Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76281 

services are comprehensive and aligned 

with a school or district improvement 

plan. A school improvement plan may 

include the required two-year plan 

(under section 1116(b)(3) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended by the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001) that 

addresses the academic issues that 

caused a school to be identified as in 

need of improvement. The plan could 

also include a voluntary plan developed 

by the school or district to improve 

academic achievement. The applicant 

must clearly describe the improvement 

plan that is in place, whether it is for 

the school or the entire district, the 

reasons why the plan was put in place, 

and how the proposed project and the 

operation of the school library media 

center will directly support the 

academic goals established in the 

improvement plan. 

Executive Order 12866 

This notice of proposed priority 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 

the notice of proposed priority 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 notice of proposed 

priority, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priority justify 

the costs. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

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. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 

as all other Department of Education 

documents published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Form (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. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

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. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 84.364A Improving Literacy 

Through School Libraries Program) 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6383. 

Dated: December 15, 2006. 

Henry L. Johnson, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. E6–21754 Filed 12–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Procedural Manual for the Election 

Assistance Commission’s Voting 

System Testing and Certification 

Program 

AGENCY: United States Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC). 

ACTION: Notice; publication of Voting 

System Testing and Certification 

Manual. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) is publishing a 

procedural manual for its Voting System 

Testing and Certification Program. This 

program sets the administrative 

procedures for obtaining an EAC 

Certification for voting systems. 

Participation in the program is strictly 

voluntary. The program is mandated by 

the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) at 

42 U.S.C. 15371. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Hancock, Director, Voting System 

Certification, Washington, DC, (202) 

566–3100, Fax: (202) 566–1392. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. HAVA requires that the 

EAC certify and decertify voting 

systems. Section 231(a)(1) of HAVA (42 

U.S.C. 15371) specifically requires the 

EAC to ‘‘... provide for the testing, 

certification, decertification and 

recertification of voting system 

hardware and software by accredited 

laboratories.’’ To meet this obligation, 

the EAC has created a voluntary 

program to test voting systems to 

Federal voting system standards. The 

Voting System Testing and Certification 

Manual, published below, will set the 

procedures for this program. 

In creating the Certification Manual 

the EAC sought input from experts and 

stakeholders. Specifically, the EAC 

conducted meetings with 

representatives from the voting system 

test laboratory and voting system 

manufacturing community. The 

Commission also held a public hearing 

in which it received testimony from 

State election officials, the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, 

academics, electronic voting system 

experts and public interest groups. 

Finally, the EAC sought input from the 

public. A draft version of the EAC 

Voting System Testing and Certification 

Program Manual was published with a 

request for public comment on October 

2, 2006. (71 FR 57934). The pubic 

comment period was open until 5 p.m. 

e.d.t. on October 31, 2006. While this 

publication and public comment period 

were not required under the rulemaking, 

adjudicative or licensing provisions of 

the Administrative Procedures Act, all 

comments received were considered in 

the drafting of this final administrative 

manual. 

Discussion of Comments. The EAC 

received over 400 comments from the 

public. The majority of these comments 

came from voting system test 

laboratories, voting system 

manufacturers, and public interest 

groups. The EAC also received a number 

of comments from State and local 

officials and private individuals. 

The majority of comments received by 

the Commission raised concerns or 

questioned the meaning or application 

of various provisions of the manual. 

These comments were requests for 

clarification. Another significant block 

of comments were less specific and 

focused on the fundamental purpose 

behind the program or its basic 

methodology. Comments in this 

category included individuals who 

noted that electronic voting machines 

should not be used in Federal elections 

and those who disagreed with the 

program’s fundamental structure which 

utilizes EAC accredited laboratories to 

test voting systems through direct 

contracting with the system’s 

manufacturer. Finally, there were a 

range of specific recommendations on a 

wide variety of topics. Examples 

include: (1) Comments from 

manufacturers and interest groups 

requesting the EAC to provide specific 

timeframes or response times for various 

program elements or activities; (2) 

recommendations that the EAC Mark of, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76282 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 

Certification requirements be abolished 

or that the mark not be ‘‘permanently’’

affixed to voting machines to allow for 

its removal in the event of a voting 

system upgrade or decertification; (3) 

recommendations from test laboratories 

and public interest groups that the EAC 

clarify the role of its Voting System Test 

Labortories, emphasizing that test plans, 

test reports and other information 

submitted under this program be 

submitted directly and independently 

by the test labs; (4) Comments from test 

laboratories recommending that the 

program provide a means for dealing 

with de minimis hardware changes; (5) 

recommendations from interest groups 

that the EAC utilize a third party group 

of technical advisors for all of its 

determinations under the program; (6) 

recommendations from interest groups 

urging the commission to make 

Certification Program documents 

available to the public; and (7) 

recommendations from State officials 

that the EAC contact and work with the 

Chief State Election Official when 

reviewing fielded voting systems, 

providing emergency modification 

waivers or reviewing anomaly reports. 

The EAC reviewed and considered 

each of the comments presented. In 

doing so, it also gathered additional 

information and performed research 

regarding the suggestions. The EAC’s 

commitment to public participation is 

evident in the final version of the 

Certification Manual. The Manual has 

been enhanced in a number of areas in 

response to conscientious public 

comment. A total of six pages have been 

added to the Manual. Throughout the 

entire Manual the EAC added or 

amended language to clarify its 

procedures consistent with the 

comments it received. For example, to 

further clarify terminology used 

throughout the Manual almost a dozen 

terms were newly defined or 

‘‘Significantly clarified in the definition 

section of Chapter 1. Additionally, the 

EAC made changes to clarify the 

independent role of Voting System Test 

Labs in the program, require the EAC to 

publish its average response timeframes, 

and increase its coordination on State 

Election Officials. Examples of larger 

changes made in the document include 

an added section to Chapter 3 of the 

Manual, providing procedures for de 

minimis changes. This was put in place 

to deal with the numerous engineering 

change orders the Commission expects 

will be submitted to test laboratories 

under the program. Similarly, the EAC 

re-titled and re-wrote a major portion of 

Chapter 10 of the Mannal (Release of 

Certification Program Information) to 

more clearly and affirmatively state 

EAC’s policy on the release of 

Certification Program information. 

Thomas R. Wilkey, 

Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

BILLING CODE 6820–KF–M 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76283 

BILLING CODE 6820–KF–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN20DE06.000</GPH>
76284 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 

The reporting requirements in this 

manual have been approved under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Office of Management and Budget 

Control (OMB) Number 3265–0004, 

expiring March 31, 2007. Persons are 

not required to respond to this 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB number. 

Information gathered pursuant to this 

document and its forms will be used 

solely to administer the EAC Testing 

and Certification Program. This program 

is voluntary. Individuals who wish to 

participate in the program, however, 

must meet its requirements. The 

estimated total annual hourly burden on 

the voting system manufacturing 

industry and election officials is 114 

hours. This estimate includes the time 

required for reviewing the instructions, 

gathering information, and completing 

the prescribed forms. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate or any 

other aspect of this collection, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to 

the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission, Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program, Office of the 

Program Director, 1225 New York 

Avenue, NW., Suite 1100, Washington, 

DC 20005. 

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction 

2. Manufacturer Registration 

3. When Voting Systems Must Be Submitted 

for Testing and Certification 

4. Certification Testing and Technical Review 

5. Grant of Certification 

6. Denial of Certification 

7. Decertification 

8. Quality Monitoring Program 

9. Requests for Interpretations 

10. Release of Certification Program 

Information 

Appendix A. Manufacturer Registration 

Application Form 

Appendix B. Application for Voting System 

Testing Form 

Appendix C. Voting System Anomaly 

Reporting Form 

Introduction 

1.1. Background. The Federal Election 

Commission (FEC) adopted the first formal 

set of voluntary Federal standards for 

computer-based voting systems in January 

1990. At that time, no national program or 

organization existed to test and certify such 

systems to the standards. The National 

Association of State Election Directors 

(NASED) stepped up to fill this void in 1994. 

NASED is an independent, nongovernmental 

organization of State election officials. The 

organization formed the Nation’s first 

national program to test and qualify voting 

systems to the new Federal standards. The 

organization worked for more than a decade, 

on a strictly voluntary basis, to help ensure 

the reliability, consistency, and accuracy of 

voting systems fielded in the United States. 

In late 2002, Congress passed the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). HAVA 

created the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) and assigned to the EAC 

the responsibility for both setting voting 

system standards and providing for the 

testing and certification of voting systems. 

This mandate represented the first time the 

Federal government provided for the 

voluntary testing, certification, and 

decertification of voting systems nationwide. 

In response to this HAVA requirement, the 

EAC has developed the Voting System 

Testing and Certification Program 

(Certification Program). 

1.2. Authority. HAVA requires that the 

EAC certify and decertify voting systems. 

Section 231(a)(1) of HAVA specifically 

requires the EAC to ‘‘* * * provide for the 

testing, certification, decertification and 

recertification of voting system hardware and 

software by accredited laboratories.’’ The 

EAC has the sole authority to grant 

certification or withdraw certification at the 

Federal level, including the authority to 

grant, maintain, extend, suspend, and 

withdraw the right to retain or use any 

certificates, marks, or other indicators of 

certification. 

1.3. Scope. This Manual provides the 

procedural requirements of the EAC Voting 

System Testing and Certification Program. 

Although participation in the program is 

voluntary, adherence to the program’s 

procedural requirements is mandatory for 

participants. The procedural requirements of 

this Manual supersede any prior voting 

system certification requirements issued by 

the EAC. 

1.4. Purpose. The primary purpose of the 

EAC Certification Program Manual is to 

provide clear procedures to Manufacturers 

for the testing and certification of voting 

systems to specified Federal standards 

consistent with the requirements of HAVA 

Section 231(a)(1). The program, however, 

also serves to do the following: 

1.4.1. Support State certification programs. 

1.4.2. Support local election officials in the 

areas of acceptance testing and pre-election 

system verification. 

1.4.3. Increase quality control in voting 

system manufacturing. 

1.4.4. Increase voter confidence in the use 

of voting systems. 

1.5. Manual. This Manual is a 

comprehensive presentation of the EAC 

Voting System Testing and Certification 

Program. It is intended to establish all of the 

program’s administrative requirements. 

1.5.1. Contents. The contents of the Manual 

serve as an overview of the program itself. 

The Manual contains the following chapters: 

1.5.1.1. Manufacturer Registration. Under 

the program, a Manufacturer is required to 

register with the EAC prior to participation. 

This registration provides the EAC with 

needed information and requires the 

Manufacturer to agree to the requirements of 

the Certification Program. This chapter sets 

out the requirements and procedures for 

registration. 

1.5.1.2. When Voting Systems Must Be 

Submitted for Testing and Certification. All 

voting systems must be submitted consistent 

with this Manual before they may receive a 

certification from the EAC. This chapter 

discusses the various circumstances that 

require submission to obtain or maintain a 

certification. 

1.5.1.3. Certification Testing and Review. 

Under this program, the testing and review 

process requires the completion of an 

application, employment of an EACaccredited laboratory for system testing, and 

technical analysis of the laboratory test report 

by the EAC. The result of this process is an 

Initial Decision on Certification. This chapter 

discusses the required steps for voting system 

testing and review. 

1.5.1.4. Grant of Certification. If an Initial 

Decision to grant certification is made, the 

Manufacturer must take additional steps 

before the Manufacturer may be issued a 

certification. These steps require the 

Manufacturer to document the performance 

of a trusted build (see definition at Section 

1.16), the deposit of software into a 

repository, and the creation of system 

identification tools. This chapter outlines the 

action that a Manufacturer must take to 

receive a certification and the Manufacturer’s 

post-certification responsibilities. 

1.5.1.5. Denial of Certification. If an Initial 

Decision to deny certification is made, the 

Manufacturer has certain rights and 

responsibilities under the program. This 

chapter contains procedures for requesting 

reconsideration, opportunity to cure defects, 

and appeal. 

1.5.1.6. Decertification. Decertification is 

the process by which the EAC revokes a 

certification it previously granted to a voting 

system. It is an important part of the 

Certification Program because it serves to 

ensure that the requirements of the program 

are followed and that certified voting systems 

fielded for use in Federal elections maintain 

the same level of quality as those presented 

for testing. This chapter sets procedures for 

Decertification and explains the 

Manufacturer’s rights and responsibilities 

during that process. 

1.5.1.7. Quality Monitoring Program. 

Under the Certification Program, EAC will 

implement a quality monitoring process that 

will help ensure that voting systems certified 

by the EAC are the same systems sold by 

Manufacturers. The quality monitoring 

process is a mandatory part of the program 

and includes elements such as fielded voting 

system review, anomaly reporting, and 

manufacturing site visits. This chapter sets 

forth the requirements of the Quality 

Monitoring Program. 

1.5.1.8. Requests for Interpretations. An 

Interpretation is a means by which a 

registered Manufacturer or Voting System 

Test Laboratory (VSTL) may seek. 

clarification on a specific Voluntary Voting 

System Guidelines (VVSG) standard. This 

chapter outlines the policy, requirements, 

and procedures for requesting an 

Interpretation. 

1.5.1.9. Release of Certification Program 

Information. Federal law protects certain 

types of information individuals provided 

the government from release. This chapter 

outlines the program’s policies, sets 

procedures, and discusses responsibilities 

associated with the public release of 

potential protected commercial information. 

1.5.2. Maintenance and Revision. This 

Manual, which sets the procedural 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76285 

requirements for a new Federal program, is 

expected to be improved and expanded as 

experience and circumstances dictate. The 

Manual will be reviewed periodically and 

updated to meet the needs of the EAC, 

Manufacturers, VSTLs, election officials, and 

public policy. The EAC is responsible for 

revising this document. All revisions will be 

made consistent with Federal law. 

Substantive input from stakeholders and the 

public will be sought whenever possible, at 

the discretion of the agency. Changes in 

policy requiring immediate implementation 

will be noticed via policy memoranda and 

will be issued to each registered 

Manufacturer. Changes, addendums, or 

updated versions will also be posted to the 

EAC Web site at http://www.eac.gov. 

1.6. Program Methodology. EAC’s Voting 

System Testing and Certification Program is 

but one part of the overall conformity 

assessment process that includes companion 

efforts at the State and local levels. 

1.6.1. Federal and State Roles. The process 

to ensure that voting equipment meets the 

technical requirements is a distributed, 

cooperative effort of Federal, State, and local 

officials in the United States. Working with 

voting equipment Manufacturers, these 

officials each have unique responsibility for 

ensuring that the equipment a voter uses on 

Election Day meets specific requirements. 

1.6.1.1. The EAC Program has primary 

responsibility for ensuring that voting 

systems submitted under this program meet 

Federal standards established for voting 

systems. 

1.6.1.2. State officials have responsibility 

for testing voting systems to ensure that they 

will support the specific requirements of 

each individual State. States may use EAC 

VSTLs to perform testing of voting systems 

to unique State requirements while the 

systems are being tested to Federal standards. 

The EAC will not, however, certify voting 

systems to State requirements. 

1.6.1.3. State or local officials are 

responsible for making the final purchase 

choice. They are responsible for deciding 

which system offers the best fit and total 

value for their specific State or local 

jurisdiction. 

1.6.1.4. State or local officials are also 

responsible for acceptance testing to ensure 

that the equipment delivered is identical to 

the equipment certified on the Federal and 

State levels, is fully operational, and meets 

the contractual requirements of the purchase. 

1.6.1.5. State or local officials should 

perform pre-election logic and accuracy 

testing to confirm that equipment is 

operating properly and is unmodified from 

its certified state. 

1.6.2. Conformity Assessment Generally. 

Conformity assessment is a system 

established to ensure that a product or 

service meets the requirements that apply to 

it. Many conformity assessment systems exist 

to protect the quality and ensure compliance 

with requirements of products and services. 

All conformity assessment systems attempt to 

answer a variety of questions: 

1.6.2.1. What specifications are required of 

an acceptable system? For voting systems, the 

EAC voting system standards (VVSG and 

Voting System Standards [VSS]) address this 

issue. States and local jurisdictions also have 

supplementing standards. 

1.6.2.2. How are systems tested against 

required specifications? The EAC Voting 

System Testing and Certification Program is 

a central element of the larger conformity 

assessment system. The program, as set forth 

in this Manual, provides for the testing and 

certification of voting systems to identified 

versions of the VVSG. The Testing and 

Certification Program’s purpose is to ensure 

that State and local jurisdictions receive 

voting systems that meet the requirements of 

the VVSG. 

1.6.2.3. Are the testing authorities qualified 

to make an accurate evaluation? The EAC 

accredits VSTLs, after the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) National 

Voluntary Lab Accreditation Program 

(NVLAP) has reviewed their technical 

competence and lab practices, to ensure these 

test authorities are fully qualified. 

Furthermore, EAC technical experts review 

all test reports from accredited laboratories to 

ensure an accurate and complete evaluation. 

Many States provide similar reviews of 

laboratory reports. 

1.6.2.4. Will Manufacturers deliver units 

within manufacturing tolerances to those 

tested? The VVSG and this Manual require 

that vendors have appropriate change 

management and quality control processes to 

control the quality and configuration of their 

products. The Certification Program provides 

mechanisms for the EAC to verify 

Manufacturer quality processes through field 

system testing and manufacturing site visits. 

States have implemented policies for 

acceptance of delivered units. 

1.7. Program Personnel. All EAC personnel 

and contractors associated with this program 

will be held to the highest ethical standards. 

All agents of the EAC involved in the 

Certification Program will be subject to 

conflict-of-interest reporting and review, 

consistent with Federal law and regulation. 

1.8. Program Records. The EAC Program 

Director is responsible for maintaining 

accurate records to demonstrate that the 

testing and certification program procedures 

have been effectively fulfilled and to ensure 

the traceability, repeatability, and 

reproducibility of testing and test report 

review. All records will be maintained, 

managed, secured, stored, archived, and 

disposed of in accordance with Federal law, 

Federal regulations, and procedures of the 

EAC. 

1.9. Submission of Documents. Any 

documents submitted pursuant to the 

requirements of this Manual shall be 

submitted: 

1.9.1. If sent electronically, via secure email or physical delivery of a compact disk, 

unless otherwise specified. 

1.9.2. In a Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF 

file, formatted to protect the document from 

alteration. 

1.9.3. With a proper signature when 

required by this Manual. Documents that 

require an authorized signature may be 

signed with an electronic representation or 

image of the signature of an authorized 

management representative and must meet 

any and all subsequent requirements 

established by the Program Director regarding 

security. 

1.9.4. If sent via physical delivery, by 

Certified MailTM (or similar means that 

allows tracking) to the following address: 

Testing and Certification Program Director, 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 

New York Avenue, NW., Suite 1100, 

Washington, DC 20005. 

