial Management		 | 		Procurement Policy		 | 		Information & Regulatory Policy
 Contact the White House Web Master
 
 Privacy Statement
 |