16088 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Notices 

project, we will consider the extent to 

which the applicant has identified 

specific gaps and weaknesses in the 

preparation of all students for 

postsecondary education and careers 

without need for remediation, the 

nature and magnitude of those gaps and 

weaknesses, and the extent to which the 

proposed project will address those gaps 

and weaknesses effectively. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definition, and Selection Criteria 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866: This notice 

has been reviewed in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. Under the terms 

of the order, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this 

regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this proposed regulatory action are 

those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits: 

Elsewhere in this notice we discuss the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definition, and selection criteria under 

the background sections to the 

Priorities, Requirements, Definition, and 

Selection Criteria. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) 

Certain sections of the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definition, and 

selection criteria for the SLC grant 

program contain changes to information 

collection requirements already 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under OMB control 

number 1810–0676 (1890–0001). We 

will be publishing a separate notice in 

the Federal Register requesting 

comments on these changes. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: March 26, 2010. 

Thelma Mele ́ndez de Santa Ana, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7255 Filed 3–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Proposed Information Quality 

Guidelines Policy 

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC). 

ACTION: Notice and request for public 

comment on Proposed Information 

Quality Guidelines Policy. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) seeks public 

comment on the Proposed Information 

Quality Guidelines policy. The policy 

outlines the EAC’s directives and 

required procedures to implement the 

OMB Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 

Utility, and Integrity of Information 

Disseminated by Federal Agencies, 67 

FR 8452 (‘‘OMB Guidelines’’). The EAC 

developed the Proposed Information 

Quality Guidelines to meet its 

obligations under the OMB Guidelines 

and to codify its high standards of 

quality in the production of information 

disseminated outside the agency. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before 4 p.m. EDT on 

April 30, 2010. 

Comments: Public comments are 

invited on the information contained in 

the policy. Comments on the proposed 

policy should be submitted 

electronically to HAVAinfo@eac.gov. 

Written comments on the proposed 

policy can also be sent to the U.S. 

Election Assistance Commission, 1201 

New York Avenue, NW., Suite 300, 

Washington, DC 20005, ATTN: 

Proposed Information Quality 

Guidelines Policy. 

Obtaining a Copy of the Policy: To 

obtain a free copy of the policy: (1) 

Access the EAC Website at http:// 

www.eac.gov; (2) write to the EAC 

(including your address and phone 

number) at U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission, 1201 New York Avenue, 

NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005, 

ATTN: Information Quality Guidelines. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Tamar Nedzar, Ms. Karen Lynn-Dyson 

or Ms. Shelly Anderson at (202) 566– 

3100. 

Thomas R. Wilkey, 

Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7134 Filed 3–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–KF–P 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Notices 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 ‘‘bymail’’ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
16090 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Notices 

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 

http://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 http://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 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[ Project No. 11910–004] 

Symbiotics, LLC; AG Hydro, LLC; 

Notice of Application for Transfer of 

License, and Soliciting Comments and 

Motions To Intervene 

March 24, 2010. 

On March 8, 2010, Symbiotics, LLC 

(transferor) and AG Hydro, LLC 

(transferee) filed an application for 

transfer of license of the Applegate Dam 

Project, located on the Applegate River 

in Jackson County, Oregon. 

Applicants seek Commission approval 

to transfer the license for the Applegate 

Dam from the transferor to the 

transferee. 

Applicant Contact: For both the 

transferor and transferee is Mr. Brent 

Smith, 4110 East 300 North, P.O. Box 

535, Rigby, ID 83442, phone (208) 745– 

0834. 

FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) 502– 

6062. 

Deadline for filing comments and 

motions to intervene: 30 days from the 

issuance of this notice. Comments and 

motions to intervene may be filed 

electronically via the Internet. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)(2008) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. If unable 

to be filed electronically, documents 

may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an 

original and eight copies should be 

mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426. For more information on how to 

submit these types of filings please go 

to the Commission’s Web site located at 

http://www.ferc.gov/filingcomments.asp. More information about 

this project can be viewed or printed on 

the eLibrary link of the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket 

number (P–11910–004) in the docket 

number field to access the document. 

For assistance, call toll-free 1–866–208– 

3372. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7143 Filed 3–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 1494–384] 

Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of 

Application for Amendment of License 

and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 

Intervene, and Protests 

March 24, 2010. 

Take notice that the following 

hydroelectric application has been filed 

with the Commission and is available 

for public inspection: 

a. Application Type: Non-project use 

of project lands and waters. 

b. Project No: 1494–384. 

c. Date Filed: March 11, 2010, 

supplemented on March 17, 2010. 

d. Applicant: Grand River Dam 

Authority. 

e. Name of Project: Pensacola Project. 

f. Location: The proposed non-project 

use is located on Grand Lake O’ the 

Cherokees in Delaware County, 

Oklahoma. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r. 

h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Tamara E. 

Jahnke, Assistant General Council, 

Grand Dam River Authority, P.O. Box 

409, Vinita, Oklahoma 74301, (918) 

256–5545. 

i. FERC Contact: Any questions on 

this notice should be addressed to 

Shana High at (202) 502–8674. 

j. Deadline for filing comments, 

motions to intervene, and protest: April 

26, 2010. 

Comments, Motions to Intervene, and 

Protests may be filed electronically via 

the Internet. See, 18 CFR 

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES