United States Election Assistance Commission

633 3rd St. NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20001

www.eac.gov

Voting System Test Laboratory

Program Manual Version 3.0

Effective November 15, 2022
EAC Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 3.0

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 4

2. Program Requirements .......................................................................................................................................... 7

3. Accreditation Process ........................................................................................................................................... 23

4. Compliance Management Program ................................................................................................................... 30

5. Revocation of Accreditation................................................................................................................................ 37

6. Release of Laboratory Accreditation Program Information ......................................................................... 39

Appendix A – Glossary........................................................................................................................................................... 44

Appendix B – References........................................................................................................................................................ 47

Appendix C – Voting System Test Plan Outline ............................................................................................................... 48

Appendix D - Voting System Modification Test Plan Outline....................................................................................... 50

Appendix E - Voting System Test Report Outline ............................................................................................................ 52

Appendix F – Voting System Modification Test Report Outline................................................................................... 53

Appendix G – Certification of Laboratory Conditions and Practices Form ................................................................. 54

Appendix H – Specification for Reproduction and use of the EAC Laboratory Accreditation Logo...................... 56
EAC Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 3.0

1. Introduction

1.1. Background. In 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 that 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 Program 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 

Voting System Test Laboratory (VSTL) Program. However, a NVLAP accreditation is not 

an EAC accreditation. The EAC is the sole Federal authority for the accreditation and 

revocation of accreditation of Voting System Test Laboratories.

1.4. Scope. This manual provides the procedural requirements of the EAC Voting System 

Laboratory Program. Although participation in the program is voluntary, adherence to 

the program’s procedural requirements is mandatory if VSTLs choose to participate. The 

procedural requirements of this manual supersede any prior laboratory accreditation 

requirements issued by the EAC. This manual is intended to be read in conjunction with 
 

5

the Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual.

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

updated to meet the needs of the EAC, VSTLs, voting system manufacturers, 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 documented via policy memoranda and will be issued to each 

VSTL and manufacturer. Changes, addendums, or updated versions will also be posted 

on www.eac.gov. 

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

may request clarification regarding the requirements and procedures set forth in this 

manual. Requests for interpretation must be based upon ambiguity arising from the 

application of this manual. Hypothetical questions will not be considered. Requests 

must be submitted to the Program Director in writing as described in Chapter 9 of the 

Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual. The request must 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 VSTLs and 

manufacturers and published on www.eac.gov.

1.7. Program Personnel. All EAC personnel and contractors associated with this program are

held to the highest ethical standards. All agents of the EAC involved in the VSTL Program 

are subject to conflict-of-interest reporting and ethics review, consistent with federal law 

and regulation. The term “Program Director” as used throughout this manual refers to the 

Voting System Testing and Certification Director. In the event of a vacancy in this 

position, the EAC Executive Director will designate staff to temporarily assume these 

duties.

1.8. Submission of Documents. Any documents submitted in accordance with the 

requirements of this manual must be submitted electronically via secure e-mail or 

physical delivery of digital media. The submitted electronic files must be in PDF format, 

formatted to protect the document fromalteration. If sent via physical delivery, by 

certified mail (or similar means that allows tracking) to the following address:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Attn: Testing and Certification Program Director

633 3rd Street NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20001
 

6

1.9. Receipt of Documents –VSTL. For purposes of this manual, a document, notice, or other 

communication is considered received by a VSTL upon its physical or electronic arrival at 

the VSTL’s main office.

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 and this stamp will serve as the date of receipt. 

1.11. Record Retention. The EAC retains all records associated with the VSTLs. The records are

retained or disposed in accordance with federal law.

1.12. Publication and Release of Documents. The EAC releases documents consistent with the 

requirements of federal law. It is EAC policy to make the certification process as 

transparent as possible. Any documents (or portions thereof) submitted under this 

Program are made available to the public unless specifically protected from release by 

law. All submitted documentation must utilize the least restrictive markings possible. The 

primary means for making this information available is through www.eac.gov.
 

7

2. Program Requirements

2.1. Overview. This chapter lists the requirements of the VSTL 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. NIST Recommendation. According to the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Section 231(b),

NIST must perform a technical evaluation of VSTLs and identify and recommend those 

competent to test voting systems to the EAC, unless the emergency provisions of Chapter 

3 apply. 

2.3. NVLAP 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 

ensures that each VSTL meets and continues to 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. 

2.4. Conflict of Interest and Prohibited Practices Program. 

All laboratories must maintain and enforce policies which prohibit and prevent conflicts 

of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest. A laboratory must 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 processes. Laboratories must have a written policy in place that, 

at a minimum, (1) prohibits conflicts of interest and other prohibited practices, and (2) 

provides for enforcement, consistent with the subsections below.

2.4.1. Prohibited Conflicts of Interest. The purpose of a conflict-of-interest policy is to prevent 

situations where the exercise of an official duty directly impacts the actor’s financial 

interests. For the purposes of this program, a prohibited conflict of interest exists when the 

duties and responsibilities of a laboratory, parent corporation, or a laboratory employee 

involved in the testing of voting systems under EAC’s Testing and Certification Program 

have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of that laboratory, parent 

corporation, or a laboratory employee. 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.
 

8

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.

2.4.1.1. Involved in Testing—Defined. An organization is involved in voting system

testing any time it contractually takes on the responsibility for testing a voting 

system to the VVSG under the EAC’s Testing and Certification Program. An

employee is involved in voting system testing when the employee performs

testing on the system, manages the testing process, or supervises those who 

perform testing on the system.

2.4.1.2. Financial Interest – Defined. Financial interest means any current or contingent 

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

and may include indebtedness or compensated employment relationship. It also 

includes 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.

2.4.1.3. 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 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 influences a financial 

interest only as a consequence of its effects on the general economy does not 

have a direct effect within the meaning of this section.

2.4.1.4. 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 that the magnitude of the gain or loss be 

known, and the dollar amount ofthe gain or loss is immaterial.
 

9

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:

• the financial interests of a spouse or dependent child will be imputed to 

an employee,

• 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 

must be imputed,

• the interests of any contracted third-party laboratory must be imputed to 

the utilizing VSTL, and

• the financial interest of a person or organization with whom an 

employee is negotiating or has an arrangement concerning prospective 

employment must be imputed.

2.4.2. Prohibited Practices. 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 to solicit or receive a 

gift from a voting system manufacturer. 

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. Any testing 

performed on behalf of a voting system manufacturer that was not performed 

pursuant to a state or federal voting system certification program is considered 

developmental in nature.

The prohibition barring participation in both development and testing is voting 

system specific. An employee or laboratory that was previously involvedin 

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. The prohibition 

relates to a VSTL’s prior involvement in system development. Concurrent 

development work and testing may constitute a prohibited conflict of 

interested under Section 2.4.1of this manual.

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

prohibition, a voting system is considered altered to the degree that it is a 

different system when:

• a period of at least three years has passed since the VSTL or employee 
 

10

was involved in the system’s development,

• the system has been subject to both software and hardware 

modification since the VSTL or employee was involved in the system’s 

development, and

• 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.

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:

• must suspend all hardware testing,

• must not participate or assist the manufacturer in remediation,

• may provide testing equipment and qualified operators to the 

manufacturer for its use,

• must monitor and document the manufacturer’s access to the system 

consistent with Section 2.16 of this manual, and

• must document in the test report the failure or anomaly and remedial 

action taken by the manufacturer consistent with Section 4.8.6.2 of this 

manual and Chapter 4 of the Voting System Testing and Certification 

Program Manual.

2.4.2.1. 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. A “gift” under these policies 

generally does not include items such as publicly available discounts 

and prizes, commercial loans, food not part of a meal such as coffee 

and donuts, and items of little value such as plaques and greeting 

cards. 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.

