(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.
GAB 5.03 Pre-election procedures. (1) The clerk who has possession of the electronic voting systems or memory devices shall ensure that the equipment and memory devices have been secured properly since the previous election.
(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.
GAB 5.04 Election-day procedures. (1) Before any ballots are cast on any piece of voting equipment, the integrity of the tamper-evident seals shall be verified by the chief election inspector verifying that the tamper-evident seal serial number on the Inspectors' Statement (EB-104) matches the tamper-evident seal serial number contained on the electronic voting equipment. Any irregularity or discrepancy between the two numbers shall be reconciled before using the equipment.
(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).
GAB 5.05 Post election procedures. (1) After each election, the clerk or board of election commissioners responsible for storing the voting equipment shall conduct an inspection to ensure all system access points are closed, locked, and secured.
(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.
GAB 5.15 Alternate security procedures. (1) The Government Accountability Board recognizes the need for flexibility when implementing these procedures, and acknowledges that alternative means may be used to achieve and ensure an acceptable level of electronic voting equipment security.
(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 of Hearing
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection - Wis. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Chs.
NR 200—
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.
Hearing Information
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.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Natural Resources
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Rule analysis
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.
Comparison with federal regulations
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.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
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 20
th and 21
st 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.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
This proposed rule revision brings Wisconsin up to date with the current federal rules that establish analytical test methods.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
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.
Effect on Small Business
Pursuant to s.
227.114, Stats., the proposed rule may have an impact on small businesses.
Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
Types of small businesses affected
Certified commercial laboratories
Description of reporting and bookkeeping procedures required
Laboratories are required to use approved analytical methods for analyses. There are no specific bookkeeping requirements.
Description of professional skills required
The rule requires levels of professional skills commensurate with the complexity of the tests performed by a laboratory, the breadth of operations, and the degree of sophistication of the analytical instrumentation used. Analyses covered by the rule are performed by personnel with a wide spectrum of credentials, from wastewater operators and laboratory technicians with a basic high school science education to degreed chemists, biologists and other scientists. The rule does not specifically require academic degrees or a minimum number of years of experience for those involved in its implementation.
Small business regulatory coordinator
Environmental Impact
The Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch.
NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
Local governmental units that operate laboratories that perform analyses in support of a discharge permit that reference analytical methods that have been deleted may incur small costs to update their procedures. When the change is simply to another method, or where there are no changes to the analytical process, costs will be minimal. Some facilities may opt to use newer techniques that take less time, or have minimal calibration protocols. This rulemaking does not require laboratories to make expenditures related to newer techniques to maintain compliance.
Five sanitary district laboratories currently maintain certification to perform oil and grease determinations utilizing freon as an extraction solvent; one district also performs the hexane extractable materials method. The four remaining laboratories will either be required to add the newer method or stop performing these analyses. Each of these have indicated that they will no longer perform this testing in house due to time constraints, complexity of the method, or the cost to implement the new method. Deletion of the oil and grease (freon) technique will also result in cost-savings to laboratories. One laboratory indicated its most recent purchase of freon, 60 pounds, cost over $1,400. Since a comparable volume of hexane costs about $480, a laboratory would be able to perform almost three times the number of hexane extractable materials analyses for the same cost. Alternatively, these facilities could opt to subcontract these analyses to a commercial laboratory. It is likely that subcontracting option when compared to performing these analyses in-house when only a small
State fiscal effect
There will be no state fiscal impact based on this rule revision.
Local fiscal effect
Costs: Indeterminate. Increases or decreases in costs: Permissive.
Types of local governmental units affected
Villages, cities, and sanitary districts
Long-range fiscal implications
None
Submission of Written Comments, Contact Person, and Copy of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Ms. Diane Drinkman, Bureau of Science Services, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until August 29, 2008. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Ms. Drinkman.
Notice of Hearing
Revenue
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held:
August 26, 2008 Events Room
at 1:00 p.m. State Revenue Building
2135 Rimrock Road
Madison, Wisconsin,
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Revenue
