Version 1.0 - Expires 11/2014 www.eac.gov

OMB Control No. 3265-0013

Voting System

Test Laboratory

Program Manual

United States

Election Assistance

Commission

1201 New York Avenue. N.W. 

Ste.300

Washington, DC 20005

202-566-3100

DISCONTINUED – November 2015
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Paperwork Reduction Act

The reporting requirements in this manual have been approved under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Office of Management and Budget Control (OMB) Number 3265-0013, expiring 

November 30, 2014. 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 & Certification and Laboratory 

Accreditation 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 200 hours. This estimateincludes 

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 ProgramDirector,

1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20005.

i OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................5

1.1. BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................5

1.2. AUTHORITY.................................................................................................................................................5

1.3. ROLE OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.....................................................5

1.4. SCOPE..........................................................................................................................................................6

1.7. PROGRAM PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................6

1.8. SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS ......................................................................................................................6

1.9. RECEIPT OF DOCUMENTS—VSTL...............................................................................................................7

1.10. RECEIPT OF DOCUMENTS—EAC.................................................................................................................7

1.11. RECORD RETENTION—EAC .......................................................................................................................7

1.12. PUBLICATION AND RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................7

1.13. REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................................7

1.14. DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................................................8

1.15. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................................9

2. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................................................................11

2.1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................11

2.2. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS - GENERALLY .................................................................................................11

2.3. NIST RECOMMENDATION .........................................................................................................................11

2.4. NVLAP ACCREDITATION .........................................................................................................................11

2.5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND PROHIBITED PRACTICES PROGRAM ..............................................................12

2.6. PERSONNEL POLICIES ................................................................................................................................19

2.7. NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES......................................................................................................................19

2.8. SITE VISITS................................................................................................................................................19

2.9. NOTICE OF LAWSUITS................................................................................................................................19

2.10. TESTING, TECHNICAL PRACTICES AND REPORTING...................................................................................19

2.11. LABORATORY INDEPENDENCE...................................................................................................................25

2.12. AUTHORITY TO DO BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES ...............................................................................27

2.13. COMMUNICATIONS....................................................................................................................................27

2.14. RESOURCES AND FINANCIAL STABILITY ...................................................................................................27

2.15. RECORDKEEPING.......................................................................................................................................27

3. ACCREDITATION PROCESS......................................................................................................................29

3.1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................29

3.2. NIST RECOMMENDATION .........................................................................................................................29

3.3. EAC INVITATION ......................................................................................................................................30

3.4. APPLICATION.............................................................................................................................................30

3.5. EAC REVIEW OF APPLICATION PACKAGE .................................................................................................32

3.6. GRANT OF ACCREDITATION.......................................................................................................................34

3.7. EFFECT OF ACCREDITATION ......................................................................................................................35

3.8. EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL OF ACCREDITATION......................................................................................35

3.9. DENIAL OF ACCREDITATION......................................................................................................................35

3.10. REQUESTING APPEAL ................................................................................................................................36

3.11. EAC ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPEAL ................................................................................................36

3.12. SUBMISSION OF APPEAL ............................................................................................................................36

3.13. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL .....................................................................................................................37

3.14. COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ON APPEAL ...................................................................................................37

3.15. EFFECT OF DENIAL OFACCREDITATION ....................................................................................................37

4. COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...........................................................................................39

4.1. PURPOSE....................................................................................................................................................39

ii OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4.2. COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, GENERALLY..............................................................................39

4.3. VSTL NOTIFICATION OFCHANGES ...........................................................................................................39

4.4. REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION ........................................................................................39

4.5. ON SITE LABORATORY REVIEW—GENERALLY.........................................................................................40

4.6. ON SITE LABORATORY REVIEW—FREQUENCY.........................................................................................41

4.7. ON SITE LABORATORY REVIEW—PROCEDURE.........................................................................................41

4.8. EAC COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENTREPORTS ............................................................................................42

4.9. CORRECTIVE ACTION ................................................................................................................................44

5. REVOCATION OF ACCREDITATION ......................................................................................................45

5.1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................45

5.2. REVOCATION POLICY ................................................................................................................................45

5.3. REVOCATION—GENERALLY .....................................................................................................................45

5.4. NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUSPEND................................................................................................................45

5.5. SUSPENSION OF ACCREDITATION ..............................................................................................................46

5.6. COMMISSIONERS’ DECISION ON REVOCATION OFACCREDITATION...........................................................49

5.7. EFFECT OF REVOCATION OF ACCREDITATION ...........................................................................................50

5.8. REQUESTING APPEAL ................................................................................................................................50

5.9. EAC ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPEAL ................................................................................................51

5.10. SUBMISSION OF APPEAL ............................................................................................................................51

5.11. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL .....................................................................................................................51

5.12. COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ON APPEAL ...................................................................................................51

6. REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATIONS......................................................................................................53

6.1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................53

6.2. POLICY ......................................................................................................................................................53

6.3. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTING A REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION .......................................................53

6.4. PROCEDURE FOR SUBMITTING A REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION .............................................................54

6.5. EAC ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION .................................................................................55

6.6. EFFECT OF INTERPRETATION .....................................................................................................................56

6.7. LIBRARY OF INTERPRETATIONS.................................................................................................................56

7. RELEASE OF LABORATORY ACCREDITATION PROGRAM INFORMATION .............................57

7.1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................57

7.2. EAC POLICY ON THE RELEASE OF CERTIFICATION PROGRAM INFORMATION ...........................................57

7.3. TRADE SECRETS ........................................................................................................................................58

7.4. PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INFORMATION...................................................................59

7.5. EAC’S RESPONSIBILITIES..........................................................................................................................59

7.6. VSTL’S RESPONSIBILITIES........................................................................................................................60

7.7. PERSONAL INFORMATION..........................................................................................................................61

Appendix A. CERTIFICATION TEST PLAN FORMAT AND CONTENT.......................................61

Appendix B. CERTIFICATION TEST REPORT FORMAT AND CONTENT...................................66

Appendix C. CERTIFICATION OF LABORATORY CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES FORM...........70

Appendix D. SPECIFICATION FOR REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THE EACLABORATORY

ACCREDITATION LOGO......................................................................................................73
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

1. 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. This program utilized independent 

laboratories to test voting system to voluntary Federal standards. To facilitate this 

process NASED accredited these test laboratories, which it referred to as Independent 

Test Authorities (ITA). 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 voluntary 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 standards in the form of the 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), a voting system certification program in 

the form of the Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual and this 

document, the Voting System Test Laboratory Manual.

1.2. Authority. HAVA Section 231(b) (42 U.S.C. §15371(b)) requires that the EAC provide 

for the accreditation and revocation of accreditation of independent, non-federal

laboratories qualified to test voting systems to Federal standards. Generally, the EAC 

considers for accreditation those laboratories evaluated and recommend by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) pursuant to HAVA Section 231(b)(1).

However, consistent with HAVA Section 231(b)(2)(B), the Commission may also vote to 

accredit laboratories outside of those recommended by NIST upon publication of an 

explanation of the reason for any such accreditation.

1.3. Role of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Section 231(b) (1) of 

HAVA requires that the National Institute of Standards and Technology “conduct an 

evaluation of independent, non-federal laboratories and shall submit to the Commission a 

list of those laboratories...to be accredited....” Additionally, HAVA Section 231(c) 

requires NIST to monitor and review the performance of EAC accredited laboratories. 

NIST has chosen its National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP)to

carry out these duties. NVLAP conducts a review of applicant laboratories in order to 

provide a measure of confidence that such laboratories are capable of performing testing 

of voting systems to Federal standards. Additionally, the NVLAP program monitors

laboratories by requiring regular assessments. Laboratories are reviewed one year after 

their initial accreditation and biennially thereafter. The EAC has made NVLAP

accreditation a requirement of its Laboratory Accreditation Program. However, a 

NVLAP accreditation is not an EAC accreditation. EAC is the sole Federal authority for 

the accreditation and revocation of accreditation of Voting System Test Laboratories 

(VSTL).

5 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

1.4. Scope. This Manual provides the procedural requirements of the EAC voting system 

Laboratory Accreditation 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 laboratory accreditation 

requirements issued by the EAC. This manual shall be read in conjunction with the EAC

Voting System Testing and Certification Manual.

1.5. Manual Maintenance and Revision. The Manual will be reviewed periodically and 

updated to meet the needs of the EAC, 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. Changes in policy requiring immediate implementation will be noticed via 

policy memoranda and will be issued to each VSTL and registered Manufacturers. 

Changes, addendums, or updated versions will also be posted to the EAC Web site at

www.eac.gov.

1.6. Clarification of Program Requirements and Procedures. VSTLs and registered

Manufacturers may request clarification regarding the requirements and proceduresset

forth in this manual. Requests for clarification must be based upon ambiguity arising 

from the application of this manual. Hypothetical questions will not be considered. 

Requests shall be submitted to the Program Director in writing. The request shall clearly 

identify the section of the manual and issue to be clarified, a proposed interpretation and 

all relevant facts. Clarifications issued by the EAC will be provided to all EAC VSTLs, 

registered Manufacturers and placed on EAC’s Web site.

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 

Accreditation Program will be subject to conflict-of-interest reporting and review,

consistent with Federal law and regulation.

1.8. Submission of Documents. Any documents submitted pursuant to the requirements of 

this Manual shall be submitted:

1.8.1. If sent electronically, via secure e-mail or physical delivery of a compact disk, 

unless otherwise specified. The submitted electronic files shall be in Microsoft 

Word or Adobe PDF format, formatted to protect the document from alteration.

1.8.2. 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.

1.8.3. If sent via physical delivery, by Certified MailTM (or similar means that allows 

tracking) to the following address:

Testing and Certification Program Director

6 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100 

Washington, D.C. 20005

1.9. Receipt of Documents—VSTL. For purposes of this Manual, a document, notice, or

other communication is considered received by a VSTL upon one of the following:

1.9.1. The actual, documented date the correspondence was received (either

electronically or physically) at the VSTL, or

1.9.2. 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.

1.9.3. The term “receipt” shall mean the date a document or correspondence arrives

(either electronically or physically) at the VSTL’s place of business. Arrival does 

not require that an agent of the VSTL open, read, or review the correspondence.

1.10. 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 (5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time), will be treated

as if received on the next business day.

1.11. Record Retention—EAC. The EAC shall retain all records associated with accreditation 

of Voting System Test Laboratories. The records shall otherwise be retained or disposed 

of consistent with Federal statutes and regulations.

1.12. Publication and Release of Documents. The EAC will release documents consistent 

with the requirements of Federal law. It is EAC policy to make the laboratory 

accreditation 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. See Chapter 7 of this Manual for 

additional information.

1.13. References. The following documents are referenced in this Manual. For dated

references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the 

referenced document (including any amendments) applies.

- ISO/IEC 17011, Conformity assessment- General requirements for accreditation bodies 

accrediting conformity assessment bodies.

7 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

- ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration 

laboratories.

- NIST Handbook 150, (NVLAP) Procedures and General Requirements.

- NIST Handbook 150-22, (NVLAP) Voting System Testing.

1.14. Definitions. For purposes of this Manual, the terms listed below have the following 

definitions.

Applicant Laboratory. An independent, non-Federal laboratory which has applied for 

EAC accreditation after receipt of an invitation.

Commission. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission, as an agency.

Commissioners. The serving commissioners of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

Contracted Third Party Laboratory. A laboratory contracted or otherwise providing 

testing services to a VSTL to meet program requirements.

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.

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 use in a Federal election.

Gift. A Gift includes any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, travel,service,

hospitality, loan, meal, forbearance, or other item having monetary value.

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.

Key Laboratory Staff. Laboratory employees serving as approval authorities of test 

reports (approved signatories per NIST Handbook 150) or otherwise responsible for the 

supervision of individuals performing voting system testing.

Lead Voting System Test Laboratory. The accredited Voting System Test Laboratory 

identified on an EAC approved Application for Testing (EAC Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program Manual, Sec. 4.3, Certification Application).

8 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Manufacturer. The entity with ownership and control over a voting system submitted for 

certification.

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 fromrelease 

under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Trade Secrets Act.

Recommended Laboratory. A laboratory recommended for EAC accreditation by the 

Director of NIST after evaluation by NVLAP.

Scope of Accreditation. The version or versions of the Federal voting system standards 

(VSS or VVSG) to which a VSTL is authorized to test.

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.

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, interface 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 (VSTLs). Laboratories accredited by the EAC to test 

voting systems to EAC approved voting system standards.

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. Voluntary voting system standards developed, 

adopted, and published by the EAC. The guidelines are identified by version number and 

date.

1.15. Acronyms and Abbreviations. For purposes of this Manual, the acronyms and 

abbreviations listed below represent the following terms.

9 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Accreditation Program. The EAC Voting System Test Laboratory Accreditation Program 

Certification Program. The EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program

EAC. United States Election Assistance Commission 

FEC. Federal Election Commission

HAVA. Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. §15301 et seq.)

ISO/IEC. The International Organization for Standardization & The International 

Electrotechnical Commission.

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

10 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2. Program Requirements

2.1. Overview. This chapter lists the requirements of the EAC’s Voting System Test 

Laboratory Program. Adherence to these requirements is a condition of accreditation

and a continuing obligation. Failure to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 

this chapter may result in the denial of an application for accreditation, suspension of 

accreditation, or revocation of accreditation.

2.2. Program Requirements - Generally. In order to be considered for, receive, and 

maintain an EAC accreditation as a VSTL, laboratories must demonstrate compliance

with the requirements of EAC’s Voting System Test Laboratory Program. The program 

requirements are set forth in this Chapter.

2.2.1. Continuing Compliance Obligation. VSTLs have a continuing obligation to meet 

the requirements set forth in this Chapter. VSTLs are required to maintain their 

compliance with the program’s requirements as long as they hold an EAC

accreditation.

2.2.2. Requests to Document Compliance. VSTLs may be required by the EAC to 

document compliance at any time. Such requests will be in writing and VSTLs 

shall respond timely, consistent with the request (see Chapter 4 of this Manual).

2.2.3. Failure to Comply, Effect. Failure to meet each of the program’srequirements 

may result in the denial of an application for accreditation, suspension of 

accreditation, or revocation of accreditation, consistent with the procedures of 

Chapter 5 of this Manual.

2.3. NIST Recommendation. As a condition of accreditation, all laboratories must be 

recommended to the EAC by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 

unless the emergency provisions of Chapter 3 apply. NIST is responsible, pursuant to the

Help America Vote Act of 2002, Section 231(b), for performing a technical evaluation of 

laboratories and identifying and recommending those competent to test voting systems. 

This recommendation is provided directly to the EAC from NIST.