1.10. Receipt of Documents—

Manufacturer. For purposes of this Manual, 

a document, notice, or other communication 

is considered received by a Manufacturer 

upon one of the following: 

1.10.1. The actual, documented date the 

correspondence was received (either 

electronically or physically) at the 

Manufacturer’s place of business, or 

1.10.2. If no documentation of the actual 

delivery date exists, the date of constructive 

receipt of the communication. For electronic 

correspondence, documents will be 

constructively received the day after the date 

sent. For mail correspondence, the document 

will be constructively received 3 days after 

the date sent. 

1.10.3. The term ‘‘receipt’’ shall mean the 

date a document or correspondence arrives 

(either electronically or physically) at the 

Manufacturer’s place of business. Arrival 

does not require that an agent of the 

Manufacturer open, read, or review the 

correspondence. 

1.11. Receipt of Documents—EAC. For 

purposes of this Manual, a document, notice, 

or other communication is considered 

received by the EAC upon its physical or 

electronic arrival at the agency. All 

documents received by the agency will be 

physically or electronically date stamped. 

This stamp shall serve as the date of receipt. 

Documents received after the regular 

business day (5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time), 

will be treated as if received on the next 

business day. 

1.12. EAC Response Timeframes. In 

recognition of the responsibilities and 

challenges facing Manufacturers as they work 

to meet the requirements imposed by this 

program, State certification programs, 

customers, State law and production 

schedules, the EAC will provide timeframes 

for its response to significant program 

elements. This shall be done by providing 

current metrics on EAC’s Web site regarding 

the actual average EAC response time for (1) 

approving Test Plans, (2) issuing Initial 

Decisions, and (3) issuing Certificates of 

Conformance. 

1.13. Records Retention—Manufacturers. 

The Manufacturer is responsible for ensuring 

that all documents submitted to the EAC or 

that otherwise serve as the basis for the 

certification of a voting system are retained. 

A copy of all such records shall be retained 

as long as a voting system is offered for sale 

or supported by a Manufacturer and for 5 

years thereafter. 

1.14. Record Retention—EAC. The EAC 

shall retain all records associated with the 

certification of a voting system as long as 

such system is fielded in a State or local 

election jurisdiction for use in Federal 

elections. The records shall otherwise be 

retained or disposed of consistent with 

Federal statutes and regulations. 

1.15. Publication and Release of 

Documents. The EAC will release documents 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76286 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 

consistent with the requirements of Federal 

law. It is EAC policy to make the certification 

process as open and public as possible. Any 

documents (or portions thereof) submitted 

under this program will be made available to 

the public unless specifically protected from 

release by law. The primary means for 

making this information available is through 

the EAC Web site. 

1.16. Definitions. For purposes of this 

Manual, the terms listed below have the 

following definitions. 

Appeal. A formal process by which the 

EAC is petitioned to reconsider an Agency 

Decision. 

Appeal Authority. The individual or 

individuals appointed to serve as the 

determination authority on appeal. 

Build Environment. The disk or other 

media that holds the source code, compiler, 

linker, integrated development environments 

(IDE), and/or other necessary files for the 

compilation and on which the compiler will 

store the resulting executable code. 

Certificate of Conformance. The certificate 

issued by the EAC when a system has been 

found to meet the requirements of the VVSG. 

The document conveys certification of a 

system. 

Commission. The U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission, as an agency. 

Commissioners. The serving 

commissioners of the U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission. 

Component. A discrete and identifiable 

element of hardware or software within a 

larger voting system. 

Compiler. A computer program that 

translates programs expressed in a high-level 

language into machine language equivalents. 

Days. Calendar days, unless otherwise 

noted. When counting days, for the purpose 

of submitting or receiving a document, the 

count shall begin on the first full calendar 

day after the date the document was 

received. 

Disk Image. An exact copy of the entire 

contents of a computer disk. 

Election Official. A State or local 

government employee who has as one of his 

or her primary duties the management or 

administration of a Federal election. 

Federal Election. Any primary, general, 

runoff, or special Election in which a 

candidate for Federal office (President, 

Senator, or Representative) appears on the 

ballot. 

Fielded Voting System. A voting system 

purchased or leased by a State or local 

government that is being used in a Federal 

election. 

File Signature. A signature of a file or set 

of files produced using a HASH algorithm. A 

file signature, sometimes called a HASH 

value, creates a value that is computationally 

infeasible of being produced by two similar 

but different files. File signatures are used to 

verify that files are unmodified from their 

original versions. 

HASH Algorithm. An algorithm that maps 

a bit string of arbitrary length to a shorter, 

fixed-length bit string. (A HASH uniquely 

identifies a file similar to the way a 

fingerprint identifies an individual. Likewise, 

as an individual cannot be recreated from his 

or her fingerprint, a file cannot be recreated 

from a HASH. The HASH algorithm used 

primarily in the NIST (National Software 

Reference Library), and this program is the 

Secure HASH Algorithm (SHA–1) specified 

in Federal Information Processing Standard 

(FIPS) 180–1.) 

Installation Device. A device containing 

program files, software, and installation 

instructions for installing an application 

(program) onto a computer. Examples of such 

devices include installation disks, flash 

memory cards, and PCMCIA cards. 

Integration Testing. The end-to-end testing 

of a full system configured for use in an 

election to assure that all legitimate 

configurations meet applicable standards. 

Linker. A computer program that takes one 

or more objects generated by compilers and 

assembles them into a single executable 

program. 

Manufacturer. The entity with ownership 

and control over a voting system submitted 

for certification. 

Mark of Conformance. A uniform notice 

permanently posted on a voting system that 

signifies that it has been certified by the EAC. 

Memorandum for the Record. A written 

statement drafted to document an event or 

finding, without a specific addressee other 

than the pertinent file. 

Proprietary Information. Commercial 

information or trade secrets protected from 

release under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) and the Trade Secrets Act. 

System Identification Tools. Tools created 

by a Manufacturer of voting systems that 

allow elections officials to verify that the 

hardware and software of systems purchased 

are identical to the systems certified by the 

EAC. 

Technical Reviewers. Technical experts in 

the areas of voting system technology and 

conformity assessment appointed by the EAC 

to provide expert guidance. 

Testing and Certification Decision 

Authority. The EAC Executive Director or 

Acting Executive Director. 

Testing and Certification Program Director. 

The individual appointed by the EAC 

Executive Director to administer and manage 

the Testing and Certification Program. 

Trusted Build. A witnessed software build 

where source code is converted to machinereadable binary instructions (executable 

code) in a manner providing security 

measures that help ensure that the executable 

code is a verifiable and faithful 

representation of the source code. 

Voting System. The total combination of 

mechanical, electromechanical, and 

electronic equipment (including the software, 

firmware, and documentation required to 

program, control, and support the 

equipment) that is used to define ballots, cast 

and count votes, report or display election 

results, connect the voting system to the 

voter registration system, and maintain and 

produce any audit trail information. 

Voting System Standards. Voluntary voting 

system standards developed by the FEC. 

Voting System Standards have been 

published twice: once in 1990 and again in 

2002. The Help America Vote Act made the 

2002 Voting System Standards EAC 

guidance. All new voting system standards 

are issued by the EAC as Voluntary Voting 

System Guidelines. 

Voting System Test Laboratories. 

Laboratories accredited by the EAC to test 

voting systems to EAC approved voting 

system standards. Each Voting System Test 

Laboratory (VSTL) must be accredited by the 

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 

Program (NVLAP) and recommended by the 

National Institute of Standards Technology 

(NIST) before it may receive an EAC 

accreditation. NVLAP provides third party 

accreditation to testing and calibration 

laboratories. NVLAP is in full conformance 

with the standards of the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) and 

the International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC), including ISO/IEC Guide 

17025 and 17011. 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. 

Voluntary voting system standards 

developed, adopted, and published by the 

EAC. The guidelines are identified by version 

number and date. 

1.17. Acronyms and Abbreviations. For 

purposes of this Manual, the acronyms and 

abbreviations listed below represent the 

following terms. 

Certification Program. The EAC Voting 

System Testing and Certification Program 

Decision Authority. Testing and Certification 

Decision Authority 

EAC. United States Election Assistance 

Commission 

FEC. Federal Election Commission 

HAVA. Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 

U.S.C. 15301 et seq.) 

Labs or Laboratories. Voting System Test 

Laboratories 

NASED. National Association of State 

Election Directors 

NIST. National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

NVLAP. National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program 

Program Director. Director of the EAC 

Testing and Certification Program 

VSS. Voting System Standards 

VSTL. Voting System Test Laboratory 

VVSG. Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 

2. Manufacturer Registration 

2.1. Overview. Manufacturer Registration is 

the process by which voting system 

Manufacturers make initial contact with the 

EAC and provide information essential to 

participate in the EAC Voting System Testing 

and Certification Program. Before a 

Manufacturer of a voting system can submit 

an application to have a voting system 

certified by the EAC, the Manufacturer must 

be registered. This process requires the 

Manufacturer to provide certain contact 

information and agree to certain 

requirements of the Certification Program. 

After successfully registering, the 

Manufacturer will receive an identification 

code. 

2.2. Registration Required. To submit a 

voting system for certification or otherwise 

participate in the EAC voluntary Voting 

System Testing and Certification Program, a 

Manufacturer must register with the EAC. 

Registration does not constitute an EAC 

endorsement of the Manufacturer or its 

products. Registration of a Manufacturer is 

not a certification of that Manufacturer’s 

products. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76287 

2.3. Registration Requirements. The 

registration process will require the voting 

system Manufacturer to provide certain 

information to the EAC. This information is 

necessary to enable the EAC to administer 

the Certification Program and communicate 

effectively with the Manufacturer. The 

registration process also requires the 

Manufacturer to agree to certain Certification 

Program requirements. These requirements 

relate to the Manufacturer’s duties and 

responsibilities under the program. For this 

program to succeed, it is vital that a 

Manufacturer know and assent to these 

duties at the outset of the program. 

2.3.1. Information. Manufacturers are 

required to provide the following 

information. 

2.3.1.1. The Manufacturer’s organizational 

information: 

2.3.1.1.1. The official name of the 

Manufacturer. 

2.3.1.1.2. The address of the 

Manufacturer’s official place of business. 

2.3.1.1.3. A description of how the 

Manufacturer is organized (i.e., type of 

corporation or partnership). 

2.3.1.1.4. Names of officers and/or 

members of the board of directors. 

2.3.1.1.5. Names of all partners and 

members (if organized as a partnership or 

limited liability corporation). 

2.3.1.1.6. Identification of any individual, 

organization, or entity with a controlling 

ownership interest in the Manufacturer. 

2.3.1.2. The identity of an individual 

authorized to represent and make binding 

commitments and management 

determinations for the Manufacturer 

(management representative). The following 

information is required for the management 

representative: 

2.3.1.2.1. Name and title. 

2.3.1.2.2. Mailing and physical addresses. 

2.3.1.2.3. Telephone number, fax number, 

and e-mail address. 

2.3.1.3. The identity of an individual 

authorized to provide technical information 

on behalf of the Manufacturer (technical 

representative). The following information is 

required for the technical representative: 

2.3.1.3.1. Name and title. 

2.3.1.3.2. Mailing and physical addresses. 

2.3.1.3.3. Telephone number, fax number, 

and e-mail address. 

2.3.1.4. The Manufacturer’s written 

policies regarding its quality assurance 

system. This policy must be consistent with 

guidance provided in the VVSG and this 

Manual. 

2.3.1.5. The Manufacturer’s written polices 

regarding internal procedures for controlling 

and managing changes to and versions of its 

voting systems. Such polices shall be 

consistent with this Manual and guidance 

provided in the VVSG. 

2.3.1.6. The Manufacturer’s written polices 

on document retention. Such policies must 

be consistent with the requirements of this 

Manual. 

2.3.1.7. A list of all manufacturing and/or 

assembly facilities used by the Manufacturer 

and the name and contact information of a 

person at each facility. The following 

information is required for a person at each 

facility: 

2.3.1.7.1. Name and title. 

2.3.1.7.2. Mailing and physical addresses. 

2.3.1.7.3. Telephone number, fax number, 

and e-mail address. 

2.3.2. Agreements. Manufacturers are 

required to take or abstain from certain 

actions to protect the integrity of the 

Certification Program and promote quality 

assurance. Manufacturers are required to 

agree to the following program requirements: 

2.3.2.1. Represent a voting system as 

certified only when it is authorized by the 

EAC and is consistent with the procedures 

and requirements of this Manual. 

2.3.2.2. Produce and affix an EAC 

certification label to all production units of 

the certified system. Such labels must meet 

the requirements set forth in Chapter 5 of this 

Manual. 

2.3.2.3. Notify the EAC of changes to any 

system previously certified by the EAC 

pursuant to the requirements of this Manual 

(see Chapter 3). Such systems shall be 

submitted for testing and additional 

certification when required. 

2.3.2.4. Permit an EAC representative to 

verify the Manufacturer’s quality control 

procedures by cooperating with EAC efforts 

to test and review fielded voting systems 

consistent with Section 8.6 of this Manual. 

2.3.2.5. Permit an EAC representative to 

verify the Manufacturer’s quality control 

procedures by conducting periodic 

inspections of manufacturing facilities 

consistent with Chapter 8 of this Manual. 

2.3.2.6. Cooperate with any EAC inquiries 

and investigations into a certified system’s 

compliance with VVSG standards or the 

procedural requirements of this Manual 

consistent with Chapter 7. 

2.3.2.7. Report to the Program Director any 

known malfunction of a voting system 

holding an EAC Certification. A malfunction 

is a failure of a voting system, not caused 

solely by operator or administrative error, 

which causes the system to cease operation 

during a Federal election or otherwise results 

in data loss. Malfunction notifications should 

be consolidated into one report. This report 

should identify the location, nature, date, 

impact, and resolution (if any) of the 

malfunction and be filed within 60 days of 

any Federal election. 

2.3.2.8. Certify that the entity is not barred 

or otherwise prohibited by statute, 

regulation, or ruling from doing business in 

the United States. 

2.3.2.9. Adhere to all procedural 

requirements of this Manual. 

2.4. Registration Process. Generally, 

registration is accomplished through use of 

an EAC registration form. After the EAC has 

received a registration form and other 

required registration documents, the agency 

reviews the information for completeness 

before approval. 

2.4.1. Application Process. To become a 

registered voting system Manufacturer, one 

must apply by submitting a Manufacturer 

Registration Application Form (Appendix A). 

This form will be used as the means for the 

Manufacturer to provide the information and 

agree to the responsibilities required in 

Section 2.3, above. 

2.4.1.1. Application Form. In order for the 

EAC to accept and process the registration 

form, the applicant must adhere to the 

following requirements: 

2.4.1.1.1. All fields must be completed by 

the Manufacturer. 

2.4.1.1.2. All required attachments 

prescribed by the form and this Manual must 

be identified, completed, and forwarded in a 

timely manner to the EAC (e.g., 

Manufacturer’s quality control and system 

change policies ). 

2.4.1.1.3. The application form must be 

affixed with the handwritten signature 

(including a digital representation of the 

handwritten signature) of the authorized 

representative of the vendor. 

2.4.1.2. Availability and Use of the Form. 

The Manufacturer Registration Application 

Form may be accessed through the EAC Web 

site at http://www.eac.gov. Instructions for 

completing and submitting the form are 

included on the Web site. The Web site will 

also provide contact information regarding 

questions about the form or the application 

process. 

2.4.2. EAC Review Process. The EAC will 

review all registration applications. 

2.4.2.1. After the application form and 

required attachments have been submitted, 

the applicant will receive an 

acknowledgment that the EAC has received 

the submission and that the application will 

be processed. 

2.4.2.2. If an incomplete form is submitted 

or an attachment is not provided, the EAC 

will notify the Manufacturer and request the 

information. Registration applications will 

not be processed until they are complete. 

2.4.2.3. Upon receipt of the completed 

registration form and accompanying 

documentation, the EAC will review the 

information for sufficiency. If the EAC 

requires clarification or additional 

information, the EAC will contact the 

Manufacturer and request the needed 

information. 

2.4.2.4. Upon satisfactory completion of a 

registration application’s sufficiency review, 

the EAC will notify the Manufacturer that it 

has been registered. 

2.5. Registered Manufacturers. After a 

Manufacturer has received notice that it is 

registered, it will receive an identification 

code and will be eligible to participate in the 

voluntary voting system Certification 

Program. 

2.5.1. Manufacturer Code. Registered 

Manufacturers will be issued a unique, threeletter identification code. This code will be 

used to identify the Manufacturer and its 

products. 

2.5.2. Continuing Responsibility To Report. 

Registered Manufacturers are required to 

keep all registration information up to date. 

Manufacturers must submit a revised 

application form to the EAC within 30 days 

of any changes to the information required on 

the application form. Manufacturers will 

remain registered participants in the program 

during this update process. 

2.5.3. Program Information Updates. 

Registered Manufacturers will be 

automatically provided timely information 

relevant to the Certification Program. 

2.5.4. Web site Postings. The EAC will add 

the Manufacturer to the EAC listing of 

registered voting system Manufacturers 

publicly available at http://www.eac.gov. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76288 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 

2.6. Suspension of Registration. 

Manufacturers are required to establish 

policies and operate within the EAC 

Certification Program consistent with the 

procedural requirements presented in this 

Manual. When Manufacturers engage in 

management activities that are inconsistent 

with this Manual or fail to cooperate with the 

EAC in violation the Certification Program’s 

requirements, their registration may be 

suspended until such time as the problem is 

remedied. 

2.6.1. Procedures. When a Manufacturer’s 

activities violate the procedural requirements 

of this Manual, the Manufacturer will be 

notified of the violations, given an 

opportunity to respond, and provided the 

steps required to bring itself into compliance. 

2.6.1.1. Notice. Manufacturers shall be 

provided written notice that they have taken 

action inconsistent with or acted in violation 

of the requirements of this Manual. The 

notice will state the violations and the 

specific steps required to cure them. The 

notice will also provide Manufacturers with 

30 days (or a greater period of time as stated 

by the Program Director) to (1) respond to the 

notice and/or (2) cure the defect. 

2.6.1.2. Manufacturer Action. The 

Manufacturer is required to either respond in 

a timely manner to the notice (demonstrating 

that it was not in violation of program 

requirements) or cure the violations 

identified in a timely manner. In any case, 

the Manufacturer’s action must be approved 

by the Program Director to prevent 

suspension. 

2.6.1.3. Non-Compliance. If the 

Manufacturer fails to respond in a timely 

manner, is unable to provide a cure or 

response that is acceptable to the Program 

Director, or otherwise refuses to cooperate, 

the Program Director may suspend the 

Manufacturer’s registration. The Program 

Director shall issue a notice of his or her 

intent to suspend the registration and 

provide the Manufacturer five (5) business 

days to object to the action and submit 

information in support of the objection. 

