Agencies and Commissions June 29, 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

EAC is proposing Voluntary Voting System Guidelines pursuant to sections 221 and 222 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) which was passed by Congress to modernize the administration of Federal elections. This marks the first time in our nation's history that the Federal Government has funded an election reform effort. HAVA provides Federal funding to help the States meet the law's uniform and non- discretionary administrative requirements, which include the following new programs and procedures: (1) Provisional voting, (2) voting information, (3) statewide voter registration lists and identification requirements for first-time registrants, (4) administrative complaint procedures, and (5) updated and upgraded voting equipment. HAVA also established the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to administer the Federal funding and to provide guidance to the States in their efforts to comply with the HAVA administrative requirements. Section 202 directs the EAC to adopt voluntary voting system guidelines, and to provide for the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide a set of specifications and requirements against which voting systems can be tested to determine if they provide all the basic functionality, accessibility, and security capabilities required of voting systems. This document, the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, is the third iteration of national level voting system standards. The Federal Election Commission published the Performance and Test Standards for Punchcard, Marksense and Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems in 1990. This was followed by the Voting Systems Standards in 2002. As required by HAVA, EAC formed the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) to develop an initial set of recommendations for the Guidelines. This committee of 15 experts began their work in July 2004 and submitted their recommendations to the EAC in the 9-month timeline prescribed by HAVA. The TGDC was provided with technical support by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), who was given nearly $3 million dollars by the EAC to complete this work. This funding represents the first time the Federal Government has spent a significant amount of money on setting guidelines for voting systems. These latest Guidelines update and augment the 2002 Voting Systems Standards to address increasingly complex voting system technology. Specifically, the 2005 Guidelines address the critical topics of accessibility, usability, and security. These Guidelines are voluntary. States may adopt them in whole, in part, or not at all. States may also choose to enact stricter performance requirements for certifying their voting systems. The Guidelines consist of two volumes. Volume I, entitled ``Voting System Performance Guidelines,'' includes new requirements for accessibility, voting system software distribution, system setup validation, and the use of wireless communications. This volume also includes a set of optional requirements for a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail component for Direct Recording Electronic voting systems for use by those States that have decided to require this feature for their voting systems. In addition, it contains an updated glossary and a conformance clause. Volume II, entitled ``Voting System National Certification Guidelines,'' has been revised to reflect the new EAC process for national certification of voting systems. This process will go into effect in 2005 and will replace the voting system qualification process that has been conducted by the National Association of State Election Directors since 1994. Volume II also includes an updated appendix on procedures for testing system error rates. Terminology in both volumes has been revised to reflect new terminology introduced by HAVA. The following provides a summary of the contents of each volume. Volume I Summary: Volume I, the Voting System Performance Guidelines, describes the requirements for the electronic components of voting systems. It is intended for use by the broadest audience, including voting system developers, manufacturers and suppliers; voting system testing labs; state organizations that certify systems prior to procurement; state and local election officials who procure and deploy voting systems; and public interest organizations that have an interest in voting systems and voting system standards. It contains the following sections: Section 1 presents the objectives and usage of the Guidelines, definitions of types of voting systems, and a discussion of how the guidelines and testing specifications are applied. It also contains a conformance clause. Section 2 describes the functional capabilities required of voting systems. Sections 3 through 5 describe specific performance standards for election system hardware, software and telecommunications. Section 6 is a significantly expanded section on security requirements for voting systems. It includes new material for the secure distribution of voting system software and for verifying that voting systems are operating with the correct software. There are also new requirements for the use of wireless communications. Since some States have decided to require a voter verified paper audit trail component for their direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems, requirements are included to support appropriate testing of these components. These requirements are optional because there are other currently available technologies besides paper audit trails that can be employed to provide a second method, in addition to the DRE summary screen, for voters to verify their ballot choices. There was insufficient time to develop requirements for these other technologies for the present Guidelines, but these technologies, including audio, video, and cryptographic means, will be addressed in the near future. Sections 7 and 8 describe requirements for vendor quality assurance and configuration management practices and the documentation required about these practices for the certification process. Appendix A contains a glossary of terms. Appendix B provides a list of documents incorporated into the Guidelines by reference, as well as documents used in preparation of the Guidelines. Appendix C contains best practices for election officials regarding accessibility, paper audit trails, and wireless. Appendix D presents an informational discussion of independent dual verification which is a concept being examined for potential future application to voting systems. In essence, this is a methodology to produce multiple independent records of ballot choices for verification purposes. Voter verified paper audit trails do not provide independent verification because the printer prints from the same data source that produces the DRE summary screen display. Appendix E contains the NASED Voting System Standards Board Technical Guide 1 on color and contrast adjustment for individuals with low vision or color blindness. Volume II Summary: Volume II, the Voting System National Certification Testing Guidelines, is a complementary document to Volume I. Volume II provides an overview and specific detail of the national certification testing process, which is performed by independent voting system test labs accredited by the EAC. It is intended principally for use by vendors, test labs, and election officials who certify, procure, and accept voting systems. This volume contains the following sections: Section 1 presents an overview of the testing guidelines and the national certification testing process. Section 2 provides a description of the Technical Data Package that vendors are required to submit with their system for certification testing. Section 3 describes the basic functionality testing requirements. Sections 4 through 6 define the requirements for hardware, software and system integration testing. Section 7 describes the required examination of vendor quality assurance and configuration management practices. Appendix A provides the requirements for the National Certification Test Plan that is prepared by the voting system test lab and provided to the EAC for review. Appendix B describes the scope and content of the National Certification Test Report which is prepared by the test lab and delivered to the EAC along with a recommendation for certification. Appendix C describes the guiding principles used to design the voting system certification testing process. It also contains a revised section on testing system error rates. The format of the Guidelines is intended to facilitate ease of identifying new information and comparison with the 2002 Voting Systems Standards. New material is indicated by a gray-shaded header with the words ``NEW MATERIAL,'' and includes line numbers. Material essentially carried forward in its entirety from the 2002 Voting Systems Standards remains in its original format and does not include line numbers. Selected portions of this material have been revised to reflect the EAC process for voting system certification, specifically Volume I, Section 1.6.1, and Volume II Section 1. Updates have been made throughout to include new terminology introduced by HAVA. Comments: The Voluntary Voting System Guidelines is provided for comment by the public for the next 90 days. All comments must be received by EAC on or before 5 p.m. EDT on September 30, 2005. All comments will posted on the EAC Web site. The EAC is provided several alternative methods for submitting comments. On-line electronic comment form at https://www.eac.gov. By e-mail to votingsystemguidelines@eac.gov. By mail to Voting System Guidelines Comments, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave, NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005. By fax to Voting System Guidelines Comments at (202) 566- 3127. EAC requests that comments be provided according to the following specifications: (1) Comments regarding a particular section should be designed by the page, line (if included) and section number to which the comment refers. (2) Comments regarding a term that is included or that should be added to the glossary should reference the term and page number to which the comment refers. (3) General comments regarding the entire document or comments that refer to more than one section should be made as specifically as possible so that EAC can clearly understand to which portion(s) of the documents the comment refers. (4) 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. To obtain a copy of the voluntary voting system guidelines: Due to the fact that the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines is more than 250 pages in length, the entire documents has not been attached to this notice. A complete copy of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines is available from EAC in electronic or hard copy format. An electronic copy can be downloaded in PDF format or read in HTML version on EAC's Web site, https://www.eac.gov. In addition, interested persons may obtain a hard copy or CD-ROM electronic copy from EAC by contacting Voting System Guidelines, via fax at 202-566-3128, via e-mail at VotingSystemGuidelines@eac.gov, or via mail at Voting System Guidelines, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005. You may also request by phone at (866) 747-1471. Please specify whether a hard copy or electronic copy is desired.