2.4. NVLAP Accreditation. As a condition of accreditation, all VSTLs must hold a valid 

accreditation from NIST’s National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(NVLAP), unless the emergency provisions of Chapter 3 apply. NVLAP accreditation is 

the primary means by which the EAC may ensure that each VSTL meets and continuesto 

meet the technical requirements of the EAC program. It sets the standards for each 

VSTL’s technical, physical, and personnel resources, as well as its testing, management,

and quality assurance policies and protocols. The loss or suspension of a NVLAP 

accreditation will result in the suspension and possible revocation of any EAC 

accreditation consistent with the procedures of Chapter 5 of this Manual. VSTLs are 

required to immediately report any change in their NVLAP accreditation status to the 

EAC.

11 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.5. Conflict of Interest and Prohibited Practices Program. As a condition of 

accreditation, all laboratories must maintain and enforce policies which prohibit and 

prevent conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest. A laboratory shall 

ensure that neither the Laboratory, its parent corporation, contracted third party 

laboratories, nor any individual staff member involved in the testing of voting systems 

have any vested interest in the outcome of the test process. Laboratories must have a 

written policy in place. This policy must, at a minimum, (1) prohibit conflicts ofinterest

and other prohibited practices and (2) provide for enforcement, consistent with the 

subsections below.

2.5.1. Prohibited Conflicts of Interest. The purpose of a conflict of interest policy isto 

prevent situations where the exercise of an official duty directly impactsthe 

actor’s financial interests. For the purposes of this program, a prohibited 

conflict of interest exists if the duties and responsibilities of a laboratory, 

parent corporation, or a laboratory employee involved in the testing of voting 

systems under EAC’s Certification Program will have a direct and

predictable effect on the financial interest of that laboratory, parent 

corporation, or a laboratory employee.

1 For example, an employee who is 

responsible for testing a voting system on behalf of a VSTL would be prohibited 

from holding a financial interest in the entity whose product is being tested or a

direct competitor of that entity. A prohibited conflict of interest would also 

include a contractual or other fiduciary relationship between a VSTL or VSTL 

employee and a Manufacturer (outside an agreement for State or Federal 

certification testing) when that VSTL or VSTL employee is concurrently 

responsible for conducting certification testing for that Manufacturer under this 

program. Additionally, financial interests may be imputed or attributed to a 

laboratory, parent corporation, or a laboratory employee through a 

relationship with a third party. For example, a VSTL employee responsible for 

the testing of a voting system would be conflicted from performing his or her 

duties if his or her spouse owned a financial interest in the manufacture of the 

voting system.

2.5.1.1. Involved in Testing—Defined. For the purposes of a financial conflict of 

interest, an organization is involved in the testing of a voting system any 

time it contractually or otherwise takes on the responsibility for testing a 

voting system to Federal standards under EAC’s Certification Program. 

For the purposes of a financial conflict of interest, an employee is 

involved in the testing of a voting system when the individual’s duties as 

a VSTL employee require him or her to perform testing on the system, 

manage the testing process or supervise those who perform testing on 

the system.

1 For the purpose of this Program, agreements with voting system manufactures to provide testing pursuant to the

requirements of EAC or a State’s certification program do not constitute a prohibited conflict of interest.

Certification testing is considered a duty and responsibility of a VSTL, not an outside financial interest.

12 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.5.1.2. Financial Interest--Defined. The term includes any current or contingent

ownership, equity, or security interest in real or personal property or a 

business and may include an indebtedness or compensated employment 

relationship. It thus includes, for example, interests in the nature of 

stocks, bonds, partnership interests, fee and leasehold interests, and other 

property rights, deeds of trust, and liens, and extends to any right to 

purchase or acquire any such interest, such as a stock option or 

commodity future.

2.5.1.3. Direct Effect—Defined. A matter will have a direct effect on a financial

interest if there is a close causal link between any decision or action to 

be taken in the matter and any expected effect of the matter on the 

financial interest. An effect may be direct even though it does not occur 

immediately. A matter will not have a direct effect on a financial 

interest, however, if the chain of causation is attenuated or is contingent 

upon the occurrence of events that are speculative or that are 

independent of, and unrelated to, the matter. A matter that has an effect

on a financial interest only as a consequence of its effects on the general

economy does not have a direct effect within the meaning of thissection.

2.5.1.4. Predictable Effect—Defined. A matter will have a predictable effect if 

there is a real, as opposed to a speculative possibility that the matter will 

affect the financial interest. It is not necessary, however, that the 

magnitude of the gain or loss be known, and the dollar amount of the 

gain or loss is immaterial.

2.5.1.5. Imputed Interests—Defined. An imputed interest is a financial interest 

held by a third party individual or organization that serves to disqualify 

an employee or laboratory to the same extent as if they were the 

employee’s or laboratory’s own interest. These interests include:

2.5.1.5.1. The financial interests of a spouse or dependent child shall 

be imputed to an employee.

2.5.1.5.2. The financial interest of any organization in which a 

laboratory, parent corporation, or a laboratory employee 

serves as an employee, officer, board member, partner, 

consultant, director, trustee or similar position shall be 

imputed.

2.5.1.5.3. The interests of any contracted third party laboratory shall 

be imputed to the utilizing VSTL.

2.5.1.5.4. The financial interest of a person or organization with 

whom an employee is negotiating or has an arrangement 

concerning prospective employment shall be imputed.

13 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.5.2. Prohibited Practices. Furthermore, irrespective of the existence of a conflict of 

interest, it is a prohibited practice for a laboratory, parent corporation, or 

laboratory employee to be involved in the development of a voting system or 

solicit or receive a gift from a voting system Manufacturer. No laboratory, parent 

corporation, or laboratory employee may:

2.5.2.1. Voting System Development and Testing. Provide, or have provided, 

consultation, developmental testing or other services to a voting system 

developer such that the independence, or appearance of independence, in 

the testing of a particular voting system or system component would be 

compromised.

2.5.2.1.1. A laboratory or individual may not be involved in both the 

development of a voting system and the certification of a 

system. Voting system development includes any testing, 

consultation or design work performed in order to ready a 

specific system for the marketplace or the certification 

process. Generally, any testing performed on behalf of a 

voting system manufacture that was not otherwise 

performed pursuant to a State or Federal voting system 

certification program will be considered developmental in 

nature.

2.5.2.1.2. The prohibition barring participation in both development 

and testing is voting system specific. An employee or 

laboratory that was previously involved2 in product

development with a Manufacturer is not prohibited from

testing all systems produced by that Manufacturer, just 

those systems in which the employee or laboratory 

participated directly in development. As voting systems 

are subject to change over time, for the purposes of this 

prohibition, a voting system shall be considered altered to 

the degree that it is a different system when:

2.5.2.1.2.1. A period of at least three years has passed

since the VSTL or employee was involved in 

the system’s development;

2.5.2.1.2.2. The system has been subject to both software 

and hardware modification since the VSTL or 

employee was involved in the system’s 

development. De minimis changes (as defined

in EAC Voting System Testing and

2 The prohibition relates to a VSTL’s prior involvement in system development. Concurrent development workand

testing may constitute a prohibited conflict of interested under Section 2.5.2 of this Manual.

14 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Certification Program Manual) are not 

modifications; AND

2.5.2.1.2.3. The system has received a certification after 

being tested by a different independent 

laboratory since the VSTL or employee was

involved in the system’s development.

2.5.2.1.3. The prohibition barring participation in both development 

and testing does not prohibit a VSTL from allowing a 

Manufacturer to perform onsite hardware mitigation on a 

voting system in response to a minor system failure or 

anomaly. In such cases the VSTL:

2.5.2.1.3.1. Shall suspend all hardware testing;

2.5.2.1.3.2. Shall not participate or assist the Manufacturer 

in remediation;

2.5.2.1.3.3. May provide testing equipment and qualified 

operators to the Manufacturer for its use;

2.5.2.1.3.4. Shall monitor and document the

Manufacturer’s access to the system consistent 

with Section 2.11.1. of this manual; and

2.5.2.1.3.5. Shall document in the test report the failure or 

anomaly and remedial action taken by the 

Manufacturer consistent with Section

2.10.5.2.1 of this Manual and Chapter 4 of 

EAC’s Certification Manual (anomaly 

matrix).

2.5.2.2. Gifts. Solicit or receive a gift, directly or indirectly, from any entity 

which holds a financial interest in the development, production, or sale 

of voting systems, or is otherwise impacted by the testing and 

certification of voting systems. Gifts given or received under 

circumstances which make it clear that the gift is motivated by a family 

relationship or personal friendship rather than position are not 

prohibited. Relevant factors in making such a determination include the 

history of the relationship and whether the family member or friend 

personally pays for the gift.

2.5.3. Program Enforcement Elements. Prohibited conflicts and practices shall be 

enforced through a written program which:

15 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.5.3.1. Regarding Employees Involved in the Testing of Voting Systems.

2.5.3.1.1. Annually collects standard information from each 

employee, including assets, debts, outside or prior 

activities/employment, gifts, and any work on voting 

system development sufficient to demonstrate compliance 

with Section 2.5.1. and 2.5.2. of this Manual. The 

information collection must also reflect the financial 

interests of those individuals (like spouses and minor 

children) whose interests are imputed to the employee;

2.5.3.1.2. Requires and documents the review of information 

collected for potential conflicts and prohibited practices; 

and

2.5.3.1.3. Resolves all identified conflicts of interest or prohibited 

practices prior to the employee or laboratory’s involvement

in the testing of any voting system. Such resolution shall 

be documented. Resolutions may include the divestiture of 

assets or gifts, employee resignation from outside 

organizations, or the altering of an employee’s 

responsibilities by prohibiting participation in Voting 

System Testing or the testing of a specific system.

2.5.3.2. Regarding the VSTL or VSTL’s Parent Corporation.

2.5.3.2.1. Annually collects information pertaining to the holdings 

and activities of the VSTL and its parent corporation(s),

sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Section 2.5.1. 

and 2.5.2. of this Manual;

2.5.3.2.2. Requires and documents the review of collected

information for potential conflicts and prohibited practices; 

and

2.5.3.2.3. Resolves all identified conflicts of interest or prohibited 

practices prior to the laboratory’s testing of any voting 

system. Such resolution shall be documented. Resolutions 

may include the divestiture of assets or gifts, the 

termination or rejection of conflicted or prohibited testing 

work.

2.5.3.3. Regarding Contracted Third Party Laboratories. The interest of a 

contracted third party laboratory may be imputed to a VSTL. VSTLs

may meet and enforce the program requirements of this section with 

regard to this relationship in one of two ways:

16 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.5.3.3.1. Collection of third party laboratory information, review of 

information and resolution of conflicts or prohibited 

practices:

2.5.3.3.1.1. Collect information pertaining to the holdings 

and activities of the third party laboratory and 

its employees, sufficient to demonstrate 

compliance with Section 2.5.1. and 2.5.2. of 

this Manual. This includes gathering 

information concerning any involvement by 

the third party laboratory or its employees in 

the development of specific voting systems. 

This collection of information shall be 

performed prior to the execution of any 

contract for the testing of voting systems 

under this program and annually thereafter if 

the contract exceeds one year in duration.

2.5.3.3.1.2. Require and document the review of collected 

information for potential conflicts, and

2.5.3.3.1.3. Resolve all identified conflicts of interest prior 

to the laboratory’s testing of any voting 

system.

2.5.3.3.2. VSTL Supervision of third party laboratories performing 

non-core testing. Where a third party laboratory is subject

to direct VSTL supervision and observation, the third party 

laboratory’s conflicts of interest or prohibited practices will 

not be imputed to the lead VSTL. Direct VSTL supervision 

under this section requires that a VSTL 

employee is physically present during the third party testing 

and directly observes and supervises the testing. This 

VSTL employee must: (1) have been properly vetted for 

conflict of interest and prohibited practices pursuant to 

Section 2.5 of this Manual, (2) be competent to supervise 

the testing being performed and (3) have no financial 

interest in the third party laboratory they are supervising.

2.5.4. Waivers. In rare circumstances, prohibited practices or conflicts of interest may

be waived by the EAC after the conflict or prohibited practice is properly 

disclosed to the agency. Waivers may be granted at the sole discretion of the 

Program Director.

17 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.5.4.1. Requesting a Waiver. A request for a waiver shall be made in writing to 

the EAC Program Director. The request shall fully disclose the conflict 

of interest or prohibited practice for which the waiver is sought. The 

request shall also describe all steps taken to resolve the conflict or 

prohibited practice and the reasons why such attempts were unsuccessful 

or otherwise untenable. The request shall also state why the waiver 

should be granted, consistent with the standard in Section 2.5.4.2.

2.5.4.2. Waiver Standard. A disqualifying conflict of interest or prohibited

practice is subject to waiver when the issuance of a waiver is in the best 

interest of the EAC Certification Program and the identified conflict or 

practice is unlikely to affect the integrity or impartiality of the VSTLor 

VSTL employee’s services under the EAC Certification Program. The 

Program Director may consider the following factors in making a waiver

determination:

2.5.4.2.1. The value of any disqualifying financial interest;

2.5.4.2.2. The nature and impact of any prohibited practice;

2.5.4.2.3. The role and responsibility of the employee subject to the 

conflict of interest or prohibited practice;

2.5.4.2.4. The availability of other employees, VSTLs or laboratories

to conduct the testing without a conflict or prohibited 

practice.

2.5.4.2.5. The level of discretion or sensitivity required to perform

the conflicted or prohibited duties under the certification 

program;

2.5.4.2.6. The ability of an EAC waiver to adjust a VSTL or VSTL 

employee’s testing process and duties or otherwise mandate 

additional safeguards which would limit or abrogate the 

impact of the conflict of interest or prohibited practice.

2.5.4.3. Issuing a Waiver. Any waiver issued by the Program Director shall be 

made in writing to the requestor. The waiver shall state with specificity

the conflict of interest or prohibited practice waived. The waivershall 

also clearly state any conditions for it issuance, such as mitigating 

processes or procedures or safeguards. The VSTL is responsible for 

meeting all waiver conditions prior to engaging in the waived activity. 

Failure to meet such condition may result in the revocation of a VSTLs 

accreditation. The Program Director shall publish all waivers on the 

EAC Web site.

18 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.5.4.4. Denying a Request for a Waiver. Any decision denying a request for a 

waiver shall be made by the Program Director in writing and provided to 

the VSTL. The Program Director shall publish all waiver denials on the 

EAC Web site.

2.6. Personnel Policies. As a condition of accreditation, all laboratories shall have in place 

written policies to ensure that the Laboratory does not employ individuals, in any 

capacity related to the testing of voting systems, who have been convicted of a felony 

offense or any criminal offense involving fraud, misrepresentation, or deception under 

either Federal or State law. The VSTL shall have a program in place to enforce this 

policy and document such enforcement.

2.7. Notification of Changes. As a condition of accreditation, all laboratories shall agree to

notify the EAC in writing within fifteen (15) calendar days of any significant changesin 

laboratory operations from what the Laboratory described in any assertion that served as 

the basis for its EAC accreditation, including any assertions made to NIST’s NVLAP or 

to the EAC pursuant to Chapter 3 of this Manual. Examples of events that require written 

notification include, but are not limited to:

2.7.1. A Laboratory’s decision to withdraw from the EAC’s program;

2.7.2. Changes in ownership of the Laboratory (other than minor—less that 15%—

change in stock ownership),

2.7.3. A change in location of the Laboratory facility, or

2.7.4. Personnel changes in key staff positions.

2.8. Site Visits. As a condition of accreditation, all laboratories shall allow EAC

representatives to enter their voting system testing and management facilities pursuant to 

the procedures and requirements of Chapter 4 of this Manual.