2.6.1.4. Suspension. After notice and 

opportunity to be heard (consistent with the 

above), the Program Director may suspend a 

Manufacturer’s registration. The suspension 

shall be noticed in writing. The notice must 

inform the Manufacturer of the steps that can 

be taken to remedy the violations and lift the 

suspension. 

2.6.2. Effect of Suspension. A suspended 

Manufacturer may not submit a voting 

system for certification under this program. 

This prohibition includes a ban on the 

submission of modifications and changes to 

certified system. A suspension shall remain 

in effect until lifted. Suspended 

Manufacturers will have their registration 

status reflected on the EAC Web site. 

Manufacturers have the right to remedy a 

non-compliance issue at any time and lift a 

suspension consistent with EAC guidance. 

Failure of a Manufacturer to follow the 

requirements of this section may also result 

in Decertification of voting systems 

consistent with Chapter 7 of this Manual. 

3. When Voting Systems Must Be Submitted 

for Testing and Certification 

3.1. Overview. An EAC certification 

signifies that a voting system has been 

successfully tested to identified voting 

system standards adopted by the EAC. Only 

the EAC can issue a Federal certification. 

Ultimately, systems must be submitted for 

testing and certification under this program 

to receive this certification. Systems will 

usually be submitted when (1) they are new 

to the marketplace, (2) they have never before 

received an EAC certification, (3) they are 

modified, or (4) the Manufacturer wishes to 

test a previously certified system to a 

different (newer) standard. This chapter also 

discusses the submission of de minimis 

changes, which may not require additional 

testing and certification, as well as 

provisional, pre-election emergency 

modifications, which provide for preelection, emergency waivers. 

3.2. What Is an EAC Certification? 

Certification is the process by which the 

EAC, through testing and evaluation 

conducted by an accredited Voting System 

Test Laboratory, validates that a voting 

system meets the requirements set forth in 

existing voting system testing standards 

(Voting System Standards [VSS] or VVSG), 

and performs according to the Manufacturers 

specifications for the system. An EAC 

certification may be issued only by the EAC 

in accordance with the procedures presented 

in this Manual. Certifications issued by other 

bodies (e.g., the National Association of State 

Election Directors and State certification 

programs) are not EAC certifications. 

3.2.1. Type of Voting Systems Certified. 

The EAC Certification Program is designed to 

test and certify electromechanical and 

electronic voting systems. The EAC will not 

accept for certification review voting systems 

that do not contain any electronic 

components. Ultimately, the determination of 

whether a voting system may be submitted 

for testing and certification under this 

program is solely at the discretion of the 

EAC. 

3.2.2. Voting System Standards. Voting 

systems certified under this program are 

tested to a set of voluntary standards 

providing requirements that voting systems 

must meet to receive a Federal certification. 

Currently, these standards are referred to as 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (in the 

past they were called Voting System 

Standards). 

3.2.2.1. Versions—Availability and 

Identification. Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines (or applicable Voting System 

Standards) are published by the EAC and are 

available on the EAC Web site (http:// 

www.eac.gov). The standards will be 

routinely updated. Versions will be 

identified by version number and/or release 

date. 

3.2.2.2. Versions—Basis for Certification. 

The EAC will promulgate which version or 

versions of the standards it will accept as the 

basis for testing and certification. 

This effort may be accomplished through 

the setting of an implementation date for a 

particular version’s applicability, the setting 

of a date by which testing to a particular 

version is mandatory, or the setting of a date 

by which the EAC will no longer test to a 

particular standard. The EAC will certify 

only those voting systems tested to standards 

that the EAC has identified as valid for 

certification. 

3.2.2.2.1. End date. When a version’s status 

as the basis of an EAC certification is set to 

expire on a certain date, the submission of 

the system’s test report will be the 

controlling event (see Chapter 4). This 

requirement means the system’s test report 

must be received by the EAC on or before the 

end date to be certified to the terminating 

standard. 

3.2.2.2.2. Start date. When a version’s 

status as the basis of an EAC certification is 

set to begin on a certain date, the submission 

of the system’s application for certification 

will be the controlling event (see Chapter 4). 

This requirement means the system’s 

application, requesting certification to the 

new standard, will not be accepted by the 

EAC until the start date. 

3.2.2.3. Version—Manufacturer’s Option. 

When the EAC has authorized certification to 

more than one version of the standards, the 

Manufacturer must choose which version it 

wishes to have its voting system tested 

against. The voting system will then be 

certified to that version of the standards. 

Manufacturers must ensure that all 

applications for certification identify a 

particular version of the standards. 

3.2.2.4. Emerging Technologies. If a voting 

system or component thereof is eligible for a 

certification under this program (see Section 

3.2.1.) and employs technology that is not 

addressed by a currently accepted version of 

the VVSG or VSS, the relevant technology 

shall be subjected to full integration testing 

and shall be tested to ensure that it operates 

to the Manufacturer’s specifications. The 

remainder of the system will be tested to the 

applicable Federal standards. Information on 

emerging technologies will be forwarded to 

the EAC’s Technical Guidelines Development 

Committee (TGDC). 

3.2.3. Significance of an EAC Certification. 

An EAC certification is an official recognition 

that a voting system (in a specific 

configuration or configurations) has been 

tested to and has met an identified set of 

Federal voting standards. An EAC 

certification is not any of the following: 

3.2.3.1. An endorsement of a Manufacturer, 

voting system, or any of the system’s 

components. 

3.2.3.2. A Federal warranty of the voting 

system or any of its components. 

3.2.3.3. A determination that a voting 

system, when fielded, will be operated in a 

manner that meets all HAVA requirements. 

3.2.3.4. A substitute for State or local 

certification and testing. 

3.2.3.5. A determination that the system is 

ready for use in an election. 

3.2.3.6. A determination that any particular 

component of a certified system is itself 

certified for use outside the certified 

configuration. 

3.3. Effect of the EAC Certification Program 

on Other National Certifications. Before the 

creation of the EAC Certification Program, 

national voting system qualification was 

conducted by a private membership 

organization, the National Association of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76289 

State Election Directors (NASED). NASED 

offered a qualification for voting systems for 

more than a decade, using standards issued 

by the Federal government. The EAC 

Certification Program does not repeal 

NASED-issued qualifications. All voting 

systems previously qualified under the 

NASED program retain their NASED 

qualification consistent with State law; 

however, a NASED-qualified voting system is 

not an EAC-certified system and is treated 

like an uncertified system for purposes of the 

EAC Certification Program. 

3.4. When Certification Is Required Under 

the Program. To obtain or maintain an EAC 

certification, Manufacturers must submit a 

voting system for testing and certification 

under this program. Such action is usually 

required for (1) new systems not previously 

tested to any standard; (2) existing systems 

not previously certified by the EAC; (3) 

previously certified systems that have been 

modified; (4) systems or technology 

specifically identified for retesting by the 

EAC; or (5) previously certified systems that 

the Manufacturer seeks to upgrade to a higher 

standard (e.g., a more recent version of the 

VVSG). 

3.4.1. New System Certification. For 

purposes of this Manual, new systems are 

defined as voting systems that have not been 

previously tested to applicable Federal 

standards. New voting systems must be fully 

tested and submitted to the EAC according to 

the requirements of Chapter 4 of this Manual. 

3.4.2. System Not Previously EAC Certified. 

This term describes any voting system not 

previously certified by the EAC, including 

systems previously tested and qualified by 

NASED or systems previously tested and 

denied certification by the EAC. Such 

systems must be fully tested and submitted 

to the EAC according to the requirements of 

Chapter 4 of this Manual. 

3.4.3. Modification. A modification is any 

change to a previously EAC-certified voting 

system’s hardware, software, or firmware that 

is not a de minimis change. Any modification 

to a voting system will require testing and 

review by the EAC according to the 

requirements of Chapter 4 of this Manual. 

3.4.4. EAC Identified Systems. 

Manufacturers may be required to submit 

systems previously certified by the EAC for 

retesting. This may occur when the EAC 

determines that the original tests conducted 

on the voting system are now insufficient to 

demonstrate compliance with Federal 

standards in light of newly discovered threats 

or information. 

3.4.5. Certification Upgrade. This term 

defines any system previously certified by 

the EAC but submitted for additional testing 

and certification to a higher standard (e.g., to 

a newer version of the VVSG). Any such 

system must be tested to the new standards 

and submitted to the EAC per Chapter 4 of 

this Manual. 

3.5. De Minimis Changes. A de minimis 

change is a change to voting system hardware 

that is so minor in nature and effect that it 

requires no additional testing and 

certification. Such changes, however, require 

VSTL review and endorsement as well as 

EAC approval. Any proposed change not 

accepted as a de minimis change is a 

modification and shall be submitted for 

testing and review consistent with the 

requirements of this Manual. An approved de 

minimis change is not a modification. 

3.5.1. De Minimis Change—Defined. A de 

minimis change is a change to a certified 

voting system’s hardware, the nature of 

which will not materially alter the system’s 

reliability, functionality, capability, or 

operation. Software and firmware 

modifications are not de minimis changes. In 

order for a hardware change to qualify as a 

de minimis change, it must not only 

maintain, unaltered, the reliability, 

functionality, capability and operability of a 

system, it shall also ensure that when 

hardware is replaced, the original hardware 

and the replacement hardware are 

electronically and mechanically 

interchangeable and have identical 

functionality and tolerances. Under no 

circumstance shall a change be considered a 

de minimis change if it has reasonable and 

identifiable potential to impact the system’s 

operation and compliance with applicable 

voting system standards. 

3.5.2. De Minimis Change—Procedure. 

Manufacturers who wish to implement a 

proposed de minimis change must submit it 

for VSTL review and endorsement and EAC 

approval. A proposed change is not a de 

minimis change and may not be 

implemented as such until it has been 

approved in writing by the EAC. 

3.5.2.1. VSTL Review. Manufacturers must 

submit any proposed de minimis change to 

an EAC VSTL for review and endorsement. 

The Manufacturer will provide the VSTL (1) 

a detailed description of the change; (2) a 

description of the facts giving rise to or 

necessitating the change; (3) the basis for its 

determination that the change will not alter 

the system’s reliability, functionality, or 

operation; and (4) upon request of the VSTL, 

a sample voting system at issue or any 

relevant technical information needed to 

make the determination. The VSTL will 

review the proposed de minimis change and 

make an independent determination as to 

whether the change meets the definition of 

de minimis change or requires the voting 

system to go through additional testing as a 

system modification. If the VSTL determines 

that a de minimis change is appropriate, it 

shall endorse the proposed change as a de 

minimis change. If the VSTL determines that 

modification testing and certification should 

be performed, it shall reject the proposed 

change. Endorsed changes shall be forwarded 

to the EAC Program Director for final 

approval. Rejected changes shall be returned 

to the Manufacturer for resubmission as 

system modifications. 

3.5.2.2. VSTL Endorsed Changes. The 

VSTL shall forward to the EAC any change 

it has endorsed as de minimis. The VSTL 

shall forward its endorsement in a package 

that includes: 

3.5.2.2.1. The Manufacturer’s initial 

description of the de minimis change, a 

narrative of facts giving rise to or 

necessitating the change, and the 

determination that the change will not alter 

the system’s reliability, functionality, or 

operation. 

3.5.2.2.2. The written determination of the 

VSTL endorsement of the de minimis change. 

The endorsement document must explain 

why the VSTL, in its engineering judgment, 

determined that the proposed de minimis 

change met the definition in this section and 

otherwise does not require additional testing 

and certification. 

3.5.2.3. EAC Action. The EAC will review 

all proposed de minimis changes endorsed by 

the VSTL. The EAC has sole authority to 

determine whether any VSTL endorsed 

change constitutes a de minimis change 

under this section. The EAC will inform the 

Manufacturer and VSTL of its determination 

in writing. 

3.5.2.3.1. EAC approval. If the EAC 

approves the change as a de minimis change, 

it shall provide written notice to the 

Manufacturer and VSTL. The EAC will 

maintain copies of all approved de minimis 

changes and otherwise track such changes. 

3.5.2.3.2. EAC denial. If the EAC 

determines that a proposed de minimis 

change cannot be approved, it will inform the 

VSTL and Manufacturer of its decision. The 

proposed change will be considered a 

modification and require testing and 

certification consistent with this Manual. 

3.5.3. De Minimis Change—Effect of EAC 

Approval. EAC approval of a de minimis 

change permits the Manufacturer to 

implement the proposed change (as 

identified, endorsed, and approved) without 

additional modification testing and 

certification. Fielding an engineering change 

not approved by the EAC is a basis for system 

Decertification. 

3.6. Provisional, Pre-Election Emergency 

Modification. To deal with extraordinary preelection emergency situations, the EAC has 

developed a special provisional modification 

process. This process is to be used only for 

the emergency situations indicated and only 

when there is a clear and compelling need for 

temporary relief until the regular certification 

process can be followed. 

3.6.1. Purpose. The purpose of this section 

is to allow a mechanism within the EAC 

Certification Program for Manufacturers to 

modify EAC-certified voting systems in 

emergency situations immediately before an 

election. This situation arises when a 

modification to a voting system is required 

and an election deadline is imminent, 

preventing the completion of the full 

certification process (and State and/or local 

testing process) in time for Election Day. In 

such situations the EAC may issue a waiver 

to the Manufacturer, granting it leave to make 

the modification without submission for 

modification testing and certification. 

3.6.2. General Requirements. A request for 

an emergency modification waiver may be 

made by a Manufacturer only in conjunction 

with the State election official whose 

jurisdiction(s) would be adversely affected if 

the requested modification were not 

implemented before Election Day. Requests 

must be submitted at least 5 calendar days 

before an election. Only systems previously 

certified are eligible for such a waiver. To 

receive a waiver, a Manufacturer must 

demonstrate the following: 

3.6.2.1. The modification is functionally or 

legally required; that is, the system cannot be 

fielded in an election without the change. 

3.6.2.2. The voting system requiring 

modification is needed by State or local 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76290 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 

election officials to conduct a pending 

Federal election. 

3.6.2.3. The voting system to be modified 

has previously been certified by the EAC. 

3.6.2.4. The modification cannot be tested 

by a VSTL and submitted to the EAC for 

certification, consistent with the procedural 

requirements of this Manual, at least 30 days 

before the pending Federal election. 

3.6.2.5. Relevant State law requires Federal 

certification of the requested modification. 

3.6.2.6. The Manufacturer has taken steps 

to ensure that the modification will properly 

function as designed, is suitably integrated 

with the system, and otherwise will not 

negatively affect system reliability, 

functionality, or accuracy. 

3.6.2.7. The Manufacturer (through a 

VSTL) has completed as much of the 

evaluation testing as possible for the 

modification and has provided the results of 

such testing to the EAC. 

3.6.2.8. The emergency modification is 

required and otherwise supported by the 

Chief State Election Official seeking to field 

the voting system in an impending Federal 

election. 

3.6.3. Request for Waiver. A Manufacturer’s 

request for waiver shall be made in writing 

to the Decision Authority and shall include 

the following elements: 

3.6.3.1. A signed statement providing 

sufficient description, background, 

information, documentation, and other 

evidence necessary to demonstrate that the 

request for a waiver meets each of the eight 

requirements stated in Section 3.5.2 above. 

3.6.3.2. A signed statement from the Chief 

State Election Official requiring the 

emergency modification. This signed 

statement shall identify the pending election 

creating the emergency situation and attest 

that (1) the modification is required to field 

the system, (2) State law (citation) requires 

EAC action to field the system in an election, 

and (3) normal timelines required under the 

EAC Certification Program cannot be met. 

3.6.3.3. A signed statement from a VSTL 

that there is insufficient time to perform 

necessary testing and complete the 

certification process. The statement shall also 

state what testing the VSTL has performed on 

the modification to date, provide the results 

of such tests, and state the schedule for 

completion of testing. 

3.6.3.4. A detailed description of the 

modification, the need for the modification, 

how it was developed, how it addresses the 

need for which it was designed, its impact on 

the voting system, and how the modification 

will be fielded or implemented in a timely 

manner consistent with the Manufacturer’s 

quality control program. 

3.6.3.5. All documentation of tests 

performed on the modification by the 

Manufacturer, a laboratory, or other third 

party. 

3.6.3.6. A stated agreement signed by the 

Manufacturer’s representative agreeing to 

take the following action: 

3.6.3.6.1. Submit for testing and 

certification, consistent with Chapter 4 of 

this Manual, any voting system receiving a 

waiver under this section that has not already 

been submitted. This action shall be taken 

immediately. 

3.6.3.6.2. Abstain from representing the 

modified system as EAC certified. The 

modified system has not been certified; 

rather, the originally certified system has 

received a waiver providing the 

Manufacturer leave to modify it. 

3.6.3.6.3. Submit a report to the EAC 

regarding the performance of the modified 

voting system within 60 days of the Federal 

election that served as the basis for the 

waiver. This report shall (at a minimum) 

identify and describe any (1) performance 

failures, (2) technical failures, (3) security 

failures, and/or (4) accuracy problems. 

3.6.4. EAC Review. The EAC will review all 

waiver requests submitted in a timely 

manner and make determinations regarding 

the requests. Incomplete requests will be 

returned for resubmission with a written 

notification regarding its deficiencies. 

3.6.5. Letter of Approval. If the EAC 

approves the modification waiver, the 

Decision Authority shall issue a letter 

granting the temporary waiver within five (5) 

business days of receiving a complete 

request. 

3.6.6. Effect of Grant of Waiver. An EAC 

grant of waiver for an emergency 

modification is not an EAC certification of 

the modification. Waivers under this program 

grant Manufacturers leave to only 

temporarily amend previously certified 

systems without testing and certification for 

the specific election noted in the request. 

Without such a waiver, such action would 

ordinarily result in Decertification of the 

modified system (See Chapter 7). Systems 

receiving a waiver shall satisfy any State 

requirement that a system be nationally or 

federally certified. In addition—

3.6.6.1. All waivers are temporary and 

expire 60 days after the Federal election for 

which the system was modified and the 

waiver granted. 

3.6.6.2. Any system granted a waiver must 

be submitted for testing and certification. 

This shall be accomplished as soon as 

possible. 

3.6.6.3. The grant of a waiver is no 

indication that the modified system will 

ultimately be granted a certification. 

3.6.7. Denial of Request for Waiver. A 

request for waiver may be denied by the EAC 

if the request does not meet the requirements 

noted above, fails to follow the procedure 

established by this section or otherwise fails 

to sufficiently support a conclusion that the 

modification at issue is needed, will function 

properly, and is in the public interest. A 

denial of a request for emergency 

modification by the EAC shall be final and 

not subject to appeal. Manufacturers may 

submit for certification, consistent with 

Chapter 4 of this Manual, modifications for 

which emergency waivers were denied. 

