Written comments may be submitted to the Government Accountability Board, 17 West Main Street, P.O. Box 2973, Madison, WI 53701-2973; (elections.state.wi.us)

The Government Accountability Board proposes an order to repeal and recreate Chapter GAB 5, relating to ballot security, and interpreting sections 5.84, 5.86, 5.87, 5.90, 5.905, 5.91, 7.23, 7.51, and 9.01, Stats.

Ballot and Electronic Voting System Security

(a) “Board" means the government accountability board.

(b) “Certificate of performance compliance" means the document provided by voting equipment vendors certifying that the equipment complies with the performance requirements of s. 5.91, Stats.

(c) “Chain-of-custody" means the recorded movement and location of election ballots from the time of delivery of the ballots to the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners until the destruction of the ballots is authorized under s. 7.23, Stats.

(d) “Custodian" means the election official who is authorized by chs. 5 to 12 to take possession and control of the ballots from the time of delivery of the ballots to the clerk or board of election commissioners until destruction of the ballots is authorized under s. 7.23, Stats.

(e) “Electronic voting system" has the meaning given in s. 5.02 (4m), Stats.

(f) “Firmware" means the computer software stored in read-only memory or programmable read-only memory.

(g) “Modem" means a device for transmitting data between two computers over telephone or other communication lines.

(h) “Results report" means the print-out of voting data by a piece of electronic voting equipment.

(i) “Software" has the meaning given in s. 5.905 (1), Stats.

(2) Within the requirements of s. 7.51 (3), Stats., the terms “secure" and “seal" shall be interpreted together to mean that the voted ballot container must be closed in such a manner that no ballot may be removed, nor any ballot added, without visible evidence of interference or damage to the ballot container.

(3) Within the requirements of s. 7.51 (3) (a), Stats., a ballot container shall be considered “sealed" or “locked," only if no voted ballot may be removed from or deposited into the container, and no other form of access to the ballots inside may be gained without leaving visible evidence of that entry or access into the container.

Ballot bags shall be sealed with a tamper-evident, serialized numbered seal. The serial number shall be recorded on the signed ballot container certification (EB-101) attached to the bag. Serial numbers of the seals also shall be recorded on the Inspectors' Statement (EB-104). Ballot boxes or containers shall have all potential openings secured in such a manner that no ballot may be removed, nor any ballot added, without visible evidence of interference or damage to that ballot container. Ballot boxes or containers shall have attached a signed ballot container certification (EB-101).

(4) A sealed ballot container shall not be considered “secured" unless it is stored in a manner in which access to the container is limited only to the clerk of the election district, board of election commissioners, or to persons authorized by the clerk or the board of election commissioners, and access to which is not available to any other person.

(5) Whenever the custodian is required to open the ballot container and unseal the ballots as part of a central count proceeding under s. 5.86, Stats., board of canvass proceeding under Ch. 7, Stats., audit of electronic voting equipment after an election under s. 7.08 (6), Stats., recount or an appeal of a recount under s. 9.01, Stats., or as part of a public records request under s. 19.35, Stats., before opening the container the custodian shall record in the minutes of the proceeding whether the container is sealed and shall record the serialized number of the seal. The custodian shall make a record of the entry and of the ballot review. Upon completion of the review, the custodian shall re-secure them in the manner provided in s. 7.51, Stats., unless destruction is authorized under s. 7.23, Stats.

(6) Security of the ballots and the ballot container shall be maintained as provided under s. 7.51, Stats., until destruction of the ballots is conducted under s. 7.23, Stats. Destruction of the ballots authorized under s. 7.23, Stats., requires shredding, incineration, or some other form of obliteration of the ballots.

(7) At the time of a recount, the serial numbers on the seals of the ballot container shall be compared with the serial numbers written on the signed ballot container certification (EB-101). All containers shall be compared in a recount. The ward numbers and the results of the serial number verification shall be recorded in the minutes of the recount.

(8) The municipal clerk or board of election commissioners shall securely maintain all ballots from the time of receipt from the printer or county clerk through delivery to the polling place.

(2) Throughout the life of the electronic voting system, the municipal or county clerk shall maintain control of all memory devices in a secure manner at all times. With the agreement of the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners, the county clerk or county board of election commissioners may store memory devices in a secure location. The municipal clerk or board of election commissioners shall secure all keys to the electronic voting equipment.

(3) For each election, there shall be a separate, written chain-of-custody record for each programmed memory device used with an electronic voting system. Each transfer shall be logged in the written chain-of-custody record.

(4) Each programmed memory device shall have or be assigned a unique and permanent serial number. If the memory device does not have a permanent serial number affixed by the manufacturer, a clerk shall, if possible, affix to the device a serial number or unique identifier.