2.4.3. Program Enforcement Elements. Prohibited conflicts and practices are

enforced through a written program which:

2.4.3.1. Regarding Employees Involved in the Testing of Voting Systems
 

11

• 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 Sections 2.4.1. and 2.4.2. 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.

• Requires and documents the review of information collected for 

potential conflicts and prohibited practices.

• Resolves and documents all identified conflicts of interest or 

prohibited practices prior to the employee or laboratory’s 

involvement in the testing of any voting system. 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.

2.4.3.2. Regarding the VSTL or VSTL’s Parent Corporation

• Annually collects information pertaining to the holdings and 

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

demonstrate compliance with Sections 2.4.1. and 2.4.2. of this 

manual.

• Requires and documents the review of collected information for 

potential conflicts and prohibited practices.

• Resolves and documents all identified conflicts of interest or 

prohibited practices prior to the laboratory’s testing of any voting 

system. Resolutions may include the divestiture of assets or gifts, 

and the termination or rejection of conflicted or prohibited testing

work.

2.4.3.3. 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 regarding this 

relationship in one of two ways:

• Collect information pertaining to the holdings and activities of 

the third-party laboratory and its employees, sufficient to 

demonstrate compliance with Section 2.4.1. and 2.4.2. 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 
 

12

information must 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. Require and document the review of collected 

information for potential conflicts. Resolve all identified conflicts 

of interest prior to the laboratory’s testing of any voting system.

• VSTL supervision of third-party laboratories performing noncore 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 2.4 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.

2.4.4. 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.

2.4.4.1. Requesting a Waiver. A request for a waiver must be made in writing to 

the Program Director. The request must fully disclose the conflict of 

interest or prohibited practice for which the waiver is sought, describe 

all steps taken to resolve the conflict or prohibited practice, and the 

reasons why such attempts were unsuccessful or otherwise untenable. 

The request must also state why the waiver should be granted.

2.4.4.2. 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’s Testing and Certification Program, and the 

identified conflict or practice is unlikely to affect the integrity or 

impartiality of the VSTL or VSTL employee’s services under the EAC’s

Testing and Certification Program. The Program Director may consider 

the following factors in making a waiver determination:

• The value of any disqualifying financial interest.

• The nature and impact of any prohibited practice.

• The role and responsibility of the employee subject to the 
 

13

conflict of interest or prohibited practice.

• The availability of other employees, VSTLs or laboratories to 

conduct the testing without a conflict or prohibited practice.

• The level of discretion or sensitivity required to perform the 

conflicted or prohibited duties under the certification program.

• 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.

2.4.4.3. Issuing a Waiver. Any waiver issued by the Program Director must be 

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

the conflict of interest or prohibited practice waived, and clearly state 

any conditions for its issuance, such as mitigating processes,

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. 

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

waiver must be made by the Program Director in writing and 

provided to the VSTL. 

2.5. Personnel Policies. All laboratories must have written policies to ensure that they do 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 must have a 

program in place to enforce this policy and document such enforcement.

2.6. Notification of Changes. All laboratories must notify the EAC in writing within 15

calendar days of any significant changes in 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. Examples of events that 

require written notification include, but are not limited to:

• a laboratory’s decision to withdraw from the EAC’s program,

• changes in ownership of the laboratory,

• a change in location of the laboratory facility, or

• personnel changes in key staff positions.
 

14

2.7. Site Visits. All laboratories must allow EAC representatives to enter their voting system 

testing facilities pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this manual.

2.8. Notice of Lawsuits. All laboratories must notify 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.

2.9. Testing, Technical Practices, and Reporting. All laboratories must conduct testing in 

conformance with the applicable requirements of the VVSG. Additionally, the VSTL must 

create written reports of such testing in accordance with the Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program Manual, any applicable test assertions or test suites mandated by 

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

2.9.1. Test Readiness Notification. Upon completion of the TRR, the VSTL must submit 

written statement to the EAC confirming that the voting system completed the 

TRR and that the system is ready for certification testing to the applicable VVSG 

requirements.

2.9.2. Test Readiness Acknowledgement. Upon receipt of the test readiness notification 

from the VSTL, the EAC must issue written acknowledgement within three 

business days of receipt of the notification.

2.10. Test Plan. The VSTL must submit a test plan directly to the EAC consistent with the 

requirements of the Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, the 

applicable VVSG, this manual, and any other written guidance from the EAC.

2.10.1. Test Case. After approval of the VSTL’s test plan, the VSTL must develop test 

cases. A test case is a system-specific, step-by-step test procedure or testing 

process that provides detailed test operation procedures sufficient for trained 

laboratory personnel to fully conduct a given test and produce repeatable results. 

If test assertions exist for a specific requirement, the assertions will provide details 

about the requirement making it easier to create the test case. Additionally, if all 

VSTLs use the test assertions, this will help ensure that test cases are uniform 

across all accredited VSTLs. The VSTL must provide all test cases to the EAC upon 

testing completion.

2.11. Testing. VSTLs must conduct testing in conformance with the applicable VVSG 

requirements and consistent with any written EAC interpretations of these requirements.

VSTLs must test system identification tools during the test campaign to ensure they 

function properly and as intended. The laboratory must 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 
 

15

supplementing, updating or replacing these standards or handbooks; and any pertinent 

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

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

2.11.1. Third-Party Testing. VSTLs may contract or provide for the testing of voting 

systems by third parties under this program. However, the VSTL is responsible for 

the accuracy, quality assurance, and results of all tests conducted. VSTLs must not

perform, or contract for the performance of, testing outside the scope of its 

accreditation. Testing performed directly by VSTL personnel using third-party 

contractor equipment and facilities are not considered third-party testing.

2.11.1.1. Core Testing. Core voting system testing must only be performed by 

VSTLs. 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).

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 

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, accessibility testing, usability testing, and

cryptographic testing.

In limited circumstances, laboratories not holding a recognized 

accreditation may be used by VSTLs for non-core testing only after 

approval by the 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 thirdparty 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.
 

16

2.11.1.2. VSTL Responsibilities. VSTLs are responsible for all tests performed on 

voting systems submitted to them by manufacturers under EAC’s 

Testing and Certification Program including testing performed by 

third-party laboratories under their direction. Any procedural or 

substantive irregularities or errors which occur during the third-party 

testing process will be imputed to the VSTL. Such failures may serve as 

a basis for the revocation of accreditation. VSTLs using third-party 

laboratories must take steps to ensure that the third-party laboratories 

they employ meet the standards of this program. At a minimum, the 

lead VSTLs must ensure:

• The third-party laboratory provides the VSTLverifiable 

documentation regarding its relevant accreditation.

• Any hardware tested by the qualified third-party laboratory is 

first validated by the VSTL as the same hardware presented for

certification.

• The third-party laboratory provides the VSTL with evidence that 

it directs 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 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 VSTL 

must ensure that the third-party laboratory properly implements

the VVSG requirements, validate its election simulation tools, 

and properly performed the testing.

• The VSTL performs all system accuracy, reliability, functionality 

and integration testing.

• The third-party laboratory issues a report to the VSTL that fully 

documents its testing such that the VSTL may demonstrate 

compliance with this section and produce a report consistent 

with Section 2.12 of this manual.

2.12. Test Report Package. The test report package represents the culmination of the testing 

process and must accurately and completely document the testing performed and the 

results of such testing. VSTLs must submit test report packages directly to the EAC and 

must include:

2.12.1. Test Report. All test reports must document the testing process, including the

documentation and justification for any divergence from the EAC-approved test plan, 
 

17

methods, or cases and the identification of all failures and/or anomalies along with any 

remedial action taken (see Chapter 4 of the Voting System Testing and Certification

Program Manual). VSTLs must not include any proprietary test cases in the test report. 

Test reports must also document any prescribed maintenance or modifications, performed 

by the manufacturer, to a voting system in testing. Such maintenance or modifications 

must be monitored by the VSTL consistent with Section 2.11.1 of this manual.

2.12.2. Format. To the greatest extent possible, VSTLs must write reports that are 

understandable to non-technical persons. As the EAC is responsible for publishing

these reports (barring portions prohibited by law), VSTLs must 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 must be identified consistent with Chapter 7 of this manual. 

VSTLs must format each test report consistent with the requirements of Appendix 

E of this manual.

2.12.3. VSTL Attestation. The signature page on the VSTL’s test report must include an 

attestation stating that:

• 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, 

• all identified voting system anomalies or failures were reported and 

resolved, and

• that the test report is accurate and complete.

2.13. Acceptance of Prior Testing. Prior testing of a voting system by a VSTL may be reused at 

the discretion of the EAC. The EAC encourages VSTLs to use such testing to fulfill 

certification requirements. The VSTL must obtain written approval from the EAC for all 

reuse requests. In order for the EAC to accept prior testing, VSTLs must provide evidence 

that the requirements below are met:

2.13.1.The discrete software or hardware component of the voting system previously 

tested is demonstrably identical to the voting system presently offered for 

testing. VSTLs must examine and compare the components and documentation 

to ensure there is no change in the voting system. When valid prior testing is 

used, the system must be subject to regression testing, functional testing and 

system integration testing, and any other testing deemed necessary to ensure 

compliance with the VVSG and this manual.

2.13.2. The requirements and relevant EAC requests for interpretation applicable 

to the prior and current testing are identical.

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

18

accepted by the EAC.

2.13.4. The prior testing was reviewed by the VSTL with no apparent errors or 

omissions and fully complies with the VVSG and this manual.

2.13.5. Testing from previous EAC test campaigns can only be submitted for reuse if the 

EAC accepted a final test report for that campaign.

2.13.6. The use of prior testing must be noted in the test plan and test report, with 

test report titles, numbers, and descriptions.

2.14. Termination of Testing Prior to Completion. VSTLs must notify the EAC Program 

Director if testing is terminated prior to completion. This notification must be in writing 

and state the reason(s) for termination, provide a list of all testing completed, and 

produce a report of test anomalies or failures pursuant to Section 4.9.2of the Voting 

System Testing and Certification Program Manual.

2.14.1. Termination Defined. Voting system testing is considered terminated when 

the testing process is permanently ended or halted without a specific plan to 

recommence within 30 calendar days of the last test performed.

2.14.2. Effect of Termination. Notification of termination will result in the suspension of 

the manufacturer’s certification application and will be posted on www.eac.gov.

2.14.3. 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. A

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

identified on the original application.

2.15. VSTL Verification of Trusted Build. At the conclusion of each test campaign, VSTLs 

must verify the trusted build and associated materials required to be escrowed in the EAC 

repository (see Section 5.3 of the Voting System Testing and Certification Program 

Manual.) 

2.16. Laboratory Independence. All laboratories must maintain their independence from 

voting system manufacturers, consistent with their roles and responsibilities as a key 

component of the EAC Certification Program. VSTLs must maintain an arm’s length 

relationship with the manufacturers and avoid even the appearance of improper conduct. 

In order to maintain independence, VSTLs must adhere to the following independence 

principles and requirements:

2.16.1. Testing Independence. Only the VSTL identified on a voting system’s 

application form may test or oversee the testing of that system. A

manufacturer must not perform or participate in any testing that will serve 
 

19

as the basis of an EAC certification. Additionally, VSTLs must ensure that 

manufacturers do not have access to a system under test unless accompanied 

and monitored by a VSTL representative. The EAC recognizes that in some 

cases there is value in allowing manufacturers to witness a particular test or 

a re-creation of a test in order to allow them to comment on the proper 

system set up or operation. Such participation must be (1) at the discretion of 

the VSTL, (2) supervised by the VSTL, and (3) clearly documented in order to 

maintain laboratory independence. 

2.16.1.1. The VSTL may at any time, and at its own discretion, halt an active 

certification test and allow the manufacturer into the testing room for a 

re-creation of the test being performed. If the VSTL chooses to do this, it 

must:

• document the time and circumstance that cause a halt in testing,

• document the reason why the manufacturer’s presence is needed,

• document the result of the test prior to re-creating the test for the

manufacturer, and

• document any re-running of the official EAC Certification Test. This 

documentation must include any change that occurred to the “as 

run” test case as a result of the re- creation and the result of the 

official test.

• Have the test supervisor in charge of the project present for the recreation of the test. If the tester conducting the test is also the test 

supervisor in charge of the project, one other VSTL employee must 

be present in the room during the re-creation of the test. 

Documentation of the re-creation of the test must include lab 

personnel present at the time of the re-creation; and

• All documentation must be retained according to NVLAP and EAC

requirements.

2.16.1.2. The VSTL may, at its own discretion, create a closed-circuit video feed 

or web cam feed of the testing being conducted and allow for real time 

correspondence between testers and the manufacturers provided that:

• All correspondence (i.e., letters, emails, memos, recorded video 

calls, etc.) between the testers and the manufacturer is documented 

and retained, and

• Any changes to the testing that results from correspondence 
 

20

between the manufacturers and the VSTL is signed off by the VSTL 

project manager and provided to the EAC as part of the test report

package.

2.16.1.3. The VSTL may, at its discretion, provide supervised access to the 

manufacturer prior to and during the testing to perform unscheduled 

and non-routine maintenance provided that:

• All documentation related to the maintenance activities is recorded 

within the "as run" test case, and

• Any unscheduled maintenance that is performed is documented in 

the discrepancy report and included as part of the test report

materials.

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

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

systems tested meet the VVSG. 

2.16.3. Single Laboratory Requirement. Manufacturers are prohibited from changing 

laboratories during the testing process. Once a VSTL is identified 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 Voting 

System Testing and Certification Program Manual. This strict policy supports 

VSTLs in their independent decision-making role. VSTLs must immediately 

notify the Program Director any time a manufacturer withdraws a product from 

testing, or the testing is otherwise terminated.

2.16.4. Fee for Service. All fees paid by a manufacturer to a VSTL must be solely for 

services rendered. A VSTL must reject payment that is not directly linked to 

services necessary to complete system testing and must reject payment that is 

conditioned or dependent on testing outcome.

2.16.5. Communications. All substantive discussions regarding the outcome, cost, 

payment and testing of a voting system must be documented in writing by the 

VSTL. This includes, but is not limited to letters, emails, reports, meetings, and 

telephone calls. These records must be maintained consistent with Section 2.20

of this manual. Examples of substantive discussions between the lead VSTL and 

a manufacturer include but are not limited to all contracts and amendments,

discussions regarding the set up and operation of the voting system during

testing, discussions with the manufacturer regarding the test plan, test cases, 

testing, or the test report; and discussions regarding implementation or 

interpretation of the standards.

2.16.6. Cooperation with EAC. VSTLs must cooperate with any EAC inquiries and 
 

21

investigations into a certified system’s compliance with the VVSG and any 

VSTL testing related to that system consistent with Chapter 7 of the Voting 

System Testing and Certification Program Manual.

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

maintain laboratory independence, VSTLs must not conduct testing at a facility 

that is owned or controlled by a manufacturer. If exceptional circumstances exist 

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

waiver from the EAC. 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.

2.16.8. Improper Influence. Any attempt by a manufacturer to unduly influence the test 

process must be immediately reported to the Program Director. The EAC will 

conduct a review of the situation and will terminate the test campaign if it is 

found that the manufacturer attempted to unduly influence testing.

2.17. Authority to do Business in the United States. All laboratories must be lawfully 

entitled or otherwise not prohibited from doing business with the United States or its 

citizens or operating in the United States.

2.18. Communications. All laboratories must designate and identify an individual or 

individuals who may speak for and act on behalf ofthe VSTL. VSTLs must maintain an 

open line of communication with EAC and providing prompt response to requests for 

information regarding the program.

2.19. Resources and Financial Stability. All VSTLs must allocate sufficient resources to 

enable the laboratory to properly use and maintain its test equipment, personnel, and 

facility and to satisfactorily perform all required laboratory functions. The laboratory 

must maintain insurance policies sufficient to indemnify itself against financial 

liabilities, penalties that may result from its operations, and against the potential losses 

identified in its liability assessment. VSTLs must document solvency through 

demonstrating that the laboratory’s assets are greater than its liabilities in its audited

financial statement. 

2.20. Recordkeeping. All laboratories must 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 must require all forms, reports, test records, observations, 

calculations, and derived data for all tests performed on a given voting system (or 

component of said system) be retained for a period of at least five years after the last test 

performed on that system (or component of any version of said system). The policy must 

also require that all documents are maintained in a safe and secure environment and 

stored in a manner that provides for timely identification and retrieval and kept in a data 
 

22

format usable and available to the EAC.
 

23

3. Accreditation Process

3.1. Overview. This chapter sets forth the required steps laboratories must perform in 

order to receive an EAC 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 EAC is mandated under Section 231 of the Help America 

Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) (42 U.S.C. §15371(b)) to “... provide for the certification, decertification and re-certification of voting system hardware and software by accredited 

laboratories.” As part of this process, HAVA requires the NIST to evaluate independent 

non-Federal test laboratories. NIST selects those laboratories that are technically 

qualified to test voting systems and recommends them to the EAC for accreditation. A

laboratory must have a NIST recommendation before it may be considered for EAC

accreditation.

3.2.1. NIST Recommendation Process. NIST utilizes its 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 .

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.

• 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 VSTLs, (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 

recommendation of new laboratories to meet needs. Consistent with HAVA, 

the EAC must publish its basis for emergency action following the above

standards.
 

24

• Emergency Action – Process. Laboratories will 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 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.

• Emergency Action – Provisional. Any accreditation provided by the EAC 

through its emergency action authority is provisional in nature and limited in 

scope. All emergency accreditations expire on a date specified by the EAC.

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 VSTL accreditation. While NIST’s 

recommendation serves as a reliable indication of potential technical competency, the 

EAC must take additional steps to ensure that laboratory policies are in place regarding 

issues like conflict of interest, record maintenance, and financial stability. Laboratories are 

required to submit an application requesting accreditation. The application must be 

addressed to the Program Director and include (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 Documentation. The laboratory must submit the information 

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

must be reviewed by the EAC in order to determine whether the laboratory 

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

properly label any documents, or portions of documents, it believes are 

protected from release under federal law.

• The legal name of the laboratory
 

25

• Mailing address of the laboratory

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

• Name, phone number, and e-mail address of the voting system testing program 

manager or individual responsible for the voting system testing program

• Name, phone number, and e-mail address of the titled head of the laboratory 

(i.e., CEO)

• Name, title, phone number, and e-mail address of the individual or individuals 

designated to speak for and act on behalf of the laboratory

• The business contact information (such as point of contact, address, Web site, email address) to be posted on www.eac.gov

• 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

• A written assessment of the laboratory’s commercial general liability

• A signed statement certifying that it maintains workman’s compensation policy 

coverage sufficient to meet the applicable state’s minimum requirements

• A copy of the laboratory’s organizational chart that includes the names of key 

staff responsible for the testing of voting systems

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

standards of Section 2.4 of this manual

• A copy of the laboratory’s personnel policy which implements the 

standards of Section 2.5 of this manual

• A copy of the laboratory’s recordkeeping policy which implements the 

standards of Section 2.20 of this manual

• A copy of the laboratory facilities brochure
 

26

• 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.

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

a part of its application. This letter must be signed by an official that is vested 

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

applicant laboratory. The purpose of this letter is to document that the laboratory 

is aware of, and agrees to abide by, the requirements of the EAC’s Voting System 

Test Laboratory Program. The letter must unequivocally state the following:

The undersigned representative of (hereinafter “the laboratory”),

being lawfully authorized to bind the laboratory and having read the EAC Voting 

System Test Laboratory Program Manual, accepts and agrees on behalf of the 

laboratory to follow the program requirements as laid out in Chapter 2 of this 

manual. The laboratory will 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 lawsuits; testing, 

technical practices and reporting; laboratory independence; authority to do 

business in the United States; VSTL communications; financial stability; and 

recordkeeping. Laboratory 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 laboratory must submit 

a signed Certification of Laboratory Conditions and Practices as a part of its 

application. A Certification of Laboratory Conditions and Practices form may be 

found in Appendix G of this manual. 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 Program Director must review each 

laboratory’s application package to ensure that it is complete, and that the laboratory

meets the program requirements. Each package is reviewed to identify all apparent 

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

laboratory of any such nonconformities or deficiencies and provide an opportunity to cure 

problems. The Program Director will issue a recommendation to the Commissioners when 

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

initial accreditation upon a vote from the Commissioners.
 

27

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

missing documentation or information and/or (2) issues of noncompliance, the 

Program Director must notify the laboratory of the deficiencies. The written 

notice of nonconformity must identify missing documentation or information

and issues of noncompliance. The laboratory will have 10 business days to 

amend the application package or submit additional information in response to 

identified nonconformities.

3.5.2. Action on Notice of Nonconformity. A laboratory’s response to a notice of 

nonconformity must include any missing documents identified in the notice, as 

well as any additional or clarifying information or documentation responsive 

to an issue of noncompliance. If a laboratory fails to provide required 

information or documentation within the required timeframe, the Program 

Director will reject the application as incomplete and return the package to the 

laboratory for resubmission consistent with the requirements of this chapter.

3.5.3. Recommendation to Commissioners. After final review of the application

package, the Program Director must forward the application package to the 

Chair of the Commission with a recommendation of disposition. 

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

recommendation from the Program Director, the Chair of the Commission will 

forward the information to each EAC Commissioner. The Chair of the 

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

Commission. The measure presented for a vote will 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 Program Director must inform the laboratory of the decision, issue a Certificate of 

Accreditation, and post information regarding the laboratory on www.eac.gov.

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

accredited laboratory. The certificate will be signed by the Chair of the 

Commission and state:

• The name of the VSTL;

• The scope of accreditation, by stating the VVSG version(s) to which the 

VSTL is competent to test;

• The effective date of the certification; and

• The technical standards to which the laboratory was accredited.

3.6.2. Post Information on Web Site. The Program Director will make the following 
 

28

information available on www.eac.gov:

• NIST’s recommendation letter

• The Commissioner’s decision on accreditation

• The Certificate of Accreditation

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

met the applicable requirements and may serve as a VSTL under the EAC’s Testing and 

Certification Program.

3.7.1. Scope of Accreditation. A VSTL must operate within the limits of the scope of 

accreditation as stated on its certificate of accreditation.

3.7.2. Representation. A VSTL must not 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 VSTL. A VSTL must 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. Specifications for the reproduction and 

use of the EAC logo are found in Appendix H.

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

laboratory, the Program Director will inform the laboratory of the decision and post a 

copy of the Commissioners’ decision and the denial notification on www.eac.gov.