2.9. Notice of Lawsuits. As a condition of accreditation, all laboratories shall provide notice 

to the EAC of any lawsuits or claims filed against it, its subcontractors,subsidiaries, 

employees, officers, owners, operators, or insurers while the Laboratory holds an EAC 

accreditation and which relate to the work performed in, or management of, the 

Laboratory’s voting system testing program.

2.10. Testing, Technical Practices and Reporting. As a condition of accreditation, each

VSTL shall perform testing in conformance with the relevant standards of the applicable

Federal Standards (VVSG or VSS). Additionally, the VSTL shall create written reports of 

such testing consistent with the requirements of the latest version of the VVSG, EAC’s 

Voting System Testing and Certification Manual, any applicable test suites mandated by 

the EAC, and any other written guidance published by the EAC.

19 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.10.1. Test Plan Package. The VSTL shall submit a test plan package directly to the 

EAC consistent with the requirements of the Voting System Testing and 

Certification Manual, the latest version of the VVSG, this Manual and any other 

written guidance from the EAC. A test plan package includes:

2.10.1.1. Requirements Matrix. The Requirements Matrix is a form developed by 

the EAC which identifies each requirement found in Federal voting 

system standards (a version of the VVSG or VSS). VSTLs will be 

required to identify the standards that apply to the system being tested, 

identify the testing to be performed and provide additional information 

as required. The Requirements Matrix and instructions for its 

completion may be found on EAC Web site at www.eac.gov. The 

matrix will serve as both a tool to identify and a means to document 

what should be tested and how.

2.10.1.2. Test Plan. The purpose of the Test Plan is to provide information 

regarding test methods. The Test Plan contains more detail than the 

Requirements Matrix.

2.10.1.2.1. Format. VSTLs shall format each test plan consistent with 

the requirements of Appendix A of this Manual.

2.10.1.2.2. Content. Each test plan shall identify applicable voting 

system standards and contain a description of the testing 

proposed to verify conformance. Also, each test plan shall 

contain a statement indicating the scope of the labs 

accreditation.

 Required Content. For each test, the test plan shall 

provide detailed information referencing testing to be 

performed, including facility requirements, testset-up, 

test sequence, data recording requirements and pass 

criteria.3

 Exception. Where a VSTL utilizes EAC mandated or 

approved test methods, the test plan may simply 

reference these methods and identify, with specificity, 

all deviations. Mandated test methods are those test 

methods required for use by the EAC. Approved test 

methods are standard, verified VSTL test methods 

approved by the EAC. VSTLs may submit standard

3 This requirement is consistent with International Standards Organization requirements, which serve as a basis for

NIST NVLAP’s accreditation and recommendation to the EAC. Where established and approved test methods do

not exist, ISO Standard 17025, Section 5.4.4., Non-Standard Method requires the testing to be validated bythe

laboratory prior to use. The EAC will review and approve the validated test methods.

20 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

test methods for approval by submitting them in writing 

to the Program Director.

2.10.2. Test Case. After approval of the VSTLs Test Plan, the VSTL shall develop Test 

Cases. A Test Case is a system specific, step-by-step test procedure or laboratory 

testing process that provides detailed test operation procedures sufficient for 

trained laboratory personnel to fully conduct a given test and produce repeatable 

results. The VSTL shall inform the EAC, in writing, when all test cases for the 

voting system under test have been completed. This notice shall include an index 

identifying each test case created to test the system. The notification should 

indicate if these are standard test cases, modified standard test cases, or a new test 

case. These test cases shall be available to the EAC for review and approval upon 

request.

2.10.3. Testing. The highest standards shall be applied to the testing of voting systems. 

VSTLs shall perform testing in conformance with the relevant standards of the

applicable Federal Standards (VVSG or VSS) and consistent with any written 

EAC interpretations of these standards. The Laboratory shall maintain its 

technical practices consistent with the standards which served as the basis for its 

NVLAP accreditation. These standards include International Standard ISO/IEC 

17025, General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration 

Laboratories; NIST Handbook 150, Procedures and General Requirement; NIST 

Handbook 150-22, Voting System Testing; any documents supplementing, 

updating or replacing these standards or handbooks; and any pertinent EAC 

guidance. When conducting testing under EAC’s program, VSTLs shall only 

perform testing of voting systems consistent with the scope of their accreditation.

2.10.4. Third Party Testing. Lead VSTL’s may contract or otherwise provide for the 

testing of voting systems by third parties under this program. However, the lead

VSTL shall be responsible for the accuracy, quality assurance, and results of all

tests performed. Under this program, no VSTL may perform or contract for the 

performance of testing outside the scope of its accreditation. Testing performed

directly by lead VSTL personnel using third party contractor equipment and 

facilities is not considered third party testing.

2.10.4.1. Core Testing. Core voting system testing may only be performed by 

VSTLs. Therefore, a VSTL may only contract or otherwise provide for 

the core testing of voting systems if it uses a third party VSTL. Core

testing includes: Technical Data Package review, physical configuration 

audit, source code review, functional configuration audit, system 

integration testing, volume testing, and security testing (not including 

cryptographic testing).

2.10.4.2. Non-Core Testing. Non-core testing may be performed by non-VSTLs

if they hold an EAC recognized accreditation to perform the relevant 

testing. The EAC recognizes two national accreditation bodies, NIST’s

21 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

NVLAP program and the American Association of Laboratory 

Accreditation (A2LA). Generally, a VSTL may only contract or 

otherwise provide for the non-core testing of voting systems if it uses a 

NVLAP or A2LA laboratory accredited to the specific scope of testing 

necessary. Non-core testing includes: electromagnetic compatibility 

testing, telecommunications testing, environmental testing, electrical 

testing, acoustical testing, and cryptographic testing.4 In limited 

circumstances, laboratories not holding a recognized accreditation may 

be used by VSTLs for non-core testing only after approval byEAC’s 

Program Director. Requests for such approval must be made in writing 

and demonstrate: (1) That there is no recognized laboratory available 

within a reasonable window of availability and geographic proximity 

(generally within the continental United States) and (2) that the VSTL 

has conducted a thorough assessment of the third party laboratory’s 

capabilities, quality system, management system, and/or alternative 

accreditations and have determined and documented that the laboratory 

is qualified to perform testing. The EAC may visit, interview or audit 

any non-accredited laboratory at any time before, during, or after the 

testing has occurred to verify their qualifications.

2.10.4.3. VSTL Responsibilities. Lead VSTLs are responsible for all tests 

performed on voting systems submitted to them by Manufacturers under 

EAC’s Testing and Certification Program. This includes testing (both 

core and non-core) performed by third party laboratories under their

direction (including third party VSTL laboratories). Any procedural or 

substantive irregularities or errors which occur during the third party 

testing process will be imputed to the responsible lead VSTL. Such 

failures may serve as a basis for the revocation of accreditation. Lead

VSTLs using third party laboratories (consistent with Sections 2.10.4.1 

through 2.10.4.2, above) shall take steps to ensure that the third party 

laboratories they employ meet the standards of this Program. At a 

minimum, the lead VSTLs shall ensure:

2.10.4.3.1. The third party laboratory provides the lead VSTL 

verifiable documentation regarding its relevant 

accreditation;

2.10.4.3.2. Any hardware tested by the qualified third party laboratory 

is first validated by the lead VSTL as the same hardware

presented to it for certification;

4 For the purposes of the EAC’s Voting System Test Laboratory Program,non-core 

cryptographic testing includes all testing involving evaluation of cryptographic operation 

and key management.

22 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.10.4.3.3. The third party laboratory provides the lead VSTL with 

evidence that it will direct its activities in compliance with 

any and all relevant VVSG requirements for testing and 

that the testing was, in fact, performed consistent with such

specific requirements. Any special procedures, tools, or 

testing software necessary to meet VVSG requirements 

must be validated by the lead VSTL prior to use. For 

example, the VVSG requires that systems be tested while 

operating and that such operation be in manner and under 

conditions that simulate election use. In such cases, the 

lead VSTL must ensure that the third party laboratory will 

properly implement the VVSG requirements, validate its 

election simulation tools, and properly performed the 

testing;

2.10.4.3.4. The lead VSTL performs all system accuracy, reliability, 

functionality and integration testing; and

2.10.4.3.5. The third party laboratory issues a report to the lead VSTL 

that fully documents its testing such that the lead VSTL 

may demonstrate compliance with this section and produce 

a report consistent with Section 2.10.5 of this Manual.

2.10.5. Test Report Package. The Test Report Package represents the culmination of the 

testing process. As such, it is vital that it accurately and completely document the

testing performed and the results of such testing. VSTLs shall submit Test Report 

Packages directly to the EAC. The packages shall include:

2.10.5.1. Requirements Matrix. VSTLs shall complete the requirements matrix 

originally submitted with its test plan (see Section 2.10.1 above). The 

Requirements Matrix and instructions for its completion may be found 

on the EACs Web site at www.eac.gov. The final submission of the 

Requirements Matrix will serve as verification that the VSTLperformed 

the testing required to demonstrate compliance with voting system 

standards.

2.10.5.2. Test Report. VSTLs shall provide a test report.

2.10.5.2.1. Content. All test reports shall document the testing process, 

including the documentation and justification of any

divergence from the EAC approved test plan, methods, or 

cases and the identification of all failures and/or anomalies 

along with any remedial action taken5 (see Chapter 4 ofthe 

EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification Manual

5 VSTLs must report all errors and anomalies identified in the test campaign even when an error is identifiedduring

the testing of unrelated functionality.

23 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

regarding the anomaly matrix). Test reports shall also 

document any prescribed maintenance or modifications, 

performed by the Manufacturer, to a voting system in 

testing. Such maintenance or modifications shall be 

monitored by the VSTL consistent with Section 2.11.1 of 

this Manual.

2.10.5.2.2. Format. To the greatest extent possible, VSTLs shall write 

reports such that they are understandable to non-technical

persons. As the EAC will publish these reports (bar 

portions prohibited by law), VSTLs shall refrain from 

including in them trade secrets or other commercial

information protected from release unless substantively 

required. Where information protected from release may 

be included, it shall be identified consistent with Chapter 7 

of this Manual. VSTLs shall format each test report 

consistent with the requirements of Appendix B of this 

Manual.

2.10.5.3. VSTL Attestation. The VSTL shall provide a letter, signed by a 

representative authorized to take action on behalf of the VSTL (see 

Sections 2.13 and 3.4.1.6. of this Manual), which attests that (1) all 

testing prescribed by the test plan or amended test plan was performed 

as identified or the divergence from the test plan was properly 

documented, (2) all identified voting system anomalies or failures were 

reported and resolved, (3) that the test report is accurate and complete, 

and (4) the VSTL recommends the system for certification.

2.10.6. Acceptance of Prior Testing. Generally, a valid test previously performed on a 

voting system by a VSTL, or by a third party test laboratory operating at the

direction of a VSTL, may be reused at the discretion of the lead VSTL. The EAC 

encourages VSTLs to use such testing to fulfill current certification requirements. 

The EAC will accept prior testing only when the below requirements are met. 

Lead VSTLs are responsible for ensuring that the prior testing has met these 

requirements. Prior testing is valid when:

2.10.6.1. The discrete software or hardware component previously tested is 

demonstrably identical to that presently offered for testing. Lead VSTLs

must examine the components to ensure no change has taken place 

consistent with all documentation. When valid prior testing is used, the 

system presented must be subject to regression testing, functional testing 

and system integration testing;

2.10.6.2. The voting system standards and relevant EAC interpretations 

applicable to the prior and current testing are identical;

24 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.10.6.3. The test methods used are equivalent or identical to current test methods 

approved by the EAC;

2.10.6.4. The prior testing has been reviewed by the VSTL and no errors or 

omissions are apparent. Any errors or omissions identified shall be 

reported to the EAC; and

2.10.6.5. The adoption and use of prior testing is noted in the test plan and test 

report. Like all testing, prior testing is subject to EAC review and 

approval.

2.10.7. Termination of Testing Prior to Completion. In the event testing isterminated 

prior to completion, VSTLs are required to notify the EAC Program Director. 

This notification shall be in writing and state the reasons for termination, provide 

a list of all testing completed, and produce a matrix of test anomalies or failures 

pursuant to Section 4.5.2 of the EAC Testing and Certification Program Manual.

2.10.7.1. Termination Defined. Voting system testing shall be considered 

terminated when the testing process is permanently ended or otherwise 

halted without a specific plan to recommence within 180 days of the last 

test performed.

2.10.7.2. Effect of Termination. Notification of termination will result in the

suspension of the Manufacturer’s Certification Application. 

Additionally, the termination and VSTL’s written notice shall be posted 

on EAC’s Web site.

2.10.7.3. Resubmission after Termination. Manufacturers may resubmit a system

previously terminated by submitting an updated application consistent 

with Chapter 4 of the Voting System Testing and Certification Program 

Manual. Pursuant to Section 2.11 of this Manual and Section 4.3.1.2 of 

the Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, a system

resubmitted to the EAC after termination must be tested by the VSTL 

identified on the original application.

2.11. Laboratory Independence. As a condition of accreditation, all laboratories shall 

maintain their independence from voting system Manufacturers, consistent with their 

roles and responsibilities as a key component of the EAC Certification program. VSTLs 

shall maintain an arms length relationship with the manufactures and avoid even the 

appearance of improper conduct. In order to maintain independence, VSTLs shall adhere 

to the following independence principles and requirements:

2.11.1. Testing Independence. Consistent with the requirements of this Manual, only the 

lead VSTL identified on a voting system’s application form may test or oversee 

the testing of that system. Under no circumstances may a Manufacturer perform

or participate in any testing which will serve as the basis of an EAC certification.

25 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Participation includes but is not limited to the observation of testing by the

Manufacturer. 6 Additionally, lead VSTL’s shall ensure that Manufactures’ do not 

have access to a system under test unless accompanied and monitored by a VSTL 

representative.

2.11.2. Decision Making. Determinations regarding testing, test requirements, and test 

results shall be made on the basis and for the purpose of ensuring that the systems 

tested meet Federal voting system standards. A VSTL’s primary purpose shall be 

to serve the public interest through adherence to the EAC Testing and

Certification Program.

2.11.3. Single Laboratory Requirement. EAC’s Testing and Certification Program 

prohibits Manufacturers from changing laboratories during the testing process. 

Once a lead VSTL is identified to the EAC by the Manufacturer to test a system, a

test report will not be accepted by the EAC from any other laboratory unless 

authorized pursuant to Chapter 4 of the EAC’s Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program Manual. This strict policy supports VSTLs in their

independent decision making role. VSTLs shall immediately report to the EAC 

Certification Program Director any time a Manufacturer withdraws a product 

from testing or the testing is otherwise terminated (see Section 2.10.7. of this 

Manual).

