Notice: Request for Substantive Comments on the EAC's Proposed Requirements for the Testing of Pilot Voting Systems To Serve UOCAVA Voters, 16088-16090 [2010-7199]

Agencies

• Election Assistance Commission

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 31, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16088-16090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7199]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION


Notice: Request for Substantive Comments on the EAC's Proposed 
Requirements for the Testing of Pilot Voting Systems To Serve UOCAVA 
Voters

AGENCY: United States Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed requirements for the 
testing of

[[Page 16089]]

pilot voting systems to be used to serve UOCAVA voters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is publishing 
for public comment a set of proposed requirements for the testing of 
pilot voting systems to be used by jurisdictions to serve Uniformed and 
Overseas voters.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The Uniformed and Overseas 
Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986 protects the right to 
vote in Federal elections for this defined category of citizens. UOCAVA 
sets out federal and state responsibilities to assist these voters in 
exercising their voting rights. The Secretary of Defense is the 
presidential designee responsible for the Federal functions of the Act. 
The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) administers this law on 
behalf of the Secretary of Defense and works cooperatively with other 
Federal agencies and state and local election officials to carry out 
its provisions.
    UOCAVA legislation was enacted before the advent of today's global 
electronic communications technology. Consequently it relied on U.S. 
domestic and military mail systems as well as foreign postal systems 
for the worldwide distribution of election materials. By the mid-1990s 
it became apparent that the mail transit time and unreliable delivery 
posed significant barriers for many UOCAVA citizens, preventing them 
from successfully exercising their right to vote. At the same time the 
Internet was being widely adopted by businesses, governments and the 
general public. Therefore it was a natural development for FVAP and 
states to consider the potential of the Internet as an alternative to 
the ``by-mail'' UOCAVA process.
    FVAP sponsored Voting Over the Internet (VOI), a small pilot 
project for the November 2000 general election, to examine the 
feasibility of using Internet technology. Four states participated in 
this experiment, which enabled voters to use their own personal 
computers to securely register to vote, request and receive absentee 
ballots, and return their voted ballots. Following the successful 
completion of the VOI project, in the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense 
Authorization Act (section 1604 of Pub. L. 107-107:115 Stat. 1277), 
Congress instructed the Secretary of Defense to carry out a larger 
demonstration project for the November 2002 general election. This 
project was to be ``carried out with participation of sufficient 
numbers of absent uniformed services voters so that the results are 
statistically significant''.
    Since there was not sufficient time to define and implement a large 
project for 2002, the project was planned for implementation for the 
November 2004 election. Seven states agreed to participate and worked 
with FVAP to develop system requirements and operating procedures. 
However, the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment 
(SERVE) was cancelled before it was deployed due to concerns raised by 
several computer scientists. These individuals contended that the use 
of personal computers over the Internet could not be made secure enough 
for voting and consequently called for the project to be terminated. 
The Department of Defense, citing a lack of public confidence in the 
SERVE system, decided the project could not continue under these 
circumstances.
    In response to this development, the Fiscal Year 2005 National 
Defense Authorization Act (section 567 of Pub. L. 108-375;118 Stat. 
119) repealed the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to conduct 
an electronic voting demonstration project ``until the first regularly 
scheduled general election for federal office which occurs after the 
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) notifies the Secretary that the 
Commission has established electronic absentee voting guidelines and 
certifies that it will assist the Secretary in carrying out the 
project''. Pursuant to this legislation, in September 2005, the EAC 
requested its voting system advisory group, the Technical Guidelines 
Development Committee (TGDC), to add this subject on their research 
agenda; however the request was declined.
    Since that time legislation dealing with a number of UOCAVA voting 
issues were under consideration by Congress. Ultimately, passed as part 
of the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 
(section 581 of Pub. L. 111-84), the Military and Overseas Voters 
Empowerment Act contains a provision allowing the Secretary of Defense 
to establish one or more pilot programs to test the feasibility of new 
election technology for UOCAVA voters. This provision requires the EAC 
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to 
provide best practices or standards to support these pilot programs, 
``in accordance with electronic absentee voting guidelines established 
under'' the earlier FY2005 NDAA. In December 2009, the EAC directed the 
TGDC to begin this work as a top research priority. The EAC expects 
this work to result in the comprehensive set of remote electronic 
voting system guidelines as mandated by the FY2005 NDAA. The TGDC has 
been tasked to consider the full range of remote voting architectures, 
including instances where the voter can use his own personal computer 
for voting. The pilot testing requirements, that the EAC is currently 
developing, will be provided to the TGDC as the basis and starting 
point for their research and deliberations.
    Project Summary: Since 2008, several states have enacted 
legislation enabling them to conduct electronic voting projects for 
UOCAVA voters, beginning with the 2010 elections. To be prepared to 
support the states with these projects, in July 2009 the EAC convened a 
UOCAVA Working Group to consider how to adapt the EAC's Testing and 
Certification Program to accommodate UOCAVA pilot systems. It was 
concluded that two products were needed: (1) A modified set of system 
testing requirements; and (2) a revised testing and certification 
process. It was determined that a working group would assist the EAC in 
drafting the testing requirements and EAC staff would adapt the 
certification process to accommodate the UOCAVA pilot program.
    The EAC UOCAVA Working Group has taken much the same approach as 
the state pilot project working groups. The source materials drawn on 
for this effort included: the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 
1.0 ; the VVSG 1.1; the VVSG 2.0; the VOI, SERVE; FIPS; and NIST 
Special Publications. One significant difference in the EAC Working 
Group approach was the technology scope covered by the requirements. 
The VOI, SERVE and Okaloosa system requirements were tailored 
specifically for the particular system implementations developed for 
those projects. However, since many different types of remote voting 
systems could be submitted to the EAC certification program, the EAC 
Working Group defined generic system requirements to provide for system 
design flexibility.
    Pilot projects are small in scale and short in duration. 
Consequently, certification for pilot systems needs to be quicker and 
less expensive than the regular process currently used for conventional 
systems with an expected life of more than 10 years. Nevertheless, 
since actual votes will be cast using the voting systems utilized in 
the pilot project, the certification process must retain sufficient 
rigor to provide reasonable assurance that the pilot systems will 
operate correctly and securely.
    There is a fundamental dichotomy in complexity in remote voting 
architectures: those where the voting