Notice is hereby given of the names of the members of the Performance Review Board.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (``ALJ's'') initial determination (``ID'') granting a motion to withdraw the complaint and terminate the above-captioned investigation.

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts rules requiring providers of interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) servicemeaning VoIP service that allows a user generally to receive calls originating from and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network (PSTN)to supply enhanced 911 (E911) capabilities to all of their customers as a standard feature of the service, rather than as an optional enhancement. The rules further require interconnected VoIP service providers to provide E911 from wherever the customer is using the service, whether at home or away from home. These changes will enhance public safety and ensure E911 access to emergency services for users of interconnected VoIP services.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. They authorize the preservation of records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and the destruction, after a specified period, of records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. Notice is published for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).

Notice is hereby given that a delegation of the Commissioners of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission will hold an open meeting on July 7, 2005 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. in the Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. The delay of this notice resulted from the short time-frame established by statute for the operations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and the need to coordinate the schedules of the various Federal, state and local officials whose participation was judged essential to a meaningful public discussion. The Commission requests that the public consult the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Web site, https://www.brac.gov, for updates. The delegation will meet to receive comment from Federal, state and local government representatives and the general public on base realignment and closure actions in the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Virginia that have been recommended by the Department of Defense (DoD). The purpose of this regional hearing is to allow communities experiencing a base closure or major realignment action (defined as loss of 300 civilian positions or 400 military and civilian positions) an opportunity to voice their concerns, counter-arguments, and opinions in live public forum. This meeting will be open to the public, subject to the availability of space. The delegation will not render decisions regarding the DoD recommendations at this meeting, but will gather information for later deliberations by the Commission as a whole.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.

The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

This document allots Channel 286A at Dubois Idaho at the request of Laramie Mountain Broadcasting, LLC, counterproponant filing in response to a Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued at the request of withdrawn petitioner Justin Robinson. 69 FR 75016 (December 15, 2004). Laramie originally requested the allotment of Channel 283A at Dubois, Idaho and amended to Channel 286A. Channel 286A is allotted at Dubois without a site restriction at coordinates 44-10-34 NL and 112- 13-48 WL. A second counterproposal, dismissed as defective, was filed by Millcreek Broadcasting, LLC, licensee of Stations KNJQ(FM), Manti, Utah, KUUU(FM), South Jordan, Utah and KUDD(FM), Roy, Utah; Simmons SLC-LS, LLC, licensee of Stations KDWY(FM), Diamondville, Wyoming, KAOX(FM), Kemmerer, Wyoming and KRAR(FM), Brigham City, Utah; Rocky Mountain Radio Network, Inc., licensee of Station KRMF(FM) Evanston, Wyoming; 3 Point MediaCoalville, LLC, licensee of Station KCUA(FM), Naples, Utah; and College Creek Broadcasting, LLC successful bidder and applicant for four vacant auction allotments.

In this document, the Commission seeks comment on a petition for declaratory ruling filed by a coalition of 33 organizations, including trade associations, individual companies, and non-profit entities engaged in interstate telemarketing activities (``Joint Petitioners''), raising issues concerning the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction over interstate telemarketing calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (``TCPA''). In particular, Joint Petitioners ask the Commission to issue a ruling declaring the Commission's exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over interstate telemarketing calls and barring state regulation of such calls.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is adopting rules under Regulation NMS and two amendments to the joint industry plans for disseminating market information. In addition to redesignating the national market system rules previously adopted under Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), Regulation NMS includes new substantive rules that are designed to modernize and strengthen the regulatory structure of the U.S. equity markets. First, the ``Order Protection Rule'' requires trading centers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the execution of trades at prices inferior to protected quotations displayed by other trading centers, subject to an applicable exception. To be protected, a quotation must be immediately and automatically accessible. Second, the ``Access Rule'' requires fair and non-discriminatory access to quotations, establishes a limit on access fees to harmonize the pricing of quotations across different trading centers, and requires each national securities exchange and national securities association to adopt, maintain, and enforce written rules that prohibit their members from engaging in a pattern or practice of displaying quotations that lock or cross automated quotations. Third, the ``Sub-Penny Rule'' prohibits market participants from accepting, ranking, or displaying orders, quotations, or indications of interest in a pricing increment smaller than a penny, except for orders, quotations, or indications of interest that are priced at less than $1.00 per share. Finally, the Commission is adopting amendments to the ``Market Data Rules'' that update the requirements for consolidating, distributing, and displaying market information, as well as amendments to the joint industry plans for disseminating market information that modify the formulas for allocating plan revenues (``Allocation Amendment'') and broaden participation in plan governance (``Governance Amendment'').