(5) The municipality shall use controlled, serialized seals that are tamper-evident and resistant to accidental breakage along with a written record of all seals and associated serial numbers.

(6) For each election, the municipal clerk shall record on the Inspectors' Statement (EB-104), which memory devices and which serialized tamper-evident seals are assigned to particular voting stations or units.

(2) Memory devices shall be programmed to print a list of the software and firmware versions of the electronic voting system on each beginning-of-election-day zero report under s. 5.84 (2), Stats.

For electronic voting systems that cannot accommodate this requirement, the software and firmware information shall be recorded from the system start-up screen, either by municipal or county staff during the pre-election testing under s. 5.84 (1), Stats., or by election inspectors on Election Day under s. 5.84 (2), Stats.

(3) The records for the pre-election test under s. 5.84, Stats., pre-recount test under s. 5.90, Stats., and Election Day reports under ss. 7.51 and 7.53, Stats., must be maintained by the appropriate clerk or board of election commissioners.

(4) Except when necessary to program, test, or operate the electronic voting and/or programming equipment, any point by which access can be gained to the system controls must be closed and locked or secured with a tamper-evident seal that can be tracked using a unique and permanent serial number. The appropriate clerk shall maintain a written record of the serial numbers required by this subsection.

(5) After a memory device is programmed, tested, and delivered to the municipal clerk for the election, it shall be immediately and continuously maintained in a secure location with controlled access limited only to users authorized by the clerk or board of election commissioners.

Upon insertion of a memory device into its assigned unit, it shall be sealed against unauthorized access with a serialized, tamper-evident seal that can be tracked using a unique and permanent serial number. The municipal clerk or board of election commissioners shall record the serial numbers on the Inspectors' Statement (EB-104).

(6) When applicable, for each election the municipal or county clerk or board of election commissioners shall obtain a signed “Certificate of Performance Compliance: Memory Device Security" from each voting equipment manufacturer that provides programming services or memory devices to the municipality or county.

(7) The municipality shall take reasonable precautions to ensure the security of the equipment between the time it leaves the possession of the clerk or board of election commissioners to be delivered to the polling place, and the time the chief inspector assumes possession at the polling place on Election Day.

(2) After the polls have opened, ballot removal from an optical scan machine or paper roll removal or replacement on a direct recording electronic (DRE) machine shall be conducted with at least two election inspectors (or other sworn election team members appointed by the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners) present. The removal process, the names of the election inspectors or sworn election team members, and the time of removal must be recorded on the Inspectors' Statement (EB-104).

(3) After the polls have closed, election officials shall print a results report before breaking any seal on the equipment and before the removal of the memory device from any piece of voting equipment. If additional reports other than the results reports are required, these reports shall also be printed before breaking any seal on the equipment and before the removal of the memory device.

(4) The chief election inspector shall compare the serial numbers of all security seals, then verify by initialing the Inspectors' Statement (EB-104). Any additional seals used during the election must also be recorded on the Inspectors' Statement (EB-104).

(5) The memory device shall be secured in a separate, tamper-evident sealed container or envelope by the chief election inspector. The memory devices shall be promptly returned to the municipal or county clerk or board of election commissioners.

(6) If vote results are transmitted by modem, the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners may access the memory device for transmission of those results, but shall reseal the memory device in a secured envelope or container.

(7) If removal of the memory device is not required, the device may remain sealed in the voting equipment. The serial numbers of the security seals shall be verified and initialed on the Inspectors' Statement (EB-104).

(2) At each post-election meeting of the municipal board of canvassers, the members shall verify that the tamper-evident serial numbers from the voting equipment have been recorded on five Inspectors' Statements (EB-104) or 10% (whichever is greater) of the total statements, and have been initialed by the Chief Election Inspector. The county board of canvassers shall verify ten Inspectors' Statements. All Inspectors' Statements (EB-104) shall be verified by the appropriate board of canvassers in a recount. Proper documentation shall be maintained.

(2) The Board will consider requests from counties to implement alternative security procedures.

(a) The county clerk, or the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners through the county clerk or county board of election commissioners, shall submit a written request to implement alternative security procedures to the Board's director and general counsel.

(b) The request shall describe the proposed security procedures in detail and include any documentation such as logs, flow charts, and certification forms.

(c) The director and general counsel may approve the use of alternative security procedures for one election cycle.

(d) The Board shall review the director and general counsel's approval of any alternative security procedures and may authorize continued use of those procedures.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 227.11 (2), 281.19 (1), 283.31, 283.55 (1), 299.11 and 299.15 (2), Stats., interpreting ss. 283.31, 283.55 (1), 299.11 and 299.15 (2), Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing on revisions to Chapter NR 219, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to analytical methods used for Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) compliance monitoring. The proposed rule incorporates revisions to the federal regulations and adds methods developed by U.S. EPA and approved by their Alternate Test Procedure program.