2.11.4. Fee for Service. All fees paid by a Manufacturer to a VSTL shall be solely for 

services rendered. No payment may be accepted by a VSTL that is not directly 

linked to services necessary to complete system testing. No payment may be 

accepted by a VSTL that is conditioned or dependent on testing outcome.

2.11.5. Written Communications. To ensure and document the independent relationship 

between test laboratories and Manufacturers, all substantive discussionsregarding 

the outcome, cost, payment and testing of a voting system shall be conducted or 

otherwise documented in writing by the VSTL. These records shall be 

maintained consistent with Section 2.15 of this Manual. Examples ofsubstantive 

discussions between the lead VSTL and a Manufacturer include but are not 

limited to:

2.11.5.1. All contracts and amendments thereto;

2.11.5.2. All discussions regarding the set up and operation of the voting system 

during testing;

2.11.5.3. All discussions with the Manufacturer regarding the test plan, test cases, 

testing, or the test report; and

6 Not all activities required for EAC Certification are “testing” activities. Examples of certification requirements

that do not fall into the category of “testing” include trusted and witness builds.

26 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.11.5.4. All discussions regarding implementation or interpretation of the 

standards.

2.11.6. Testing Facilities. To avoid the appearance of impropriety and otherwise 

maintain laboratory independence, VSTLs shall not conduct testing7 at a 

Manufacturer owned or controlled facility. If exceptional circumstances exist 

requiring that the VSTL use Manufacturer facilities, the VSTL may request a 

waiver from this prohibition. The request must be in writing to the Program 

Director and clearly state why such testing is necessary. A waiver may be granted

at the sole discretion of the Program Director and may impose necessary 

restrictions, limitations and requirements on testing. Waivers will be granted only 

in exceptional circumstances.

2.11.7. Improper Influence. Any attempt by a Manufacturer to unduly influence the test 

process shall be immediately reported to the EAC’s Certification and Testing 

Program Director.

2.12. Authority to do Business in the United States. As a condition of accreditation, all 

laboratories shall be lawfully entitled or otherwise not prohibited from doing business 

with the United States or its citizens or operating in the United States.

2.13. Communications. As a condition of accreditation, all laboratories shall designate and 

identify an individual or individuals who may speak for and take action on behalf of the 

VSTL. VSTLs shall maintain an open line of communication with EAC’s Testing and 

Certification Program Director, providing prompt response to requests for information 

regarding the Program.

2.14. Resources and Financial Stability. As a condition of accreditation, all VSTLsshall 

allocate sufficient resources to enable the laboratory to properly use and maintain itstest

equipment, personnel, and facility and to satisfactorily perform all required laboratory 

functions. The laboratory shall maintain insurance policies sufficient to indemnify itself 

against financial liabilities or penalties that may result from its operations. VSTLsshall:

2.14.1.Maintain insurance policies (see Section 3.4.1.8.) that indemnify the laboratory 

against the potential losses identified in its liability assessment (see Section 

3.4.1.9.); and

2.14.2.Document solvency through demonstrating that the laboratory’s assets are greater 

than its liabilities in its audited financial statement (see Section 3.4.1.16.).

2.15. Recordkeeping. As a condition of accreditation, all laboratories shall have a written 

policy regarding the proper storage, management and retention of all records relating to 

the testing of voting systems. At a minimum, this policy shall require all forms,reports, 

test records, observations, calculations, and derived data for all tests performed on a

7 As noted in footnote 6, above, this requirement only applies to “testing” and does not include othercertification

activities such as trusted and witnessbuilds.

27 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

given voting system (or component of said system) be retained for a period of at least 5 

years after the last test performed on any version of that system (or component of any

version of said system). The policy shall require that all documents are maintained in a 

safe and secure environment and stored in a manner that provides for organized and 

timely identification and retrieval. Additionally, all records must be kept in a data format

usable and available to the EAC.

28 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3. Accreditation Process

3.1. Overview. This chapter sets forth the required steps Applicant Laboratories must 

perform in order to receive an EAC Voting System Test Laboratory Accreditation. The

process generally includes an application for and receipt of a NIST recommendation; 

receipt of an EAC invitation to apply; and the successful submission, acceptance and 

review of an EAC application.

3.2. NIST Recommendation. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) ismandated

under Section 231 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) (42 U.S.C.

§15371(b)) to “... provide for the certification, de-certification and re-certification of 

voting system hardware and software by accredited laboratories.” As part of this 

process, HAVA requires the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to 

evaluate independent non-Federal test laboratories. NIST selects those laboratories

technically qualified to test voting systems and recommends them to the EAC for

accreditation. Generally, a Laboratory must have a NIST recommendation before it may 

be considered for EAC accreditation.

3.2.1. NIST Recommendation Process. NIST utilizes its National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (NVLAP) to perform this evaluation. NIST, through the 

NVLAP process, assesses laboratory technical capabilities, procedures and 

personnel before recommending a laboratory for EAC accreditation. The 

requirements, procedures and application process for requesting consideration by 

NIST (for recommendation to the EAC) may be found at www.nist.gov/NVLAP

or by contacting NIST at, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, 

Standards Services Division, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, 

MD, 20899-2140.

3.2.2. Emergency EAC Accreditation without NIST Recommendation. HAVA

authorizes the EAC to consider and accredit laboratories without a NIST 

recommendation (42 U.S.C. §15371(b)(2)(B)). The EAC will accredit

laboratories without a NIST recommendation only as an emergency action.

3.2.2.1. Emergency Action—Defined. The EAC will take emergency action 

only in instances where (1) there is a significant national need for

accredited laboratory testing capacity that cannot be met by existing 

VSTL’s, (2) the shortage of laboratory testing capacity may cause a 

disruption in the orderly administration of Federal elections, and (3) 

NIST is not capable of timely providing new laboratories to meet needs. 

Consistent with HAVA, the EAC will publish its basis for emergency 

action following the above standards.

3.2.2.2. Emergency Action—Process. Laboratories shall be accredited by the

EAC in an emergency action only after they have been properly assessed 

according to international standards and applicable NIST Guidance.

These standards include International Standard ISO/IEC 17025, General

29 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration 

Laboratories; NIST Handbook 150, Procedures and General 

Requirement; NIST Handbook 150-22, Voting System Testing; and/or 

any documents supplementing, updating or replacing these standards or 

handbooks.

3.2.2.3. Emergency Action—Provisional. Any accreditation provided by the 

EAC through its emergency action authority will be provisional in 

nature and limited in scope. All emergency accreditations must expire 

on a date certain.

3.3. EAC Invitation. After receipt of a NIST list of recommended laboratories, the EAC will 

send a letter to the laboratories inviting them to apply for EAC accreditation under the 

VSTL program. No laboratory may apply for EAC accreditation without an invitation 

from the Commission. The letter of invitation will identify the scope of accreditation for 

which the laboratory may apply. The invited laboratories must follow the application 

procedure noted in Section 3.4, below.

3.4. Application. EAC is the sole authority for Voting System Test Laboratory

Accreditation. While NIST’s recommendation serves as a reliable indication oftechnical

competency, the EAC must take additional steps to ensure that laboratory policies are in 

place regarding issues like conflict of interest, record maintenance, and financialstability. 

It must also ensure that the candidate laboratory is willing and capable to work with EAC 

in its Certification Program. To that end, applicant laboratories are required to submit a 

Letter of Application requesting accreditation. The letter shall be addressed to the 

Testing and Certification Program Director and attach (in either hard copy or on 

CD/DVD) (1) all required information and documentation; (2) a signed letter of 

agreement; and (3) a signed certification of conditions and practices.

3.4.1. Information and Documents. The applicant laboratory must submit the 

information and documents identified below as a part of its application. These 

documents will be reviewed by the EAC in order to determine whether the

applicant laboratory meets the program requirements identified in Chapter 2. The 

grant of EAC accreditation is subject to receipt of the information and EAC’s 

review and approval of the materials. The applicant laboratory shall properly 

label any documents, or portions of documents, it believes are protected from 

release under Federal law.

3.4.1.1. The legal name of the laboratory

3.4.1.2. Mailing address of the laboratory

3.4.1.3. Physical location of the laboratory (if different than the mailing address).

30 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3.4.1.4. Name, phone number, fax number and e-mail address of the voting 

system testing program manager or individual otherwise immediately 

responsible for the voting system testing program.

3.4.1.5. Name, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the individual, 

CEO, president or otherwise titled head of the laboratory.

3.4.1.6. Name, title, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the 

individual or individuals designated to speak for and take action on 

behalf of the laboratory pursuant to Section 2.13 of this Manual.

3.4.1.7. The business contact information (such as point of contact, address, Web

site, e-mail address) to be posted by the EAC on its Web site.

3.4.1.8. The identity of the laboratory’s insurer(s), name of insured, and

coverage limits for any comprehensive general liability policies, errors 

and omissions policies, professional liability policies, and bailee

policies.

3.4.1.9. A written assessment of the laboratory’s commercial general liability.

3.4.1.10. A signed statement certifying that it maintains workman’s 

compensation policy coverage sufficient to meet the applicable State’s

minimum requirements.

3.4.1.11. A copy of the laboratory’s organizational chart which includesthe 

names of key staff responsible for the testing of voting systems.

3.4.1.12. A copy of the laboratory’s conflict of interest policy which implements 

the standards of Section 2.5 of this Manual.

3.4.1.13. A copy of the laboratory’s personnel policy which implements the 

standards of Section 2.6 of this Manual.

3.4.1.14. A copy of the laboratory’s recordkeeping policy which implementsthe 

standards of Section 2.15 of this Manual.

3.4.1.15. A copy of the laboratory facilities brochure.

3.4.1.16. A copy of the most recent annual report, the names of the current board

of directors and the previous year’s board of directors, the names of any 

majority shareholders, and audited financial statements of the companies 

or entities that own and operate the laboratory. Laboratories not 

incorporated should provide comparable information.

31 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3.4.2. Letter of Agreement. The applicant laboratory must submit a signed letter of 

agreement as a part of its application. This letter shall be signed by an official

vested with the legal authority to speak for, contract on behalf of or otherwise 

bind the applicant laboratory (see Section 2.13). The purpose of this letter isto 

document that the applicant laboratory is aware of and agrees to abide by the 

requirements of the EAC Voting System Testing Laboratory Accreditation 

Program. No applicant laboratory will be considered for accreditation unless it 

has properly submitted a letter of agreement. The letter shall unequivocally state 

the following:

The undersigned representative of (hereinafter

“Laboratory”), being lawfully authorized to bind Laboratory and having 

read the EAC Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, accepts 

and agrees on behalf of Laboratory to follow the program requirements as

laid out in Chapter 2 of the Manual. Laboratory shall meet all program 

requirements as they relate to NVLAP accreditation; conflict of interest 

and prohibited practices; personnel policies; notification of changes; 

resources; site visits, notice of law suits; testing, technical practices and 

reporting; laboratory independence; authority to do business in the 

United States; VSTL communications; financial stability; and 

recordkeeping. Laboratory further recognizes that meeting these program 

requirements is a continuing responsibility. Failure to meet each of the 

requirements may result in the denial of an application for accreditation, 

a suspension of accreditation or a revocation of accreditation.

3.4.3. Certification of Laboratory Conditions and Practices. The applicant laboratory 

must submit a signed Certification of Laboratory Conditions and Practices as a 

part of its application. No applicant laboratory will be considered for accreditation 

unless it has properly affirmed its conditions and practices through the 

certification document. A Certification of Laboratory Conditions and Practices 

form may be found at Attachment C and is available electronically at 

www.eac.gov. By signing the certification, a laboratory affirms that it, in fact, has 

in place the policies, procedures, practices, resources and personnel stated in the

document. Any false representations made in the certification process may 

result in the revocation of accreditation and/or criminal prosecution.

3.5. EAC Review of Application Package. The EAC will perform a review of each

Applicant Laboratory’s application package to ensure that it is complete and the 

laboratory meets the program requirements. Each package will be received and reviewed

by the Testing and Certification Program Director to identify any apparent 

nonconformities or deficiencies. If necessary, the Program Director will notifyApplicant

Laboratories of any such nonconformities or deficiencies and provide them an 

opportunity to cure problems prior to forwarding the package to the Commissioners.

The Program Director will issue a recommendation to the Commissioners when

forwarding any application package. Consistent with HAVA, a laboratory will receive an

accreditation only upon a vote of the Commissioners.

32 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3.5.1. Program Director Review. Application packages shall be sent to the Program 

Director. The Program Director will perform a review of the packages before 

forwarding them to the Commissioners with a recommendation. Upon receipt of 

an application package the Testing and Certification Program Director shall 

review the package to ensure:

3.5.1.1. The package is complete. No application may be forwarded to the 

Commission for a vote on accreditation unless is contains all required 

documentation (Section 3.4.1), a proper letter of agreement (Section 

3.4.2), and a signed Certification of Laboratory Conditions and 

Practices (Section 3.4.3).

3.5.1.2. Evidence of compliance with program requirements. The Program

Director shall also review the submissions to ensure that the information 

provided properly reflects and documents compliance with program 

requirements.

3.5.2. Notice of Nonconformity. In the event the Program Director identifies (1) 

missing documentation or information and/or (2) issues of non-compliance, the 

Program Director shall notify the Applicant Laboratory of the deficiencies priorto 

forwarding a recommendation to the Commissioners. The written notice of 

nonconformity shall:

3.5.2.1. Identify any missing documentation or information;

3.5.2.2. Identify any issues of potential non-compliance; and

3.5.2.3. Provide Applicant Laboratory a reasonable time period to submit

additional information or amend their application package in response to 

identified non-conformities.

3.5.3. Applicant Laboratory Action on Notice of Nonconformity. Applicant 

Laboratories shall respond to a notice of nonconformity within the timeframe 

identified by the Program Director. Responses shall include any missing 

documents identified in the notice, as well as any additional or clarifying 

information or documentation responsive to an issue of non-compliance.

3.5.3.1. Request for Additional Time. Applicant Laboratories may request 

additional time in writing. Such request must state the basis for the 

request and identify a reasonable time period for response. The grant of 

additional time is at the sole discretion of the Program Director.

3.5.3.2. Failure to Respond—Missing Documentation or Information. If an 

Applicant Laboratory fails to provide required information or 

documentation within the timeframe provided in the notice of

33 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

noncompliance, the Program Director shall reject the application as

incomplete, returning the package to the applicant for resubmission 

consistent with the requirements of this Chapter.

3.5.3.3. Failure to Respond—Issue of Noncompliance. If, within the timeframe 

provided in the notice of noncompliance, an Applicant Laboratory (who

has provide all required documentation) fails to provide additional, 

clarifying information or documentation in response to an identified 

issue of program noncompliance, the Program Director shall forward the

original application to the Chair of the Commission for action.

3.5.4. Recommendation to Commissioners. After review, and if necessary an

opportunity for the applicant to amend their application, the Program Director

shall forward each application to the Chair of the Commission with a 

recommendation as to disposition. This application package shall include all 

documents and correspondence between the applicant laboratory and the EAC 

Program Director.

3.5.5. Vote by Commissioners. Upon receipt of an application package and 

recommendation from the Testing and Certification Program Director, the Chair 

of the Commission shall forward the information to each EAC Commissioner. 

After a reasonable time to review the forwarded materials, the Chair of the 

Commission shall bring the matter to a vote, consistent with the rules of the 

Commission. The measure presented for a vote shall take the form of a written

Commissioners’ Decision which (1) makes a clear determination as to

accreditation and (2) states the basis for the determination.

3.6. Grant of Accreditation. Upon a vote of the EAC Commissioners to accredit a 

laboratory, the Testing and Certification Program Director shall inform the laboratory of 

the decision, Issue a Certificate of Accreditation and post information regarding the 

laboratory on the EAC Web site.

3.6.1. Certificate of Accreditation. A Certificate of Accreditation shall be issued to each

laboratory accredited by vote of the Commissioners. The certificate shall be 

signed by the Chair of the Commission and state:

3.6.1.1. The name of the VSTL;

3.6.1.2. The scope of accreditation, by stating the Federal standard orstandards 

to which the VSTL is competent to test;

3.6.1.3. The effective date of the certification, which shall not exceed a period of 

two (2) years; and

3.6.1.4. The technical standards to which the laboratory was accredited.

34 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3.6.2. Post Information on Web Site. The Program Director shall make information

pertaining to each accredited laboratory available to the public on EAC’s Web

site. This information shall include (but is not limited to):

3.6.2.1. NIST’s Recommendation Letter;

3.6.2.2. The VSTL’s Letter of Agreement;

3.6.2.3. The VSTL’s Certification of Conditions and Practices;

3.6.2.4. The Commissioner’s Decision on Accreditation; and

3.6.2.5. The Certificate of Accreditation.

3.7. Effect of Accreditation. Receipt of an EAC Accreditation indicates that a laboratory has

met the applicable technical, procedural, management and staffing requirements and may 

serve as a Voting System Test Laboratory (VSTL) under EAC’s Testing andCertification 

Program.

3.7.1. Scope of Accreditation. A laboratory shall operate within the limits of the scope 

of accreditation as stated on its Certificate of Accreditation.

3.7.2. Representation. No VSTL may make representations regarding its accreditation 

beyond its scope of accreditation.

3.7.3. No Endorsement. A Certificate of Accreditation is not an endorsement of the

recipient laboratory. A VSTL may not state or imply EAC endorsement.

3.7.4. Accreditation Logo. A VSTL may display the EAC laboratory accreditation logo. 

Only the EAC authorized logo may be used. The display must be used in a 

manner consistent Sections 3.7.1. - 3.7.3., above. Specifications for the 

reproduction and use of the EAC logo are found in Appendix D.

3.8. Expiration and Renewal of Accreditation. A grant of accreditation is valid for a 

period not to exceed two years. A VSTL’s accreditation expires on the date annotated on 

the Certificate of Accreditation. VSTLs in good standing shall renew their accreditation 

by submitting an application package to the Program Director, consistent with the 

procedures of Section 3.4 of this Chapter, no earlier than 60 days before the accreditation 

expiration date and no later than 30 days before that date. Laboratories that timely file 

the renewal application package shall retain their accreditation while the review and 

processing of their application is pending.

3.9. Denial of Accreditation. Upon a vote of the EAC Commissioners not to accredit a 

laboratory, the Testing and Certification Program Director shall inform the laboratory of 

the decision and post relevant information on the EAC Web site.

35 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3.9.1. Notice of Denial. The Program Director shall inform the applicant laboratory (in 

writing) of the Commissioners’ Decision. This notice must include:

3.9.1.1. A statement of the decision and brief summary explanation of the basis 

for the decision;

3.9.1.2. Notice of the Applicant Laboratory’s right to appeal; and

3.9.1.3. A copy of the Commissioners’ Decision.

3.9.2. Post Information on Web Site. The Program Director shall publish on EAC Web

site:

3.9.2.1. A copy of the Commissioners’ Decision, and

3.9.2.2. The Notice of Denial.

3.10. Requesting Appeal. An applicant laboratory that has been denied accreditation by a vote 

of the Commissioners shall have the right to appeal. An Applicant Laboratory may 

appeal a Denial of Accreditation by first issuing a written request for appeal.

3.10.1. Submission. Requests must be submitted in writing to the Program Director, 

addressed to the Chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

3.10.2. Timing of Appeal. The Applicant Laboratory may request an appeal within 7

calendar days of receipt of the Notice of Denial. Late requests will not be 

considered.

3.10.3. Contents of Request. The request must petition for reconsideration of the 

Commissioners’ Decision and clearly state the specific conclusions of the 

Decision the Applicant Laboratory wishes to appeal.

3.11. EAC Action on a Request for Appeal. The Program Director shall accept any request 

for appeal timely submitted. Untimely requests shall be rejected. Upon receipt of a 

request for appeal, the Program Director shall notify the requestor applicant laboratory, in 

writing, as to whether their appeal has been accepted as timely. The notice for accepted

requests shall inform the applicant laboratory of the requirements for submitting their 

appeal per Section 3.12 of this Manual.

3.12. Submission of Appeal. After submission of a timely request for appeal, the Applicant 

Laboratory shall submit its appeal. This appeal shall (1) clearly identify the specific 

conclusions of the Commissioners’ Decision the Laboratory wishes to challenge, (2)

provide the basis for its position on appeal and (3) submit a written argument in support 

of its appeal. In addition, the applicant laboratory may submit documentary or other 

relevant, physical evidence in support of the appeal. The Appeal and all supporting

36 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

materials must be received by the EAC within 20 days of the applicant laboratory’s 

receipt of the Program Director’s notice of acceptance of the request to appeal.

3.13. Consideration of Appeal. All timely appeals will be considered by theCommissioners. 

Upon receipt of an appeal, the Chair of the Commission shall forward to each EAC 

Commissioner the Applicant Laboratory’s appellate submission, along with the original

application package, Commissioners’ Decision, and Program Director’srecommendation. 

After a reasonable time to review and consider the forwarded materials, the Chair of the 

Commission shall bring the matter to a vote, consistent with the rules of the Commission. 

The measure presented for a vote shall take the form of a written Commissioners’ 

Decision on Appeal.

3.14. Commissioner’s Decision on Appeal. The Commissioners shall make a written,final 

Decision on Appeal and shall provide it to the Applicant Laboratory.

3.14.1. Contents. The Decision on Appeal shall:

3.14.1.1. State the final determination of the Commission.

3.14.1.2. Address the matters raised by the Applicant Laboratory on appeal.

3.14.1.3. Provide the reasoning behind the decision.

3.14.1.4. State that the Decision on Appeal is final.

3.14.2. Determinations. The Commissioners shall make one of two determinations on 

appeal.

3.14.2.1. Grant of Appeal. If the Commissioners determine that the previous 

Decision of the Commission shall be overturned in full, the appealshall 

be granted. In such cases, the Applicant Laboratory shall be granted 

accreditation.

3.14.2.2. Denial of Appeal. If the Commissioners determine that any part of the 

previous Decision of the Commission shall be upheld such that the 

procedural requirements of Chapter 3 or the Program requirements of 

Chapter 2 of this manual will not be met in full, the appeal shall be 

denied. In such cases, the application for appeal is finally denied.

3.14.3. Effect. All Decisions on Appeal shall be final and binding on the Applicant 

Laboratory. No additional request for appeal shall be granted.

3.15. Effect of Denial of Accreditation. An EAC denial of accreditation indicates only that 

an applicant laboratory has failed to document or otherwise demonstrate that it hasthe

procedures, policies, management or personnel in place to meet the requirements of the 

Accreditation Program. A denial of accreditation is based upon current policy and

37 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

procedure and is not an indicator of past performance. Laboratories denied accreditation 

have the right to cure any identified defect and reapply by resubmitting their application 

package consistent with Section 3.4 of this Chapter.

38 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4. Compliance Management Program

4.1. Purpose. The purpose of the Compliance Management Program is to improve EAC’s 

Laboratory Accreditation Program and Testing; increase coordination, communication 

and understanding between the EAC and its VSTLs; and increase public confidence in

elections by facilitating VSTL accountability. The program accomplishes this by 

increasing personal interaction between EAC staff and VSTL personnel, collecting 

information and performing reviews to ensure continued compliance with program 

requirements, and requiring that VSTLs promptly remedy any identified areas of 

noncompliance.

4.2. Compliance Management Program, Generally. The Compliance Management 

Program meets its purposes by gathering information on the procedures and practices of 

its VSTLs. There are three main sources of information: (1) VSTL Notifications of 

Changes, (2) EAC Requests for Documents or Information and (3) EAC On Site 

Reviews. The information collected is reviewed by the EAC to ensure that VSTLs are 

meeting all program requirements. Any areas of noncompliance or recommendationsfor 

improvement are presented to VSTLs in a Compliance Management Report. VSTLs are 

required to promptly remedy any noncompliance or face revocation of accreditation.

4.3. VSTL Notification of Changes. VSTLs are obligated to report any significant changes

regarding the information, agreements or certifications made to the EAC as a condition of 

accreditation (see Section 2.7). This requirement serves as the primary means by which

the EAC maintains VSTL compliance. Failure to report changes in conditions or 

practices may result in suspension or revocation of accreditation consistent with the 

requirements and procedures of Chapter 5.

4.4. Request for Documents and Information. The Program Director may request a VSTL 

to provide the EAC information and/or documents to demonstrate the laboratory’s 

continuing compliance with the Accreditation Program requirements noted in Chapter 2 

(See Section 2.2).

4.4.1. EAC Request. A request for documents or information shall be made in writing 

by the Program Director and provide a reasonable timeframe for VSTL response.

The request may be for documents, information or both:

4.4.1.1. Request for Documents. A request for documents must identify the

specific documents sought. A request for documents is not a demand for 

the VSTL to create a document, but to provide the EAC a copy of any 

existing documentation responsive to the request.

4.4.1.2. Request for Information. Requests for information shall take the form of 

interrogatories. Each inquiry shall take the form of a discrete question. 

VSTLs are expected to provide complete answers to each question.

39 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4.4.2. VSTL Response. VSTLs shall respond within the timeframe provided by the 

Program Director. If additional time is needed, VSTLs may request an extension. 

Such requests must be made within the timeframe of the original request. The 

grant of additional time is at the sole discretion of the Program Director.

4.4.2.1. Request for Documents. VSTLs shall respond to requests for documents 

by having knowledgeable staff conduct a thorough search of VSTL 

records. VSTLs shall provide copies of all documents responsive to the 

request. If any document responsive to a request is considered 

privileged or otherwise protected from release under Federal law, it 

should be properly labeled. If no documents responsive to the request 

are found, the VSTL shall state that no records were found.

4.4.2.2. Request for Information. VSTLs shall respond to requests for 

information by having knowledgeable staff answer each question posed. 

VSTLs shall ensure that each question is answered completely and 

accurately. The VSTL may submit documents in support of its 

responses.

4.4.3. Failure to Respond. Failure to timely respond to a request for documents or 

information may result in a suspension or revocation of accreditation consistent 

with the requirements and procedures of Chapter 5.

4.5. On Site Laboratory Review—Generally. The Program Director shall provide for

regular on site reviews of VSTLs. There are two types of on site review:

4.5.1. On Site Review—Policy, Procedures and Practices Review. The most common 

type of review is the Policy, Procedure and Practices Review. This type ofreview

requires EAC personnel to enter a VSTL facility, examine a variety of 

documentation and meet with VSTL personnel to confirm that the VSTL’s 

policies, procedures and practices meet the requirements of the Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (Chapter 2).

4.5.2. On Site Review—Testing Observation and Technical Assessment. A Testing 

Observation and Technical Assessment Review requires an expert EAC 

laboratory assessor to enter a VSTL facility and assess the laboratory’stechnical

procedures, policies, management and personnel to verify compliance with 

applicable laboratory standards. Additionally, the EAC assessor may observe 

VSTL employees during the testing of voting systems to ensure that VSTL 

practices match technical policies.8

8 EAC’s authority to observe testing and conduct technical assessments serves only as an additional tool to ensure

technical compliance. The primarily means by which EAC ensures technical compliance is through NIST’s NVLAP

program. The NVLAP program monitors laboratories by requiring regular assessments. Laboratories are reviewed

one year after their initial accreditation and bienniallythereafter.

40 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4.6. On Site Laboratory Review—Frequency. The Program Director shall ensure that each 

VSTL receives an On Site Policy, Procedures and Practices Review at least once every 

two years.

4.7. On Site Laboratory Review—Procedure. The Program Director shall determine when 

and what type of on site review will be conducted for each VSTL. Before any on site 

review, the Program Director shall provide the VSTL with reasonable notice. Reviews 

shall be conducted with as little impact as possible on the activities of the VSTL. The 

VSTL and its employees are required to participate in the review and cooperate with on 

site EAC personnel. Finally, the reviewer shall provide the VSTL a short exit briefing 

prior to the termination of the on site review.

4.7.1. Notice. The Program Director shall coordinate on site reviews with VSTL 

management. As reviews require the availability of laboratory documents and 

key personnel, a notice of on site review shall be in writing and be provided to the 

VSTL at least 15 calendar days before the on site review date. The notice shall 

provide the VSTL with the following information:

4.7.1.1. Duration of Review. The notice shall provide an estimated timeframe 

during which EAC reviewers will be on site.

4.7.1.2. Type of Review. The notice shall identify the type of review to be 

performed (see Section 4.5.).

4.7.1.3. Scope of Review. The notice shall provide information regarding the 

scope of review. This information shall be sufficient to allow the VSTL 

to identify the documents, personnel and testing it must make available 

to EAC reviewers. The notice shall specifically identify:

4.7.1.3.1. The type of documents and/or program areas to be reviewed.

4.7.1.3.2. The testing that is to be observed.

4.7.1.4. VSTL’s Responsibilities. The notice shall briefly inform the VSTL ofits 

responsibility to coordinate and cooperate with the EAC throughout the

on site review process.

4.7.2. VSTL Response to Notice. Upon receipt of a notice of on site review, the VSTL 

shall coordinate the logistics of the review with the Program Director. In the 

event the noticed date or timeframe makes access to the required personnel, 

documents or testing untenable, the VSTL shall contact the Program Director in 

writing and identify, (1) The conflict or other problem which makes the proposed 

date and timeframe untenable, and (2) a proposed alternative date for the on site 

review. The acceptance of an alternative on site review date is at the sole 

discretion of the Program Director.

41 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4.7.3. Review. An on site review begins upon the arrival of EAC personnel at the

VSTL’s facility. EAC reviewers will ordinarily conduct reviews during the 

VSTL’s normal working hours. The reviewers will make every effort to work as 

efficiently as possible and avoid impacting the laboratory’s routine operations. 

The VSTL and its employees are required to cooperate with EAC reviewers. This 

cooperation includes providing a private, physical location for EAC personnel to 

review documents and speak with VSTL employees. Generally, the VSTL shall 

be responsible for ensuring:

4.7.3.1. Document Access and Availability. That the reviewers have access to all 

requested VSTL documents. All documents specifically identified in the 

notice of on site review shall be presented to reviewers upon arrival.

4.7.3.2. Personnel Access and Availability. That the reviewers have reasonable 

access to requested personnel. The VSTL shall ensure that key 

personnel for each substantive area identified in the notice of on site 

review be available to EAC reviewers during the noticed review period.

4.7.3.3. Facilities and Testing Access and Availability. That the reviewers have 

access to VSTL facilities involved in the testing of voting systems, 

including the facilities of third party contractor laboratories. 

Additionally, VSTLs must coordinate access to view testing consistent 

with the notice of on site review.

4.7.4. Exit Briefing. EAC reviewers shall provide the VSTL personnel an exit briefing. 

Exit briefings shall be informal. The briefing shall identify any documents, 

information or personnel which the VSTL remains responsible for making 

available to the reviewers; inform the VSTL of the next steps in the review

process; and provide the VSTL an opportunity to ask questions about the process.

4.8. EAC Compliance Management Reports. The EAC shall issue a written Compliance 

Management Report after performing any on site review. A Compliance Management 

Report shall also be issued after a Request for Documents/Information or VSTL 

Notification of Change when either indicates a noncompliance with program 

requirements. All reports shall be posted on the EAC Web site and (1) provide a brief 

summary of the review process, request for information or VSTL Notification ofChange

(2) state any findings resulting from the review, and (3) identify any corrective action 

required.

4.8.1. Purpose. The purpose of the report is to provide the VSTL with EAC’sfindings 

regarding its program so that:

4.8.1.1. Items of noncompliance may be identified and rectified,

4.8.1.2. Exceptional practices may be identified and encouraged, and

42 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4.8.1.3. EAC recommendations (beyond the program requirements) may be put 

forth in an effort to improve the VSTL’s program.

4.8.2. Summary of Process. The report shall provide a brief summary of the review 

process, request for information or VSTL Notification of Change. The purpose of 

this summary is to provide background information regarding how the 

information supporting EAC findings was collected. This includes identifying 

sources of information, methodology and standards. For the purposes of on site 

reviews, the summary shall state:

4.8.2.1. The dates of the review,

4.8.2.2. The type of review performed,

4.8.2.3. The program areas reviewed, including any specific documents and 

personnel discussions which were integral to the report findings, and

4.8.2.4. The processes used by the reviewers to determine compliance.

4.8.3. Findings. The report shall outline any findings of the review, request for 

information or VSTL Notification of Change. A finding is any factual 

determination that the VSTL is not in compliance with the program requirements

identified in Chapter 2 of this Manual or an EAC recommendation for program 

improvement which does not rise to the level of noncompliance. While reports 

may also contain recognition of exceptional practices, such statements are not 

considered findings. Reports shall identify three types of findings:

4.8.3.1. Critical. A critical finding is a determination that the VSTL has not met 

a requirement of the program that is fundamentally critical to the 

VSTL’s technical capability to test voting systems. A critical

noncompliance is a violation of program requirements that by its very 

nature comprises the integrity of the EAC Testing and Certification 

Program.

4.8.3.2. Required. A required finding is a determination that the VSTL hasfailed

to meet a requirement of the program that is not considered technically 

critical pursuant to Section 4.8.3.1., above.

4.8.3.3. Recommended. A recommended finding is a determination that VSTL 

practices could be improved, but that the identified improvement is not 

required by the program. In some cases, recommended practices may be 

practices the EAC plans to make program requirements.

4.8.4. Corrective Action. The report shall specify the action to be taken by the EAC 

and/or VSTL based upon the review findings.

43 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4.9. Corrective Action. Based upon the Compliance Management Report, corrective action 

may be required. EAC action and VSTL responsibilities will vary depending upon the 

nature of the report’s findings.

4.9.1. Critical. Critical Findings require the EAC to initiate the immediate suspension 

of the VSTL consistent with the requirements and procedures of Chapter 5, 

Revocation of Accreditation. The VSTL’s rights to remedy its noncompliance or 

be heard are laid out in Chapter 5.

4.9.2. Required. Required Findings obligate the VSTL to resolve the identified noncompliance within 20 days. Failure to do so within the 20 day timeframe will 

result in suspension or revocation of accreditation consistent with the procedures 

laid out in Chapter 5, Revocation of Accreditation. The VSTL may resolve a 

Required Finding by:

4.9.2.1. Challenging the Finding. The VSTL may challenge a finding if it 

believes its procedures and practices were in compliance with program

requirements at the time of the review. A VSTL shall challenge a 

Required Finding by providing factual information which documentsits 

claim of compliance. Challenges must be filed within 5 days of receipt 

of the EAC Report. The challenge must be in writing, state the basisfor

the challenge, address the facts and conclusions in the EAC report, and 

provide information which unambiguously documents that the VSTL 

was in compliance at the time of the review, request for information or 

VSTL Notification of Change. The EAC Program Director will accept 

or reject a VSTL’s challenge in writing. If a challenge is accepted, no 

corrective action will be required. If the challenge is rejected, the VSTL 

will have 20 days from receipt of the notice of rejection to perform

remedial action.

4.9.2.2. Conducting Remedial Action. VSTLs may take corrective action by 

submitting a remedial plan within 20 days of receipt of the report. The 

remedial plan shall (for each finding of noncompliance) identify the

noncompliance, outline the steps to be taken to achieve compliance, 

state the timeframe for each step and identify the means and final date 

by which the VSTL will document compliance. A remedial plan is 

subject to approval from the Program Director. A VSTL’s failure to 

obtain approval of a remedial plan or unauthorized deviation from an 

approved plan’s requirements or deadlines will result in suspension or 

revocation of accreditation consistent with the procedures laid out in 

Chapter 5, Revocation of Accreditation.

4.9.3. Recommended. Recommended findings do not require VSTL action. The 

proposed remedial actions for recommended findings are not program 

requirements, but EAC suggested practices.

44 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

5. Revocation of Accreditation

5.1. Overview. This chapter puts forth the process for revoking the accreditation of an EAC 

VSTL. The process for revocation begins with factual findings made pursuant to the 

Compliance Management Program (Chapter 4). Prior to any revocation of accreditation, 

VSTLs which fail to comply with program requirements are provided notice of (1) 

EAC’s intent to suspend, (2) suspension and (3) an opportunity to be heard or cure 

noncompliance. A laboratory that has its accreditation revoked has the right to appeal.

5.2. Revocation Policy. EAC Accreditation is subject to revocation. The EAC shall revoke 

an accreditation upon a factual finding that a VSTL has failed to meet a requirement of 

the Accreditation Program and is unable or unwilling to timely and properly remedy the 

non-compliance.

5.3. Revocation—Generally. The EAC monitors its VSTLs through its Compliance 

Management Program (Chapter 4). This program monitors compliance through (1) the 

VSTL’s continuing obligation to provide EAC Notifications of Changes, (2) EAC’s

authority to issue Requests for Documents or Information and (3) the performance of On 

Site Reviews. Determinations that a VSTL is not complying with programrequirements 

shall be made in Compliance Management Reports (findings of non-compliance). The 

process outlined in this chapter to suspend and revoke a VSTL’s accreditation shall be 

initiated (1) immediately for Critical Findings of noncompliance and (2) after an 

opportunity to remedy the noncompliance for Required Findings (consistent with the

process mandated by Section 4.9.). Revocation of Accreditation is a three step process:

5.3.1. Notice of Intent to Suspend;

5.3.2. Suspension of Accreditation; and

5.3.3. Commissioners’ Decision on Revocation of Accreditation.

5.4. Notice of Intent to Suspend. The revocation process shall be initiated by issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Suspend to a non-compliant VSTL. Such notices shall be issued by 

the Program Director. VSTLs shall have three days to submit a response to the notice. 

The EAC will issue a decision on suspension after consideration of the VSTL’s 

submission.

5.4.1. Written Notice. The Notice of Intent to Suspend shall be in writing and:

5.4.1.1. Inform the VSTL of the EAC’s intent to suspend the laboratory;

5.4.1.2. Identify the program requirement or requirements with which the VSTL

has failed to comply;

5.4.1.3. State the factual finding or findings that serve as the basis of the action;

45 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

5.4.1.4. Provide a copy of the relevant Compliance Management Report; and

5.4.1.5. Inform the VSTL of its right to file a response to the notice.

5.4.2. VSTL Response. The VSTL may respond to the notice of intent to suspend. 

Responses must be received by the EAC Program Director within three days of 

the VSTLs receipt of the Notice of Intent to Suspend to be eligible for 

consideration. The VSTL response:

5.4.2.1. Must be in writing;

5.4.2.2. Must be timely submitted to be considered;

5.4.2.3. Must challenge the factual finding or findings that serve as the basis of 

the suspension;

5.4.2.4. May include relevant documentation in support of its challenge.

5.4.3. EAC Consideration of Response. The EAC shall consider the timely submission 

of a VSTL before issuing a Decision of Suspension. The EAC may consult 

experts, perform research and request additional information from the VSTL 

during the consideration process.

5.4.4. EAC Decision on Suspension. The EAC shall issue a Decision on Suspension. 

The decision shall be made in writing by the Program Director. A decision shall 

state (1) the decision of the Program Director, (2) the basis for and reasoning 

behind the decision and (3) the VSTL’s obligations and rights during suspension 

(if applicable). A Decision on Suspension shall be provided to the VSTL, issued 

to all registered Manufacturers and posted on EAC’s Web site. The Program 

Director may make one of two determinations in a Decision on Suspension:

5.4.4.1. Program Compliance. Based upon the EAC’s consideration of a 

VSTL’s response to the notice of intent to suspend, the Program

Director may overturn the factual findings that served as the basis of the 

notice. In such cases, the Program Director shall determine that the 

VSTL is in compliance with all program requirements. A decision that 

the VSTL is in compliance shall end the revocation process.

5.4.4.2. Suspension. The Program Director shall suspend the VSTL consistent 

with the notice of intent to suspend when the preponderance of the 

evidence indicates noncompliance with program requirements. 

Suspension is effective as of the VSTL’s receipt of the decision.

5.5. Suspension of Accreditation. Suspension is the second step in the revocation process.

The purpose of Suspension is (1) to provide the suspended VSTL an opportunity to 

timely cure the noncompliance which served as the basis of Suspension or (2) grant the

46 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

suspended VSTL an opportunity to be heard prior to revocation of accreditation. A 

suspended VSTL shall have 20 days to either cure its noncompliance or request an 

opportunity to be heard. If no action is taken by the suspended VSTL within the 20 days, 

the EAC Commissioners shall make a decision on revocation.

5.5.1. Effect of Suspension. A suspended VSTL shall immediately cease all testing of 

voting systems under the EAC’s Certification Program. Any testing performed by 

a suspended VSTL during its suspension will not be accepted by the EAC under 

its Voting System Certification Program. Any period of suspension must be 

clearly documented in a VSTL’s test report (see Chapter 4 of the EAC Voting 

System Testing and Certification Manual). Testing under the EAC Certification

Program shall not resume unless the suspension is lifted or the VSTL is otherwise 

authorized by the EAC (in writing) to recommence testing.

5.5.2. Opportunity to Cure. A suspended VSTL may request the opportunity to cure its 

noncompliance within 20 days of its receipt of the Program Director’s Decision 

on Suspension. The request must include a detailed remedial plan. If this plan 

is accepted, properly executed and verified, the VSTL’s suspension will be lifted 

and it may resume testing.

5.5.2.1. Remedial Plan. A request to cure noncompliance must include a plan by 

which the VSTL outlines how it will timely bring its laboratory into full 

compliance with the program. The remedial plan shall:

5.5.2.1.1. Identify each noncompliance which served as the basis of its 

suspension;

5.5.2.1.2. For each identified noncompliance, outline the steps to be 

taken to achieve compliance. This includes identifying the 

resources and personnel needed for each step;

5.5.2.1.3. Provide a timeframe for the completion of each identified 

step and state the final date by which the VSTL will complete 

the compliance plan;

5.5.2.1.4. Provide a schedule of periodic progress reports to the 

Program Director; and

5.5.2.1.5. Require the VSTL to provide the EAC a written certification 

attesting to its completion of the remedial plan and full 

compliance with program requirements at close of the 

process.

5.5.2.2. EAC Action on Plan. A remedial plan is subject to approval by the 

Program Director. The Program Director will work with the suspended 

VSTL to develop and approve a Remedial Plan that appropriately brings

47 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

the laboratory into compliance within an acceptable timeframe.

Remedial Plans shall be approved in writing. Ultimately, a VSTL’s 

failure to cooperate or otherwise obtain approval of a remedial plan will 

result in the termination of the cure process. A determination to 

terminate the cure process will be made in writing by the Program 

Director. Upon receipt of a notice that the cure process has been

terminated, a suspended VSTL shall have 10 days to request an 

opportunity to be heard on revocation of accreditation (see Section 

5.5.3., below).

5.5.2.3. VSTL Implementation of Plan. After the remedial plan has been

approved by the Program Director, the VSTL shall begin 

implementation. The VSTL shall not deviate from an approved plan’s

procedures, requirements or deadlines without the written consent of the 

Program Director. Failure to follow the remedial plan will result in the 

termination of the cure process. A determination to terminate the cure 

process will be made in writing by the Program Director. Upon receipt 

of a notice that the cure process has been terminated, a suspended VSTL 

shall have 10 days to request an opportunity to be heard on revocation of 

accreditation (see Section 5.5.3., below).

5.5.2.4. EAC Verification of Remedy. Upon a VSTL’s timely completion of the 

remedial plan and receipt of the VSTL’s Certification (see Section 

5.5.2.1.5.), the Program Director shall verify compliance. At the 

discretion of the Program Director, he or she may verify compliance

through the acceptance of the VSTL’s Certification or through the 

various components of the Compliance Management Program (Chapter 

4). If the Program Director determines that the remedial plan was not 

completed, he or she may terminate the cure process. A determination 

to terminate the cure process will be made in writing. Upon receipt of a 

notice that the cure process has been terminated, a suspended VSTL 

shall have 10 days to request an opportunity to be heard on revocation of 

accreditation (see Section 5.5.3., below).

5.5.2.5. Notice of Compliance. The Program Director shall document his or her 

verification that the remedial plan was complete by providing a written 

notice of compliance to the VSTL. This notice shall state that the VSTL 

is in compliance with program requirements and that the suspension is 

lifted. The notice shall be posted on the EAC’s Web site and provided 

to all registered Manufacturers.

5.5.3. Opportunity to be Heard on Revocation of Accreditation. A VSTL has the right

to timely challenge the revocation of its accreditation prior to an EAC Decision 

on Revocation. Unless otherwise noted above, a VSTL has 20 days from the date 

it received its Decision on Suspension to submit a challenge. Late submissions 

will not be considered. All challenges of revocation will be heard by the EAC

48 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Commissioners. A challenge of revocation shall be submitted to the Program 

Director, and addressed to the Chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 

Each challenge of revocation shall be in writing and:

5.5.3.1. Shall identify each noncompliance which served as the basis of its 

suspension;

5.5.3.2. Shall identify, document and provide verification of any remedial action 

completed;

5.5.3.3. Shall provide, for each identified noncompliance, a written argument 

challenging the finding of noncompliance; and

5.5.3.4. May provide any documentation and information in support of the 

written statement.

5.6. Commissioners’ Decision on Revocation of Accreditation. Pursuant to HAVA, a

VSTL may have its accreditation revoked only by a vote of the EACCommissioners. 

Upon a timely receipt of a challenge of revocation, the program Director shall provide 

each Commissioner all relevant documentation including: (1) the VSTL’s submission 

challenging revocation, (2) copies of any terminated cure plans (3) the Notice of Intent to 

Suspend, (4) the Compliance Management Report; (5) any documents pertaining to 

challenges or remedial plans provided by the VSTL in response to a relevant Compliance 

Management report; and (5) a Program Director recommendation as to disposition.

5.6.1. Consideration. Each Commissioner shall review and consider all relevant 

materials he or she has been provided. A Commissioner may request the Program

Director to provide additional relevant materials or information held by the EAC 

or VSTL. Such requests and any responsive materials shall be provided to each 

Commissioner. The Chair of the Commission shall ensure that each 

Commissioner has sufficient time to consider the relevant material before a vote is 

called.

5.6.2. Process. After a reasonable time to review the forwarded materials, the Chair of 

the Commission shall bring the Decision of Revocation of Accreditation to a vote, 

consistent with the rules of the Commission. The measure presented for a vote 

shall take the form of a written Commissioners’ Decision on Revocation, which:

5.6.2.1. Makes a clear determination as to revocation on accreditation. The 

Commissioners shall ultimately make one of two decisions:

5.6.2.1.1. Program Compliance. If the VSTL demonstrates that it 

meets all program requirements, successfully challenging 

all previous findings of noncompliance, the Commissioners 

shall find the VSTL compliant, reject the revocation of 

accreditation and lift the VSTL’s suspension.

49 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

5.6.2.1.2. Revocation of Accreditation. If the VSTL does not 

demonstrate that it meets all program requirements and at 

least one previous finding of noncompliance stands, the 

Commissioners shall find the VSTL noncompliant and 

revoke its accreditation.

5.6.2.2. Provides a finding with regard to each identified noncompliance which 

served as the basis of suspension; and

5.6.2.3. Identifies the documents and information that served as the basis for the 

Decision.

5.6.3. Decision—Notice. After a vote of the Commissioners adopting a Decision on 

Revocation, the Program Director shall forward the decision to the VSTL. At

that time the Program Director shall provide the VSTL notice of decision which 

includes a summary of the laboratory’s appeal rights consistent with Section 5.8., 

below.

5.6.4. Decision—Publication. After a vote of the Commissioners adopting a Decision 

on Revocation, the Program Director shall cause the decision to be posted on the 

EAC’s Web site, issue a copy to each registered voting system Manufacturer and

provide the decision to the Director of NIST.

5.7. Effect of Revocation of Accreditation. A revocation of accreditation is effective upon 

the vote of the Commissioners. Laboratories that have had their accreditation revoked

may no longer test voting systems or submit test reports under the EAC certification 

program. The laboratories may not represent themselves as accredited by EAC. A 

laboratory which has had its accreditation revoked may reapply for an EAC accreditation 

consistent with the requirements of Chapter 2, only after the EAC receives a new

recommendation for their participation from NIST. Where a revocation of accreditation 

results in the termination of testing prior to completion, the laboratory which has had its 

accreditation revoked must provide information to the EAC consistent with 2.10.7. of this 

manual. Manufacturers may request the EAC grant permission to replace their lead 

VSTL pursuant to section 4.3.1.2. of the Voting System Testing and Certification 

Program Manual.

5.8. Requesting Appeal. A laboratory that has had its accreditation revoked by a vote of the 

Commissioners shall have the right to appeal. A Laboratory may appeal a Decision to 

Revoke an Accreditation by first issuing a written request for appeal.

5.8.1. Submission. Requests must be submitted in writing to the Program Director, 

addressed to the Chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

5.8.2. Timing of Appeal. The laboratory may request an appeal within 7 calendar days 

of receipt of the Notice of Decision. Late requests will not be considered.

50 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

5.8.3. Contents of Request. The request must petition for reconsideration of the 

Commissioners’ Decision on Revocation and clearly state the specific conclusions 

of the Decision the laboratory wishes to appeal.

5.9. EAC Action on a Request for Appeal. The Program Director shall accept any request 

for appeal timely submitted. Untimely requests shall be rejected. Upon receipt of a

request for appeal, the Program Director shall notify the requestor laboratory, in writing, 

as to whether their appeal has been accepted as timely. The notice for accepted requests 

shall inform the applicant laboratory of the requirements for submitting their appeal per 

Section 5.10. of this Manual.

5.10. Submission of Appeal. After submission of a timely request for appeal, the Laboratory 

shall submit its appeal. This appeal shall (1) clearly identify the specific conclusions of 

the Commissioners’ Decision the laboratory wishes to challenge, (2) provide the basisfor 

its position on appeal and (3) submit a written argument in support of its appeal. In 

addition, the applicant laboratory may submit documentary or other relevant, physical 

evidence in support of the appeal. The Appeal and all supporting materials must be 

received by the EAC within 20 days of the applicant laboratory’s receipt of the Program 

Director’s notice of acceptance of the request to appeal.

5.11. Consideration of Appeal. All timely appeals will be considered by theCommissioners. 

Upon receipt of an appeal, the Chair of the Commission shall forward to each EAC 

Commissioner the laboratory’s appellate submission, along with the original information 

considered during the Commissioners Decision on Revocation (see Section 5.6.). After a 

reasonable time to review and consider the forwarded materials, the Chair of the 

Commission shall bring the matter to a vote, consistent with the rules of the Commission. 

The measure presented for a vote shall take the form of a written Commissioners’ 

Decision on Appeal.

5.12. Commissioner’s Decision on Appeal. The Commissioners shall make a written,final 

Decision on Appeal and shall provide it to the laboratory.

5.12.1. Contents. The Decision on Appeal shall:

5.12.1.1. State the final determination of the Commission.

5.12.1.2. Address the matters raised by the laboratory on appeal.

5.12.1.3. Provide the reasoning behind the decision.

5.12.1.4. State that the Decision on Appeal is final.

5.12.2. Determinations. The Commissioners shall make one of two determinations on 

appeal.

51 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

5.12.2.1. Grant of Appeal. If the Commissioners determine that the previous 

Decision of the Commission shall be overturned in full, and the 

laboratory meets all program requirements, the appeal shall be granted.

In such cases, the laboratory shall have its accreditation immediately 

reinstated.

5.12.2.2. Denial of Appeal. If the Commissioners determine that any part of the 

previous Decision of the Commission shall be upheld such that the

procedural requirements of Chapter 3 or the Program requirements of 

Chapter 2 of this manual will not be met in full, the appeal shall be 

denied. In such cases, the application for appeal is finally denied.

5.12.3. Effect. All Decisions on Appeal shall be final and binding on the Applicant 

Laboratory. No additional request for appeal shall be granted.

5.12.4. Notice. After a vote of the Commissioners adopting a Decision on Appeal, the 

Program Director shall forward the decision to the VSTL.

5.12.5. Publication. After a vote of the Commissioners adopting a Decision on Appeal, 

the Program Director shall cause the decision to be posted on the EAC Web site, 

issue a copy to each registered voting system Manufacturer and provide the 

decision to the Director of NIST.

52 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

6. Requests for Interpretations

6.1. 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.

6.2. 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. An Interpretation does not amend voting system 

standards, but serves only to clarify existing standards.

6.3. 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 meansfor 

resolving the meaning of a voting system standard in light of 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.

6.3.1. 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.

6.3.2. 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.

6.3.3. 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.

53 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

6.3.4. 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.

6.3.4.1. 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:

6.3.4.1.1. The language of the standard is unclear on its face;

6.3.4.1.2. One section of the standard seems to contradict another, 

relevant section;

6.3.4.1.3. The language of the standard, though clear on its face, lacks 

sufficient detail or breadth to determine its proper 

application to a particular technology;

6.3.4.1.4. The language of a particular standard, when applied to a 

specific technology, clearly conflicts with the established 

purpose or intent of the standard; or

6.3.4.1.5. The language of the standard is clear, but the proper means 

to assess compliance is unclear.

6.3.4.2. Not Previously Clarified. The EAC will not accept a Request for 

Interpretation when the issue has previously been clarified.

6.4. Procedure for Submitting a Request for Interpretation. A Request forInterpretation 

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 immaterial to the issue at hand. The following steps 

must be taken when writing a Request for Interpretation:

6.4.1. Establish Standing To Make the Request. To make a request, one must meet the 

requirements identified in Section 6.3. 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.

54 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

6.4.2. Identify the EAC Voting System Standard To Be Clarified. The request must 

identify the specific standard or standards for 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.

6.4.3. 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.

6.4.4. Identify the Ambiguity. The request must identify the ambiguity it seeksto

resolve. The ambiguity shall be identified by stating a concise question that meets 

the following requirements:

6.4.4.1. Shall be clearly stated;

6.4.4.2. Shall be related to and reference the voting system standard and voting 

system technology information provided; and

6.4.4.3. 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.

6.4.4.4. Shall be stated in a way that can ultimately be answered yes or no.

6.4.5. 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.

6.5. EAC Action on a Request for Interpretation. Upon receipt of a Request for 

Interpretation, the EAC shall take the following action:

6.5.1. Review the Request. The Program Director shall review the request to ensure it is 

complete, is clear, and meets the requirements of Section 6.3. Upon review, the 

Program Director may take the following action:

6.5.1.1. 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.

6.5.1.2. Reject the Request for Interpretation. If the Request for Interpretation 

does not meet the requirements of Section 6.3., the Program Director

55 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

may reject it. Such rejection must be provided in writing to the 

Manufacturer or VSTL and must state the basis for the rejection.

6.5.1.3. 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 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.

6.5.2. 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.

6.5.3. 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:

6.5.3.1. State the question or questions investigated;

6.5.3.2. Outline the relevant facts that served as the basis of the Interpretation;

6.5.3.3. Identify the voting system standards interpreted;

6.5.3.4. State the conclusion reached; and

6.5.3.5. Inform the Manufacturer or VSTL of the effect of an Interpretation (see 

Section 6.6.).

6.6. 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. 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.

6.7. 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 7 of this Manual. The library of published 

opinions is posted on the EAC Web site: www.eac.gov.

56 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7. Release of Laboratory Accreditation Program 

Information

7.1. Overview. VSTLs 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, VSTLs must identify the information they believe is protected and

provide substantiation and a legal basis for withholding. This chapter discusses EAC’s 

general policy on the release of information and provides VSTL’s with standards, 

procedures, and requirements for identifying documents as trade secrets or confidential

commercial information.

7.2. EAC Policy on the Release of Certification Program Information. The EAC seeksto 

make its Voting System Test Laboratory 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).

7.2.1. 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.

7.2.2. Publication of documents. Beyond the requirements of FOIA, the EAC intendsto 

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 (www.eac.gov). The published documents will 

cover the full spectrum of the program, including information pertaining to:

7.2.2.1. Accredited Laboratories;

7.2.2.2. VSTL test plans;

7.2.2.3. VSTL test reports;

7.2.2.4. Agency decisions;

7.2.2.5. Denials of Certification;

7.2.2.6. Issuance of Certifications;

57 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7.2.2.7. Compliance Management Reports;

7.2.2.8. Suspensions or Revocation of Accreditations;

7.2.2.9. Appeals;

7.2.2.10. Official Interpretations (VVSG or VSS); and

7.2.2.11. Other topics as determined by the EAC.

7.2.3. 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 Accreditation 

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).

7.3. 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.

7.3.1. The following examples illustrate productive processes that may be trade secrets:

7.3.1.1. Plans, schematics, and other drawings useful in production.

7.3.1.2. Specifications of materials used in production.

7.3.1.3. Voting system source code used to develop or manufacture software 

where release would reveal actual programming.

7.3.1.4. Technical descriptions of manufacturing processes and othersecret

information relating directly to the production process.

7.3.2. The following examples are likely not trade secrets:

7.3.2.1. Information pertaining to a finished product’s capabilities or features.

7.3.2.2. Information pertaining to a finished product’s performance.

7.3.2.3. Information regarding product components that would not reveal any 

commercially valuable information regarding production.

58 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7.4. Privileged or Confidential Commercial Information. Privileged or confidential 

commercial information is that information submitted by a VSTL that is commercial or 

financial in nature and privileged or confidential.

7.4.1. Commercial or Financial Information. The terms commercial and financialshould 

be given their ordinary meanings. They include records in which a submitting 

VSTL has any commercial interest.

7.4.2. 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.

7.5. 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 VSTL 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:

7.5.1. 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.

7.5.2. Contacting a VSTL on Proposed Release of Potentially Protected Documents. In

the event a member of the public submits a FOIA request for documents provided

by a VSTL or the EAC otherwise proposes the release of such documents, the 

EAC will take the following actions:

7.5.2.1. 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 VSTL when submitted (see Section 7.6.1. below) or identified by 

the EAC on review.

7.5.2.2. Grant the submitting VSTL 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 7.6.1. below.

59 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7.5.3. 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.

7.6. VSTL’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 VSTL shall be responsible for identifying 

documents, or portions of documents, it believes warrant such protection. Moreover, the 

VSTL 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.

7.6.1. Initial Submission of Information. When a VSTL is submitting documents to the 

EAC as required by the Accreditation or Certification Programs, it isresponsible 

for identifying any document or portion of a document that it believes is protected

from release by Federal law. VSTLs shall identify protected information9 by 

taking the following action:

7.6.1.1. Submitting a Notice of Protected Information. This notice shall identify 

the document, document page, or portion of a page that the VSTL 

believes should be protected from release. This identification must be 

done with specificity. For each piece of information identified, the 

VSTL must state the legal basis for its protected status.

7.6.1.1.1. Cite the applicable law that exempts the information from 

release.

7.6.1.1.2. Clearly discuss why that legal authority applies and why the 

document must be protected from release.

7.6.1.1.3. If necessary, provide additional documentation or 

information. For example, if the VSTL 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.

7.6.1.2. 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.

9 Documents submitted by the VSTL may include information that is a trade secret or confidential commercial

information of a Manufacturer. The VSTL shall take steps to identify any information it believes may be protected.

The VSTL may seek the input of the Manufacturer when identifying potentially protected information pursuant to

the requirements of this chapter. All communications on this matter shall be in writing.

60 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7.6.2. Notification of Potential Release. In the event a VSTL is notified that the EAC is 

considering the release of information that may be protected, the VSTL shall take 

the following action:

7.6.2.1. Respond to the notice in writing within 15 calendar days. If additional 

time is needed, the VSTL 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. VSTLs that do not respond in 

a timely manner will be viewed as not objecting to release.

7.6.2.2. Clearly state one of the following in the response:

7.6.2.2.1. There is no objection to release, or

7.6.2.2.2. The VSTL objects to release. In this case, the response must 

clearly state which portions of the document the VSTL 

believes should be protected from release. The VSTL shall

follow the procedures discussed in Section 7.6.1 above.

7.7. 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 VSTL 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:

7.7.1. Social Security Number.

7.7.2. Bank account numbers.

7.7.3. Home address.

7.7.4. Home phone number.

61 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Appendix A

Certification Test Plan Format and Content

62 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Appendix A.

Certification Test Plan Format and Content

The primary purpose of the test plan is to document the VSTL’s development of the certification 

tests conducted on a voting system submitted as a candidate for EAC certification. Although this

appendix serves as a general guide to preparing test plans, VSTL’s may tailor the scope and 

detail of these requirements to the design of the specific voting system submitted for testing, the 

type of hardware components submitted for testing, and the complexity of the software submitted 

for testing.

This appendix should be used in conjunction with the requirements noted in the applicable 

version or versions of the EAC’s VVSG when developing test plans.

Test Plan Format

Test Plans produced by VSTLs shall follow the format outlined below:

1. Introduction

1.1 References

1.2 Terms and Abbreviations

1.3 Testing Responsibilities

2. Evaluation of Prior Non-VSTL Tests

2.1 Tests conducted prior to the certification engagement

2.2 Prior test results

3. Materials Required for Testing

3.1 Software

3.2 Equipment

3.3 Test materials

3.4 Deliverable materials

4. Test Specification

4.1 Requirements

4.2 Hardware configuration and design

4.3 Software system functions

5. Test Data

5.1 Test data recording

5.2 Test data criteria

5.3 Test data reduction

63 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

6. Test Procedure and Conditions

6.1 Facility requirements

6.2 Test set-up

6.3 Test sequence

7. Proprietary Data

Required Content of Test Plan

Introduction

Test Plan references shall list all documents containing materials used to prepare the test plan.

This section of the plan shall include a copy of the implementation statement provided by the 

manufacture and any interpretations made by the VSTL to fully identify the implementation 

under test and the scope of the testing engagement.

The VSTL shall identify all parties responsible for conducting testing of the candidate voting 

system, including all subcontracted testing laboratories and all engineers assigned to the test 

engagement.

Evaluation of Previous Testing

The VSTL shall document all previous certifications, reviews or other testing that may impact 

the VSTL’s determination of the scope of the conformity assessment testing for the candidate 

voting system. The VSTL may recognize certifications, and tests conducted by other labs, 

including non-VSTLs, as making some portions of the voting system testing campaign 

redundant. For example, a COTS computer should already have been certified to comply with 

the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Part 15, SubpartB 

requirements for both radiated and conducted emissions and need not be retested for this 

requirement. Also, if a slightly modified system is submitted for reassessment, the VSTLs

finding that some of the previous testing need not be repeated would be documented in this 

section of the Test Plan subject to approval of the EAC.

Materials

The VSTL shall enumerate all materials delivered by the Manufacturer to enable the test 

engagement to occur. These materials include not only the applicable hardware and software, 

but also the Technical Data Package (TDP) test ballot, test data, and all other materials necessary 

to conduct appropriate testing. All materials delivered to the VSTL shall be identified by 

specific version number, product number, serial number, etc., if appropriate, and the quantity of 

each item delivered shall be noted.

Specifications

For all applicable tests specified in the VVSG, the VSTL shall document the implementation 

details that determine how the standard tests are realized for the voting system under test. For all 

tests that the VSTL is adopting from publicly available test suites (including those that may be 

developed by NIST at a future date), the VSTL shall identify the public reference and document 

the implementation details that determine how the public tests are realized for the voting system

64 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

under test. For all other tests, the VSTL shall incorporate all relevant information into the test 

plan as needed to reproduce the testing.

Data

The VSTL shall identify what data is to be measured, and how tests and results are recorded. 

The VSTL shall supply any special instrumentation needed to satisfy the data requirements. The 

VSTL shall describe the criteria against which the results will be evaluated, including but not 

limited to criteria defining the acceptable range for voting system conformance (tolerances); 

criteria defining the minimum number of combinations or alternatives of input and output

conditions that can be exercised to constitute an acceptable test of the parameters involved 

(sampling); and criteria defining the maximum number of interrupts, halts or other system breaks 

that may occur due to non-test conditions (events).

Procedures and Conditions

The VSTL shall provide the information necessary to reproduce the testing that it performs. This 

information includes facility requirements, test set-up, test sequence, and pass criteria.

Proprietary Data

The VSTL shall list and describe in this section all documentation and data that are proprietary to 

the Manufacturer and hence subject to restrictions on use, release, or disclosure. All proprietary 

data and information must be included in this section, preferably as a separate electronic file, in 

order to easily publish the test plans on the EAC Web site while withholding information 

considered proprietary or confidential by Federal law.

65 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Appendix B

Certification Test Report Format and Content

66 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Appendix B.

Certification Test Report Format and Content

The primary purpose of the test report is to facilitate the presentation of conclusions and 

recommendations regarding voting system conformance to the VVSG. The Test Report also

provides a summary of test operations, test results, test data records and analysis to support the 

conclusions and recommendations presented by the VSTL. Although this appendix serves as a 

general guide to preparing the test reports, VSTL’s may tailor the scope and detail of the testing 

conducted on the candidate voting system.

This appendix should be used along with the requirements noted in the applicable version or 

versions of the EAC’s VVSG when developing test reports.

Test Report Format

Test Reports produced by VSTLs shall follow the format outlined below:

1. System Identification and Overview

2. Certification Test Background

2.1 Revision History

2.2 Implementation Statement

3. Test Findings and Recommendation

3.1 Summary Finding and Recommendation

3.2 Reasons for Recommendation to Reject

3.3 Anomalies

3.4 Correction of Deficiencies

Appendix A. Additional Findings

Appendix B. Warrant of Accepting Change Control Responsibility 

Appendix C. Witness Build

Appendix D. Test Plan 

Appendix E. State Test Reports

System Identification and Overview

The VSTL shall provide basic information about the voting system software and supporting 

hardware including the system name and major subsystems or their equivalent and their version 

numbers. In addition, this section shall describe the design and structure of the voting system, 

technologies used, processing capacity claimed by the Manufacturer for system componentssuch 

as ballot counters, and vote consolidation equipment. The description of the voting system, both 

software and hardware shall have enough detail and specificity to allow the identification of a 

voting system in the field as being either identical to that tested or a modified version of the 

system. This section may also identify other products that interface with the voting system.

67 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Certification Test Background

For modifications to previously tested voting systems, the VSTL shall include references to the 

test reports that are precedential to the current testing engagement. The VSTL shall also include 

the implementation statement submitted by the Manufacturer, amended to reflect any changes

that were necessitated during the course of the testing engagement.

Test Findings and Recommendation

This section provides a summary of the results of the testing engagement and indicates any 

special considerations that affect the conclusions derived from the test results.

The VSTL shall present a summary finding of whether or not the voting system, astested, 

satisfied all applicable mandatory (“shall”) requirements of the VVSG. The VSTL shall also 

provide a specific recommendation to the EAC for approval or rejection of the candidate system. 

If the VSTL finds that the voting system under test does not satisfy all applicable mandatory 

requirements of the VVSG, the VSTL shall identify each of the specific requirements that were 

not satisfied, and include a description of the inspections or tests that detected the 

nonconformities and include any applicable evidence (e.g., vote data report, citation of logic 

error in source code, etc.) The VSTL shall also summarize all failures, errors, nonconformities 

and anomalies that were observed during the testing engagement. Finally, the VSTL shall 

identify any deficiencies corrected during the course of the test engagement and identify 

inspections or tests that confirm that the deficiencies were corrected.

Appendix A. Additional Findings

The VSTL shall include as Appendix A of the Test Report identification of each applicable nonmandatory test (“shoulds”) for which conformity was demonstrated during the testing 

engagement. Appendix A shall also include identification of all tests that were identified as nonapplicable to the voting system under test and therefore waived during the test engagement.

Appendix A shall also include the laboratory response to any additional information, report or 

review provided by the EAC regarding the voting system under testing, and whether or not the 

items noted in the materials presented have any relevance to the system under test.

Appendix B. Warrant of Accepting Change Control Responsibility

If the Manufacturer must make changes to the voting system to successfully complete the 

conformance testing, the VSTL shall include as Appendix B of the Test Report a signed warrant 

from the Manufacturer that those changes will be included in the product that is delivered to 

customers.

Appendix C. Witness Build

The VSTL shall include as Appendix C of the Test Report a copy of the record of the final 

witness build and sufficient description of the build process to enable reproduction of the build.

Appendix D. Test Plan

The VSTL shall include a copy of the voting system Test Plan, amended to reflect any deviations 

from the original, EAC approved, test Plan during the course of testing.

68 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Appendix E. State Test Reports

The VSTL shall include the results or reports form any testing engagement requested by a State

to the EAC candidate system conducted concurrent to the EAC testing engagement. The results 

of State test reports shall not impact the EAC certification of the voting system if the system

successfully meets all requirements of the EAC VVSG and Testing and Certification Program.

69 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Appendix C

Certification of Laboratory Conditions and Practices Form

Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov

70 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Appendix C.

CERTIFICATION OF LABORATORY CONDITIONS

AND PRACTICES

I, the undersigned, having investigated or caused to be investigated each matter, below; 

certify, affirm and acknowledge that each of the following numbered statements are true and 

otherwise accurately reflect the status, condition and operations of

 (hereinafter “Laboratory”). I understand that by 

certifying the information below, I am making a statement or representation to the U.S.

Election Assistance Commission required for receiving a Laboratory Accreditation under 42

U.S.C. §15371(b). I further understand, that to the extent any of the below representations or

certifications are found to be materially false, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission may 

revoke any Accreditations granted to the above named laboratory and that I may be subject to 

criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §1001.

1. Signing Official. I hereby certify that I am an officer, partner or other official vested

with the legal authority to speak for, contract on behalf of, or otherwise bind the above 

noted company, corporation, partnership or organization (Laboratory).

2. Personnel. I certify, consistent with Section 2.6. of the EAC Voting System Test 

Laboratory Accreditation Program Manual (hereinafter Laboratory Manual), that the 

laboratory has written policies in place to ensure that it does not currently, and will not in 

the future, employ any individuals in any capacity related to the testing of voting systems 

who have been convicted of a felony offense or any criminal offense involving fraud, 

misrepresentation, or deception under either Federal or State law.

3. Conflicts of Interest and Prohibited Practices. I certify, consistent with Section 2.5. of 

the Laboratory Manual, that the Laboratory maintains and enforces written policies 

which:

a. Prohibit conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest pursuant to 

Section 2.5.1. of the Laboratory Manual.

b. Prohibit practices such as participation in both the development and testing of a 

voting system or the solicitation or acceptance of gifts from a voting system 

manufacture pursuant to Section 2.5.2. of the Laboratory Manual.

71 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

c. Provide clear mechanisms for enforcement of the prohibitions noted above 

pursuant to Section 2.5.3. of the Laboratory Manual.

4. Financial Stability. I certify, consistent with Section 2.14. of the Laboratory Manual, 

that the laboratory possess sufficient resources to enable it to properly use and maintain 

its test equipment and facility, to satisfactorily perform all required functions, and to 

adequately indemnify itself against financial liabilities or penalties that may result from 

its operations.

5. Authority to do Business in the United States. I certify, consistent with Section 2.12. 

of the Laboratory Manual, that the Laboratory is lawfully entitled or otherwise not 

prohibited from doing business with the United States or its citizens or operating in the 

United States.

6. Recordkeeping. I certify, consistent with Section 2.15. of the Laboratory Manual, that 

the laboratory operates and manages a records system in which it maintains all forms, 

reports, test records, observations, calculations and derived data for all tests performed 

for a period of at least 5 years.

I, by signing my name below, certify, affirm and acknowledge, under penalty of Federal law,that

each of the above numbered paragraphs accurately represent the operations, conditions and 

practices of (Laboratory).

Signed this day, _:

(Signature)

(Name of Signing Official)

(Title of Signing Official)

72 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Appendix D

Specification for Reproduction and use of the EAC Laboratory

Accreditation Logo

Accreditation Logo Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov

73 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Appendix D.

Specification for Reproduction and use of the EAC 

Laboratory Accreditation Logo

To maintain a high level of quality and consistency in a variety of applications, the following 

guidelines have been developed for VSTL use of the EAC laboratory accreditation logo.

Use and Display

The EAC VSTL logo contains the following elements:

The “U.S. Election Assistance Commission” and “VSTL” logotype separated by a divider rule.

The EAC will provide all accredited VSTLs with high resolution digital files for use on approved 

written or electronic documents.

The logo may only be used by EAC accredited VSTLs and shall not misrepresent the specific 

standards or guidelines to which the VSTL has been accredited. The EAC VSTL logo may be 

displayed on all reports and work documents that contain exclusive results from testing activities 

that have been carried out within the labs’ EAC scope of accreditation. Accredited laboratories

may also incorporate the logo in publicity and/or advertising materials, including brochures and

organization publications, technical literature, business reports, Web sites and quotations or 

proposals for work.

Only the approved version of the VSTL logo may be used. When using the logo:

• Do not print the logo in black over a dark background.

• Do not change any colors of the logo.

• Do not configure the elements of the logo in a different format.

• Do not crop or remove any part of the logo.

• Do not distort the logo.

• Do not tilt the logo in any direction.

• Do not add shadows, effects or other elements to the logo.

• Do not change the typeface/font used in the logo.

Minimum Size

The full VSTL logo must remain readable in all uses and should not be reduced to a size smaller 

than 2.5 inch x 1 inch.

Minimum Clear Space

74 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

The clear space surrounding the VSTL logo is an integral part of the logo design. An area of 

clear space must be maintained around the logo to prevent it from being in conflict with other 

design elements on the page. The clear space should measure at least X on all sides, where X 

equals 1⁄2 the height of the upper case letters “VSTL” in the logo. Do not place any other logo, 

logotype, trademark, text, or other graphic element in the minimum clear space area.

One Color Printing

A black version of the logo may be printed on white or light color background paper. In these 

instances, the logo should appear in 100% black.

Color Printing

Whenever possible, the full color version of the logo should be used. The appropriate colors are 

provided below for 4 color process printing or RGB for electronic use.

Blue

CMYK = 98/78/0/29 

RGB = 0/51/153 

HSL = 156/255/77

Red

CMYK = 5/96/98/5 

RGB = 204/51/0 

HSL = 10/255/102

Embossing on “VSTL” = CMYK 97/92/0/65

75 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

U. S. Ele ct io n As sis t a nc e Co m mis sio n

VSTL

76 OMB Control Number: 3265-0013