3.8.1. Notice of Denial. The Program Director will provide written notification of the 

Commissioners’ decision. This notification will include:

• A statement of the decision and brief summary explanation of the basis 

for the decision,

• Notice of the laboratory’s right to an appeal; and

• A copy of the Commissioners’ decision.

3.9. Requesting Appeal. A laboratory that has been denied accreditation has the right to 

appeal. A laboratory may appeal a Denial of Accreditation by submitting a written 

appeal to the Program Director, addressed to the Chair of the EAC. The appeal must be 

submitted within 14 calendar days of receipt of the denial notification (late requests will 

not be considered). The appeal must clearly state the specific conclusions of the decision 

the laboratory wishes to appeal. Supporting documentation or other evidence may be 

submitted in support of the appeal.
 

29

3.10. EAC Action on an Appeal. Upon receipt of an appeal, the Program Director must

provide written acknowledgement of receipt of the appeal to the laboratory. The 

notification will inform the laboratory of the next steps of the appeal base on Section 3.11 

of this manual.

3.11. Commissioners’ Decision on Appeal. All timely appeals will be considered by the 

Commissioners. Upon receipt of an appeal, the Chair of the Commission will forward 

the appeal to each Commissioner along with the original application package,

Commissioners’ Decision, and Program Director’s recommendation. After a reasonable 

time to review and consider the materials, the Chair of the Commission will bring the 

matter to a vote consistent with the rules of the Commission. The measure presented for 

a vote will take the form of a written Commissioners’ Decision on Appeal, that will state 

the final determination, address the matters raised by the appeal, provide reasoning 

behind the appeal, and state the appeal decision is final.

The Commissioners will make one of two determinations on the appeal: Grant of Appeal 

or Denial of Appeal. If the Commissioners determine that the previous decision of the 

Commission should be overturned in full then the appeal will be granted, and the 

laboratory will be granted accreditation. If the Commissioners determine that any part of 

the previous decision of the Commission should be upheld such that the requirements in 

Chapters 2 and 3 this manual will not be met in full then the appeal will be denied, and 

the laboratory will be denied accreditation.

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

laboratory has failed to document or demonstrate that it has the procedures, policies, 

management, or personnel in place to meet the requirements of this Program. A denial of 

accreditation is based upon current policy and procedure and is not an indicator of past 

performance. A laboratory that is denied accreditation has the right to cure any 

identified defect and reapply by resubmitting their application package consistent with 

Section 3.4 of this manual.
 

30

4. Compliance Management Program

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

VSTL Program; increase coordination, communication, and understanding between the 

EAC and its VSTLs; and improve public confidence in elections by facilitating VSTL 

accountability. The program accomplishes this by requiring 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. The Compliance Management Program meets its 

purpose 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 Reviews. The information collected is 

reviewed by the EAC to ensure that VSTLs are meeting all program requirements. Any 

areas of noncompliance or recommendations for improvement are presented to VSTLs in 

a Compliance Management Report. 

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 2.6). Failure to report changes in conditions or practices may 

result in suspension or revocation of accreditation consistent with the requirements and 

procedures in Chapter 5.

4.4. Request for Information. The Program Director may request a VSTL to provide 

information to demonstrate the laboratory’s continuing compliance with the VSTL

Program.

4.4.1. EAC Request. A request for information must be made in writing and provide a 

reasonable timeframe for VSTL response. Requests for information take the form 

of interrogatories and may also include a request for existing documentation. 

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

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

that must be made within the timeframe of the original request. The grant of 

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

ensure that each question is answered completely and accurately. For 

documentation requests, VSTLs must provide copies of all documents 

responsive to the request. If any document is considered privileged or protected 

from release under federal law, it must be properly labeled. If a requested 

document does not exist, then the VSTL must state this.
 

31

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. Laboratory Review. The EAC must conduct biennial reviews of VSTLs. There are two 

parts of the review: documentation review and on-site review. The documentation 

review consists of qualified EAC personnel reviewing the VSTL’s policies and 

procedures to ensure that they meet the requirements of the VSTL Program (Chapter 2). 

The on-site review consists of qualified EAC personnel assessing the VSTL’s personnel 

and observing testing to verify compliance with applicable VSTL documentation.

4.6. Laboratory Review Procedure. The Program Director will determine when the review

will be conducted for each VSTL and must notify the VSTL in writing at least 15

calendar days prior to the review. Reviews must 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 qualified EAC personnel. The reviewer 

must provide the VSTL an exit briefing prior to the termination of the on-site review.

4.6.1. Notice. The Program Director will coordinate the review with VSTL 

management. The review notification must include the following information:

• An estimated timeframe during which EAC reviewers will be on site.

• The scope of review that will allow the VSTL to identify the documents, 

personnel, and testing it must make available to EAC reviewers. 

• The VSTL’s responsibility to coordinate and cooperate with the EAC 

throughoutthe review process.

4.6.2. VSTL Response to Notice. Upon receipt of a notice of the review, the VSTL must 

coordinate the logistics of the review with the Program Director. In the event the

proposed date or timeframe makes access to the required personnel, documents,

or testing untenable, the VSTL must 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 review. The 

acceptance of an alternative review date is at the sole discretion of the Program

Director.

4.6.3. Review. EAC reviewers must conduct a brief kickoff meeting with all necessary 

VSTL staff. This meeting will enable the EAC reviewers to provide an overview 

of the review and allow the VSTL to ask any questions. EAC reviewers must

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 
 

32

employees. The VSTL is responsible for ensuring the following:

• The reviewers have access to all requested VSTL documents. All 

documents specifically identified in the notice of the review must be 

presented to reviewers upon arrival.

• The reviewers have access to requested personnel. The VSTL must ensure 

that key personnel for each substantive area identified in the notice of the

review be available to EAC reviewers during the review period.

• The reviewers have access to VSTL facilities involved in the testing of 

voting systems, including the facilities of third-party contractor 

laboratories. 

4.6.4. Exit Briefing. EAC reviewers must conduct an informal exit briefing with the 

VSTL. The briefing must 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.

4.7. EAC Compliance Management Reports. The EAC must issue a written compliance 

management report after performing any review, and after a request for information 

or VSTL notification of change when either indicates a noncompliance with program 

requirements. All reports must provide a brief summary of the review process, 

request for information or VSTL notification of change, state any findings resulting 

from the review, and identify any corrective action that may be required.

4.7.1 Purpose. The purpose of the report is to provide the VSTL with EAC’s findings 

regarding its program so that noncompliant items can be identified, and 

rectified, exceptional practices may be identified and encouraged, and 

recommendations may be put forth in an effort to improve the VSTL’s 

program.

4.7.2 Summary of Process. The summary provides background information regarding 

how the information supporting EAC findings was collected including

identifying sources of information, methodology, and standards. The summary

states the date(s) of the review, type of review, the program areas reviewed

including specific documents, personnel discussions that were integral to the 

report findings, and the processes used by the reviewers to determine 

compliance. 

4.7.3 Findings. The report must include all findings of the review, any requests for 

information, and any VSTL Notifications of Change. Findings are the results of 

the audit and include conformities and nonconformities to this program’s 

requirements. Audit findings may lead to the identification of risks, 

opportunities for improvement, or recording good practices. Reports will 
 

33

identify two types of nonconformities:

• Major. A major nonconformity is a failure that is fundamentally critical to 

the VSTL’s technical capability to test voting systems and is a violation 

that compromises the integrity of the EAC’s Testing and Certification 

Program. Examples of major nonconformities would be a total 

breakdown of a system, process, or procedure, multiple minor 

nonconformities related to the same process, or unauthorized 

documentation changes.

• Minor. A minor nonconformity is a failure to conform to a requirement 

that is not likely to result in a failure of the quality management system. 

It may be a single observed lapse or isolated incident where there is 

minimal risk of nonconforming product being released to the customer.

Examples of minor nonconformities would be a document with an 

unauthorized change, a missing training record, or an instrument past its

calibration date.

4.8. Corrective Action. Corrective action is required if nonconformities are identified. If a 

nonconformity occurs, the VSTL must: 

4.8.1. React to the nonconformity and, as applicable:

• take action to control and correct it,

• address the consequences, and

• challenge the nonconformity.

4.8.2. Evaluate the need for action to eliminate the cause(s) of the nonconformity so 

that it does not recur or occur elsewhere by:

• reviewing and analyzing the nonconformity,

• determining the causes of nonconformity, and

• determining if similar nonconformities exist or could potentially occur.

4.8.3. Implement any action needed.

4.8.4. Review the effectiveness of any corrective action taken.

4.8.5. Update risks and opportunities determined planning, if necessary.

4.8.6. Make changes to the management system, if necessary. 

4.8.6.1. Challenging Nonconformities. The VSTL may challenge a nonconformity if 
 

34

it believes its procedures and practices were in compliance with 

program requirements at the time of the review. Written challenges 

must be filed within five calendar days of receipt of the report, and 

must state the basis for the challenge, address the facts and conclusions 

in the EAC report, and provide information that clearly documents that 

the VSTL was in compliance at the time of the review. The Program 

Director must accept or reject a VSTL’s challenge in writing. If a 

challenge is accepted, no corrective action is required. If the challenge is 

rejected, the VSTL has 20 calendar days from receipt of the notice of 

rejection to perform remedial action.

4.8.6.2. Conducting Remedial Action. VSTLs may submit a remedial plan within 

20 calendar days of receipt of the report. The remedial plan must

identify each nonconformity, 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 be compliant. 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 of 

accreditation.

4.8.6.3. EAC Approval of Remedial Plan. The Program Director must work with 

the VSTL to develop a remedial plan that will bring the VSTL into 

compliance. The Program Director must provide written approval of 

the VSTL’s remedial plan.

4.8.6.4. VSTL Implementation of a Remedial Plan. After the remedial plan has been 

approved by the Program Director, the VSTL has 20 calendar days to 

implement its plan. The VSTL must not deviate from the plan’s

procedures and the associated 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 must be made in writing by the Program 

Director.

4.8.6.5. EAC Verification of Remedy. Upon a VSTL’s completion of the remedial 

plan, the Program Director must verify compliance.

If the Program Director determines that the remedial plan was not 

completed, the cure process will be terminated. A determination to 

terminate the cure process must be made in writing by the Program 

Director.

If the Program Director determines that the remedial plan was 

completed, the Program Director must provide the VSTL a Notice of 
 

35

Compliance and recommend accreditation to the Commissioners. 

4.9 Suspension of Accreditation. The purpose of suspension is to ensure that a noncompliant 

VSTL ceases to test voting systems. The VSTL will have 20 calendar days to implement its 

remedial plan as outlined in Section 4.8. If the remedial plan is not implemented, the 

Program Director must issue a Decision on Suspension. The decision will 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 will be provided to the VSTL, issued to all registered manufacturers, and 

posted on www.eac.gov.

4.9.1 Effect of Suspension. A suspended VSTL must immediately cease all testing of 

voting systems under the EAC’s Testing and Certification Program. Any testing 

performed by a suspended VSTL will not be accepted by the EAC. Any period 

of suspension must be clearly documented in a VSTL’s test report. Testing under 

the EAC’s Testing and Certification Program will not resume unless the 

suspension is lifted.

4.9.2 Challenge of Suspension. The VSTL will have 10 calendar days to challenge its 

suspension. The VSTL must challenge the factual finding(s) that serve as the 

basis for its suspension and must provide documentation in support of its 

challenge. 

If the Program Director does not receive a documented challenge within the 

10-day window or deems the challenge to be insufficient, the Program Director 

must submit a recommendation to revoke the VSTL’s accreditation to the EAC 

Commissioners.

If the Program Director determines that the documented challenge addresses 

the nonconformities, the Program Director must provide the VSTL a Notice of 

Compliance and recommend accreditation to the EAC Commissioners.

4.10 Risks and Opportunities. The VSTL must consider the risks and opportunities associated 

with its activities in order to:

• give assurance that the management system achieves its intended results, 

• enhance opportunities to achieve the purpose and objectives of the VSTL, 

• prevent, or reduce, undesired impacts and potential failures in the laboratory 

activities, and 

• achieve improvement.

The VSTL must plan actions to address these risks and opportunities, and how to integrate and 

implement these actions into its management system and evaluate the effectiveness of these actions.
 

36

Actions taken to address risks and opportunities must be proportional to the potential impact on 

the validity of VSTL’s results. Options to address risks can include identifying and avoiding threats, 

taking risk in order to pursue an opportunity, eliminating the risk source, changing the likelihood 

or consequences, sharing the risk, or retaining risk by informed decision.

4.11 Improvement. The VSTL must identify and select opportunities for improvement and 

implement any necessary actions. Opportunities for improvement can be identified 

through the review of the operational procedures, the use of the policies, overall 

objectives, audit results, corrective actions, management review, suggestions from 

personnel, risk assessment, analysis of data, and proficiency testing results. The VSTL 

must seek feedback, both positive and negative, from its customers. The feedback must be 

analyzed and used to improve the management system, VSTL activities, and customer 

service. Examples of the types of feedback include customer satisfaction surveys, 

communication records, and review of reports with customers.
 

37

5. Revocation of Accreditation

5.1. Overview. This chapter describes the process for revoking the accreditation of a VSTL.

The EAC will revoke an accreditation upon a factual finding that a VSTL has failed to 

remedy a nonconformity. Revocation of Accreditation is a three-step process: (1) 

suspension of accreditation, (2) Commissioners’ Decision on Revocation of 

Accreditation, and (3) notify NIST NVLAP of revocation. 

5.2. Revocation. The EAC monitors VSTL compliance through (1) the VSTL’s continuing 

obligation to provide EAC Notifications of Changes, (2) EAC’s authority to issue 

Requests for Information, and (3) the performance of VSTL Reviews. The process to

revoke a VSTL’s accreditation will be initiated after an opportunity to remedy 

nonconformities as described in Section 4.8.

5.3. Commissioners’ Decision on Revocation of Accreditation. Pursuant to HAVA, a VSTL 

may have its accreditation revoked only by a vote of the Commissioners. The Program 

Director will provide each Commissioner with all relevant documentation including: 

• the VSTL’s submission to challenging suspension, 

• the Compliance Management Report,

• any documents pertaining to challenges or remedial plans provided by the 

VSTL in response to a relevant Compliance Management Report, and 

• a Program Director recommendation as to disposition.

5.3.1. Consideration. Each Commissioner will review and consider all relevant 

materials that have been provided. A Commissioner may request the Program 

Director to provide additional materials or information. Such requests and any 

responsive materials must be provided to each Commissioner. The Chair of the 

Commission will ensure that each Commissioner has sufficient time to consider 

the relevant material before a vote is called.

5.3.2. Process. The Chair of the Commission will bring the Decision of Revocation of 

Accreditation to a vote consistent with the rules of the Commission. The measure 

presented for a vote will take the form of a written Commissioners’ Decision on 

Revocation that determines:

5.3.2.1. Program Compliance. If the VSTL demonstrates that it meets all program 

requirements, successfully challenging all previous findings of 

noncompliance, the Commissioners will find the VSTL compliant, lift 

the VSTL’s suspension, and issue a Certificate of Accreditation.

5.3.2.2. Revocation of Accreditation. If the VSTL does not demonstrate that it 
 

38

meets all program requirements and at least one previous finding of 

noncompliance stands, the Commissioners will find the VSTL to be

noncompliant and issue a Revocation of Accreditation.

5.3.3. Publication of Decision. After a vote of the Commissioners adopting a Decision 

on Revocation, the Program Director must notify the VSTL, all EAC-registered 

manufacturers, and the Director of NIST, and post the decision on 

www.eac.gov.

5.4. Effect of Revocation of Accreditation. A revocation of accreditation is effective upon the 

vote of the Commissioners. VSTLs that have had their accreditation revoked may no 

longer test voting systems or submit test reports under the EAC Certification Program.

The VSTLs may not represent themselves as accredited by the EAC. A VSTL which has 

had its accreditation revoked may reapply for EAC accreditation consistent with the 

requirements in 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 VSTL must provide information to the EAC consistent 

with 2.10.7. Manufacturers may request the EAC grant permission to replace their lead 

VSTL pursuant to section 4.3.1.2. 
 

39

6. Release of Laboratory Accreditation Program Information

6.1 Overview. VSTLs participating in the Certification Program are required to provide the 

EAC with a variety of documents. In general, these documents are releasable to the 

public and, in many cases, the information provided will be published by the EAC. In 

limited cases, 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 are protected by federal law from release, 

VSTLs must identify the information that they believe should be protected and provide 

substantiation and a legal basis for withholding such information. This chapter discusses 

EAC’s general policy on the release of information and provides VSTL’s with the

standards, procedures, and requirements for identifying documents as trade secrets or 

confidential commercial information.

6.1.1 Requests for information. The public may request access to Certification 

Program documents under FOIA (5 U.S.C. §552). The EAC must promptly 

process such requests per the requirements of that Act.

6.1.2 Publication of documents. The EAC must publish program documents (or 

portions of documents) through the use of www.eac.gov. The published 

documents will cover the full spectrum of the program, including information 

pertaining to:

• Accredited VSTLs

• VSTL test plans

• VSTL test reports

• Agency decisions

• Denials of certification

• Issuance of certifications

• Compliance management reports

• Suspensions or revocation of accreditations

• Other topics as determined by the EAC.

6.1.3 Trade Secrets and Confidential Commercial Information. Federal law places a 

number of restrictions on a Federal agency’s authority to release information 

to the public. Exemption 4 of the FOIA protects "trade secrets and commercial 

or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or 

confidential." The exemption covers two distinct categories of information in 
 

40

federal agency records, (1) trade secrets, and (2) information that is (a) 

commercial or financial, and (b) obtained from a person, and (c) privileged or 

confidential. Both types of information are explicitly prohibited from release 

by the FOIA and the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §1905).

6.2 Trade Secrets. A trade secret is "information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, 

program, device, method, technique, or process that:

• Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally 

known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons 

who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

• Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its 

secrecy.”

Trade secret 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. The following examples illustrate productive processes that may be

considered as trade secrets:

• Plans, schematics, and other drawings useful in production.

• Specifications of materials used in production.

• Voting system source code used to develop or manufacture software where 

release of this information would reveal actual programming details.

• Technical descriptions of manufacturing processes and other secret 

information relating directly to the production process.

The following examples are likely not considered as trade secrets:

• Information pertaining to a finished product’s capabilities or features.

• Information pertaining to a finished product’s performance.

• Information regarding product components that would not reveal any commercially 

valuable information regarding production.

6.3 Privileged or Confidential Commercial Information. Privileged or confidential 

commercial information consists of information submitted by a VSTL that is 

commercial or financial in nature.

6.3.1 Commercial or Financial Information. The terms commercial and financial should 

be given their ordinary meanings. They include records in which a submitting 

VSTL has any commercial interest.
 

41

6.3.2 Privileged or Confidential Information. Commercial or financial information is 

privileged or confidential if the disclosure of such information 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. This does not 

include incidental harm associated with upset customers or employees.

6.4 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, 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 in regard to the submitted documentation:

6.4.1 Managing Documentation and Information. The EAC must control the 

documentation it receives by ensuring that documents are secure and released to 

third parties only after appropriate review and determination.

6.4.2 Contacting a VSTL on Proposed Release of Potentially Protected Documents. In 

the event that a member of the public submits a FOIA request for 

documentation provided by a VSTL or the EAC or otherwise proposes the 

release of such documents, the EAC must take the following actions:

6.4.2.1 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 during review.

6.4.2.2 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 must notify the submitter and allow the submitting VSTL an 

opportunity to submit its position on the issue prior to release of the 

information. The submitter must respond consistent with Section 6.5.1. 

below.

6.4.3 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 and must inform the submitter of this decision.

6.5 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 is responsible for identifying documents, 

or portions of documents, it believes warrant such protection. The VSTL is responsible for 
 

42

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.

6.5.1 Initial Submission of Information. When a VSTL is submitting documents to the 

EAC, it is responsible for identifying any document or portion of a document 

that it believes is protected from release by federal law. VSTLs must identify 

protected information by taking the following action:

6.5.1.1 Submitting a Notice of Protected Information. This notice must 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.

• Cite the applicable law that exempts the information from 

release.

• Clearly discuss why that legal authority applies and why the 

document must be protected from release.

• 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.

6.5.1.2 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 renders the markings moot.

6.5.2 Notification of Potential Release. In the event a VSTL is notified that the EAC is 

considering the release of information that the VSTL thinks may be protected, 

the VSTL must respond to the notice in writing within 15 calendar days. VSTLs 

that do not respond within the 15-day deadline will be viewed as not objecting 

to release. If the VSTL objects to the release, the response must clearly state 

which portions of the document should be protected from release. 

5.1. 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. The EAC does not require the submission of private, individual information and 

the incidental submission of such information should be avoided. If a VSTL believes it is required 
 

43

to submit such information, it should contact the Program Director. Examples of such information 

include:

• Social security number

• Bank account numbers

• Home address

• Home phone number
 

44

Appendix A – Glossary

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

definitions:

Appeal. A formal process by which the EAC is petitioned to reconsider a decision.

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

EAC accreditation after receipt of an invitation.

Certification Program. The EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program

Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS). Hardware or software components that are widely available 

for purchase and can be integrated into special-purpose systems.

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

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

Commission.

Component. An identifiable and discrete part of the larger voting system essential to 

the operation of the voting system, and an immediate subset of the system to which it 

belongs.

Days. Calendar days, unless otherwise noted. When counting days, for the purpose of 

submitting or receiving a document, the count begins on the first full calendar day after 

the date the document was received.

Decision Authority. The EAC Executive Director or Executive Director’s designee.

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 guidelines.
 

45

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

for certification.

Minor Change Order. A minor change order is a change to a certified voting system’s 

hardware, software, Technical Data Package (TDP), or data, the nature of which does

not materially alter the system’s reliability, functionality, capability, or operation. Any 

changes made to a system under test will result in the manufacturer supplying a list and 

detailed description of all changes.

Modification. Any change to a previously EAC-certified voting system’s hardware, 

software, or firmware that is not classified as a minor change order or new system.

Program Director. The individual responsible for administering and managing the 

Testing and Certification Program.

Proprietary Information. Commercial information or trade secrets protected from 

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

Qualified EAC Personnel. Qualified EAC personnel have attained ISO/IEC 17025 

internal auditing credentials.

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 Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines (VVSG) to which a VSTL is authorized to test.

System Identification Tools. Tools created by a manufacturer of voting systems which 

allow elections officials to verify that the hardware and software of systems purchased 

are identical to the systems certified by the EAC.