3.6.8. Publication Notice of Waiver. The 

EAC will post relevant information relating 

to the temporary grant of an emergency 

waiver on its Web site. This information will 

be posted upon grant of the waiver and 

removed upon the waiver’s expiration. This 

posting will include information concerning 

the limited nature and effect of the waiver. 

4. Certification Testing and Technical 

Review 

4.1. Overview. This chapter discusses the 

procedural requirements for submitting a 

voting system to the EAC for testing and 

review. The testing and review process 

requires an application, employment of an 

EAC-accredited testing laboratory, and 

technical analysis of the laboratory test report 

by the EAC. The result of this process is an 

Initial Decision on Certification by the 

Decision Authority. 

4.2. Policy. Generally, to receive an initial 

determination on an EAC certification for a 

voting system, a registered Manufacturer 

must have (1) submitted an EAC-approved 

application for certification, (2) had a VSTL 

submit an EAC-approved test plan, (3) had a 

VSTL test a voting system to applicable 

voting system standards, (4) had a VSTL 

submit a test report to the EAC for technical 

review and approval, and (5) received EAC 

approval of the report in an Initial Decision 

on Certification. 

4.3. Certification Application. The first 

step in submitting a voting system for 

certification is submission of an application 

package. The package contains an application 

form and a copy of the voting system’s 

Implementation Statement (see VVSG 2005–

Version 1.0, Vol. I, Section 1.6.4), functional 

diagram, and System Overview 

documentation submitted to the VSTL as a 

part of the Technical Data Package (see VVSG 

2005—Version 1.0, Vol. II, Section 2.2). This 

application process initiates the certification 

process and provides the EAC with needed 

information. 

4.3.1. Information on Application Form. 

The application (application form) provides 

the EAC certain pieces of information that are 

essential at the outset of the certification 

process. This information includes the 

following: 

4.3.1.1. Manufacturer Information. 

Identification of the Manufacturer (name and 

three-letter identification code). 

4.3.1.2. Selection of Accredited Laboratory. 

Selection and identification of the VSTL that 

will perform voting system testing and other 

prescribed laboratory action consistent with 

the requirements of this Manual. Once 

selected, a Manufacturer may NOT replace 

the selected VSTL without the express 

written consent of the Program Director. 

Such permission will be granted solely at the 

discretion of the Program Director and only 

upon demonstration of good cause. 

4.3.1.3. Voting System Standards 

Information. Identification of the VVSG or 

VSS, including the document’s date and 

version number, to which the Manufacturer 

wishes to have the identified voting system 

tested and certified. 

4.3.1.4. Nature of the Submission. 

Manufacturers must identify the nature of 

their submission by selecting one of the 

following four submission types: 

4.3.1.4.1. New system. For purposes of this 

Manual, a new system is defined as a voting 

system that has not been previously tested to 

any applicable Federal standards. 

4.3.1.4.2. System not previously EAC 

certified. This term describes any voting 

system not previously certified by the EAC, 

including systems previously tested and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76291 

1An EAC certification applies to the 

configuration of components (the voting system) 

presented for testing. A voting system may be 

fielded without using each of the components that 

formed the system presented, since voting systems, 

as certified, may contain optional or redundant 

components to meet the varying needs of election 

officials. Systems may not be fielded with 

additional components or without sufficient 

components to properly prosecute an election, as 

neither individual components nor separately 

tested systems may be combined to create new 

certified voting systems. 

qualified by NASED or systems previously 

tested and denied certification by the EAC. 

4.3.1.4.3. Modification. A modification is 

any change to a previously EACcertified 

voting system’s hardware, software, or 

firmware. 

4.3.1.4.4. Certification upgrade. This term 

defines any system previously certified by 

the EAC but submitted (without 

modification) for additional testing and 

certification to a higher standard (e.g., to a 

newer version of the VVSG). 

4.3.1.5. Identification of the Voting System. 

Manufacturers must identify the system 

submitted for testing by providing its name 

and applicable version number. If the system 

submitted has been previously fielded, but 

the Manufacturer wishes to change its name 

or version number after receipt of EAC 

certification, it must provide identification 

information on both the past name or names 

and the new, proposed name. This 

requirement might occur in systems 

submitted for modification, for their first 

EAC certification, or for a certification 

upgrade. 

4.3.1.6. Description of the Voting System. 

Manufacturers must provide a brief 

description of the system or modification 

being submitted for testing and certification. 

This description shall include the following 

information: 

4.3.1.6.1. A listing of all components of the 

system submitted. 

4.3.1.6.2. Each component’s version 

number. 

4.3.1.6.3. A complete list of each 

configuration of the system’s components 

that could be fielded as the certified voting 

system.1

4.3.1.6.4. Any other information necessary 

to identify the specific configuration being 

submitted for certification. 

4.3.1.7. Date Submitted. Manufacturers 

must note the date the application was 

submitted for EAC approval. 

4.3.1.8. Signature. The Manufacturer must 

affix the signature of the authorized 

management representative. 

4.3.2. Submission of the Application 

Package. Manufacturers must submit a copy 

of the application form described above and 

copies of the voting system’s (1) 

Implementation Statement, (2) functional 

diagram, and (3) System Overview 

documentation submitted to the VSTL as a 

part of the Technical Data Package. 

4.3.2.1. Application Form. Application 

forms will be available on the EAC Web site: 

http://www.eac.gov. The application form 

submitted to the EAC must be signed; dated; 

and fully, accurately, and completely filled 

out. The EAC will not accept incomplete or 

inaccurate applications. 

4.3.2.2. Implementation Statement. The 

Manufacturer must submit with the 

application form a copy of the voting 

system’s Implementation Statement, which 

must meet the requirements of the VVSG 

(VVSG 2005—Version 1.0, Vol. I, Section 

1.6.4). If an existing system is being 

submitted with a modification, the 

Manufacturer must submit a copy of a 

revised Implementation Statement. 

4.3.2.3. Functional Diagram. The 

Manufacturer must submit with the 

application form a high-level Functional 

Diagram of the voting system that includes 

all of its components. The diagram must 

portray how the various components relate 

and interact. 

4.3.2.4. System Overview. The 

Manufacturer must submit with the 

application form a copy of the voting 

system’s System Overview documentation 

submitted to the VSTL as a part of the 

Technical Data Package. This document must 

meet the requirements of the VVSG (VVSG 

2005—Version 1.0, Vol. II, Section 2.2). 

4.3.2.5. Submission. Applications, with the 

accompanying documentation, shall be 

submitted in Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, or 

other electronic formats as prescribed by the 

Program Director. Information on how to 

submit packages will be posted on the EAC 

Web site: http://www.eac.gov. 

4.3.3. EAC Review. Upon receipt of a 

Manufacturer’s application package, the EAC 

will review the submission for completeness 

and accuracy. If the application package is 

incomplete, the EAC will return it to the 

Manufacturer with instructions for 

resubmission. If the form submitted is 

acceptable, the Manufacturer will be notified 

and provided a unique application number 

within five (5) business days of the EAC’s 

receipt of the application. 

4.4. Test Plan. The Manufacturer shall 

authorize the VSTL identified in its 

application to submit a test plan directly to 

the EAC. This plan shall provide for testing 

of the system sufficient to ensure it is 

functional and meets all applicable voting 

system standards. 

4.4.1. Development. An accredited 

laboratory will develop test plans that use 

appropriate test protocols, standards, or test 

suites developed by the laboratory. 

Laboratories must use all applicable 

protocols, standards, or test suites issued by 

the EAC. 

4.4.2. Required Testing. Test plans shall be 

developed to ensure that a voting system is 

functional and meets all requirements of the 

applicable, approved voting system 

standards. The highest level of care and 

vigilance is required to ensure that 

comprehensive test plans are created. A test 

plan should ensure that the voting system 

meets all applicable standards and that test 

results and other factual evidence of the 

testing are clearly documented. System 

testing must meet the requirements of the 

VVSG. Generally, full testing will be required 

of any voting system applying for 

certification, regardless of previous 

certification history. 

4.4.2.1. New System. A new system shall 

be subject to full testing of all hardware and 

software according to applicable voting 

system standards. 

4.4.2.2. System Not Previously EAC 

Certified. A system not previously certified 

by the EAC shall be fully tested as a new 

system. 

4.4.2.3. Modification. A modification to a 

previously EAC-certified voting system shall 

be tested in a manner necessary to ensure 

that all changes meet applicable voting 

system standards and that the modified 

system (as a whole) will properly and 

reliably function. Any system submitted for 

modification shall be subject to full testing of 

the modifications (delta testing) and those 

systems or subsystems altered or impacted by 

the modification (regression testing). The 

system will also be subject to system 

integration testing to ensure overall 

functionality. The modification will be tested 

to the version or versions of the VVSG/VSS 

currently accepted for testing and 

certification by the EAC. This requirement, 

however, does not mean that the full system 

must be tested to such standards. If the 

system has been previously certified to a 

VVSG/VSS version deemed acceptable by the 

EAC (see Section 3.2.2.2), it may retain that 

level of certification with only the 

modification being tested to the present 

version(s). 

4.4.2.4. EAC Identified Systems. Previously 

certified systems identified for retesting by 

the EAC (see Section 3.4.4) shall be tested as 

directed by the Program Director (after 

consultation with NIST, VSTLs, or other 

technical experts as necessary). 

4.4.2.5. Certification Upgrade. A previously 

certified system submitted for testing to a 

new voting system standard (without 

modification) shall be tested in a manner 

necessary to ensure that the system meets all 

requirements of the new standards. The 

VSTL shall create a test plan that identifies 

the differences between the new and old 

standards and, based upon the differences, 

fully retest all hardware and software 

components affected. 

4.4.3. Format. Test labs shall issue test 

plans consistent with the requirements in 

VVSG, Vol. II and any applicable EAC 

guidance. 

4.4.4. EAC Approval. All test plans are 

subject to EAC approval. No test report will 

be accepted for technical review unless the 

test plan on which it is based has been 

approved by EAC’ s Program Director. 

4.4.4.1. Review. All test plans must be 

reviewed for adequacy by the Program 

Director. For each submission, the Program 

Director will determine whether the test plan 

is acceptable or unacceptable. Unacceptable 

plans will be returned to the laboratory for 

further action. Acceptable plans will be. 

approved. Although Manufacturers may 

direct test labs to begin testing before 

approval of a test plan, the Manufacturer 

bears the full risk that the test plan (and thus 

any tests preformed) will be deemed 

unacceptable. 

4.4.4.2. Unaccepted Plans. If a plan is not 

accepted, the Program Director will return 

the submission to the Manufacturer’s 

identified VSTL for additional action. Notice 

of unacceptability will be provided in writing 

to the laboratory and include a description of 

the problems identified and steps required to 

remedy the test plan. A copy of this notice 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76292 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 

will also be sent to the Manufacturer. 

Questions concerning the notice shall be 

forwarded to the Program Director in writing. 

Plans that have not been accepted may be 

resubmitted for review after remedial action 

is taken. 

4.4.4.3. Effect of Approval. Approval of a 

test plan is required before a test report may 

be filed. In most cases, approval of a test plan 

signifies that the tests proposed, if performed 

properly, are sufficient to fully test the 

system. A test plan, however, is approved 

based on the information submitted. New or 

additional information may require a change 

in testing requirements at any point in the 

certification process. 

4.5. Testing. During testing, Manufacturers 

are responsible for enabling VSTLs to report 

any changes to a voting system or an 

approved test plan directly to the EAC. 

Manufacturers shall also enable VSTLs to 

report all test failures or anomalies directly 

to the EAC. 

4.5.1. Changes. Any changes to a voting 

system, initiated as a result of the testing 

process, will require submission of an 

updated Implementation Statement, 

functional diagram, and System Overview 

document and, potentially, an updated test 

plan. Test plans must be updated whenever 

a change to a voting system requires 

deviation from the test plan originally 

approved by the EAC. Changes requiring 

alteration or deviation from the originally 

approved test plan must be submitted to the 

EAC (by the VSTL) for approval before the 

completion of testing. The submission shall 

include an updated Implementation 

Statement, functional diagram, and System 

Overview, as needed. Changes not affecting 

the test plan shall be reported in the test 

report. The submission shall include an 

updated Implementation Statement, 

functional diagram, and System Overview 

document, as needed. 

4.5.2. Test Anomalies or Failures. 

Manufacturers shall enable VSTLs to notify 

the EAC directly and independently of any 

test anomalies, or failures during testing. The 

VSTLs shall ensure that all anomalies or 

failures are addressed and resolved before 

testing is completed. All test failures, 

anomalies and actions taken to resolve such 

failures and anomalies shall be documented 

by the VSTL in an appendix to the test report 

submitted to the EAC. These matters shall be 

reported in a matrix, or similar format, that 

identifies the failure or anomaly, the 

applicable voting system standards, and a 

description of how the failure or anomaly 

was resolved. Associated or similar 

anomalies/failures may be summarized and 

reported in a single entry on the report 

(matrix) as long as the nature and scope of 

the anomaly/failure is clearly identified. 

4.6. Test Report. Manufacturers shall 

enable their identified VSTL to submit test 

reports directly to the EAC. The VSTL shall 

submit test reports only if the voting system 

has been tested and all tests identified in the 

test plan have been successfully performed. 

4.6.1. Submission. The test reports shall be 

submitted to the Program Director. The 

Program Director shall review the submission 

for completeness. Any reports showing 

incomplete or unsuccessful testing will be 

returned to the test laboratory for action and 

resubmission. Notice of this action will be 

provided to the Manufacturer. Test reports 

shall be submitted in Adobe PDF, Microsoft 

Word, or other electronic formats as 

prescribed by the Program Director. 

Information on how to submit reports will be 

posted on the EAC Web site: http:// 

www.eac.gov. 

4.6.2. Format. Manufacturers shall ensure 

that test labs submit reports consistent with 

the requirements in the VVSG and this 

Manual. 

4.6.3. Technical Review. A technical 

review of the test report, technical 

documents, and test plan will be conducted 

by EAC technical experts. The EAC may 

require the submission of additional 

information from the VSTL or Manufacturer 

if deemed necessary to complete the review. 

These experts will submit a report outlining 

their findings to the Program Director. The 

report will provide an assessment of the 

completeness, appropriateness, and adequacy 

of the VSTL’s testing as documented in the 

test report. 

4.6.4. Program Director’s 

Recommendation. The Program Director 

shall review the report and take one of the 

following actions: 

4.6.4.1. Recommend certification of the 

candidate system consistent with the 

reviewed test report and forward it to the 

Decision Authority for action (Initial 

Decision); or 

4.6.4.2. Refer the matter back to the 

technical reviewers for additional specified 

action and resubmission. 

4.7. Initial Decision on Certification. Upon 

receipt of the report and recommendation 

forwarded by the Program Director, the 

Decision Authority shall issue an Initial 

Decision on Certification. The decision shall 

be forwarded to the Manufacturer consistent 

with the requirements of this Manual. 

4.7.1. An Initial Decision granting 

certification shall be processed consistent 

with Chapter 5 of this Manual. 

4.7.2. An Initial Decision denying 

certification shall be processed consistent 

with Chapter 6 of this Manual. 

5. Grant of Certification 

5.1. Overview. The grant of certification is 

the formal process through which EAC 

acknowledges that a voting system has 

successfully completed conformance testing 

to an appropriate set of standards or 

guidelines. The grant of certification begins 

with the Initial Decision of the Decision 

Authority. This decision becomes final after 

the Manufacturer confirms that the final 

version of the software that was certified and 

which the Manufacturer will deliver with the 

certified system has been subject to a trusted 

build, placed in an EAC-approved repository, 

and can be verified using the Manufacturer’s 

system identification tools. After a 

certification is issued, the Manufacturer is 

provided a Certificate of Conformance and 

relevant information about the system is 

added to the EAC Web site. Manufacturers 

with certified voting systems are responsible 

for ensuring that each system they produce 

is properly labeled as certified. 

5.2. Applicability of This Chapter. This 

chapter applies when the Decision Authority 

makes an Initial Decision to grant a 

certification to a voting system based on the 

materials and recommendation provided by 

the Program Director. 

5.3. Initial Decision. The Decision 

Authority shall make a written decision on 

all voting systems submitted for certification 

and issue the decision to a Manufacturer. 

When such decisions result in a grant of 

certification, the decision shall be considered 

preliminary and referred to as an Initial 

Decision pending required action by the 

Manufacturer. The Initial Decision shall: 

5.3.1. State the preliminary determination 

reached (granting certification). 

5.3.2. Inform the Manufacturer of the steps 

that must be taken to make the determination 

final and receive a certification. This action 

shall include providing the Manufacturer 

with specific instructions, guidance, and 

procedures for confirming and documenting 

that the final certified version of the software 

meets the requirements for: 

5.3.2.1. Performing and documenting a 

trusted build pursuant to Section 5.6 of this 

chapter. 

5.3.2.2. Depositing software in an approved 

repository pursuant to Section 5.7 of this 

chapter. 

5.3.2.3. Creating and making available 

system verification tools pursuant to Section 

5.8 of this chapter. 

5.3.3. Certification is not final until the 

Manufacturer accepts the certification and all 

conditions placed on the certification. 

5.4. Pre-Certification Requirements. Before 

an Initial Decision becomes final and a 

certification is issued, Manufacturers must 

ensure certain steps are taken. They must 

confirm that the final version of the software 

that was certified and which the 

Manufacturer will deliver with the certified 

system has been subject to a trusted build 

(see Section 5.6), has been delivered for 

deposit in an EAC-approved repository (see 

Section 5.7), and can be verified using 

Manufacturer-developed identification tools 

(see Section 5.8). The Manufacturer must 

provide the EAC documentation 

demonstrating compliance with these 

requirements. 

5.5. Trusted Build. A software build (also 

referred to as a compilation) is the process 

whereby source code is converted to 

machine-readable binary instructions 

(executable code) for the computer. A 

‘‘trusted build’’ (or trusted compilation) is a 

build performed with adequate security 

measures implemented to give confidence 

that the executable code is a verifiable and 

faithful representation of the source code. A 

trusted build creates a chain of evidence from 

the Technical Data Package and source code 

submitted to the VSTLs to the actual 

executable programs that are run on the 

system. Specifically, the build will do the 

following: 

5.5.1. Demonstrate that the software was 

built as described in the Technical Data 

Package. 

5.5.2. Show that the tested and approved 

source code was actually used to build the 

executable code used on the system. 

5.5.3. Demonstrate that no elements other 

than those included in the Technical Data 

Package were introduced in the software 

build. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76293 

5.5.4. Document for future reference the 

configuration of the system certified. 

5.6. Trusted Build Procedure. A trusted 

build is a three-step process: (1) The build 

environment is constructed, (2) the source 

code is loaded onto the build environment, 

and (3) the executable code is compiled and 

the installation device is created. The process 

may be simplified for modification to 

previously certified systems. In each step, a 

minimum of two witnesses from different 

organizations is required to participate. 

These participants must include a VSTL 

representative and vendor representative. 

Before creating the trusted build, the VSTL 

must complete the source code review of the 

software delivered from the vendor for 

compliance with the VVSG and must 

produce and record file signatures of all 

source code modules. 

5.6.1. Constructing the Build Environment. 

The VSTL shall construct the build 

environment in an isolated environment 

controlled by the VSTL, as follows: 

5.6.1.1. The device that will hold the build 

environment shall be completely erased by 

the VSTL to ensure a total and complete 

cleaning of it. The VSTL shall use 

commercial off-the-shelf software, purchased 

by the laboratory, for cleaning the device. 

5.6.1.2. The VSTL, with vendor 

consultation and observation, shall construct 

the build environment. 

5.6.1.3. After construction of the build 

environment, the VSTL shall produce and 

record a file signature of the build 

environment. 

5.6.2. Loading Source Code Onto the Build 

Environment. After successful source code 

review, the VSTL shall load source code onto 

the build environment as follows: 

5.6.2.1. The VSTL shall check the file 

signatures of the source code modules and 

build environment to ensure that they are 

unchanged from their original form. 

5.6.2.2. The VSTL shall load the source 

code onto the build environment and 

produce and record the file signature of the 

resulting combination. 

5.6.2.3. The VSTL shall capture a disk 

image of the combination build environment 

and source code modules immediately before 

performing the build. 

5.6.2.4. The VSTL shall deposit the disk 

image into an authorized archive to ensure 

that the build can be reproduced, if 

necessary, at a later date. 

5.6.3. Creating the Executable Code. Upon 

completion of all the tasks outlined above, 

the VSTL shall produce the executable code. 

5.6.3.1. The VSTL shall produce and 

record a file signature of the executable code. 

5.6.3.2. The VSTL shall deposit the 

executable code into an EAC-approved 

software repository and create installation 

disk(s) from the executable code. 

5.6.3.3. The VSTL shall produce and 

record file signatures of the installation 

disk(s) in order to provide a mechanism to 

validate the software before installation on 

the voting system in a purchasing 

jurisdiction. 

5.6.3.4. The VSTL shall install the 

executable code onto the system submitted 

for testing and certification before 

completion of system testing. 

5.6.4. Trusted Build for Modifications. The 

process of building new executable code 

when a previously certified system has been 

modified is somewhat simplified. 

5.6.4.1. The build environment used in the 

original certification is removed from storage 

and its file signature verified. 

5.6.4.2. After source code review, the 

modified files are placed onto the verified 

build environment and new executable files 

are produced. 

5.6.4.3. If the original build environment is 

unavailable or its file signatures cannot be 

verified against those recorded from the 

original certification, then the more laborintensive process of creating the build 

environment must be performed. Further 

source code review may be required of 

unmodified files to validate that they are 

unmodified from their originally certified 

versions. 

5.7. Depositing Software in an Approved 

Repository. After EAC certification has been 

granted, the VSTL project manager, or an 

appropriate delegate of the project manager, 

shall deliver for deposit the following 

elements in one or more trusted archive(s) 

(repositories) designated by the EAC: 

5.7.1. Source code used for the trusted 

build and its file signatures. 

5.7.2. Disk image of the pre-build, build 

environment, and any file signatures to 

validate that it is unmodified. 

5.7.3. Disk image of the post-build, build 

environment, and any file signatures to 

validate that it is unmodified. 

5.7.4. Executable code produced by the 

trusted build and its file signatures of all files 

produced. 

5.7.5. Installation device(s) and file 

signatures. 

5.8. System Identification Tools. The 

Manufacturer shall provide tools through 

which a fielded voting system may be 

identified and demonstrated to be 

unmodified from the system that was 

certified. The purpose of this requirement is 

to make such tools available to Federal, State, 

and local officials to identify and verify that 

the equipment used in elections is 

unmodified from its certified version. 

Manufacturers may develop and provide 

these tools as they see fit. The tools, however, 

must provide the means to identify and 

verify hardware and software. The EAC may 

review the system identification tools 

developed by the Manufacturer to ensure 

compliance. System identification tools 

include the following examples: 

5.8.1. Hardware is commonly identified by 

model number and revision number on the 

unit, its printed wiring boards (PWBs), and 

major subunits. Typically, hardware is 

verified as unmodified by providing detailed 

photographs of the PWBs and internal 

construction of the unit. These images may 

be used to compare with the unit being 

verified. 

5.8.2. Software operating on a host 

computer will typically be verified by 

providing a selfbooting compact disk (CD) or 

similar device that verifies the file signatures 

of the voting system application files AND 

the signatures of all nonvolatile files that the 

application files access during their 

operation. Note that the creation of such a CD 

requires having a file map of all nonvolatile 

files that are used by the voting system. Such 

a tool must be provided for verification using 

the file signatures of the original executable 

files provided for testing. If during the 

certification process modifications are made 

and new executable files created, then the 

tool must be updated to reflect the file 

signatures of the final files to be distributed 

for use. For software operating on devices in 

which a self-booting CD or similar device 

cannot be used, a procedure must be 

provided to allow identification and 

verification of the software that is being used 

on the device. 

5.9. Documentation. Manufacturers shall 

provide documentation to the Program 

Director verifying that the trusted build has 

been performed, software has been deposited 

in an approved repository, and system 

identification tools are available to election 

officials. The Manufacturer shall submit a 

letter, signed by both its management 

representative and a VSTL official, stating 

(under penalty of law) that it has (1) 

performed a trusted build consistent with the 

requirements of Section 5.6 of this Manual, 

(2) deposited software consistent with 

Section 5.7 of this Manual, and (3) created 

and made available system identification 

tools consistent with Section 5.8 of this 

Manual. This letter shall also include (as 

attachments) a copy and description of the 

system identification tool developed under 

Section 5.8 above. 

5.10. Agency Decision. Upon receipt of 

documentation demonstrating the successful 

completion of the requirements above and 

recommendation of the Program Director, the 

Decision Authority will issue an Agency 

Decision granting certification and providing 

the Manufacturer with a certification number 

and Certificate of Conformance. 

5.11. Certification Document. A Certificate 

of Conformance will be provided to 

Manufacturers for voting systems that have 

successfully met the requirements of the EAC 

Certification Program. The document will 

serve as the Manufacturer’s evidence that a 

particular system is certified to a particular 

set of voting system standards. The EAC 

certification and certificate apply only to the 

specific voting system configuration(s) 

identified, submitted and evaluated under 

the Certification Program. Any modification 

to the system not authorized by the EAC will 

void the certificate. The certificate will 

include the product (voting system) name, 

the specific model or version of the product 

tested, the name of the VSTL conducting the 

testing, identification of the standards to 

which the system was tested, the EAC 

certification number for the product, and the 

signature of the EAC Executive Director. The 

certificate will also identify each of the 

various configurations of the voting system’s 

components that may be represented as 

certified. 

5.12. Certification Number and Version 

Control. Each system certified by the EAC 

will receive a certification number that is 

unique to the system and will remain with 

the system until such time as the system is 

decertified, sufficiently modified, or tested 

and certified to newer standards. Generally, 

when a previously certified system is issued 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76294 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 

a new certification number, the Manufacturer 

will be required to change the system’s name 

or version number. 

5.12.1. New Voting Systems and Those Not 

Previously Certified by the EAC. All systems 

receiving their first certification from the 

EAC will receive a new certification number. 

Manufacturers must provide the EAC with 

the voting system’s name and version 

number during the application process (see 

Chapter 4). Systems previously certified by 

another body may retain the previous system 

name and version number unless the system 

was modified before its submission to the 

EAC. Such modified systems must be 

submitted with a new naming convention 

(i.e., a new version number). 

5.12.2. Modifications. Voting systems 

previously certified by the EAC and 

submitted for certification of a modification 

will generally receive a new voting system 

certification number. Such modified systems 

must be submitted with a new naming 

convention (i.e., a new version number). In 

rare instances, the EAC may authorize 

retention of the same certification and 

naming convention when the modification is 

so minor that is does not represent a 

substantive change in the voting system. A 

request for such authorization must be made 

and approved by the EAC during the 

application phase of the program. 

5.12.3. Certification Upgrade. Voting 

systems previously certified and submitted 

(without modification) for testing to a new 

version of the VVSG will receive a new 

certification number. In such cases, however, 

the Manufacturer will not be required to 

change the system name or version. 

5.12.4. De Minimis Change. Voting systems 

previously certified and implementing an 

approved de minimis change (per Chapter 3) 

will not be issued a new certification number 

and are not required to implement a new 

naming convention. 

5.13. Publication of EAC Certification. The 

EAC will publish and maintain on its Web 

site a list of all certified voting systems, 

including copies of all Certificates of 

Conformance, the supporting test report, and 

information about the voting system and 

Manufacturer. Such information will be 

posted immediately following the 

Manufacturer’s receipt of the EAC Final 

Decision and Certificate of Conformance. 

5.14. Representation of EAC Certification. 

Manufacturers may not represent or imply 

that a voting system is certified unless it has 

received a Certificate of Conformance for that 

system. Statements regarding EAC 

certification in brochures, on Web sites, on 

displays, and in advertising/sales literature 

must be made solely in reference to specific 

systems. Any action by a Manufacturer to 

suggest EAC endorsement of its product or 

organization is strictly prohibited and may 

result in a Manufacturer’s suspension or 

other action pursuant to Federal civil and 

criminal law. 

5.15. Mark of Certification Requirement. 

Manufacturers shall post a mark of 

certification on all EAC-certified voting 

systems produced. This mark or label must 

be securely attached to the system before 

sale, lease, or release to third parties. A mark 

of certification shall be made using an EACmandated template available for download 

on the EAC Web site: http://www.eac.gov. 

These templates identify the version of the 

VVSG or VSS to which the system is 

certified. Use of this template shall be 

mandatory. The EAC mark must be displayed 

as follows: 

5.15.1. The Manufacturer may use only the 

mark of certification that accurately reflects 

the certification held by the voting system as 

a whole. The certification of individual 

components or modifications shall not be 

independently represented by a mark of 

certification. In the event a system has 

components or modifications tested to 

various (later) versions of the VVSG, the 

system shall bear only the mark of 

certification of the standard to which the 

system (as a whole) was tested and certified 

(i.e. the lesser standard). Ultimately, a voting 

system shall only display the mark of 

certification of the oldest or least rigorous 

standard to which any of its components are 

certified. 

5.15.2. The mark shall be placed on the 

outside of a unit of voting equipment in a 

place readily visible to election officials. The 

mark need not be affixed to each of the voting 

system’s components. The mark shall be 

affixed to either (1) each unit that is used to 

cast ballots or (2) each unit that is used to 

tabulate ballots. 

5.15.3. The notice shall be securely affixed 

to the voting system. The label shall not be 

a paper label. ‘‘Securely affixed’’ means that 

the label is etched, engraved, stamped, silkscreened, indelibly printed, or otherwise 

securely marked on a permanently attached 

part of the equipment or on a nameplate of 

metal, plastic, or other sturdy material 

fastened to the equipment by use of welding, 

riveting, or adhesive. 

5.15.4. The label must be designed to last 

the expected lifetime of the voting system in 

the environment in which the system may be 

operated and must not be readily detachable. 

5.16. Information to Election Officials 

Purchasing Voting Systems. The user’s 

manual or instruction manual for a certified 

voting system shall warn purchasers that 

changes or modifications not tested and 

certified by the EAC will void the EAC 

certification of the voting system. In cases in 

which the manual is provided only in a form 

other than paper, such as on a CD or over the 

Internet, the information required in this 

section may be included in this alternative 

format provided the election official can 

reasonably be expected to have the capability 

to access information in that format. 

6. Denial of Certification 

6.1. Overview. When the Decision 

Authority issues an Initial Decision denying 

certification, the Manufacturer has certain 

rights and responsibilities. The Manufacturer 

may request an opportunity to cure the 

defects identified by the Decision Authority. 

In addition, the Manufacturer may request 

that the Decision Authority reconsider the 

Initial Decision after the Manufacturer has 

had the opportunity to review the record and 

submit supporting written materials, data, 

and the rationale for its position. Finally, in 

the event reconsideration is denied, the 

Manufacturer may appeal the decision to the 

Appeal Authority. 

6.2. Applicability of This Chapter. This 

chapter applies when the Decision Authority 

makes an Initial Decision to deny an 

application for voting system certification 

based on the materials and recommendation 

provided by the Program Director. 

6.3. Form of Decisions. All agency 

determinations shall be made in writing. 

Moreover, all materials and 

recommendations reviewed or used by 

agency decision makers in arriving at an 

official determination shall be in written 

form. 

6.4. Effect of Denial of Certification. Upon 

receipt of the agency’s decision denying 

certification—or in the event of an appeal, 

subject to the Decision on Appeal—the 

Manufacturer’s application for certification is 

denied. Such systems will not be reviewed 

again by the EAC for certification unless the 

Manufacturer alters the system, retests it, and 

submits a new application for system 

certification. 

6.5. The Record. The Program Director 

shall maintain all documents related to a 

denial of certification. Such documents shall 

constitute the procedural and substantive 

record of the decision making process. 

Records may include the following: 

6.5.1. The Program Director’s report and 

recommendation to the Decision Authority. 

6.5.2. The Decision Authority’s Initial 

Decision and Final Decision. 

6.5.3. Any materials gathered by the 

Decision Authority that served as a basis for 

a certification determination. 

6.5.4. All relevant and allowable materials 

submitted by the Manufacturer upon request 

for reconsideration or appeal. 

6.5.5. All correspondence between the EAC 

and a Manufacturer after the issuance of an 

Initial Decision denying certification. 

6.6. Initial Decision. The Decision 

Authority shall make and issue a written 

decision on voting systems submitted for 

certification. When such decisions result in 

a denial of certification, the decision shall be 

considered preliminary and referred to as an 

Initial Decision. Initial Decisions shall be in 

writing and contain (1) the Decision 

Authority’s basis and explanation for the 

decision and (2) notice of the Manufacturer’s 

rights in the denial of certification process. 

6.6.1. Basis and Explanation. The Initial 

Decision of the Decision Authority shall 

accomplish the following: 

6.6.1.1. Clearly state the agency’s decision 

on certification. 

6.6.1.2. Explain the basis for the decision, 

including identifying the following: 

6.6.1.2.1. The relevant facts. 

6.6.1.2.2. The applicable EAC voting 

system standards (VVSG or VSS). 

6.6.1.2.3. The relevant analysis in the 

Program Director’s recommendation. 

6.6.1.2.4. The reasoning behind the 

decision. 

6.6.1.3. State the actions the Manufacturer 

must take, if any, to cure all defects in the 

voting system and obtain a certification. 

6.6.2. Manufacturer’s Rights. The written 

Initial Decision must also inform the 

Manufacturer of its procedural rights under 

the program, including the following: 

6.6.2.1. Right to request reconsideration. 

The Manufacturer shall be informed of its 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76295 

right to request a timely reconsideration (see 

Section 6.9). Such request must be made 

within 10 calendar days of the 

Manufacturer’s receipt of the Initial Decision. 

6.6.2.2. Right to request a copy or 

otherwise have access to the information that 

served as the basis of the Initial Decision 

(‘‘the record’’). 

6.6.2.3. Right to cure system defects prior 

to final Agency Decision (see Section 6.8). A 

Manufacturer may request an opportunity to 

cure within 10 calendar days of its receipt of 

the Initial Decision. 

6.7. No Manufacturer Action on Initial 

Decision. If a Manufacturer takes no action 

(by either failing to request an opportunity to 

cure or request reconsideration) within 10 

calendar days of its receipt of the Initial 

Decision, the Initial Decision shall become 

the agency’s Final Decision on Certification. 

In such cases, the Manufacturer is 

determined to have foregone its right to 

reconsideration, cure, and appeal. The 

certification application shall be considered 

finally denied. 

6.8. Opportunity To Cure. Within 10 

calendar days of receiving the EAC’s Initial 

Decision on Certification, a Manufacturer 

may request an opportunity to cure the 

defects identified in the EAC’s Initial 

Decision. If the request is approved, a 

compliance plan must be created, approved, 

and followed. If this cure process is 

successfully completed, a voting system 

denied certification in an Initial Decision 

may receive a certification without 

resubmission. 

6.8.1. Manufacturer’s Request To Cure. The 

Manufacturer must send a request to cure 

within 10 calendar days of receipt of an 

Initial Decision. The request must be sent to 

the Program Director. 

6.8.2. EAC Action on Request. The 

Decision Authority will review the request 

and approve it. The Decision Authority will 

deny a request to cure only if the proposed 

plan to cure is inadequate or does not present 

a viable way to remedy the identified defects. 

Approval or denial of a request to cure shall 

be provided the Manufacturer in writing. If 

the Manufacturer’s request to cure is denied, 

it shall have 10 calendar days from the date 

it received such notice to request 

reconsideration of the Initial Decision 

pursuant to Section 6.6.2. 

6.8.3. Manufacturer’s Compliance Plan. 

Upon approval of the Manufacturer’s request 

for an opportunity to cure, it shall submit a 

compliance plan to the Decision Authority 

for approval. This compliance plan must set 

forth steps to be taken to cure all identified 

defects. It shall include the proposed changes 

to the system, updated technical information 

(as required by Section 4.3.2), and a new test 

plan created and submitted directly to the 

EAC by the VSTL (testing the system 

consistent with Section 4.4.2.3). The plan 

shall also provide for the testing of the 

amended system and submission of a test 

report by the VSTL to the EAC for approval. 

It should provide an estimated date for 

receipt of this test report and include a 

schedule of periodic VSTL progress reports 

to the Program Director. 

6.8.4. EAC Action on the Compliance Plan. 

The Decision Authority must review and 

approve the compliance plan. The Decision 

Authority may require the Manufacturer to 

provide additional information and modify 

the plan as required. If the Manufacturer is 

unable or unwilling to provide a compliance 

plan acceptable to the Decision Authority, 

the Decision Authority shall provide written 

notice terminating the ‘‘opportunity to cure’’

process. The Manufacturer shall have 10 

calendar days from the date it receives such 

notice to request reconsideration of the Initial 

Decision pursuant to Section 6.6.2. 

6.8.5. Compliance Plan Test Report. The 

VSTL shall submit the test report created 

pursuant to its EAC-approved compliance 

plan. The EAC shall review the test report, 

along with the original test report and other 

materials originally provided. The report will 

be technically reviewed by the EAC 

consistent with the procedures laid out in 

Chapter 4 of this Manual. 

6.8.6. EAC Decision on the System. After 

receipt of the test plan, the Decision 

Authority shall issue a decision on a voting 

system amended pursuant to an approved 

compliance plan. This decision shall be 

issued in the same manner and with the same 

process and rights as an Initial Decision on 

Certification. 

6.9. Requests for Reconsideration. 

Manufacturers may request reconsideration 

of an Initial Decision. 

6.9.1. Submission of Request. A request for 

reconsideration must be made within 10 

calendar days of the Manufacturer’s receipt 

of an Initial Decision. The request shall be 

made and sent to the Decision Authority. 

6.9.2. Acknowledgment of Request. The 

Decision Authority shall acknowledge receipt 

of the Manufacturer’s request for 

reconsideration. This acknowledgment shall 

either enclose all information that served as 

the basis for the Initial Decision (the record) 

or provide a date by which the record will 

be forwarded to the Manufacturer. 

6.9.3. Manufacturer’s Submission. Within 

30 calendar days of receipt of the record, a 

Manufacturer may submit written materials 

in support of its position, including the 

following: 

6.9.3.1. A written argument responding to 

the conclusions in the Initial Decision. 

6.9.3.2. Documentary evidence relevant to 

the issues raised in the Initial Decision. 

6.9.4. Decision Authority’s Review of 

Request. The Decision Authority shall review 

and consider all relevant submissions of the 

Manufacturer. In making a decision on 

reconsideration, the Decision Authority shall 

also consider all documents that make up the 

record and any other documentary 

information he or she determines relevant. 

6.10. Agency Final Decision. The Decision 

Authority shall issue a written Agency 

Decision after review of the Manufacturer’s 

request for reconsideration. This Decision 

shall be the decision of the agency. The 

following actions are necessary for writing 

the decision: 

6.10.1.1. Clearly state the agency’s 

determination on the application for 

certification. 

6.10.1.2. Address the issues raised by the 

Manufacturer in its request for 

reconsideration. 

6.10.1.3. Identify all facts, evidence, and 

EAC voting system standards (VVSG or VSS) 

that served as the basis for the decision. 

6.10.1.4. Provide the reasoning behind the 

determination. 

6.10.1.5. Identify and provide, as an 

attachment, any additional documentary 

information that served as a basis for the 

decision and that was not part of the 

Manufacturer’s submission or the prior 

record. 

6.10.1.6. Provide the Manufacturer notice 

of its right to appeal. 

6.11. Appeal of Agency Final Decision. A 

Manufacturer may, upon receipt of an 

Agency Final Decision denying certification, 

issue a request for appeal. 

6.11.1. Requesting Appeal. A Manufacturer 

may appeal a final decision of the agency by 

issuing a written request for appeal. 

6.11.1.1. Submission. Requests must be 

submitted in writing to the Program Director, 

addressed to the Chair of the U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission. 

6.11.1.2. Timing of Appeal. The 

Manufacturer may request an appeal within 

20 calendar days of receipt of the Agency 

Final Decision. Late requests will not be 

considered. 

6.11.1.3. Contents of Request. 

6.11.1.3.1. The request must clearly state 

the specific conclusions of the Final Decision 

the Manufacturer wishes to appeal. 

6.11.1.3.2. The request may include 

additional written argument. 

6.11.1.3.3. The request may not reference 

or include any factual material not in the 

record. 

6.11.2. Consideration of Appeal. All timely 

appeals will be considered by the Appeal 

Authority. 

6.11.2.1. The Appeal Authority shall be 

two or more EAC Commissioners or other 

individuals appointed by the Commissioners 

who have not previously served as the initial 

or reconsideration authority on the matter. 

6.11.2.2. All decisions on appeal shall be 

based on the record. 

6.11.2.3. The determination of the Decision 

Authority shall be given deference by the 

Appeal Authority. Although it is unlikely 

that the scientific certification process will 

produce factual disputes, in such cases, the 

burden of proof shall belong to the 

Manufacturer to demonstrate by clear and 

convincing evidence that its voting system 

met all substantive and procedural 

requirements for certification. In other words, 

the determination of the Decision Authority 

will be overturned only when the Appeal 

Authority finds the ultimate facts in 

controversy highly probable. 

6.12. Decision on Appeal. The Appeal 

Authority shall make a written, final 

Decision on Appeal and shall provide it to 

the Manufacturer. 

6.12.1. Contents. The following actions are 

necessary to write the Decision on Appeal: 

6.12.1.1. State the final determination of 

the agency. 

6.12.1.2. Address the matters raised by the 

Manufacturer on appeal. 

6.12.1.3. Provide the reasoning behind the 

decisions. 

6.12.1.4. State that the Decision on Appeal 

is final. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76296 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 

6.12.2. Determinations. The Appeal 

Authority may make one of two 

determinations: 

6.12.2.1. Grant of Appeal. If the Appeal 

Authority determines that the conclusions of 

the Decision Authority shall be overturned in 

full, the appeal shall be granted. In such 

cases, certification will be approved subject 

to the requirements of Chapter 5. 

6.12.2.2. Denial of Appeal. If the Appeal 

Authority determines that any part of the 

Decision Authority’s determination shall be 

upheld, the appeal shall be denied. In such 

cases, the application for appeal is finally 

denied. 

6.12.3. Effect. All Decisions on Appeal 

shall be final and binding on the 

Manufacturer. No additional appeal shall be 

granted. 

7. Decertification 

7.1. Overview. Decertification is the 

process by which the EAC revokes a 

certification previously granted to a voting 

system. It is an important part of the 

Certification Program because it serves to 

ensure that the requirements of the program 

are followed and that certified voting systems 

fielded for use in Federal elections maintain 

the same level of quality as those presented 

for testing. Decertification is a serious matter. 

Its use will significantly affect 

Manufacturers, State and local governments, 

the public, and the administration of 

elections. As such, the process for 

Decertification is complex. It is initiated 

when the EAC receives information that a 

voting system may not be in compliance with 

the applicable voting system standard or the 

procedural requirements of this Manual. 

Upon receipt of such information, the 

Program Director may initiate an Informal 

Inquiry to determine the credibility of the 

information. If the information is credible 

and suggests the system is non-compliant, a 

Formal Investigation will be initiated. If the 

results of the Formal Investigation 

demonstrate non-compliance, the 

Manufacturer will be provided a Notice of 

Non-Compliance. Before a Final Decision on 

Decertification is made, the Manufacturer 

will have the opportunity to remedy any 

defects identified in the voting system and 

present information for consideration by the 

Decertification Authority. A Decertification 

of a voting system may be appealed in a 

timely manner. 

7.2. Decertification Policy. Voting systems 

certified by the EAC are subject to 

Decertification. Systems shall be decertified 

if (1) they are shown not to meet applicable 

voting system standard, (2) they have been 

modified or changed without following the 

requirements of this Manual, or (3) the 

Manufacturer has otherwise failed to follow 

the procedures outlined in this Manual so 

that the quality, configuration, or compliance 

of the system is in question. Decertification 

of a voting system is a serious matter. 

Systems will be decertified only after 

completion of the process outlined in this 

chapter. 

7.3. Informal Inquiry. An Informal Inquiry 

is the first step taken when information is 

presented to the EAC that suggests a voting 

system may not be in compliance with the 

applicable voting system standard or the 

procedural requirements of this Manual. 

7.3.1. Informal Inquiry Authority. The 

authority to conduct an Informal Inquiry 

shall rest with the Program Director. 

7.3.2. Purpose. The sole purpose of the 

Informal Inquiry is to determine whether a 

Formal Investigation is warranted. The 

outcome of an Informal Inquiry is limited to 

a decision on referral for investigation. 

7.3.3. Procedure. Informal Inquiries do not 

follow a formal process. 

7.3.3.1. Initiation. Informal Inquiries are 

initiated at the discretion of the Program 

Director. They may be initiated any time the 

Program Director receives attributable, 

relevant information that suggests a certified 

voting system may require Decertification. 

The information shall come from a source 

that has directly observed or witnessed the 

reported occurrence. Such information may 

be a product of the Certification Quality 

Monitoring Program (see Chapter 8). 

Information may also come from State and 

local election officials, voters, or others who 

have used or tested a given voting system. 

The Program Director may notify a 

Manufacturer that an Informal Inquiry has 

been initiated, but such notification is not 

required. Initiation of an inquiry shall be 

documented through the creation of a 

Memorandum for the Record. 

7.3.3.2. Inquiry. The Informal Inquiry 

process is limited to that inquiry necessary 

to determine whether a Formal Investigation 

is required. In other words, the Program 

Director shall conduct such inquiry 

necessary to determine (1) that the 

information obtained is credible and (2) that 

the information, if true, would serve as a 

basis for Decertification. The nature and 

extent of the inquiry process will vary 

depending on the source of the information. 

For example, an Informal Inquiry initiated as 

a result of action taken under the 

Certification Quality Monitoring Program 

will often require the Program Director 

merely to read the report issued as a result 

of the Quality Monitoring action. On the 

other hand, information provided by election 

officials or by voters who have used a voting 

system may require the Program Director (or 

assigned technical experts) to perform an inperson inspection or make inquiries of the 

Manufacturer. 

7.3.3.3. Conclusion. An Informal Inquiry 

shall be concluded after the Program Director 

is in a position to determine the credibility 

of the information that initiated the inquiry 

and whether that information, if true, would 

require Decertification. The Program Director 

may make only two conclusions: (1) refer the 

matter for a Formal Investigation or (2) close 

the matter without additional action or 

referral. 

7.3.4. Closing the Matter Without Referral. 

If the Program Director determines, after 

Informal Inquiry, that a matter does not 

require a Formal Investigation, the Program 

Director shall close the inquiry by filing a 

Memorandum for the Record. This document 

shall state the focus of the inquiry, the 

findings of the inquiry and the reasons a 

Formal Investigation was not warranted. 

7.3.5. Referral. If the Program Director 

determines, after Informal Inquiry, that a 

matter requires a Formal Investigation, the 

Program Director shall refer the matter in 

writing to the Decision Authority. In 

preparing this referral, the Program Director 

shall do the following: 

7.3.5.1. State the facts that served as the 

basis for the referral. 

7.3.5.2. State the findings of the Program 

Director. 

7.3.5.3. Attach all documentary evidence 

that served as the basis for the conclusion. 

7.3.5.4. Recommend a Formal 

Investigation, specifically stating the system 

to be investigated and the scope and focus of 

the proposed investigation. 

7.4. Formal Investigation. A Formal 

Investigation is an official investigation to 

determine whether a voting system requires 

Decertification. The end result of a Formal 

Investigation is a Report of Investigation. 

7.4.1. Formal Investigation Authority. The 

Decision Authority shall have the authority 

to initiate and conclude a Formal 

Investigation by the EAC. 

7.4.2. Purpose. The purpose of a Formal 

Investigation is to gather and document 

relevant information sufficient to make a 

determination on whether an EAC-certified 

voting system requires Decertification 

consistent with the policy put forth in 

Section 7.2 above. 

7.4.3. Initiation of Investigation. The 

Decision Authority shall authorize the 

initiation of an EAC Formal Investigation. 

7.4.3.1. Scope. The Decision Authority 

shall clearly set the scope of the investigation 

by identifying (in writing) the voting system 

(or systems) and specific procedural or 

operational non-conformance to be 

investigated. The nonconformance or nonconformances to be investigated shall be set 

forth in the form of numbered allegations. 

7.4.3.2. Investigator. The Program Director 

shall be responsible for conducting the 

investigation unless the Decision Authority 

appoints another individual to conduct the 

investigation. The Program Director (or 

Decision Authority appointee) may assign 

staff or technical experts, as required, to 

investigate the matter. 

7.4.4. Notice of Formal Investigation. Upon 

initiation of a Formal Investigation, notice 

shall be given the Manufacturer of the scope 

of the investigation. The following actions 

are necessary to prepare this notice: 

7.4.4.1. Identify the voting system and 

specific procedural or operation 

nonconformance being investigated (scope of 

investigation). 

7.4.4.2. Provide the Manufacturer an 

opportunity to provide relevant information 

in writing. 

7.4.4.3. Provide an estimated timeline for 

the investigation. 

7.4.5. Investigation. Because voting 

systems play a vital role in our democratic 

process, investigations shall be conducted 

impartially, diligently, promptly, and 

confidentially. Investigators shall use 

techniques to gather necessary information 

that meet these requirements. 

7.4.5.1. Fair and Impartial Investigation. 

All Formal Investigations shall be conducted 

in a fair and impartial manner. All 

individuals assigned to an investigation must 

be free from any financial conflicts of 

interest. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76297 

7.4.5.2. Diligent Collection of Information. 

All investigations shall be conducted in a 

meticulous and thorough manner. 

Investigations shall gather all relevant 

information and documentation that is 

reasonably available. The diligent collection 

of information is vital for informed decision 

making. 

7.4.5.3. Prompt Collection of Information. 

Determinations that may affect the 

administration of Federal elections must be 

made with all reasonable speed. EAC 

determinations on Decertification will affect 

the actions of State and local election 

officials conducting elections. As such, all 

investigations regarding Decertification must 

proceed with an appropriate sense of 

urgency. 

7.4.5.4. Confidential Collection of 

Information. Consistent with Federal law, 

information pertaining to a Formal 

Investigation should not be made public until 

the Report of Investigation is complete. The 

release of incomplete and unsubstantiated 

information or predecisional opinions that 

may be contrary or inconsistent with the final 

determination of the EAC could cause public 

confusion or could unnecessarily negatively 

affect public confidence in active voting 

systems. Such actions could serve to 

impermissibly affect election administration 

and voter turnout. All predecisional 

investigative materials must be appropriately 

safeguarded. 

7.4.5.5. Methodologies. Investigators shall 

gather information by means consistent with 

the four principles noted above. Investigative 

tools include (but are not limited to) the 

following: 

7.4.5.5.1. Interviews. Investigators may 

interview individuals (such as State and local 

election officials, voters, or representatives of 

the Manufacturer) with relevant information. 

All interviews shall be reduced to written 

form; each interview should be summarized 

in a statement that is reviewed, approved, 

and signed by the subject. 

7.4.5.5.2. Field audits. 

7.4.5.5.3. Manufacturer site audits. 

7.4.5.5.4. Written interrogatories. 

Investigators may pose specific, written 

questions to the Manufacturer for the 

purpose of gathering information relevant to 

the investigation. The Manufacturer shall 

respond to the queries within a reasonable 

timeframe (as specified in the request). 

7.4.5.5.5. System testing. Testing may be 

performed in an attempt to reproduce a 

condition or failure that has been reported. 

This testing will be conducted at a VSTL 

under contract with the EAC. 

7.4.5.6. Report of Investigation. The end 

result of a Formal Investigation is a Report 

of Investigation. 

7.4.6. Report of Investigation. The Report 

of Investigation serves, primarily, to 

document (1) all relevant and reliable 

information gathered in the course of the 

investigation, and (2) the conclusion reached 

by the Decision Authority. 

7.4.6.1. When Complete. The report is 

complete and final when certified and signed 

by the Decision Authority. 

7.4.6.2. Contents of the Report of 

Investigation. The following actions are 

necessary to prepare the written report: 

7.4.6.2.1. Restate the scope of the 

investigation, identifying the voting system 

and specific matter investigated. 

7.4.6.2.2. Briefly describe the investigative 

process employed. 

7.4.6.2.3. Summarize the relevant and 

reliable facts and information gathered in the 

course of the investigation. 

7.4.6.2.4. Attach all relevant and reliable 

evidence collected in the course of the 

investigation that documents the facts. All 

facts shall be documented in written form. 

7.4.6.2.5. Analyze the information 

gathered. 

7.4.6.2.6. Clearly state the findings of the 

investigation. 

7.4.7. Findings, Report of Investigation. 

The Report of Investigation shall state one of 

two conclusions. After gathering and 

reviewing all applicable facts, the report shall 

find each allegation investigated to be either 

(1) substantiated, or (2) unsubstantiated. 

7.4.7.1. Substantiated Allegation. An 

allegation is substantiated if a preponderance 

of the relevant and reliable information 

gathered requires that the voting system at 

issue be decertified (consistent with the 

policy set out in Section 7.2). If any 

allegation is substantiated, a Notice of NonCompliance must be issued. 

7.4.7.2. Unsubstantiated Allegation. An 

allegation is unsubstantiated if the 

preponderance of the relevant and reliable 

information gathered does not require 

Decertification (see Section 7.2). If all 

allegations are unsubstantiated, the matter 

shall be closed and a copy of the report 

forwarded to the Manufacturer. 

7.4.8. Publication of Report. The report 

shall not be made public nor released to the 

public until final. 

7.5. Effect of Informal Inquiry or Formal 

Investigation on Certification. A voting 

system’s EAC certification is not affected by 

the initiation or conclusion of an Informal 

Inquiry or Formal Investigation. Systems 

under investigation remain certified until a 

final Decision on Decertification is issued by 

the EAC. 

7.6. Notice of Non-Compliance. If an 

allegation in a Formal Investigation is 

substantiated, the Decision Authority shall 

send the Manufacturer a Notice of NonCompliance. The Notice of Non-Compliance 

is not, itself, a Decertification of the voting 

system. The purpose of the notice is to (1) 

notify the Manufacturer of the noncompliance and the EAC’ s intent to Decertify 

the system and (2) inform the Manufacturer 

of its procedural rights so that it may be 

heard prior to Decertification. 

7.6.1. Non-Compliance Information. The 

following actions are necessary for preparing 

a Notice of Non-Compliance: 

7.6.1.1. Provide a copy of the Report of 

Investigation to the Manufacturer. 

7.6.1.2. Identify the non-compliance, 

consistent with the Report of Investigation. 

7.6.1.3. Inform the Manufacturer that if the 

voting system is not made compliant, the 

voting system will be decertified. 

7.6.1.4. State the actions the Manufacturer 

must take, if any, to bring the voting system 

into compliance and avoid Decertification. 

7.6.2. Manufacturer’s Rights. The written 

Notice of Non-Compliance must also inform 

the Manufacturer of its procedural rights 

under the program, which include the 

following: 

7.6.2.1. Right to Present Information Prior 

to Decertification Decision. The 

Manufacturer shall be informed of its right to 

present information to the Decision 

Authority prior to a determination of 

Decertification. 

7.6.2.2. Right to Have Access to the 

Information That Will Serve as the Basis of 

the Decertification Decision. The 

Manufacturer shall be provided the Report of 

Investigation and any other materials that 

will serve as the basis of an Agency Decision 

on Decertification. 

7.6.2.3. Right to Cure System Defects Prior 

to the Decertification Decision. A 

Manufacturer may request an opportunity to 

cure within 20 calendar days of its receipt of 

the Notice of Non-Compliance. 

7.7. Procedure for Decision on 

Decertification. The Decision Authority shall 

make and issue a written Decision on 

Decertification whenever a Notice of NonCompliance is issued. The Decision 

Authority will not take such action until the 

Manufacturer has had a reasonable 

opportunity to cure the non-compliance and 

submit information for consideration. 

7.7.1. Opportunity to Cure. The 

Manufacturer shall have an opportunity to 

cure a nonconforming voting system in a 

timely manner prior to Decertification. A 

cure is timely when the cure process can be 

completed before the next Federal election, 

meaning that any proposed cure must be in 

place before any individual jurisdiction 

fielding the system holds a Federal election. 

The Manufacturer must request the 

opportunity to cure. If the request is 

approved, a compliance plan must be 

created, approved, and followed. If this cure 

process is successfully completed, a 

Manufacturer may modify a non-compliant 

voting system, remedy procedural 

discrepancies, or otherwise bring its system 

into compliance without resubmission or 

Decertification. 

7.7.1.1. Manufacturer’s Request to Cure. 

Within 10 calendar days of receiving the 

EAC’s Notice of Non-Compliance, a 

Manufacturer may request an opportunity to 

cure all defects identified in the Notice of 

Non-Compliance in a timely manner. The 

request must be sent to the Decision 

Authority and outline how the Manufacturer 

would modify the system, update the 

technical information (as required by Section 

4.3.2), have the VSTL create a test plan and 

test the system, and obtain EAC approval 

before the next election for Federal office. 

7.7.1.2. EAC Action on Request. The 

Decision Authority will review the request 

and approve it if the defects identified in the 

Notice of Non-Compliance may reasonably be 

cured before the next election for Federal 

office. 

7.7.1.3. Manufacturer’s Compliance Plan. 

Upon approval of the Manufacturer’s request 

for an opportunity to cure, the Manufacturer 

shall submit a compliance plan to the 

Decision Authority for approval. This 

compliance plan must set forth the steps to 

be taken (including time frames) to cure all 

identified defects in a timely manner. The 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76298 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 

2Manufacturers should also be cognizant of State 

certification procedures and local pre-election logic 

and accuracy testing. Systems that meet EAC 

guidelines will also be impacted by independent 

State and local requirements. These requirements 

may also prevent a system from being fielded, 

irrespective of EAC Certification. 

plan shall describe the proposed changes to 

the system, provide for modification of the 

system, update the technical information 

required by Section 4.3.2, include a test plan 

delivered to the EAC by the VSTL (testing the 

system consistent with Section 4.4.2.3), and 

provide for the VSTL’s testing of the system 

and submission of the test report to the EAC 

for approval (assume at least 20 working 

days). The plan shall also include a schedule 

of periodic progress reports to the Program 

Director.2

7.7.1.4. EAC Action on the Compliance 

Plan. The Decision Authority must review 

and approve the compliance plan. The 

Decision Authority may require the 

Manufacturer to provide additional 

information and modify the plan as required. 

If the Manufacturer is unable or unwilling to 

provide a Compliance Plan acceptable to the 

Decision Authority, the Decision Authority 

shall provide written notice terminating the 

‘‘opportunity to cure’’ process. 

7.7.1.5. VSTL’s Submission of the 

Compliance Plan Test Report. The VSTL 

shall submit the test report created pursuant 

to the Manufacturer’s EAC-approved 

Compliance Plan. The EAC shall review the 

test report and any other necessary or 

relevant materials. The report will be 

technically reviewed by the EAC in a manner 

similar to the procedures described in 

Chapter 4 of this Manual. 

7.7.1.6. EAC Decision on the System. After 

receipt of the VSTL’s test report, the Decision 

Authority shall issue a decision on a voting 

system amended pursuant to an approved 

Compliance Plan. For the purpose of 

planning, the Manufacturer should allow at 

least 20 working days for this process. 

7.7.2. Opportunity to Be Heard. The 

Manufacturer may submit written materials 

in response to the Notice of Non-Compliance 

and Report of Investigation. These 

documents shall be considered by the 

Decision Authority when making a 

determination on Decertification. The 

Manufacturer shall ordinarily have 20 

calendar days from the date it received the 

Notice of Non-Compliance (or in the case of 

a failed effort to cure, the termination of that 

process) to deliver its submissions to the 

Decision Authority. When warranted by 

public interest (because a delay in making a 

determination on Decertification would affect 

the timely, fair, and effective administration 

of a Federal election), however, the Decision 

Authority may provide a Manufacturer less 

time to submit information. This alternative 

period (and the basis for it) must be stated 

in the Notice of Non-Compliance. The 

alternative time period must allow the 

Manufacturer a reasonable amount of time to 

gather its submissions. Submissions may 

include the following materials: 

7.7.2.1. A written argument responding to 

the conclusions in the Notice of 

NonCompliance or Report of Investigation. 

7.7.2.2. Documentary evidence relevant to 

the allegations or conclusions in the Notice 

of Non-Compliance. 

7.7.3. Decision on Decertification. The 

Decision Authority shall make an agency 

determination on Decertification. 

7.7.3.1. Timing. The Decision Authority 

shall promptly make a decision on 

Decertification. The Decision Authority may 

not issue such a decision, however, until the 

Manufacturer has provided all of its written 

materials for consideration or the time 

allotted for submission (usually 20 calendar 

days) has run out. 

7.7.3.2. Considered Materials. The Decision 

Authority shall review and consider all 

relevant submissions of the Manufacturer. In 

making a Decision on Decertification, the 

Decision Authority shall also consider all 

documents that make up the record and any 

other documentary information he or she 

determines relevant. 

7.7.3.3. Agency Decision. The Decision 

Authority shall issue a written Agency 

Decision after review of applicable materials. 

This decision shall be the final decision of 

the agency. The following actions are 

necessary to write the decision: 

7.7.3.3.1. Clearly state the agency’s 

determination on the Decertification, 

specifically addressing the areas of noncompliance investigated. 

7.7.3.3.2. Address the issues raised by the 

Manufacturer in the materials it submitted 

for consideration. 

7.7.3.3.3. Identify all facts, evidence, 

procedural requirements, and/or voting 

system standards (VVSG or VSS) that served 

as the basis for the decision. 

7.7.3.3.4. Provide the reasoning behind the 

decision. 

7.7.3.3.5. Identify, and provide as an 

attachment, any additional documentary 

information that served as a basis for the 

decision and that was not part of the 

Manufacturer’s submission or the Report of 

Investigation. 

7.7.3.3.6. Provide the Manufacturer notice 

of its right to appeal. 

7.8. Effect of Decision Authority’s Decision 

on Decertification. The Decision Authority’s 

Decision on Decertification is the 

determination of the agency. A 

Decertification is effective upon the EAC’s 

publication or Manufacturer’s receipt of the 

decision (whichever is earlier). A 

Manufacturer that has had a voting system 

decertified may appeal that decision. 

7.9. Appeal of Decertification. A 

Manufacturer may, upon receipt of an 

Agency Final Decision on Decertification, 

request an appeal in a timely manner. 

7.9.1. Requesting Appeal. 

7.9.1.1. Submission. Requests must be 

submitted by the Manufacturer in writing to 

the Chair of the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

7.9.1.2. Timing of Appeal. The 

Manufacturer may request an appeal within 

20 calendar days of receipt of the Agency 

Final Decision on Decertification. Late 

requests will not be considered. 

7.9.1.3. Contents of Request. The following 

actions are necessary for the Manufacturer to 

write and submit a request for appeal: 

7.9.1.3.1. Clearly state the specific 

conclusions of the Final Decision the 

Manufacturer wishes to appeal. 

7.9.1.3.2. Include additional written 

argument, if any. 

7.9.1.3.3. Do not reference or include any 

factual material not previously considered or 

submitted to the EAC. 

7.9.1.4. Effect of Appeal on Decertification. 

The initiation of an appeal does not affect the 

decertified status of a voting system. Systems 

are decertified upon notice of Decertification 

in the agency’s Decision on Decertification 

(see Section 7.8). 

7.9.2. Consideration of Appeal. All timely 

appeals will be considered by the Appeal 

Authority. 

7.9.2.1. The Appeal Authority shall be two 

or more EAC Commissioners or other 

individual or individuals appointed by the 

Commissioners who have not previously 

served as investigators, advisors, or decision 

makers in the Decertification process. 

7.9.2.2. All decisions on appeal shall be 

based on the record. 

7.9.2.3. The decision of the Decision 

Authority shall be given deference by the 

Appeal Authority. Although it is unlikely 

that the scientific certification process will 

produce factual disputes, in such cases the 

burden of proof shall belong to the 

Manufacturer to demonstrate by clear and 

convincing evidence that its voting system 

met all substantive and procedural 

requirements for certification. In other words, 

the determination of the Decision Authority 

will be overturned only when the Appeal 

Authority finds the ultimate facts in 

controversy to be highly probable. 

7.9.3. Decision on Appeal. The Appeal 

Authority shall make a written, final 

Decision on Appeal that it shall provide to 

the Manufacturer. Each Decision on Appeal 

shall be final and binding on the 

Manufacturer. No additional appeal shall be 

granted. The following actions are necessary 

to write a Decision on Appeal: 

7.9.3.1. State the final determination of the 

agency. 

7.9.3.2. Address the matters raised by the 

Manufacturer on appeal. 

7.9.3.3. Provide the reasoning behind the 

decision. 

7.9.3.4. State that the Decision on Appeal 

is final. 

7.9.4. Effect of Appeal. 

7.9.4.1. Grant of Appeal. If a 

Manufacturer’s appeal is granted in whole, 

the decision of the Decision Authority is 

reversed. The voting system shall have its 

certification reinstated. For purposes of this 

program, the system shall be treated as 

though it was never decertified. 

7.9.4.2. Denial of Appeal. If a 

Manufacturer’s appeal is denied in whole or 

in part, the decision of the Decision 

Authority is upheld. The voting system 

remains decertified and no additional appeal 

is available. 

7.10. Effect of Decertification. A voting 

system that has been decertified no longer 

holds an EAC certification under the 

Certification Program. For purposes of this 

Manual and the program, a decertified 

system will be treated as any other 

uncertified voting system. As such, the 

effects of Decertification are as follows: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76299 

7.10.1. The Manufacturer may not 

represent the voting system as certified. 

7.10.2. The voting system may not be 

labeled with a mark of certification. 

7.10.3. The voting system will be removed 

from the EAC list of certified systems. 

7.10.4. The EAC will notify State and local 

election officials of the Decertification. 

7.11. Recertification. A decertified system 

may be resubmitted for certification. Such 

systems shall be treated as any other system 

seeking certification. The Manufacturer shall 

present an application for certification 

consistent with the instructions of this 

Manual. 

8. Quality Monitoring Program 

8.1. Overview. The quality of any product, 

including a voting system, depends on two 

specific elements: (1) the design of the 

product or system and (2) the care and 

consistency of the manufacturing process. 

The EAC testing and certification process 

focuses on voting system design by ensuring 

that a representative sample of a system 

meets the technical specifications of the 

applicable EAC voting system standards. 

This process, commonly called ‘‘type 

acceptance,’’ determines whether the 

representative sample submitted for testing 

meets the requirements. What type 

acceptance does not do is explore whether 

variations in manufacturing may allow 

production of non-compliant systems. 

Generally, the quality of the manufacturing is 

the responsibility of the Manufacturer. After 

a system is certified, the vendor assumes 

primary responsibility for compliance of the 

products produced. This level of compliance 

is accomplished by the Manufacturer’s 

configuration management and quality 

control processes. The EAC’s Quality 

Monitoring Program, as outlined in this 

chapter, however, provides an additional 

layer of quality control by allowing the EAC 

to perform manufacturing site reviews, carry 

out fielded system reviews, and gather 

information on voting system anomalies from 

election officials. These additional tools help 

ensure that voting systems continue to meet 

the requirements of EAC’s voting system 

standards as the systems are manufactured, 

delivered, and used in Federal elections. 

These aspects of the program enable the EAC 

to independently monitor the continued 

compliance of fielded voting systems. 

8.2. Purpose. The purpose of the Quality 

Monitoring Program is to ensure that EACcertified voting systems are identical to those 

fielded in election jurisdictions. This level of 

quality control is accomplished primarily by 

identifying (1) potential quality problems in 

manufacturing, (2) uncertified voting system 

configurations, and (3) field performance 

issues with certified systems. 

8.3. Manufacturer’s Quality Control. EAC’s 

Quality Monitoring Program is not a 

substitute for the Manufacturer’s quality 

control program. As stated in Chapter 2 of 

this Manual, all Manufacturers must have an 

acceptable quality control program in place 

before they may be registered. The EAC’s 

program serves as an independent and 

complementary process of quality control 

that works in tandem with the 

Manufacturer’s efforts. 

8.4. Quality Monitoring Methodology. This 

chapter provides the EAC with three primary 

tools for assessing the level of effectiveness 

of the certification process and the 

compliance of fielded voting systems. These 

tools include (1) manufacturing site reviews, 

(2) fielded system reviews, and (3) a means 

for receiving anomaly reports from the field. 

8.5. Manufacturing Site Review. Facilities 

that produce certified voting systems will be 

reviewed periodically, at the discretion of the 

EAC, to verify that the system being 

manufactured, shipped, and sold is the same 

as the sample submitted for certification 

testing. All registered Manufacturers must 

cooperate with such audits as a condition of 

program participation. 

8.5.1. Notice. The site review may be 

scheduled or unscheduled, at the discretion 

of the EAC. Unscheduled reviews will be 

performed with at least 24 hours notice. 

Scheduling and notice of site reviews will be 

coordinated with and provided to both the 

manufacturing facility’s representative and 

the Manufacturer’s representative. 

8.5.2. Frequency. At a minimum, at least 

one manufacturing facility of a registered 

Manufacturer shall be subject to a site review 

at least once every 4 years. 

8.5.3. The Review. The production facility 

and production test records must be made 

available for review. When requested, 

production schedules must be provided to 

the EAC. Production or production testing 

may be witnessed by EAC representatives. If 

equipment is not being produced during the 

inspection, the review may be limited to 

production records. During the inspection, 

the Manufacturer must make available to the 

EAC representative the Manufacturer’s 

quality manual and other documentation 

sufficient to enable the inspector to evaluate 

the following factors of the facility’s 

production: 

8.5.3.1. Manufacturing quality controls. 

8.5.3.2. Final inspection and testing. 

8.5.3.3. History of deficiencies or 

anomalies and corrective actions taken. 

8.5.3.4. Equipment calibration and 

maintenance. 

8.5.3.5. Corrective action program. 

8.5.3.6. Policies on product labeling and 

the application of the EAC mark of 

certification. 

8.5.4. Exit Briefing. Site reviewers will 

provide the manufacturing facility 

representative a verbal exit briefing regarding 

the preliminary observations of the review. 

8.5.5. Written Report. A written report 

documenting the review will be drafted by 

the EAC representative and provided to the 

Manufacturer. The report will detail the 

findings of the review and identify actions 

that are required to correct any deficiencies. 

8.6. Fielded System Review and Testing. 

Upon invitation or with the permission of a 

State or local election authority, the EAC 

may, at its discretion, conduct a review of 

fielded voting systems. Such reviews will be 

done to ensure that a fielded system is in the 

same configuration as that certified by the 

EAC and that it has the proper mark of 

certification. This review may include the 

testing of a fielded system, if deemed 

necessary. Any anomalies found during this 

review and testing will be provided to the 

election jurisdiction and the Manufacturer. 

8.7. Field Anomaly Reporting. As another 

means of gathering field data, the EAC will 

collect information from election officials 

who field EAC-certified voting systems. 

Information on actual voting system field 

performance is a basic means for assessing 

the effectiveness of the Certification Program 

and the manufacturing quality and version 

control. The EAC will provide a mechanism 

for election officials to provide real-world 

input on voting system anomalIes. 

8.7.1. Anomaly Report. Election officials 

may use the Voting System Anomaly 

Reporting Form to report voting system 

anomalies to the EAC. The form and 

instructions for its completion are available 

as Appendix C in this Manual or on the EAC 

Web site, http://www.eac.gov. The form may 

be filed with the EAC on line, by mail or by 

facsimile. Use of the form is required. 

8.7.2. Who May Report? State or local 

election officials who have experienced 

voting system anomalies in their jurisdiction 

may file anomaly reports. The individuals 

reporting must identify themselves and have 

firsthand knowledge of or official 

responsibility over the anomaly being 

reported. Anonymous or hearsay reporting 

will not be accepted. 

8.7.3. What Is Reported? Election officials 

shall report voting system anomalies. An 

anomaly is defined as an irregular or 

inconsistent action or response from the 

voting system or system component resulting 

in some disruption to the election process. 

Incidents resulting from administrator error 

or procedural deficiencies are not considered 

anomalies for purposes of this chapter. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

8.7.3.1. The official’s name, title, contact 

information, and jurisdiction. 

8.7.3.2. A description of the voting system 

at issue. 

8.7.3.3. The date and location of the 

reported occurrence. 

8.7.3.4. The type of election. 

8.7.3.5. A description of the anomaly 

witnessed. 

8.7.4. Distribution of Credible Reports. 

Credible reports will be distributed to State 

and local election jurisdictions who field 

similar systems, the Manufacturer of the 

voting system at issue, and the VSTLs. 

Reports are reviewed by EAC staff in 

coordination with relevant State officials. 

Credible reports: 

8.7.4.1. Meet the definition of anomaly 

under Section 8.7.3, 

8.7.4.2. Constitute a complete report per 

the requirements of Sections 8.7.3.1 through 

8.7.3.5, 

8.7.4.3. Have had alleged facts confirmed 

by contacting filer and/or others present at 

the time of the incident, and 

8.7.4.4. Have been verified by the relevant 

State’s chief election official. 

8.8. Use of Quality Monitoring Information. 

Ultimately, the information the EAC gathers 

from manufacturing site reviews, fielded 

system reviews, and field anomaly reports 

will be used to improve the program and 

ensure the quality of voting systems. The 

Quality Monitoring Program is not designed 

to be punitive but to be focused on improving 

the process. Information gathered will be 

used to accomplish the following: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76300 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 

8.8.1. Identify areas for improvement in the 

EAC Testing and Certification Program. 

8.8.2. Improve manufacturing quality and 

change control processes. 

8.8.3. Increase voter confidence in voting 

technology. 

8.8.4. Inform Manufacturers, election 

officials, and the EAC of issues associated 

with voting systems in a real-world 

environment. 

8.8.5. Share information among 

jurisdictions that use similar voting systems. 

8.8.6. Resolve problems associated with 

voting technology or manufacturing in a 

timely manner by involving Manufacturers, 

election officials, and the EAC. 

8.8.7. Provide feedback to the EAC and the 

Technical Guidelines Development 

Committee (TGDC) regarding issues that may 

need to be addressed through a revision to 

the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. 

8.8.8. Initiate an investigation when 

information suggests that Decertification is 

warranted (see Chapter 7). 

9. Requests for Interpretations 

9.1. Overview. A Request for Interpretation 

is a means by which a registered 

Manufacturer or VSTL may seek clarification 

on a specific EAC voting system standard 

(VVSG or VSS). An Interpretation is a 

clarification of the voting system standards 

and guidance on how to properly evaluate 

conformance to it. Suggestions or requests for 

modifications to the standards are provided 

by other processes. This chapter outlines the 

policy, requirements, and procedures for 

submitting a Request for Interpretation. 

9.2. Policy. Registered Manufacturers or 

VSTLs may request that the EAC provide a 

definitive Interpretation of EAC-accepted 

voting system standards (VVSG or VSS) 

when, in the course of developing or testing 

a voting system, facts arise that make the 

meaning of a particular standard ambiguous 

or unclear. The EAC may self-initiate such a 

request when its agents identify a need for 

interpretation within the program. An 

Interpretation issued by the EAC will serve 

to clarify what a given standard requires and 

how to properly evaluate compliance. 

Ultimately, an Interpretation does not amend 

voting system standards, but serves only to 

clarify existing standards. 

9.3. Requirements for Submitting a Request 

for Interpretation. An EAC Interpretation is 

limited in scope. The purpose of the 

Interpretation process is to provide 

Manufacturers or VSTLs who are in the 

process of developing or testing a voting 

system a means for resolving the meaning of 

a voting system standard in light of a specific 

voting system technology without having to 

present a finished product to EAC for 

certification. To submit a Request for 

Interpretation, one must (1) be a proper 

requester, (2) request interpretation of an 

applicable voting system standard, (3) 

present an actual controversy, and (4) seek 

clarification on a matter of unsettled 

ambiguity. 

9.3.1. Proper Requestor. A Request for 

Interpretation may be submitted only by a 

registered Manufacturer or a VSTL. Requests 

for Interpretation will not be accepted from 

any other parties. 

9.3.2. Applicable Standard. A Request for 

Interpretation is limited to queries on EAC 

voting system standards (i.e., VVSG or VSS). 

Moreover, a Manufacturer or VSTL may 

submit a Request for Interpretation only on 

a version of EAC voting system standards to 

which the EAC currently offers certification. 

9.3.3. Existing Factual Controversy. To 

submit a Request for Interpretation, a 

Manufacturer or VSTL must present a 

question relative to a specific voting system 

or technology proposed for use in a voting 

system. A Request for Interpretation on 

hypothetical issues will not be addressed by 

the EAC. To submit a Request for 

Interpretation, the need for clarification must 

have arisen from the development or testing 

of a voting system. A factual controversy 

exists when an attempt to apply a specific 

section of the VVSG or VSS to a specific 

system or piece of technology creates 

ambiguity. 

9.3.4. Unsettled, Ambiguous Matter. 

Requests for Interpretation must involve 

actual controversies that have not been 

previously settled. This requirement 

mandates that interpretations contain actual 

ambiguities not previously clarified. 

9.3.4.1. Actual Ambiguity. A proper 

Request for Interpretation must contain an 

actual ambiguity. The interpretation process 

is not a means for challenging a clear EAC 

voting system standard. Recommended 

changes to voting system standards are 

welcome and may be forwarded to the EAC, 

but they are not part of this program. An 

ambiguity arises (in applying a voting system 

standard to a specific technology) when one 

of the following occurs: 

9.3.4.1.1. The language of the standard is 

unclear on its face. 

9.3.4.1.2. One section of the standard 

seems to contradict another, relevant section. 

9.3.4.1.3. The language of the standard, 

though clear on its face, lacks sufficient 

detail or breadth to determine its proper 

application to a particular technology. 

9.3.4.1.4. The language of a particular 

standard, when applied to a specific 

technology, clearly conflicts with the 

established purpose or intent of the standard. 

9.3.4.1.5. The language of the standard is 

clear, but the proper means to assess 

compliance is unclear. 

9.3.4.2. Not Previously Clarified. The EAC 

will not accept a Request for Interpretation 

when the issue has previously been clarified. 

9.4. Procedure for Submitting a Request for 

Interpretation. A Request for Interpretation 

shall be made in writing to the Program 

Director. All requests should be complete 

and as detailed as possible because 

Interpretations issued by the EAC are based 

on, and limited to, the facts presented. 

Failure to provide complete information may 

result in an Interpretation that is off point 

and ultimately immaterial to the issue at 

hand. The following steps must be taken 

when writing a Request for Interpretation: 

9.4.1. Establish Standing To Make the 

Request. To make a request, one must meet 

the requirements identified in Section 9.3 

above. Thus, the written request must 

provide sufficient information for the 

Program Director to conclude that the 

requestor is (1) a proper requester, (2) 

requesting an Interpretation of an applicable 

voting system standard, (3) presenting an 

actual factual controversy, and (4) seeking 

clarification on a matter of unsettled 

ambiguity. 

9.4.2. Identify the EAC Voting System 

Standard To Be Clarified. The request must 

identify the specific standard or standards to 

which the requestor seeks clarification. The 

request must state the version of the voting 

system standards at issue (if applicable) and 

quote and correctly cite the applicable 

standards. 

9.4.3. State the Facts Giving Rise to the 

Ambiguity. The request must provide the 

facts associated with the voting system 

technology that gave rise to the ambiguity in 

the identified standard. The requestor must 

be careful to provide all necessary 

information in a clear, concise manner. Any 

Interpretation issued by the EAC will be 

based on the facts provided. 

9.4.4. Identify the Ambiguity. The request 

must identify the ambiguity it seeks to 

resolve. The ambiguity shall be identified by 

stating a concise question that meets the 

following requirements: 

9.4.4.1. Shall be clearly stated. 

9.4.4.2. Shall be related to and reference 

the voting system standard and voting system 

technology information provided. 

9.4.4.3. Shall be limited to a single issue. 

Each question or issue arising from an 

ambiguous standard must be stated 

separately. Compound questions are 

unacceptable. If multiple issues exist, they 

should be presented as individual, numbered 

questions. 

9.4.4.4. Shall be stated in a way that can 

ultimately be answered yes or no. 

9.4.5. Provide a Proposed Interpretation. A 

Request for Interpretation should propose an 

answer to the question posed. The answer 

should interpret the voting system standard 

in the context of the facts presented. It 

should also provide the basis and reasoning 

behind the proposal. 

9.5. EAC Action on a Request for 

Interpretation. Upon receipt of a Request for 

Interpretation, the EAC shall take the 

following action: 

9.5.1. Review the Request. The Program 

Director shall review the request to ensure it 

is complete, is clear, and meets the 

requirements of Section 9.3. Upon review, 

the Program Director may take the following 

action: 

9.5.1.1. Request Clarification. If the 

Request for Interpretation is incomplete or 

additional information is otherwise required, 

the Program Director may request that the 

Manufacturer or VSTL clarify its Request for 

Interpretation and identify any additional 

information required. 

9.5.1.2. Reject the Request for 

Interpretation. If the Request for 

Interpretation does not meet the 

requirements of Section 9.3, the Program 

Director may reject it. Such rejection must be 

provided in writing to the Manufacturer or 

VSTL and must state the basis for the 

rejection. 

9.5.1.3. Notify Acceptance of the Request. 

If the Request for Interpretation is acceptable, 

the Program Director will notify the 

Manufacturer or VSTL in writing and provide 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76301 

it with an estimated date of completion. A 

Request for Interpretation may be accepted in 

whole or in part. A notice of acceptance shall 

state the issues accepted for interpretation. 

9.5.2. Consideration of the Request. After a 

Request for Interpretation has been accepted, 

the matter shall be investigated and 

researched. Such action may require the EAC 

to employ technical experts. It may also 

require the EAC to request additional 

information from the Manufacturer or VSTL. 

The Manufacturer or VSTL shall respond 

promptly to such requests. 

9.5.3. Interpretation. The Decision 

Authority shall be responsible for making 

determinations on a Request for 

Interpretation. After this determination has 

been made, a written Interpretation shall be 

sent to the Manufacturer or VSTL. The 

following actions are necessary to prepare 

this written Interpretation: 

9.5.3.1. State the question or questions 

investigated. 

9.5.3.2. Outline the relevant facts that 

served as the basis of the Interpretation. 

9.5.3.3. Identify the voting system 

standards interpreted. 

9.5.3.4. State the conclusion reached. 

9.5.3.5. Inform the Manufacturer or VSTL 

of the effect of an Interpretation (see Section 

9.6). 

9.6. Effect of Interpretation. Interpretations 

are fact specific and case specific. They are 

not tools of policy, but specific, fact-based 

guidance useful for resolving a particular 

problem. Ultimately, an Interpretation is 

determinative and conclusive only with 

regard to the case presented. Nevertheless, 

Interpretations do have some value as 

precedent. Interpretations published by the 

EAC shall serve as reliable/guidance and 

authority over identical or similar questions 

of interpretation. These Interpretations will 

help users understand and apply the 

provisions of EAC voting system standards. 

9.7. Library of Interpretations. To better 

serve Manufacturers, VSTLs, and those 

interested in the EAC voting system 

standards, the Program Director shall publish 

EAC Interpretations. All proprietary 

information contained in an Interpretation 

will be redacted before publication consistent 

with Chapter 10 of this Manual. The library 

of published opinions is posted on the EAC 

Web site: http://www.eac.gov. 

10. Release of Certification Program 

Information 

10.1. Overview. Manufacturers 

participating in the Certification Program 

will be required to provide the EAC a variety 

of documents. In general, these documents 

will be releasable to the public. Moreover, in 

many cases, the information provided will be 

affirmatively published by the EAC. In 

limited cases, however, documents may not 

be released if they include trade secrets, 

confidential commercial information, or 

personal information. While the EAC is 

ultimately responsible for determining which 

documents Federal law protects from release, 

Manufacturers must identify the information 

they believe is protected and ultimately 

provide substantiation and a legal basis for 

withholding. This chapter discusses EAC’s 

general policy on the release of information 

and provides Manufacturers with standards, 

procedures, and requirements for identifying 

documents as trade secrets or confidential 

commercial information. 

10.2. EAC Policy on the Release of 

Certification Program Information. The EAC 

seeks to make its Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program as transparent as 

possible. The agency believes that such 

action benefits the program by increasing 

public confidence in the process and creating 

a more informed and involved public. As 

such, it is the policy of the EAC to make all 

documents, or severable portions thereof, 

available to the public consistent with 

Federal law (e.g. Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) and the Trade Secrets Act). 

10.2.1. Requests for information. As in any 

Federal program, members of the public may 

request access to Certification Program 

documents under FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552). The 

EAC will promptly process such requests per 

the requirements of that Act. 

10.2.2. Publication of documents. Beyond 

the requirements of FOIA, the EAC intends 

to affirmatively publish program documents 

(or portions of documents) it believes will be 

of interest to the public. This publication will 

be accomplished through the use of the EAC 

Web site (http://www.eac.gov). The 

published documents will cover the full 

spectrum of the program, including 

information pertaining to: 

10.2.2.1. Registered Manufacturers; 

10.2.2.2. VSTL test plans; 

10.2.2.3. VSTL test reports; 

10.2.2.4. Agency decisions; 

10.2.2.5. Denials of Certification; 

10.2.2.6. Issuance of Certifications; 

10.2.2.7. Information on a certified voting 

system’s operation, components, features or 

capabilities; 

10.2.2.8. Appeals; 

10.2.2.9. Reports of investigation and 

Notice of Non-compliance; 

10.2.2.10. Decertification actions; 

10.2.2.11. Manufacturing facility review 

reports; 

10.2.2.12. Official Interpretations (VVSG or 

VSS); and 

10.2.2.13. Other topics as determined by 

the EAC. 

10.2.3. Trade Secret and Confidential 

Commercial Information. Federal law places 

a number of restrictions on a Federal 

agency’s authority to release information to 

the public. Two such restrictions are 

particularly relevant to the Certification 

program: (1) trade secrets information and (2) 

privileged or confidential commercial 

information. Both types of information are 

explicitly prohibited from release by the 

FOIA and the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 

1905). 

10.3. Trade Secrets. A trade secret is a 

secret, commercially valuable plan, process, 

or device that is used for the making or 

processing of a product and that is the end 

result of either innovation or substantial 

effort. It relates to the productive process 

itself, describing how a product is made. It 

does not relate to information describing end 

product capabilities, features, or 

performance. 

10.3.1. The following examples illustrate 

productive processes that may be trade 

secrets: 

10.3.1.1. Plans, schematics, and other 

drawings useful in production. 

10.3.1.2. Specifications of materials used in 

production. 

10.3.1.3. Voting system source code used to 

develop or manufacture software where 

release would reveal actual programming. 

10.3.1.4. Technical descriptions of 

manufacturing processes and other secret 

information relating directly to the 

production process. 

10.3.2. The following examples are likely 

not trade secrets: 

10.3.2.1. Information pertaining to a 

finished product’s capabilities or features. 

10.3.2.2. Information pertaining to a 

finished product’s performance. 

10.3.2.3. Information regarding product 

components that would not reveal any 

commercially valuable information regarding 

production. 

10.4. Privileged or Confidential 

Commercial Information. Privileged or 

confidential commercial information is that 

information submitted by a Manufacturer 

that is commercial or financial in nature and 

privileged or confidential. 

10.4.1. Commercial or Financial 

Information. The terms commercial and 

financial should be given their ordinary 

meanings. They include records in which a 

submitting Manufacturer has any commercial 

interest. 

10.4.2. Privileged or Confidential 

Information. Commercial or financial 

information is privileged or confidential if its 

disclosure would likely cause substantial 

harm to the competitive position of the 

submitter. The concept of harm to one’s 

competitive position focuses on harm 

flowing from a competitor’s affirmative use of 

the proprietary information. It does not 

include incidental harm associated with 

upset customers or employees. 

10.5. EAC’s Responsibilities. The EAC is 

ultimately responsible for determining 

whether or not a document (in whole or in 

part) may be released pursuant to Federal 

law. In doing so, however, the EAC will 

require information and input from the 

Manufacturer submitting the documents. 

This requirement is essential for the EAC to 

identify, track, and make determinations on 

the large volume of documentation it 

receives. The EAC has the following 

responsibilities: 

10.5.1. Managing Documentation and 

Information. The EAC will control the 

documentation it receives by ensuring that 

documents are secure and released to third 

parties only after the appropriate review and 

determination. 

10.5.2. Contacting Manufacturer on 

Proposed Release of Potentially Protected 

Documents. In the event a member of the 

public submits a FOIA request for documents 

provided by a Manufacturer or the EAC 

otherwise proposes the release of such 

documents, the EAC will take the following 

actions: 

10.5.2.1. Review the documents to 

determine if they are potentially protected 

from release as trade secrets or confidential 

commercial information. The documents at 

issue may have been previously identified as 

protected by the Manufacturer when 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
76302 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 

submitted (see Section 10.7.1 below) or 

identified by the EAC on review. 

10.5.2.2. Grant the submitting 

Manufacturer an opportunity to provide 

input. In the event the information has been 

identified as potentially protected from 

release as a trade secret or confidential 

commercial information, the EAC will notify 

the submitter and allow it an opportunity to 

submit its position on the issue prior to 

release of the information. The submitter 

shall respond consistent with Section 10.7.1 

below. 

10.5.3. Final Determination on Release. 

After providing the submitter of the 

information an opportunity to be heard, the 

EAC will make a final decision on release. 

The EAC will inform the submitter of this 

decision. 

10.6. Manufacturer’s Responsibilities. 

Although the EAC is ultimately responsible 

for determining if a document, or any portion 

thereof, is protected from release as a trade 

secret or confidential commercial 

information, the Manufacturer shall be 

responsible for identifying documents, or 

portions of documents, it believes warrant 

such protection. Moreover, the Manufacturer 

will be responsible for providing the legal 

basis and substantiation for its determination 

regarding the withholding of a document. 

This responsibility arises in two situations: 

(1) upon the initial submission of 

information, and (2) upon notification by the 

EAC that it is considering the release of 

potentially protected information. 

10.6.1. Initial Submission of Information. 

When a Manufacturer is submitting 

documents to the EAC as required by the 

Certification Program, it is responsible for 

identifying any document or portion of a 

document that it believes is protected from 

release by Federal law. Manufacturers shall 

identify protected information by taking the 

following action: 

10.6.1.1. Submitting a Notice of Protected 

Information. This notice shall identify the 

document, document page, or portion of a 

page that the Manufacturer believes should 

be protected from release. This identification 

must be done with specificity. For each piece 

of information identified, the Manufacturer 

must state the legal basis for its protected 

status. 

10.6.1.1.1. Cite the applicable law that 

exempts the information from release. 

10.6.1.1.2. Clearly discuss why that legal 

authority applies and why the document 

must be protected from release. 

10.6.1.1.3. If necessary, provide additional 

documentation or information. For example, 

if the Manufacturer claims a document 

contains confidential commercial 

information, it would also have to provide 

evidence and analysis of the competitive 

harm that would result upon release. 

10.6.1.2. Label Submissions. Label all 

submissions identified in the notice as 

‘‘Proprietary Commercial Information.’’ Label 

only those submissions identified as 

protected. Attempts to indiscriminately label 

all materials as proprietary will render the 

markings moot. 

10.6.2. Notification of Potential Release. In 

the event a Manufacturer is notified that the 

EAC is considering the release of information 

that may be protected, the Manufacturer shall 

take the following action: 

10.6.2.1. Respond to the notice within 15 

calendar days. If additional time is needed, 

the Manufacturer must promptly notify the 

Program Director. Requests for additional 

time will be granted only for good cause and 

must be made before the 15-day deadline. 

Manufacturers that do not respond in a 

timely manner will be viewed as not 

objecting to release. 

10.6.2.2. Clearly state one of the following 

in the response: 

10.6.2.2.1. There is no objection to release, 

or 

10.6.2.2.2. The Manufacturer objects to 

release. In this case, the response must 

clearly state which portions of the document 

the Manufacturer believes should be 

protected from release. The Manufacturer 

shall follow the procedures discussed in 

Section 10.7.1 above. 

10.7. Personal Information. Certain 

personal information is protected from 

release under FOIA and the Privacy Act (5 

U.S.C. 552a). This information includes 

private information about a person that, if 

released, would cause the individual 

embarrassment or constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. Generally, the 

EAC will not require the submission of 

private information about individuals. The 

incidental submission of such information 

should be avoided. If a Manufacturer believes 

it is required to submit such information, it 

should contact the Program Director. If the 

information will be submitted, it must be 

properly identified. Examples of such 

information include the following: 

10.7.1. Social Security Number. 

10.7.2. Bank account numbers. 

10.7.3. Home address. 

10.7.4. Home phone number. 

BILLING CODE 6820–KF–M 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76303 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN20DE06.001</GPH>
76304 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN20DE06.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Notices 76305 

[FR Doc. 06–9751 Filed 12–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–KF–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN20DE06.003</GPH>