[[Page 16090]]

platform is controlled (e.g., provided by the election jurisdiction); 
and those where it is not controlled (e.g., the voter uses his own 
personal computer). Since the EAC plans to have the pilot certification 
process ready for implementation during the first half of 2010, it was 
decided that the EAC would focus its efforts on controlled platform 
architectures servicing multiple jurisdictions. This is a highly secure 
remote voting solution and the Okaloosa Project provides an 
implementation example for reference. Defining requirements for this 
class of system architecture was determined to provide a reasonable 
test case that could be completed within the available timeframe. In 
addition, most of the core system processing functions are the same for 
both types of architectures, so a substantial number of requirements 
will carry over as this work is expanded to include other methods of 
remote electronic voting.
    The UOCAVA Pilot requirements document contains testable 
requirements for the following areas:
    (1) Functional Requirements.
    (2) Usability.
    (3) Software.
    (4) Security.
    (5) Quality Assurance.
    (6) Configuration Management.
    (7) Technical Data Package.
    (8) Systems Users Manual.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before 4 p.m. EST on April 15, 
2010.
    Submission of Comments: The public may submit comments through one 
of the two different methods provided by the EAC: (1) e-mail 
submissions to votingsystemguidelines@eac.gov; (2) by mail to Voluntary 
Voting System Guidelines Comments, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 
1201 New York Ave., NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005.
    In order to allow efficient and effective review of comments the 
EAC requests that:
    (1) Comments refer to the specific section that is the subject of 
the comment.
    (2) General comments regarding the entire document or comments that 
refer to more than one section be made as specifically as possible so 
that EAC can clearly understand to which portion(s) of the documents 
the comment refers.
    (3) To the extent that a comment suggests a change in the wording 
of a requirement or section of the guidelines, please provide proposed 
language for the suggested change.
    All comments submitted will be published at the end of the comment 
period on the EAC's Web site at https://www.eac.gov. This publication 
and request for comment is not required under the rulemaking, 
adjudicative, or licensing provisions of the Administrative Procedures 
Act (APA). It is a voluntary effort by the EAC to gather input from the 
public on the EAC's administrative procedures for certifying voting 
systems to be used in pilot projects. Furthermore, this request by the 
EAC for public comment is not intended to make any of the APA's 
rulemaking provisions applicable to development of this or future EAC 
procedural programs.
    An electronic copy of the proposed guidance may be found on the 
EAC's Web site at https://www.eac.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Masterson, Phone (202) 566-
3100, e-mail votingsystemguidelines@eac.gov.

Alice Miller,
Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-7199 Filed 3-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P