The hearing will be held on:

August 27, 2008 Wednesday 9:00 a.m.	Video conference participation will be available at: Room 8F State Office Building 101 E. Wilson Street Madison
	Room 211 Telecomm & Distance Learning Resources Comm. Arts Center UW-Stevens Point 1101 Reserve Street Stevens Point

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Diane Drinkman at (608) 264-8950 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Sections 283.31, 283.55 (1), 299.11 and 299.15 (2)

Sections 227.11 (2), 281.19 (1), 283.31, 283.55 (1), 299.11 and 299.15 (2)

The analytical methods contained in 40 CFR Part 136, which are used by laboratories in support of WPDES compliance monitoring, have not been substantively updated in several years. Many of the methods that were deleted by EPA were originally published twenty or more years ago. Use of newer laboratory instruments and methods have been hindered by the lack of inclusion in the Federal rule. In March of 2007, EPA published updated analytical test methods. The proposed rule revisions to ch. NR 219 incorporate these updated methods for the WPDES permit program.

The department is also incorporating methods that have been approved through the Office of Water's Alternative Test Procedure program, including the luminescence technique for dissolved oxygen, and selected methods from the 21st Edition of “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater". The tables also include updated references from “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, Updates III and IV", the “2007 Annual Book of Standards" from ASTM and developed by instrument manufacturers.

The maximum holding time requirement for some tests, as listed in Table F, has been clarified. The current language, “analyze immediately", has been interpreted to mean within 15 minutes or less of sample collection. This has been clarified in the federal rule so that the holding time for these tests is now “analyze within 15 minutes". Other changes to this table include identification of holding times for the various matrices that require dioxins and furan analysis, and allowing metals samples to be transported to a laboratory without pH adjustment. Preservation requirements for available and total cyanide have been expanded to describe procedures that are recommended for removal or suppression of known cyanide interferences.

This proposal also changes language in s. NR 219.04 (2) and (3) to make this language consistent with the thermal preservation requirements contained in Table F.

The federal counterpart to this rule is 40 CFR 136. On March 12, 2007, EPA published “Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; and National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Analysis and Sampling Procedures; Final Rule". In addition, on March 26, 2007, EPA published the “Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Analytical Methods for Biological Pollutants in Wastewater and Sewage Sludge; Final Rule." The proposed revisions to ch. NR 219 incorporate these changes and are consistent with the federal regulations.

The States of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota have wastewater programs delegated to them from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Illinois laboratory certification program required laboratories to update their scope of accreditation to incorporate the revisions starting June 1, 2007. The IL Environmental Protection Agency did not require rulemaking to address these updates. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources incorporated the changes at 40 CFR 136 in rulemaking initiated in November 2007; the changes were effective January 9, 2008. The State of Michigan does not certify laboratories that perform analyses of wastewater. The Minnesota laboratory certification program allowed laboratories to use the analytical methods listed in the federal rules on the effective dates, April 11 and 25, 2007, respectively. Minnesota's program limits analytical methods to those from the 20th and 21st Editions and on-line version of “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", and limits ASTM methods to the most-recently published version. All other sources of analytical methods were incorporated as described in the federal rule. MN Department of Public Health did not require rulemaking to address these updates.

This proposed rule revision brings Wisconsin up to date with the current federal rules that establish analytical test methods.

Many of the analytical methods that are being deleted have been replaced with methods that are nearly identical. The quality control requirements for analyses are established in ch. NR 149; these will not change with updating methods tables. For several analyses, newer methods and techniques have been added. It is possible for a laboratory to change the analytical method it uses and not incur additional costs or, in some cases, actually reduce costs.

The requirements imposed upon small business include following approved analytical methods listed in the rule. There are no reporting requirements in NR 219. The small businesses that will likely be impacted by this rule are commercial laboratories certified under ch. NR 149. The vast majority of these laboratories likely follow approved analytical methods that are being maintained in this chapter. The certification status for each small business that is currently certified for oil and grease was examined to determine whether they would require to change their procedures. Only one laboratory will be required to change their procedure for oil and grease analyses, if they choose to maintain their ability to perform these analyses. All other small business laboratories already hold certification for both oil and grease methods.

This proposal does not change the frequency of analytical testing, nor does it address any change in reporting, schedule or deadline requirements. Consequently, the impacts to small businesses will be minimal.

Pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., the proposed rule may have an impact on small businesses.

Certified commercial laboratories