Third-Party Laboratory. A laboratory contracted or otherwise providing testing services 

to a VSTL to meet program requirements.

Trusted Build. A software build where source code is converted into machinereadable binary instructions (executable code) in a manner providing security 

measures which help ensure that the executable code is a verifiable and faithful 

representation of the source code.

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). Voluntary voting system guidelines 

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

version number and date.

Voting System. The total combination of mechanical, electromechanical, and electronic 
 

46

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 Test Laboratories (VSTLs). Laboratories accredited by the EAC to test 

voting systems to EAC approved voting system standards.
 

47

Appendix B – References

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.

• ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing andcalibration 

laboratories.

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

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

48

Appendix C – Voting System Test Plan Outline

This outline is provided solely as an aid to test plan development. Note that these items may 

change significantly, depending on the specific project planned.

1 Introduction

1.1 References

1.2 Terms and Abbreviations

1.3 Testing Responsibilities

1.3.1 Project schedule with

1.3.1.1 Owner assignments

1.3.1.2 Test case development

1.3.1.3 Test procedure development and validation

1.3.1.4 3rd party tests

1.3.1.5 EAC and manufacturer dependencies

1.4 Target of Evaluation Description

1.4.1 System Overview

1.4.2 Block diagram

1.4.3 System Limits

1.4.4 Supported Languages

1.4.5 Supported Functionality

1.4.5.1 Standard VVSG Functionality

1.4.5.2 Manufacturer Extensions

2. Pre-Certification Testing and Issues

2.1 Evaluation of prior VSTL testing

2.1.1 Reason for testing and results, listing of modifications from previous to current 

system

2.2 Evaluation of prior non-VSTL testing

2.2.1 Reason for testing and results, states, other 3rd party entities

2.3 Known Field Issues

2.3.1 Listing of relevant issues uncovered during field operations

3 Materials Required for Testing

3.1 Software
 

49

3.2 Equipment

3.3 Test Materials

3.4 Deliverable Materials

4 Test Specifications

4.1 Requirements

4.1.1 Mapping of requirements to equipment type and features

4.1.2 Rationale for why some requirements are not applicable to this campaign

4.2 Hardware Configuration and Design

4.3 Software System Functions

4.4 Test Case Design

4.4.1 Hardware Qualitative Examination Design

4.4.1.1 Mapping of requirements to specific interfaces

4.4.2 Hardware Environmental Test Case Design

4.4.3 Software Module Test Case Design and Data

4.4.4 Software Functional Test Case Design and Data

4.4.5 System-level Test Case Design

4.5 Security functions

4.6 TDP evaluation

4.7 Source Code review

4.8 QA & CM system review

5 Test Data

5.1 Data Recording

5.2 Test Data Criteria

5.3 Test Data Reduction

6 Test Procedure and Conditions

6.1 Facility Requirements

6.2 Test Set-up

6.3 Test Sequence

7 Test Operations Procedures
 

50

Appendix D - Voting System Modification Test Plan Outline

This outline is provided solely as an aid to test plan development. Note that these items may 

change significantly, depending on the specific project planned.

1. Introduction

1.1Description and Overview of EAC-certified system being modified

1.1.1 Complete definition of the baseline certified system.

1.1.2 Detailed description of the engineering changes and/or modifications to the 

certified system and why the modification was implemented.

1.1.3 An initial assessment of the impact that the modifications have on the 

system and past certification.

1.1.4 Description of what will be regression tested to establish assurance that the 

modifications have no adverse impact on the compliance, integrity or 

performance of the system.

1.2 References

1.3 Terms and Abbreviations

1.4 Project Schedule

1.5 Scope of testing

1.5.1 Block diagram (if applicable)

1.5.2 System limits (if applicable)

1.5.3 Supported Languages

1.5.4 Supported Functionality

1.5.5 VVSG

1.5.6 RFIs

1.5.7 NOCs

2. Pre-Certification Testing and Issues

2.1 Evaluation of prior VSTL testing

2.2 Evaluation of prior non-VSTL testing (if applicable)

2.3 Known Field Issues (if applicable)

3. Materials Required for Testing

3.1 Software

3.2 Equipment
 

51

3.3 Test Materials

3.4 Deliverable

3.5 Proprietary Data

4. Test Specifications

4.1 Requirements

4.1.1 Mapping of requirements to equipment type and features

4.1.2 Rationale for why some requirements are not applicable to this campaign

4.2 Hardware Configuration and Design (if applicable)

4.3 Software System Functions (if applicable)

4.4 Test Case Design

4.4.1 Hardware Qualitative Examination Design (if applicable)

4.4.2 Hardware Environmental Test Case Design (if applicable)

4.4.3 Software Module Test Case Design and Data (if applicable)

4.4.4 Software Functional Test Case Design and Data (if applicable)

4.4.5 System-level Test Case Design

4.5 Security functions (if applicable)

4.6 TDP evaluation

4.7 Source Code review (if applicable)

4.8 QA & CM system review

5. Test Data

5.1 Test Data Recording

5.2 Test Data Criteria

6. Test Procedure and Conditions

6.1 Test Facilities

6.2 Test Set-up

6.3 Test Sequence

6.4 Test Operations Procedure
 

52

Appendix E - Voting System Test Report Outline

Test Reports produced by VSTLs must follow the format outlined below. Deviations from this 

format may be used upon prior written approval of the Program Director.

1. System Identification and Overview

2. Certification Test Background

2.1 Revision History

2.2 Implementation Statement

3. Test Findings 

3.1 Summary Finding 

3.2 Anomalies

3.3 Correction of Deficiencies 

Appendix A. Additional Findings

Appendix B. Warrant of Accepting Change Control Responsibility 

Appendix C. Trusted Build

Appendix D. Test Plan 

Appendix E. State Test Reports
 

53

Appendix F – Voting System Modification Test Report Outline

Test Reports produced by VSTLs must follow the format outlined below. Deviations from this 

format may be used upon prior written approval of the Program Director.

1. Introduction

1.1Description of EAC-certified system being modified

1.2 References

1.3 Terms and Abbreviations

2. Certification Test Background

2.1 Revision History

2.2 Scope of testing

2.2.1 Modification Overview

2.2.1.1 Detailed list of changes

2.2.2 Block diagram (if applicable)

2.2.3 Supported Languages

2.2.4 VVSG

2.2.5 RFIs

2.2.6 NOCs

3. Test Findings and Recommendation

3.1 Summary Finding and Recommendation

3.1.1 Hardware Testing

3.1.2 System Level Testing

3.1.3 Source code review

3.2 Anomalies and Resolutions

3.3 Deficiencies and Resolutions

4. Recommendation for Certification 

Appendix A. Additional Findings

Appendix B. Deficiency report (if applicable) 

Appendix C. Anomaly report (if applicable) 

Appendix D. Test Plan

Appendix E. State Test Reports (if applicable)
 

54

Appendix G – Certification of Laboratory Conditions and Practices

Form

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 2.4. of the EAC Voting System Test Laboratory 

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 2.4.1. 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 2.4.2. of the Laboratory Manual.

c. Provide clear mechanisms for enforcement of the prohibitions noted above 
 

55

pursuant to Section 2.4.3. of the Laboratory Manual.

4. Financial Stability. I certify, consistent with Section 2.19. of the Laboratory Manual, that 

the laboratory possesses 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 2.17. 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 2.20. 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)
 

56

Appendix H – Specification for Reproduction and use of the EAC 

Laboratory Accreditation Logo

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 must 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

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 
 

57

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
 

58

U. S. E le ct io n As s is t a nc e Co m m is s io n

VSTL