59914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Notices 

Acceleration Act of 2004, Public Law 

108–274; Division D, Title VI, section 

6002 of the Tax Relief and Health Care 

Act of 2006 (TRHCA 2006), Public Law 

109–432, and section 1, Public Law 

112–163, August 10, 2012; Presidential 

Proclamation 7350 of October 2, 2000 

(65 FR 59321); and Presidential 

Proclamation 7626 of November 13, 

2002 (67 FR 69459). 

Title I of TDA 2000 provides for dutyand quota-free treatment for certain 

textile and apparel articles imported 

from designated beneficiary subSaharan African countries. Section 

112(b)(3) of TDA 2000 provides dutyand quota-free treatment for apparel 

articles wholly assembled in one or 

more beneficiary sub-Saharan African 

countries from fabric wholly formed in 

one or more beneficiary countries from 

yarn originating in the U.S. or one or 

more beneficiary countries. This 

preferential treatment is also available 

for apparel articles assembled in one or 

more lesser-developed beneficiary subSaharan African countries, regardless of 

the country of origin of the fabric used 

to make such articles, subject to 

quantitative limitation. Public Law 112– 

163 extended this special rule for lesserdeveloped countries through September 

30, 2015. 

The AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004 

provides that the quantitative limitation 

for the twelve-month period beginning 

October 1, 2012 will be an amount not 

to exceed 7 percent of the aggregate 

square meter equivalents of all apparel 

articles imported into the United States 

in the preceding 12-month period for 

which data are available. See Section 

112(b)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of TDA 2000, as 

amended by Section 7(b)(2)(B) of the 

AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004. Of this 

overall amount, apparel imported under 

the special rule for lesser-developed 

countries is limited to an amount not to 

exceed 3.5 percent of all apparel articles 

imported into the United States in the 

preceding 12-month period. See Section 

112(b)(3)(B)(ii)(II) of TDA 2000, as 

amended by Section 6002(a) of TRHCA 

2006. Presidential Proclamation 7350 of 

October 2, 2000 directed CITA to 

publish the aggregate quantity of 

imports allowed during each 12-month 

period in the Federal Register. 

For the one-year period, beginning on 

October 1, 2012, and extending through 

September 30, 2013 the aggregate 

quantity of imports eligible for 

preferential treatment under these 

provisions is 1,735,859,926 square 

meters equivalent. Of this amount, 

867,929,963 square meters equivalent is 

available to apparel articles imported 

under the special rule for lesserdeveloped countries. Apparel articles 

entered in excess of these quantities will 

be subject to otherwise applicable 

tariffs. 

These quantities are calculated using 

the aggregate square meter equivalents 

of all apparel articles imported into the 

United States, derived from the set of 

Harmonized System lines listed in the 

Annex to the World Trade Organization 

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 

(ATC), and the conversion factors for 

units of measure into square meter 

equivalents used by the United States in 

implementing the ATC. 

Kimberly Glas, 

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements. 

[FR Doc. 2012–24122 Filed 9–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Correction Notice. 

SUMMARY: On August 23, 2012, the 

Department of Education published a 

60-day public comment period notice in 

the Federal Register (Page 51021, 

Column 2). In the SUMMARY section of 

the notice (Page 51021, Column 1), the 

changes were identified as being related 

to proposed regulatory changes. That 

identification is incorrect. This is an 

extension of a currently approved 

information collection request. The 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Privacy, Information 

and Records Management Services, 

Office of Management, hereby issues a 

correction notice as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Dated: September 25, 2012. 

Darrin A. King, 

Director, Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Privacy, Information and Records 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

[FR Doc. 2012–24060 Filed 9–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Amended Notice: Request for 

Substantive Comments on the EAC’s 

Proposed Requirements for Version 

1.1 of the Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines (VVSG) 

AGENCY: United States Election 

Assistance Commission. 

ACTION: Request for public comment on 

proposed requirements for Version 1.1 

of the Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines (VVSG). 

SUMMARY: This notice is being amended 

to provide for a one hundred thirty (130) 

day comment period. The original 

ninety (90) day public comment period 

provided for in the initial notice is 

amended in order to allow the election 

community additional time to comment 

after the November 2012 Presidential 

election. As required by Section 222(d) 

of HAVA, the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) is publishing for 

public comment a set of proposed 

requirements, the Voluntary Voting 

System Guidelines, Version 1.1. The 

VVSG provides specifications and 

standards against which voting systems 

can be tested to determine if they 

provide basic functionality, 

accessibility, and security capabilities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before 4 p.m. EST on January 14, 

2013. 

Submission of Comments: The public 

may submit comments through one of 

the two different methods provided by 

the EAC: (1) email 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Notices 59915 

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 http://www.eac.gov/open/ 

comment.aspx. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Hancock, Phone (202) 566–3100, 

email votingsystemguidelines@eac.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The EAC made the decision to update 

and revise the 2005 VVSG (also known 

as VVSG 1.0) as a result of feedback 

received through its Voting System 

Testing and Certification Program. As 

the EAC has worked to test and certify 

voting systems it observed and received 

feedback from various sources that the 

standards being tested to were at times 

ambiguous and difficult to apply in 

testing. This ambiguity led to challenges 

in making testing consistent both within 

a test laboratory and across test 

campaigns at different laboratories. The 

EAC also received feedback from the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) that the creation of 

formalized test suites for the 2005 VVSG 

would be aided by a clarification of 

certain portions of document. This 

information, combined with the EAC’s 

issuance of thirty five interpretations of 

the VVSG to clarify various standards, 

led the EAC to propose improvements to 

the 2005 VVSG. In addition, the EAC 

determined to implement a number of 

recommendations submitted by the 

EAC’s Technical Guidelines 

Development Committee (TGDC). 

The TGDC held numerous public 

meetings and subcommittee conference 

calls to create a set of draft guidelines 

for recommendation to the EAC (all 

TGDC meeting materials can be found at 

http://www.nist.gov/itl/vote/). On 

August 17, 2007, the TGDC voted to 

complete final edits of their 

recommendations and submitted them 

to the Executive Director of the EAC. 

The EAC received the draft guidelines 

from the TGDC on August 31, 2007. 

After receipt of the TGDC’s 

recommendations for the next iteration 

(VVSG 2.0) of the VVSG the EAC 

opened a one hundred and eighty day 

public comment period. During this 

comment period, which ran from 

September 2007 to May 2008, the EAC 

received comments praising many of the 

proposed standards as being more 

testable and less ambiguous than 

previous versions of the standard. This 

public comment period produced over 

3000 comments on the 

recommendations. In addition, during 

the comment period the EAC conducted 

a series of seven roundtable discussions 

regarding the TGDC’s recommendations. 

After the close of the public comment 

period for the TGDC’s VVSG 2.0 

recommendations and considering a 

variety of relevant factors, the EAC 

made the decision to first update and 

revise the 2005 VVSG with portions of 

the TGDC’s recommendations. This 

serves as the basis for the creation of 

VVSG 1.1. 

As noted during the previous public 

comment period for version VVSG 1.1, 

by revising the guidelines now, the EAC 

expects to improve the test process over 

the short term for existing voting 

systems while allowing additional time 

to develop more complex revisions for 

the requirements in VVSG 2.0 written 

for the next generation of voting 

systems. Topics currently undergoing 

continued research at NIST include 

open ended vulnerability testing/ 

penetration testing, volume testing, 

further development of the concept of 

software independence and the 

development (with IEEE Working Group 

P1622 of a common data format for 

voting systems. 

Changes to VVSG 1.1 Since the Initial 

Public Comment Period 

The initial proposed revision to VVSG 

1.1, was offered during a 120-day public 

comment period in the summer of 2009. 

Since that time, the EAC’s Testing & 

Certification Program has discovered 

additional best practices, experienced 

anomalies and deficiencies with voting 

systems entering the Testing and 

Certification Program, and clarified 

many ambiguities with the standard. 

Changes were made after the 120-day 

public comment period to address these 

issues. Since the initial public 

comment, changes were made to the 

following areas: 

Heading Comment 

Telecommunications .......................................................... Treated all results as official. 

NSRL .................................................................................. Removed all references. 

Software Validation ............................................................ Provided a secondary method of software validation not available in the 2005 VVSG. 

Access Control ................................................................... Enhanced access control requirements based on the two—tier access control model 

present in today’s election equipment. 

Quality Assurance and Configuration Management .......... Combined sections 8 and 9 into a single section. 

Coding Convention 

Required Languages .......................................................... Required all systems to officially support at least one ideographic language. 

Audit and Election Logging ................................................ Enhanced and strengthen logging requirements by providing greater clarity and specific, especially for election logs. 

Additionally, the EAC included all 

relevant Requests for Interpretations 

(located at the EAC’s Web site) within 

the latest draft of VVSG 1.1. Please be 

aware that those sections added since 

the close of the initial public comment 

period for VVSG 1.1 are the only 

sections that the EAC is accepting 

comments on for this 90-day public 

comment period. 

Project Summary 

Although both Volume 1 and Volume 

2 of the VVSG 1.1 draft have undergone 

revisions, and should be commented on, 

we believe most commenter’s should 

focus on the significant changes to 

Volume 1 of the draft document. Major 

sections of VVSG 1.1 Volume 1 revised 

for this comment period include but are 

not limited to: 

Volume 1 

2.12 Accuracy 

2.1.4 Integrity 

2.1.5.1 Operational Requirements 

2.3.1 Opening the Polls 

2.3.3.3 DRE and EBM System 

requirements 

2.4.1 Closing the Polls 

2.4.4.2 Tabulator electronic reports 

3.2.2.1 Editable electronic ballot 

interfaces 

3.2.5 Visual display characteristics 

3.3.2 Enhanced visual interfaces 

3.3.4 Enhanced input and control 

characteristics 

4.1.1 Accuracy requirements 

4.1.2 Environmental requirements 

4.1.2.4 Electrical supply 

4.1.5.2 Ballot reading accuracy 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

59916 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Notices 

1For editorial reasons, on codification in the U.S. 

Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 

4.3.3 Reliability 

5.2.1 Scope (Software requirements) 

5.2.2 Selection of programming 

languages 

5.2.4 Software modularity and 

programming 

5.2.5 Structured programming 

5.2.8 Error checking 

5.5 Vote secrecy on DRE and EBM 

systems 

6.2.2 Durability (Telecommunications) 

6.2.3 Reliability 

7.1 Scope (Security requirements) 

7.2 Access control 

7.3 Physical security measures 

7.4.4 Software distribution 

7.4.5 Software reference information 

7.4.6 Software setup validation 

7.5.1 Maintaining data integrity 

7.5.5 Election returns 

7.7.3 Protecting transmitted data 

7.8.2 Approve or void the paper record 

7.8.3 Electronic and paper record 

structure 

8 Quality Assurance and Configuration 

Management (all) 

All changes made since the last public 

comment period are highlighted in 

yellow in the version published on the 

EAC’s Web site and in the Federal 

Register. 

The U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) lacks a quorum of 

commissioners since the resignation of 

Commissioner Gracia Hillman on 

December 10, 2010. The EAC lost its 

two remaining commissioners in 

December 2011, with the resignations of 

Commissioners Gineen Bresso and 

Donetta Davidson. Because HAVA 

requires an affirmative vote of the 

Commission (Section 222(d)), all 

comments received will be reviewed 

and published as noted below. The final 

VVSG 1.1 draft document will be 

prepared for a Commission vote at such 

time as the EAC once again has a 

quorum of Commissioners. 

Alice P. Miller, 

Chief Operating Officer and Acting Executive 

Director, U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–24029 Filed 9–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. DW–007] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Decision and 

Order Granting a Waiver to BSH 

Corporation From the Department of 

Energy Residential Dishwasher Test 

Procedure 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Decision and Order. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) gives notice of the 

decision and order (Case No. DW–007) 

that grants to BSH Corporation (BSH) a 

waiver from the DOE dishwasher test 

procedure for certain basic models 

containing integrated or built-in water 

softeners. Under today’s decision and 

order, BSH shall be required to test and 

rate its dishwashers with integrated 

water softeners using an alternate test 

procedure that takes this technology 

into account when measuring energy 

and water consumption. 

DATES: This Decision and Order is 

effective October 1, 2012 through May 

29, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Mail Stop EE–2J, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email: 

Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mail Stop GC–71, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0103. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7796. Email: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR 430.27(l)), 

DOE gives notice of the issuance of its 

decision and order as set forth below. 

The decision and order grants BSH a 

waiver from the applicable residential 

dishwasher test procedure in 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix C for 

certain basic models of dishwashers 

with built-in or integrated water 

softeners, provided that BSH tests and 

rates such products using the alternate 

test procedure described in this notice. 

Today’s decision prohibits BSH from 

making representations concerning the 

energy efficiency of these products 

unless the product has been tested 

consistent with the provisions of the 

alternate test procedure set forth in the 

decision and order below, and the 

representations fairly disclose the test 

results. Distributors, retailers, and 

private labelers are held to the same 

standard when making representations 

regarding the energy efficiency of these 

products. 42 U.S.C. 6293(c). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

18, 2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: BSH Corporation 

(Case No. DW–007) 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a 

variety of provisions concerning energy 

efficiency. Part B of Title III provides for 

the ‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ 1 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309. 

Part B includes definitions, test 

procedures, labeling provisions, energy 

conservation standards, and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers. Further, 

Part B authorizes the Secretary of 

Energy to prescribe test procedures that 

are reasonably designed to produce 

results that measure energy efficiency, 

energy use, or estimated operating costs, 

and that are not unduly burdensome to 

conduct. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). The test 

procedure for residential dishwashers, 

the subject of today’s notice, is 

contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix C. 

DOE’s regulations for covered 

products contain provisions allowing a 

person to seek a waiver for a particular 

basic model from the test procedure 

requirements for covered consumer 

products when (1) the petitioner’s basic 

model for which the petition for waiver 

was submitted contains one or more 

design characteristics that prevent 

testing according to the prescribed test 

procedure, or (2) when prescribed test 

procedures may evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of its true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 

430.27(a)(1). Petitioners must include in 

their petition any alternate test 

procedures known to the petitioner to 

evaluate the basic model in a manner 

representative of its energy 

consumption characteristics. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES