U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

633 3rd St. NW, Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20001

EAC | Helping America Vote EAC.gov page 1

DECLARATION OF MARK A. ROBBINS

The EAC is making available for public inspection the following declaration and attachments to 

better inform the public on the EAC’s Testing and Certification operations. In June 2022, a 

plaintiff filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri 

against the EAC, the EAC Commissioners, and the Missouri Secretary of State. The complaint 

alleged that certificates of accreditation were not updated for the voting system test laboratories 

(VSTLs) and therefore, the VSTLs were not in compliance for the 2020 election. The complaint 

alleged that because of this, the electronic voting systems in use in Missouri for the 2020 election 

were invalid and therefore the results must be declared invalid. The attached declaration and 

exhibits were submitted in support of the EAC’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter 

Jurisdiction. 
 

 

 

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ALISON GRAEFF, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00682 (RLW) 

UNITED STATES ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, et al, 

 Defendants. 

DECLARATION OF MARK A. 

ROBBINS 

I, Mark A. Robbins, make the following declaration based on personal knowledge and information 

made available to me in the course of my official duties: 

1. I currently serve as the Interim Executive Director of the United States Election Assistance 

Commission (the “EAC”), an independent agency established through the Help America 

Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”). Prior to assuming this role in February 2022, I was General 

Counsel of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from 2018-2021, a position I 

also held from 2001-2006. I was a Member of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

(MSPB) from 2012-2018. I served as General Counsel of the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission from 2010-2012 and as a Senior Rule of Law Advisor for the U.S. State 

Department in Babil Province, Iraq for 19 months. From 2006-2008 I served as the 

Executive Director of the White House Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and was 

in private practice between 1988 and 2000. 

2. As the Interim Executive Director, my duties include but are not limited to preparing policy 

recommendations for EAC Commissioner approval, implementing policies approved by the 

EAC Commissioners, managing administrative matters and operations of the EAC, and 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 2 of 214 PageID #: 899 

overseeing the Testing and Certification Program while serving as the Decision Authority of 

the Program. 

3. I am submitting this declaration to provide clarifying details concerning official EAC activities, 

and in particular activities pursuant to the agency’s promulgation of the Voluntary Voting 

System Guidelines (VVSG), as well as the EAC’s Testing and Certification Program. As set 

forth below, the VVSG are ultimately used to guide the EAC’s implementation of the Testing 

and Certification Program (TCP or Program). 

The Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 

4. One of the duties that HAVA bestows upon the EAC is to adopt voluntary voting system guidelines 

(“VVSG”), which constitute a set of voluntary specifications and requirements against which voting 

systems can be tested to determine if the systems meet the specified standards. 52 U.S.C.A. § 

20922(1). These guidelines cover pre-voting, voting, and post-voting operations consistent with the 

definition of a voting system, defined as a total combination of mechanical, electromechanical, or 

electronic equipment that is used to define ballots, cast and count votes, report or display election 

results, and maintain and produce any audit trail information. 52 U.S.C.A. § 21081(b). 

5. The EAC adopted the first VVSG (VVSG 1.0) on December 13, 2005 

https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/VVSG.1.0_Volume_1.PDF; and 

https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/VVSG1.0Vol.2.PDF, 

https://perma.cc/VEW8-6LRR. It adopted the second version (VVSG 1.1) on March 31, 2015 

https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/VVSG.1.1.VOL.1.FINAL1.pdf; and 

https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/VVSG.1.1.VOL.2.FINAL.pdf, 

https://perma.cc/A6PM-E8TP. It adopted the third version (VVSG 2.0) on February 21, 2021 

https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/TestingCertification/Voluntary_Voting_System_Guidel 

ines_Version_2_0.pdf, https://perma.cc/2H5A-NASC. 

6. The EAC adopted the Voting System Testing and Certification VVSG Lifecycle Policy on April 5, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 3 of 214 PageID #: 900 

2022. The Policy creates a pathway for future updates to the VVSG by facilitating regular review 

of the VVSG standards, providing guidance on when and how new versions will be adopted, and 

when and how older versions will be maintained and/or discontinued. The policy in particular 

discusses the deprecation of obsolete standards and establishes consistent periodic review and 

updates for future standards. A true copy of the Policy is attached as Exhibit A. 

7. The Lifecycle Policy provides that testing to a standard will be discontinued pursuant to the 

conditions outlined in the Policy. See VVSG Lifecycle Policy § 3.2. 

8. Under the Lifecyle Policy, once at least one VSTL is accredited to test to revised VVSG, and a 

voting system can be certified to that revised VVSG, the obsolete major VVSG versions will be 

deprecated 12 months after the date of that VSTL accreditation. See VVSG Lifecycle Policy 

Section 3.3. 

9. As their name indicates, the VVSG are fully voluntary, and no state or local jurisdiction need 

adopt or apply them, either fully or partially. Nor is any manufacturer or voting systems 

federally required to build to VVSG specifications. 52 U.S.C. § 20929. 

EAC Testing and Certification Program 

10. Notwithstanding that the VVSG supply fully voluntary standards, in order to facilitate and 

encourage their use, HAVA further requires that the EAC create a program “for the testing, 

certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware” against the 

standards established by the VVSG. Id. § 20971(a)(1). The EAC has complied with this 

statutory mandate by creating and administering its Testing and Certification Program. 

11. Like the VVSG themselves, participation is the EAC’s Testing and Certification Program is 

wholly voluntary for industry actors, as well as a state and local governments. 52 U.S.C. § 20929. 

However, the requirements of the Program are mandatory for all entities that elect to 

participate. 

12. The requirements of the EAC’s Testing and Certification Program are set forth in two Program 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 4 of 214 PageID #: 901 

manuals: (1) the Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual (VSTL Program Manual) and 

(2) the Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual (VSTC Program Manual). 

EAC Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual 

13. The VSTL Program Manual sets forth the procedures through which independent laboratories 

may seek and obtain accreditation from the EAC to conduct testing of voting systems against 

the VVSG. A test laboratory that wishes to receive and maintain EAC accreditation as a VSTL 

must comply with the Voting System Test Laboratories Accreditation Program as provided for 

in the Manual. 

14. When an independent laboratory receives an accreditation from the EAC, the scope of that 

accreditation is expressly limited to a particular version (or versions) of the VVSG. See EAC 

VSTL Program Manual § 3.7.1. 

15. The VSTL Program Manual is generally updated to incorporate the most recent version of the 

VVSG. 

16. On February 10, 2021 (concurrently with its approval and adoption of the VVSG 2.0), the EAC 

unanimously approved the adoption of the Voting System Test Laboratories Program Manual 

(version 3.0). 

17. When a test laboratory receives accreditation to test to VVSG 2.0, subsequent system testing 

and the overall program will be required to comply with the procedures in the VSTL Manual 

(Version 3.0). and the VSTC Program Manual (Version 3.0). 

18. As of the date of this declaration, there are no test laboratories accredited to test to VVSG 2.0. 

Therefore, although the VSTL Manual Version 3.0 has been approved by the EAC for future 

use, it is not yet in operation for any EAC accredited test laboratories. 

19. Voting system test laboratories (VSTL) accredited to test voting systems against the standards 

set forth in VVSG 1.0 and 1.1 currently utilize VSTL Program Manual Version 2.0. A true copy 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 5 of 214 PageID #: 902 

of this Manual is attached as Exhibit B. 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual 

20. The Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual also implements the EAC’s 

Testing and Certification Program. Specifically, the VSTC Program Manual sets forth the 

procedures through which accredited independent laboratories may (after receiving 

accreditation pursuant to the procedures set forth in the VSTL Program Manual) properly test 

voting systems for compliance with the capabilities, accessibility, and security requirements of 

the VVSG. 

21. Each version of the VSTP Program Manual is generally updated to incorporate the most recent 

version of the VVSG. 

22. On February 10, 2021 (concurrently with its approval and adoption of the VVSG 2.0, as well as 

the VSTL Program Manual 3.0), the EAC unanimously approved the adoption of the VSTC 

Program Manual (version 3.0) and the Voting System Test Laboratories Manual (version 3.0). 

23. When a test laboratory receives accreditation to test to VVSG 2.0, subsequent system testing 

and the overall program will be required to comply with the procedures in in the Voting System 

Test Laboratories Program Manual (Version 3.0) and the VSTC Program Manual (Version 3.0). 

24. As of the date of this declaration, there are no test laboratories accredited to test to VVSG 2.0. 

Therefore, although the VSTC Program Manual Version 3.0 has been approved by the EAC for 

future use, it is not in operation for any EAC certified voting systems. 

25. Voting systems certified to VVSG 1.1 and VVSG 1.0 currently utilize VSTC Program Manual 

Version 2.0. A true copy of this Manual is attached as Exhibit C. 

Participating Voting System Test Laboratories 

26. As of the date of this declaration, there are two voting system test laboratories (VSTLs) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 6 of 214 PageID #: 903 

participating in the EAC Accreditation Program: 

a. Pro V&V, and 

b. SLI Compliance, a Division of Gaming Laboratories International, LLC. 

Pro V&V 

27. The EAC first accredited Pro V&V on February 24, 2015. 

28. HAVA provides that EAC accreditation of a voting system test laboratory cannot be revoked 

unless the EAC Commissioners vote to revoke the accreditation. 52 U.S.C. § 20971(c)(2). The 

EAC has never voted to revoke the accreditation of Pro V&V. 

29. Pursuant to the Voting System Test Laboratories Accreditation Program, Pro V&V has 

undergone continuing assessments since the initial accreditation. 

30. The EAC most recently reviewed Pro V&V accreditation and issued a renewed certificate of 

accreditation on February 1, 2021. A true copy of this certificate of accreditation is attached as 

Exhibit D. 

SLI Compliance 

31. The EAC first accredited SLI Compliance on February 28, 2007. 

32. HAVA provides that EAC accreditation of a voting system test laboratory cannot be revoked 

unless the EAC Commissioners vote to revoke the accreditation. 52 U.S.C. § 20971(c)(2). The 

EAC has never voted to revoke the accreditation of SLI Compliance. 

33. Pursuant to the Voting System Test Laboratories Accreditation Program, SLI Compliance has 

undergone continuing assessments since the initial accreditation. 

34. The EAC most recently reviewed SLI Compliance’s accreditation and issued a renewed 

certificate of accreditation on February 1, 2021. A true copy of this certificate of accreditation is 

attached as Exhibit E. 
 

______________________________ 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 7 of 214 PageID #: 904 

NTS Huntsville, formerly Wyle Laboratories 

35. NTS Huntsville, formerly Wyle Laboratories, was a previous participant of the Voting System 

Test Laboratories Accreditation Program. 

36. The EAC first accredited Wyle Laboratories on October 4, 2007. 

37. HAVA provides that EAC accreditation of a voting system test laboratory cannot be revoked 

unless the EAC Commissioners vote to revoke the accreditation. 52 U.S.C. § 20971(c)(2). The 

EAC has never voted to revoke the accreditation of NTS Huntsville, formerly Wyle 

Laboratories. 

38. The EAC most recently reviewed NTS Huntsville’s, formerly Wyle Laboratories, accreditation 

and issued a renewed certificate of accreditation on May 4, 2010. A true copy of this certificate 

of accreditation is attached as Exhibit F. 

39. On March 5, 2014, NTS Huntsville notified the EAC that NTS acquired the testing business of 

Wyle Laboratories. A true copy of this correspondence is attached as Exhibit G. 

40. NTS Huntsville voluntarily withdrew from the EAC VSTL program on March 13, 2017. A true 

copy of this notification is attached as Exhibit H. 

41. The EAC notified NTS Huntsville of the laboratory’s continuing responsibilities pertaining to 

records management and other requirements pursuant to the Voting System Test Laboratory 

Program Manual. A true copy of this correspondence is attached as Exhibit I. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 

correct to the best of my knowledge. 

Executed on 8/12/2022. 

Mark A. Robbins 
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 8 of 214 PageID #: 905 

EXHIBIT A - VVSG Lifecycle Policy 
 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 9 of 214 PageID #: 906 

United States Election Assistance Commission 

633 3rd St. NW, Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20001 

www.eac.gov 

Voting System Testing and Certification 

VVSG Lifecycle Policy 
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 10 of 214 PageID #: 907 

Contents 

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 

2. VVSG Version Convention ........................................................................................................ 3 

3. VVSG Standard Deprecation ..................................................................................................... 4 

4. VVSG Review and Update Process ............................................................................................ 5 

2 VVSG Lifecycle Policy 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 11 of 214 PageID #: 908 

1. Introduction 

1.1. Introduction: In late 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which 

created the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and vested it with the responsibility of 

setting voting system standards and for providing for the testing and certification of voting 

systems. This mandate represented the first time the Federal government provided for the 

voluntary testing, certification, and decertification of voting systems nationwide. In response to 

this HAVA requirement, the EAC has developed the Voting System Testing and Certification 

Program (Program). 

1.2. Authority. HAVA requires that the EAC certify and decertify voting systems. Section 231(a)(1) of 

HAVA specifically requires the EAC to “... provide for the certification, decertification and recertification of voting system hardware and software by accredited laboratories.” The EAC has

the sole authority to grant certification or withdraw certification at the federal level, including 

the authority to grant, maintain, extend, suspend, and withdraw the right to retain or use any 

certificates, marks, or other indicators of certification. 

1.3. Scope. This document provides the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) lifecycle policy. 

Participation in the program is voluntary, but if voting system manufacturers decide to 

participate then they and their products will be subject to the VVSG lifecycle policy. This 

document supersedes any previous policy from the EAC concerning VVSG lifecycles. 

1.4. Purpose. The intent of this policy is to help facilitate migration to revised VVSG standards by 

providing guidance on deprecation of obsolete standards and establishing consistent periodic 

review, update, and versioning of future standards. 

1.5. Feedback: The EAC will engage voting system manufacturers and Voting System Test Laboratory 

(VSTL)s when implementing revised VVSG standards, beginning with informing them of the 

differences between VVSG versions, obtaining information about practical implementation 

timelines for the new standard, and to address questions or concerns they may have. 

2. VVSG Version Convention 

2.1. Types of Version Change: This section defines major and minor standard changes. After 

consultation with stakeholders and a proposed VVSG update has been drafted, the EAC will 

determine whether a version change is major or minor. 

2.2. Major Version Changes: Major changes to the VVSG will cause the primary number to 

increment by one and the secondary number to reset to zero. For instance, the new version 

number for VVSG 2.0 with major changes would be VVSG 3.0. In general, major version changes 

will require new hardware or other upgrades that render equipment certified under the prior 

major version to become obsolete. 

2.3. Minor Version Changes: Minor changes to the VVSG will cause the secondary number to 

increment by one. For instance, the new version number for VVSG 2.0 with minor changes 

would be VVSG 2.1. In general, minor version changes will not require new hardware or other 

upgrades that render equipment certified under the same major version to become obsolete. 

3 VVSG Lifecycle Policy 
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 12 of 214 PageID #: 909 

2.4. Voting System Test Laboratory (VSTL) Accreditation: The need for lab accreditation will be 

based on consultation between the EAC and National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP), and metrics such as a 

change in core or non-core competencies, required skills, or any other criteria deemed 

necessary by the EAC that are the result of the standard update. 

Major VVSG version changes may require VSTL accreditation for that change and minor VVSG 

version changes will not require VSTL accreditation for that change. 

3. VVSG Standard Deprecation 

3.1. Overview: Avoiding the certification of voting systems to obsolete standards is a key element in 

the transition to new and updated VVSG standards. Manufacturers submitting new systems 

must submit them to the most recently adopted VVSG version. Adoption of the updated VVSG 

versions must move forward while not stranding users of systems certified to older VVSG 

versions from being able to receive critical updates. 

3.2. Deprecation Definition: For the purposes of this policy, deprecation means the testing to a 

standard will be discontinued, outside of certain conditions detailed below. Deprecation is not 

the same as decertification. Fielded voting systems that are certified to any VVSG standard will 

not be decertified by the EAC based solely on the standard it was certified to. Decertification of 

voting systems can only take place following the process detailed in the EAC Testing and 

Certification Program Manual. 

3.3. Previous VVSG Version Deprecation: Once there is a path to certification of voting system 

equipment to a new major revision to the VVSG with at least one VSTL accredited to test, then 

obsolete major VVSG versions will be deprecated 12 months after the date of that accreditation. 

Once obsolete standards are deprecated, manufacturers will be required to submit voting 

systems to the latest VVSG standard. In certain limited circumstances, changes may be made to 

voting systems certified to deprecated versions. 

Deprecation of a VVSG standard does not affect the EAC certification of systems to the 

deprecated standard. Those systems shall maintain their status and jurisdictions may continue 

to acquire these as EAC certified systems. 

3.4. Maintenance of Systems certified to deprecated standards: To address the subject of 

maintenance of fielded systems, changes to systems certified to a deprecated standard will be 

accepted within a narrow definition. These changes may be requested through application for a 

system modification or as an engineering change order for qualifying requests. 

3.4.1. A change to a system certified to a deprecated standard must be in one or more of the 

following categories: 

3.4.1.1. Security update. Software patches or hardware mitigations to address known 

security vulnerabilities and exploits. Software patches may include code authored 

by voting system manufacturers. 

4 VVSG Lifecycle Policy 
 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 13 of 214 PageID #: 910 

3.4.1.2. Bug fix. Fixes to correct anomalies reported to and approved by the EAC. Examples 

include critical functional discrepancies or issues that are part of an EAC certified 

system. Enhancements are not considered a fix. 

3.4.1.3. COTS replacement. Replacement of commercial-off-the-shelf equipment that has 

reached end-of-life. Any significant changes to specifications or functionality in the 

replacement are discouraged and must be evaluated and approved by the Testing 

and Certification Program Director and a VSTL. 

3.4.1.4. Jurisdictional rule change. Changes that are legally required in a jurisdiction 

already fielding the system due to some form of change in statute, rule, directive, 

or other publication that places requirements on a jurisdiction. This type of change 

must be supported by a chief election official, electoral board, or certification body 

where this system is state certified or fielded. 

3.4.1.5. Updating and adding new components compliant to the current VVSG standard. 

Changes to one or more components outside of 3.4.1.1 through 3.4.4.4 may be 

permitted provided the proposed changes meet the most current VVSG standard. 

This may include changes to components necessary to integrate new software, 

firmware, and hardware (devices) into the system. In this instance, the overall 

system certification would be to the system’s baseline (deprecated) standard. 

3.4.2. Modifications outside these categories will not be accepted. Voting systems that 

feature changes that are outside these categories will only be accepted for testing and 

certification to a non-deprecated version. When a manufacturer applies for a 

modification to a voting system that is certified to a deprecated standard, they must 

clearly state under which category they are applying and must supply supporting 

documentation for this claim. 

3.4.3. EAC staff will make the determination on acceptance of modifications to maintenance 

systems to deprecated standards and will communicate the decision to the manufacturer 

and appropriate voting system test laboratory. This decision will be posted on the EAC 

website. Decisions will be made within five business days of receiving all necessary 

supporting documentation. Manufacturers are encouraged to contact the EAC in 

advance of applying for voting system testing for a modification to get a non-binding 

opinion on whether a modification would be considered in any of the categories 

enumerated in section 3.4.1 of this policy. Non-binding decisions will be provided to the 

manufacturer in writing within five business days. 

4. VVSG Review and Update Process 

4.1. Overview: More frequent iteration of standards is the result of a continuous improvement 

process that closely matches modern agile software and hardware development cycles. All 

updates to the VVSG will adhere to the established practice of public review and comment, 

agency review and comment, and consideration by the commissioners, as described in HAVA. 

5 VVSG Lifecycle Policy 
 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 14 of 214 PageID #: 911 

4.2. Timeline: There will be a 12-month cycle for each review for revisions to the VVSG. It is 

understood that the time taken to complete the review and update process will vary due to 

several factors, including but not limited to number of changes proposed, number of comments 

received from stakeholders and the public, complexity of changes, and time taken to develop 

requirements and test assertions. 

4.3. Scope: Updates to the standards during this cycle may incorporate items such as requests for 

interpretation, notices of clarification, errata, and other administrative changes. Additionally, 

requirements may be added or adjusted to support more voting system functions or other 

updates to accommodate new technologies or standards. Stakeholders are encouraged to 

submit proposed changes as part of the VVSG review process. 

4.4. VVSG Review: The EAC Testing and Certification Program will engage with the Technical 

Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), the Standards Board, and the Board of Advisors 

annually to identify and propose changes to the VVSG including adding requirements, modifying 

existing guidelines and requirements, and rolling in Requests for Interpretation, Notices of 

Clarification, or other clarifying information from the program. An annual 90-day period of 

public comment will allow all stakeholders to submit comments to the EAC. Public comments 

will be posted on the EAC website. 

The EAC Testing and Certification Program Director will provide an annual report to the 

Executive Director at the end of the fiscal year detailing recommendations for updates to the 

VVSG that have been collected throughout the prior fiscal year from various stakeholders. This 

report will be shared with the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), the 

Standards Board, and the Board of Advisors. Feedback from this process will inform the decision 

to make updates to the VVSG. This annual cycle will continue, without regard to whether the 

Executive Director makes the decision to pursue a new version of the VVSG, initiating the steps 

detailed in section 4.5. 

4.5. VVSG Update Process: When the Executive Director determines that a new version of the VVSG 

should be published based on feedback from section 4.4, the process detailed in section 222 of 

HAVA will be followed. The EAC expects that key stakeholders will be involved throughout this 

update process. 

4.5.1. The EAC will work with NIST and the TGDC to address relevant proposed changes 

gathered from section 4.4 and draft revisions to the sections of the VVSG affected by the 

proposed changes. 

4.5.2. The Executive Director will submit the draft revised VVSG to the EAC’s Board of Advisors

and Standards Board Executive Board for review and comment. The draft revised VVSG 

will also be posted for public comment. 

4.5.3. The EAC will collaborate with NIST to review and address all comments. Comments will 

be posted to the EAC website once addressed. Concurrently, the Testing and Certification 

Program Director will draft updates to relevant sections of the program manuals and test 

assertions, if necessary. Program manuals for the new standards will be posted for public 

comment. 

6 VVSG Lifecycle Policy 
 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 15 of 214 PageID #: 912 

4.5.4. The Testing and Certification Program Director will submit the updated VVSG and 

program documentation to the Executive Director. The Executive Director will forward all 

revised VVSG documentation to the Commissioners, and will publish redline versions on 

the EAC website. 

4.5.5. The Commissioners may meet with stakeholders and shall hold a public hearing prior to 

voting on the revised VVSG. This vote may not take place less than 90 days from the date 

the Executive Director submits the draft revised VVSG to the Board of Advisors and 

Standards Board Executive Board as described in section 4.5.2. 

4.6. Commissioner Quorum: In the event the EAC is without a quorum of Commissioners and 

adoption of a new VVSG standard is not possible, section 4.4 will be executed on an annual 

basis, and sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.3 will be executed as necessary. Recommendations 

provided to the EAC for standard updates or changes will continue to be collected, evaluated, 

and drafted in accordance with the process in HAVA. The EAC can hold public meetings without 

quorum, however, adoption of updated standards cannot be accomplished without quorum. 

Once a quorum of Commissioners is reestablished, the process will proceed through sections 

4.5.4 and 4.5.5, as applicable, including all changes recommended previously up to section 4.5.3 

in the process. 

7 VVSG Lifecycle Policy 
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 16 of 214 PageID #: 913 

EXHIBIT B - VSTL Program Manual Version 2.0 
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 17 of 214 PageID #: 914 

Voting System Test Laboratory

Program Manual

Version 2.0

Effective May 31, 2015

United States Election Assistance Commission

335 East West Highway, Suite 4300, Silver Spring, MD 20910

OMB C

1 www.eac.gov

ontrol # 3265-0018
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 18 of 214 PageID #: 915 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

1995, Office of Management and Budget Control (OMB) Number 3265-0018, expiring June 30, 2018. 

Persons are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 

OMB number. Information gathered pursuant to this document and its forms will be used solely to 

administer the EAC Testing & Certification and Laboratory Accreditation Program. This program is 

voluntary. Individuals who wish to participate in the program, however, must meet its requirements. 

The estimated total annual hourly burden on the voting system manufacturing industry and election 

officials is 322 hours. This estimate includes the time required for reviewing the instructions, gathering 

information, and completing the prescribed forms. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any 

other aspect of this collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission, Voting System Testing and Certification Program, Office of the Program 

Director, 1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300, Silver Spring, MD, 20910. 

i OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 19 of 214 PageID #: 916 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Contents 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................5 

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

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

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

1.4. SCOPE. ........................................................................................................................................................5 

1.5. MANUAL MAINTENANCE AND REVISION.................................................................................................6 

1.6. CLARIFICATION OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES. ........................................................6 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.8. SITE VISITS................................................................................................................................................20 

2.9. NOTICE OF LAWSUITS ..............................................................................................................................20 

2.10. TESTING, TECHNICAL PRACTICES AND REPORTING ...............................................................................20 

2.11. TEST READINESS REVIEW.........................................................................................................................20 

2.12. TECHNOLOGY TESTING AGREEMENT......................................................................................................21 

2.13. TEST PLAN PACKAGE...............................................................................................................................21 

2.14. TESTING....................................................................................................................................................22 

2.15. TEST REPORT PACKAGE...........................................................................................................................25 

2.16. ACCEPTANCE OF PRIOR TESTING ............................................................................................................26 

2.17. TERMINATION OF TESTING PRIOR TO COMPLETION...............................................................................27 

2.18. VSTL VERIFICATION OF TRUSTED BUILD................................................................................................27 

2.19. LABORATORY INDEPENDENCE ................................................................................................................27 

2.20. AUTHORITY TO DO BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES ............................................................................31 

2.21. COMMUNICATIONS..................................................................................................................................31 

2.22. RESOURCES AND FINANCIAL STABILITY .................................................................................................31 

2.23. RECORDKEEPING......................................................................................................................................31 

ACCREDITATION PROCESS ...............................................................................................................................32 

ii OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 20 of 214 PageID #: 917 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

3.1. OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................................32 

3.2. NIST RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................................................................32 

3.3. EAC INVITATION .....................................................................................................................................33 

3.4. APPLICATION ...........................................................................................................................................33 

3.5. EAC REVIEW OF APPLICATION PACKAGE ..............................................................................................35 

3.6. GRANT OF ACCREDITATION ....................................................................................................................37 

3.7. EFFECT OF ACCREDITATION ....................................................................................................................38 

3.8. EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL OF ACCREDITATION ..................................................................................39 

3.9. DENIAL OF ACCREDITATION ...................................................................................................................39 

3.10. REQUESTING APPEAL...............................................................................................................................39 

3.11. EAC ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPEAL .............................................................................................40 

3.12. SUBMISSION OF APPEAL...........................................................................................................................40 

3.13. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL ...................................................................................................................40 

3.14. COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ON APPEAL ................................................................................................40 

3.15. EFFECT OF DENIAL OF ACCREDITATION .................................................................................................41 

COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ....................................................................................................42 

4.1. PURPOSE...................................................................................................................................................42 

4.2. COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, GENERALLY..........................................................................42 

4.3. VSTL NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES ........................................................................................................42 

4.4. REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION ....................................................................................42 

4.5. PROFICIENCY TESTING.............................................................................................................................43 

4.6. ON SITE LABORATORY REVIEW—GENERALLY .......................................................................................43 

4.7. ON SITE LABORATORY REVIEW—FREQUENCY .......................................................................................44 

4.8. ON SITE LABORATORY REVIEW—PROCEDURE.......................................................................................44 

4.9. EAC COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT REPORTS.........................................................................................46 

4.10. CORRECTIVE ACTION...............................................................................................................................47 

REVOCATION OF ACCREDITATION................................................................................................................49 

5.1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................49 

5.2. REVOCATION POLICY...............................................................................................................................49 

5.3. REVOCATION—GENERALLY....................................................................................................................49 

5.4. NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUSPEND .............................................................................................................49 

5.5. SUSPENSION OF ACCREDITATION............................................................................................................51 

5.6. COMMISSIONERS’ DECISION ON REVOCATION OF ACCREDITATION......................................................53 

5.7. EFFECT OF REVOCATION OF ACCREDITATION ........................................................................................54 

5.8. REQUESTING APPEAL...............................................................................................................................55 

5.9. EAC ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPEAL .............................................................................................55 

5.10. SUBMISSION OF APPEAL...........................................................................................................................55 

5.11. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL ...................................................................................................................55 

5.12. COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ON APPEAL ................................................................................................56 

REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATIONS ...............................................................................................................57 

6.1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................57 

6.2. POLICY......................................................................................................................................................57 

6.3. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTING A REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION....................................................57 

6.4. PROCEDURE FOR SUBMITTING A REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION .........................................................58 

6.5. EAC ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION..............................................................................59 

iii OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 21 of 214 PageID #: 918 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

6.6. EFFECT OF INTERPRETATION ...................................................................................................................60 

6.7. LIBRARY OF INTERPRETATIONS................................................................................................................61 

RELEASE OF LABORATORY ACCREDITATION PROGRAM INFORMATION.......................................62 

7.1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................62 

7.2. EAC POLICY ON THE RELEASE OF CERTIFICATION PROGRAM INFORMATION ......................................62 

7.3. TRADE SECRETS........................................................................................................................................63 

7.4. PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INFORMATION ..............................................................64 

7.5. EAC’S RESPONSIBILITIES .........................................................................................................................64 

7.6. VSTL’S RESPONSIBILITIES........................................................................................................................65 

7.7. PERSONAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................66 

APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................................................................67 

APPENDIX B.............................................................................................................................................................70 

APPENDIX C.............................................................................................................................................................73 

APPENDIX D.............................................................................................................................................................75 

APPENDIX E.............................................................................................................................................................77 

APPENDIX F .............................................................................................................................................................80 

iv OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 22 of 214 PageID #: 919 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Introduction 

1.1. Background. In late 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). 

HAVA created the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and assigned to the EAC 

the responsibility for both setting voting system standards and providing for the 

voluntary testing and certification of voting systems. This mandate represented the first 

time the Federal government provided for the voluntary testing, certification, and 

decertification of voting systems nationwide. In response to this HAVA requirement, the 

EAC has developed the voting system standards in the form of the Voluntary Voting 

System Guidelines (VVSG), a voting system certification program in the form of the 

Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual and this document, the Voting 

System Test Laboratory Manual. 

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

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

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

accreditation those laboratories evaluated and recommend by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) pursuant to HAVA Section 231(b)(1). However, 

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

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

the reason for any such accreditation. 

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

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

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

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

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

chosen its National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) to carry out 

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

measure of confidence that such laboratories are capable of performing testing of voting 

systems to Federal standards. Additionally, the NVLAP program monitors laboratories 

by requiring regular assessments. Laboratories are reviewed one year after their initial 

accreditation and biennially thereafter. The EAC has made NVLAP accreditation a 

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

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

revocation of accreditation of Voting System Test Laboratories (VSTL). 

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

Laboratory Accreditation Program. Although participation in the program is voluntary, 

adherence to the program’s procedural requirements is mandatory for participants. The 

procedural requirements of this Manual supersede any prior laboratory accreditation 

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

Voting System Testing and Certification Manual. 

5 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 23 of 214 PageID #: 920 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

updated to meet the needs of the EAC, VSTLs, election officials, and public policy. The 

EAC is responsible for revising this document. All revisions will be made consistent with 

Federal law. Substantive input from stakeholders and the public will be sought whenever 

possible. Changes in policy requiring immediate implementation will be noticed via 

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

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

www.eac.gov. 

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

Manufacturers may request clarification regarding the requirements and procedures set 

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

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

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

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

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

registered Manufacturers and placed on EAC’s Web site. 

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

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

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

consistent with Federal law and regulation. 

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

this Manual shall be submitted: 

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

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

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

1.8.2. With a proper signature when required by this Manual. Documents that require 

an authorized signature may be signed with an electronic representation or 

image of the signature of an authorized management representative. 

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

tracking) to the following address: 

Testing and Certification Program Director 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1335 East West Highway 

Suite 4300 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

6 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 24 of 214 PageID #: 921 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

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

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

electronically or physically) at the VSTL, or 

1.9.2. If no documentation of the actual delivery date exists, the date of constructive 

receipt of the communication. For electronic correspondence, documents will be 

constructively received the day after the date sent. For mail correspondence, the 

document will be constructively received 3 days after the date sent. 

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

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

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

1.10. Receipt of Documents—EAC. For purposes of this Manual, a document, notice, or other 

communication is considered received by the EAC upon its physical or electronic arrival 

at the agency. All documents received by the agency will be physically or electronically 

date stamped. This stamp shall serve as the date of receipt. Documents received after the 

regular business day (5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time), will be treated as if received on the 

next business day. 

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

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

consistent with Federal statutes and regulations. 

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

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

process as open and public as possible. Any documents (or portions thereof) submitted 

under this program will be made available to the public unless specifically protected from 

release by law. The primary means for making this information available is through the 

EAC Web site. See Chapter 7 of this Manual for additional information. 

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

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

referenced document (including any amendments) applies. 

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

accrediting conformity assessment bodies. 

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

laboratories. 

7 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 25 of 214 PageID #: 922 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

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

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

definitions. 

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

EAC accreditation after receipt of an invitation. 

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

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

Commission. 

Contracted Third Party Laboratory. A laboratory contracted or otherwise providing 

testing services to a VSTL to meet program requirements. 

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

submitting or receiving a document, the count shall begin on the first full calendar day 

after the date the document was received. 

Election Official. A State or local government employee who has as one of his or her 

primary duties the management or administration of a Federal election. 

Federal Election. Any primary, general, runoff, or special Election in which a candidate 

for Federal office (President, Senator, or Representative) appears on the ballot. 

Fielded Voting System. A voting system purchased or leased by a State or local 

government that is being use in a Federal election. 

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

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

Integration Testing. The end-to-end testing of a full system configured for use in an 

election to assure that all legitimate configurations meet applicable standards. 

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

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

supervision of individuals performing voting system testing. 

8 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 26 of 214 PageID #: 923 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

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

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

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

for certification. 

Memorandum for the Record. A written statement drafted to document an event or 

finding, without a specific addressee other than the pertinent file. 

Proprietary Information. Commercial information or trade secrets protected from 

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

Recommended Laboratory. A laboratory recommended for EAC accreditation by the 

Director of NIST after evaluation by NVLAP. 

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

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

Technical Reviewers. Technical experts in the areas of voting system technology and 

conformity assessment appointed by the EAC to provide expert guidance. 

Testing and Certification Decision Authority. The EAC Executive Director or Acting 

Executive Director. 

Testing and Certification Program Director. The individual appointed by the EAC 

Executive Director to administer and manage the Testing and Certification Program. 

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

equipment (including the software, firmware, and documentation required to program, 

control, and support the equipment) that is used to define ballots, cast and count votes, 

report or display election results, interface the voting system to the voter registration 

system, and maintain and produce any audit trail information. 

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

voting systems to EAC approved voting system standards. 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. Voluntary voting system standards developed, 

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

and date. 

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

abbreviations listed below represent the following terms. 

9 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 27 of 214 PageID #: 924 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Accreditation Program. The EAC Voting System Test Laboratory Accreditation 

Program 

Certification Program. The EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program 

EAC. United States Election Assistance Commission 

FEC. Federal Election Commission 

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

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

Electrotechnical Commission. 

NASED. National Association of State Election Directors 

NIST. National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NVLAP. National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

Program Director. Director of the EAC Testing and Certification Program 

VSTL. Voting System Test Laboratory 

VVSG. Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 

10 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 28 of 214 PageID #: 925 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Program Requirements 

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

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

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

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

accreditation, or revocation of accreditation. 

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

an EAC accreditation as a VSTL, laboratories must demonstrate compliance with the 

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

requirements are set forth in this Chapter. 

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

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

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

accreditation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 5 of this Manual. 

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

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

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

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

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

This recommendation is provided directly to the EAC from NIST. 

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

accreditation from NIST’s National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

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

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

11 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 29 of 214 PageID #: 926 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

EAC. Whenever possible, the EAC will conduct the required accreditation audit and any 

follow up on site visits at the same time as NVLAP accreditation audit or follow up on site 

visits. 

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

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

interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest. A laboratory shall ensure that neither 

the Laboratory, its parent corporation, contracted third party laboratories, nor any 

individual staff member involved in the testing of voting systems have any vested interest 

in the outcome of the test process. Laboratories must have a written policy in place. This 

policy must, at a minimum, (1) prohibit conflicts of interest and other prohibited practices 

and (2) provide for enforcement, consistent with the subsections below. 

2.5.1. Prohibited Conflicts of Interest. The purpose of a conflict of interest policy 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 if the duties and responsibilities of a laboratory, 

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

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

effect on the financial interest of that laboratory, parent corporation, or a 

laboratory employee.1 For example, an employee who is responsible for testing a 

voting system on behalf of a VSTL would be prohibited from holding a financial interest 

in the entity whose product is being tested or a direct competitor of that entity. A 

prohibited conflict of interest would also include a contractual or other fiduciary 

relationship between a VSTL or VSTL employee and a Manufacturer (outside an 

agreement for State or Federal certification testing) when that VSTL or VSTL employee is 

concurrently responsible for conducting certification testing for that Manufacturer under 

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

a laboratory, Parent Corporation, or a laboratory employee through a 

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

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

her spouse owned a financial interest in the manufacture of the voting system. 

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

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

any time it contractually or otherwise takes on the responsibility for 

testing a voting system to Federal standards under EAC’s Certification 

Program. For the purposes of a financial conflict of interest, an 

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

pursuant to the requirements of EAC or a State’s certification program do not constitute a prohibited 

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

financial interest. 

12 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 30 of 214 PageID #: 927 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2.5.1.2. 

2.5.1.3. 

2.5.1.4. 

2.5.1.5. 

employee is involved in the testing of a voting system when the 

individual’s duties as a VSTL employee require him or her to perform 

testing on the system, manage the testing process or supervise those 

who perform testing on the system. 

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

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

business and may include indebtedness or compensated employment 

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

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

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

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

commodity future. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

upon the occurrence of events that are speculative or that are 

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

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

economy does not have a direct effect within the meaning of this 

section. 

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

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

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

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

gain or loss is immaterial. 

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

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

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

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

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

be imputed to an employee. 

2.5.1.5.2. The financial interest of any organization in which a 

laboratory, Parent Corporation, or a laboratory employee 

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

13 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 31 of 214 PageID #: 928 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

consultant, director, trustee or similar position shall be 

imputed. 

2.5.1.5.3. The interests of any contracted third party laboratory shall 

be imputed to the utilizing VSTL. 

2.5.1.5.4. The financial interest of a person or organization with whom 

an employee is negotiating or has an arrangement 

concerning prospective employment shall be imputed. 

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

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

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

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

parent corporation, or laboratory employee may: 

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

consultation, developmental testing or other services to a voting system 

developer such that the independence, or appearance of independence, 

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

be compromised. 

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

development of a voting system and the certification of a 

system. Voting system development includes any testing, 

consultation or design work performed in order to ready a 

specific system for the marketplace or the certification 

process. Generally, any testing performed on behalf of a 

voting system manufacture that was not otherwise 

performed pursuant to a State or Federal voting system 

certification program will be considered developmental in 

nature. 

2.5.2.1.2. The prohibition barring participation in both development 

and testing is voting system specific. An employee or 

laboratory that was previously involved2 in product 

development with a Manufacturer is not prohibited from 

testing all systems produced by that Manufacturer, just 

those systems in which the employee or laboratory 

participated directly in development. As voting systems are 

2 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 2.5.2 of this Manual. 

14 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 32 of 214 PageID #: 929 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

subject to change over time, for the purposes of this 

prohibition, a voting system shall be considered altered to 

the degree that it is a different system when: 

2.5.2.1.2.1. A period of at least three years has passed 

since the VSTL or employee was involved in 

the system’s development; 

2.5.2.1.2.2. The system has been subject to both software 

and hardware modification since the VSTL or 

employee was involved in the system’s 

development. De minimis changes (as 

defined in EAC Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program Manual) are not 

modifications; AND 

2.5.2.1.2.3. The system has received a certification after 

being tested by a different independent 

laboratory since the VSTL or employee was 

involved in the system’s development. 

2.5.2.1.3. The prohibition barring participation in both development 

and testing does not prohibit a VSTL from allowing a 

Manufacturer to perform onsite hardware mitigation on a 

voting system in response to a minor system failure or 

anomaly. In such cases the VSTL: 

2.5.2.1.3.1. Shall suspend all hardware testing; 

2.5.2.1.3.2. Shall not participate or assist the 

Manufacturer in remediation; 

2.5.2.1.3.3. May provide testing equipment and qualified 

operators to the Manufacturer for its use; 

2.5.2.1.3.4. Shall monitor and document the 

Manufacturer’s access to the system 

consistent with Section 2.19 of this manual; 

and 

2.5.2.1.3.5. Shall document in the test report the failure or 

anomaly and remedial action taken by the 

Manufacturer consistent with Section 

15 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 33 of 214 PageID #: 930 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2.10.5.2.1 of this Manual and Chapter 4 of 

EAC’s Certification Manual (anomaly matrix). 

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

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

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

certification of voting systems. Gifts given or received under 

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

relationship or personal friendship rather than position are not 

prohibited. Relevant factors in making such a determination include the 

history of the relationship and whether the family member or friend 

personally pays for the gift. 

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

enforced through a written program which: 

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

2.5.3.1.1. Annually collects standard information from each employee, 

including assets, debts, outside or prior 

activities/employment, gifts, and any work on voting system 

development sufficient to demonstrate compliance with 

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

collection must also reflect the financial interests of those 

individuals (like spouses and minor children) whose 

interests are imputed to the employee; 

2.5.3.1.2. Requires and documents the review of information collected 

for potential conflicts and prohibited practices; and 

2.5.3.1.3. Resolves all identified conflicts of interest or prohibited 

practices prior to the employee or laboratory’s involvement 

in the testing of any voting system. Such resolution shall be 

documented. Resolutions may include the divestiture of 

assets or gifts, employee resignation from outside 

organizations, or the altering of an employee’s 

responsibilities by prohibiting participation in Voting 

System Testing or the testing of a specific system. 

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

2.5.3.2.1. Annually collects information pertaining to the holdings and 

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

16 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 34 of 214 PageID #: 931 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

to demonstrate compliance with Section 2.5.1. and 2.5.2. of 

this Manual; 

2.5.3.2.2. Requires and documents the review of collected information 

for potential conflicts and prohibited practices; and 

2.5.3.2.3. Resolves all identified conflicts of interest or prohibited 

practices prior to the laboratory’s testing of any voting 

system. Such resolution shall be documented. Resolutions 

may include the divestiture of assets or gifts, the termination 

or rejection of conflicted or prohibited testing work. 

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

third party laboratory may be imputed to a VSTL. VSTLs may meet and 

enforce the program requirements of this section with regard to this 

relationship in one of two ways: 

2.5.3.3.1. Collection of third party laboratory information, review of 

information and resolution of conflicts or prohibited 

practices: 

2.5.3.3.1.1. Collect information pertaining to the holdings 

and activities of the third party laboratory 

and its employees, sufficient to demonstrate 

compliance with Section 2.5.1. and 2.5.2. of 

this Manual. This includes gathering 

information concerning any involvement by 

the third party laboratory or its employees in 

the development of specific voting systems. 

This collection of information shall be 

performed prior to the execution of any 

contract for the testing of voting systems 

under this program and annually thereafter if 

the contract exceeds one year in duration. 

2.5.3.3.1.2. Require and document the review of collected 

information for potential conflicts, and 

2.5.3.3.1.3. Resolve all identified conflicts of interest prior 

to the laboratory’s testing of any voting 

system. 

17 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 35 of 214 PageID #: 932 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2.5.3.3.2. VSTL Supervision of third party laboratories performing 

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

direct VSTL supervision and observation, the third party 

laboratory’s conflicts of interest or prohibited practices will 

not be imputed to the lead VSTL. Direct VSTL supervision 

under this section requires that a VSTL employee is 

physically present during the third party testing and directly 

observes and supervises the testing. This VSTL employee 

must: (1) have been properly vetted for conflict of interest 

and prohibited practices pursuant to Section 2.5 of this 

Manual, (2) be competent to supervise the testing being 

performed and (3) have no financial interest in the third 

party laboratory they are supervising. 

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

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

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

Program Director. 

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

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

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

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

prohibited practice and the reasons why such attempts were 

unsuccessful or otherwise untenable. The request shall also state why 

the waiver should be granted, consistent with the standard in Section 

2.5.4.2. 

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

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

interest of the EAC Certification Program and the identified conflict or 

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

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

Program Director may consider the following factors in making a 

waiver determination: 

2.5.4.2.1. The value of any disqualifying financial interest; 

2.5.4.2.2. The nature and impact of any prohibited practice; 

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

conflict of interest or prohibited practice; 

18 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 36 of 214 PageID #: 933 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2.5.4.2.4. The availability of other employees, VSTLs or laboratories to 

conduct the testing without a conflict or prohibited practice. 

2.5.4.2.5. The level of discretion or sensitivity required to perform the 

conflicted or prohibited duties under the certification 

program; 

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

employee’s testing process and duties or otherwise mandate 

additional safeguards which would limit or abrogate the 

impact of the conflict of interest or prohibited practice. 

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

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

the conflict of interest or prohibited practice waived. The waiver shall 

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

processes or procedures or safeguards. The VSTL is responsible for 

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

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

accreditation. The Program Director shall publish all waivers on the 

EAC Web site. 

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

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

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

the EAC Web site. 

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

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

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

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

or State law. The VSTL shall have a program in place to enforce this policy and document 

such enforcement. 

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

notify the EAC in writing within fifteen (15) calendar days of any significant 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 pursuant to Chapter 3 of this Manual. Examples of events that require written 

notification include, but are not limited to: 

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

19 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 37 of 214 PageID #: 934 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

change in stock ownership), 

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

2.7.4. Personnel changes in key staff positions. 

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

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

the procedures and requirements of Chapter 4 of this Manual. 

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

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

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

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

Laboratory’s voting system testing program. 

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

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

Standards (VVSG). Additionally, the VSTL shall create written reports of such testing 

consistent with the requirements of the latest version of the VVSG, EAC’s Voting System 

Testing and Certification Manual, any applicable test suites mandated by the EAC, and any 

other written guidance published by the EAC. 

2.11. Test Readiness Review. The Test Readiness Review (TRR) is the mechanism used by the 

EAC to ensure that test and evaluation resources are not committed to a voting system 

that is not ready for testing by a VSTL. The TRR determines if the submitted voting 

system and documentation are ready to enter certification testing. The TRR shall be 

completed by the VSTL and the subsequent Test Readiness Acknowledgement must be 

received by the EAC prior to the initiation of any certification testing. The TRR does not 

apply to modifications. To assess the readiness of a voting system for certification testing, 

the VSTL shall review: 

• System Technical Data Package (TDP): The voting system technical data package shall 

be reviewed to ensure all elements required by the VVSG are present. 

• System Components: The VSTL shall review the submitted voting system to ensure all 

components required to configure the voting system as defined in the system TDP are 

delivered to the VSTL and appear to be operational and in good working order. System 

Component information should match the Manufacturer’s application submitted to the 

EAC. All components submitted for testing must be equivalent to the final production 

model of the voting system in fit, form and function. Any component not available at 

the time of this review shall be delivered to the VSTL by the voting system manufacturer 

20 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 38 of 214 PageID #: 935 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

within 30 days of the initial TRR, or testing of the system will be halted and the EAC 

notified that the system is not ready for testing. 

• Preliminary Source Code Review: The VSTL shall conduct a preliminary review of no 

less than 1% of the total lines of code (LOC) of every software package, module or 

product submitted for testing in order to ensure that the code is mature and does not 

contain any systematic non-conformities. 

• Mark Reading: The system shall be able to read a fully filled mark if it is an optical scan 

system. 

• Summary of COTS components. This summary should outline which components of 

the voting system are COTS products and shall be updated with each test campaign. 

2.11.1. Test Readiness Notification. Upon completion of the TRR, the VSTL shall submit 

a signed statement to the EAC confirming that the voting system completed the 

TRR and the VSTL determined that the system is ready for certification testing to 

applicable Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. 

2.11.2. Test Readiness Acknowledgement. Upon receipt of the Test Readiness 

Notification from the VSTL, the EAC shall issue an acknowledgement in writing 

stating that the VSTL and manufacturer may commence certification testing. 

This acknowledgement will be issued within 3 business days of receipt of the 

Notification. 

2.12. Technology Testing Agreement. The VSTL shall participate in all meetings related to 

development of Technology Testing Agreements. VSTLs are expected to participate and 

sign on to the agreement reach between the EAC, manufacturer and VSTL. 

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

consistent with the requirements of the Voting System Testing and Certification Manual, the 

latest version of the VVSG, this Manual and any other written guidance from the EAC. A 

test plan package includes: 

2.13.1. Virtual Review Tool (VRT). The VRT is a web based application developed by 

the EAC which, in addition to other information, identifies each requirement 

found in VVSG. VSTLs will be required to use the tool to identify the standards 

that apply to the system being tested, identify the testing to be performed and 

provide additional information as required. The EAC will provide log-in 

information and grant specific access to VSTL staff upon accreditation of the 

laboratory, and to manufacturer representative upon the acceptance of a 

manufacturer’s registration with the EAC. The VRT will serve as both a tool to 

identify and a means to document what should be tested and how. 

2.13.2. Test Plan. The purpose of the Test Plan is to provide information regarding test 

methods. The Test Plan contains more detail than the VRT. 

21 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 39 of 214 PageID #: 936 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2.13.2.1. Format. VSTLs shall format each test plan consistent with the 

requirements of Appendix A of this Manual. 

2.13.2.2. Content. Each test plan shall identify applicable voting system 

standards and contain a description of the testing proposed to verify 

conformance. Also, each test plan shall contain a statement indicating 

the scope of the labs accreditation. 

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

provide detailed information referencing testing to be 

performed, including facility requirements, test set-up, 

test sequence, data recording requirements and pass 

criteria.3 

 Exception. Where a VSTL utilizes EAC mandated or 

approved test methods, the test plan may simply 

reference these methods and identify, with specificity, 

all deviations. Mandated test methods are those test 

methods required for use by the EAC. Approved test 

methods are standard, verified VSTL test methods 

approved by the EAC. VSTLs may submit standard 

test methods for approval by submitting them in 

writing to the Program Director. 

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

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

testing process that provides detailed test operation procedures sufficient for 

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

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

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

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

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

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

approval upon request. 

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

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

Standards (VVSG) and consistent with any written EAC interpretations of these standards. 

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

a basis for NIST NVLAP’s accreditation and recommendation to the EAC. Where established and 

approved test methods do not exist, ISO Standard 17025, Section 5.4.4., Non-Standard Method requires the 

testing to be validated by the laboratory prior to use. The EAC will review and approve the validated test 

methods. 

22 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 40 of 214 PageID #: 937 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

VSTLs shall test system identification tools during the test campaign to make sure they 

function properly and as intended. The Laboratory shall maintain its technical practices 

consistent with the standards which served as the basis for its NVLAP accreditation. 

These standards include International Standard ISO/IEC 17025, General Requirements for the 

Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories; NIST Handbook 150, Procedures and 

General Requirement; NIST Handbook 150-22, Voting System Testing; any documents 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

directly by lead VSTL personnel using third party contractor equipment and 

facilities is not considered third party testing. 

2.14.1.1. Core Testing. Core voting system testing may 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). 

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

they hold an EAC recognized accreditation to perform the relevant 

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

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.4 In limited circumstances, laboratories not 

holding a recognized accreditation may be used by VSTLs for non-core 

testing only after approval by EAC’s Program Director. Requests for 

such approval must be made in writing and demonstrate: (1) That there 

is no recognized laboratory available within a reasonable window of 

availability and geographic proximity (generally within the continental 

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

testing includes all testing involving evaluation of cryptographic operation and key management. 

23 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 41 of 214 PageID #: 938 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

United States) and (2) that the VSTL has conducted a thorough 

assessment of the third party laboratory’s capabilities, quality system, 

management system, and/or alternative accreditations and have 

determined and documented that the laboratory is qualified to perform 

testing. The EAC may visit, interview or audit any non-accredited 

laboratory at any time before, during, or after the testing has occurred 

to verify their qualifications. 

2.14.1.3. VSTL Responsibilities. Lead VSTLs are responsible for all tests performed 

on voting systems submitted to them by Manufacturers under EAC’s 

Testing and Certification Program. This includes testing (both core and 

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

(including third party VSTL laboratories). Any procedural or 

substantive irregularities or errors which occur during the third party 

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

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

VSTLs using third party laboratories (consistent with Sections 2.10.4.1 

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

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

minimum, the lead VSTLs shall ensure: 

2.14.1.3.1. The third party laboratory provides the lead VSTL verifiable 

documentation regarding its relevant accreditation; 

2.14.1.3.2. Any hardware tested by the qualified third party laboratory 

is first validated by the lead VSTL as the same hardware 

presented to it for certification; 

2.14.1.3.3. The third party laboratory provides the lead VSTL with 

evidence that it will direct its activities in compliance with 

any and all relevant VVSG requirements for testing and that 

the testing was, in fact, performed consistent with such 

specific requirements. Any special procedures, tools, or 

testing software necessary to meet VVSG requirements must 

be validated by the lead VSTL prior to use. For example, the 

VVSG requires that systems be tested while operating and that 

such operation be in manner and under conditions that simulate 

election use. In such cases, the lead VSTL must ensure that the 

third party laboratory will properly implement the VVSG 

requirements, validate its election simulation tools, and properly 

performed the testing; 

24 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 42 of 214 PageID #: 939 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

functionality and integration testing; and 

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

that fully documents its testing such that the lead VSTL may 

demonstrate compliance with this section and produce a 

report consistent with Section 2.10.5 of this Manual. 

2.15. Test Report Package. The Test Report Package represents the culmination of the testing 

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

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

directly to the EAC. The packages shall include: 

2.15.1. Virtual Review Tool (VRT). VSTLs shall update the VRT information originally 

submitted with its test plan (see Section 2.13 above). The final updates to the 

VRT will serve as verification that the VSTL performed the testing required to 

demonstrate compliance with voting system standards. 

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

2.15.3. Content. All test reports shall document the testing process, including the 

documentation and justification of any divergence from the EAC approved test 

plan, methods, or cases and the identification of all failures and/or anomalies 

along with any remedial action taken5 (see Chapter 4 of the EAC’s Voting System 

Testing and Certification Manual regarding the anomaly matrix). VSTLs shall not 

include any proprietary test cases in the Test Report. Test cases shall be uploaded 

to the VRT as requested by the EAC. Test reports shall also document any 

prescribed maintenance or modifications, performed by the Manufacturer, to a 

voting system in testing. Such maintenance or modifications shall be monitored 

by the VSTL consistent with Section 2.11.1 of this Manual. 

2.15.4. Format. To the greatest extent possible, VSTLs shall write reports such that they 

are understandable to non-technical persons. As the EAC will publish these 

reports (barring portions prohibited by law), VSTLs shall refrain from including 

in them trade secrets or other commercial information protected from release 

unless substantively required. Where information protected from release may be 

included, it shall be identified consistent with Chapter 7 of this Manual. VSTLs 

shall format each test report consistent with the requirements of Appendix B of 

this Manual. 

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

identified during the testing of unrelated functionality. 

25 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 43 of 214 PageID #: 940 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2.15.5. VSTL Attestation. The VSTL shall provide a letter, signed by a representative 

authorized to take action on behalf of the VSTL (see Sections 2.13 and 3.4.1.6. of 

this Manual), which attests that (1) all testing prescribed by the test plan or 

amended test plan was performed as identified or the divergence from the test 

plan was properly documented, (2) all identified voting system anomalies or 

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

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

2.16. Acceptance of Prior Testing. Testing previously performed on a voting system by a VSTL 

or by a third party test laboratory operating at the direction of a VSTL, may be reused at 

the discretion of the lead VSTL and the EAC. The EAC encourages VSTLs to use such 

testing to fulfill certification requirements. The VSTL must attain written approval from 

the EAC for all reuse requests. In order for the EAC to accept prior testing, lead VSTLs 

must provide evidence that the requirements below are met. Prior testing is valid when: 

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

tested is demonstrably identical to the voting system presently offered for 

testing. Lead VSTLs must examine and/or compare the components and 

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

prior testing is used, the system presented 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; 

2.16.2. The requirements, standards and relevant EAC Request for Interpretations 

applicable to the prior and current testing are identical; 

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

accepted by the EAC; 

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

omissions and fully complies with the VVSG and this manual; 

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

EAC accepted a final test report for that campaign; and 

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

numbers, and descriptions, along with EAC approval. 

2.16.7. The use of prior testing must be noted in the body of the test report. Like all 

testing, prior testing is subject to EAC review and approval. 

26 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 44 of 214 PageID #: 941 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2.17. Termination of Testing Prior to Completion. In the event testing is terminated prior to 

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

shall be in writing and state the reasons for termination provide a list of all testing 

completed, and produce a matrix of test anomalies or failures pursuant to Section 4.5.2 of 

the EAC Testing and Certification Program Manual. 

2.17.1. Termination Defined. Voting system testing shall be considered terminated 

when the testing process is permanently ended or otherwise halted without a 

specific plan to recommence within 90 calendar days of the last test performed. 

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

the Manufacturer’s Certification Application. Additionally, the termination and 

VSTL’s written notice shall be posted on EAC’s Web site. 

2.17.3. Resubmission after Termination. Manufacturers may resubmit a system 

previously terminated by submitting an updated application consistent with 

Chapter 4 of the Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual. Pursuant 

to Section 2.11 of this Manual and Section 4.3.1.2 of the Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program Manual, a system resubmitted to the EAC after termination 

must be tested by the VSTL identified on the original application. 

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

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

Repository (See Section 5.5 of the Testing and Certification Program Manual.) The verification 

process shall include: 

2.18.1. Catalog all files contained in the escrow package and confirm the ability to read 

the media. 

2.18.2. Test the functionality of the compile to be deposited. 

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

their independence from voting system Manufacturers, consistent with their roles and 

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

maintain an arm’s length relationship with the manufactures and avoid even the 

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

to the following independence principles and requirements: 

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

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

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

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

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

27 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 45 of 214 PageID #: 942 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

the Manufacturer. 6 Additionally, lead VSTL’s shall ensure that Manufactures’ do 

not have access to a system under test unless accompanied and monitored by a 

VSTL representative. 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. 

However, any 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. Therefore, the EAC finds the following three 

situations to be allowable under this Section: 

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

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

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

must: 

2.19.1.1.1. Document the time and circumstance that cause a halt in 

testing. 

2.19.1.1.2. Document the reason why the manufacturer’s presence is 

needed. 

2.19.1.1.3. Document the result of the test prior to re-creating the test 

for the manufacturer. 

2.19.1.1.4. 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 recreation and the result of the official test. 

2.19.1.1.5. Have the test supervisor in charge of the project present for 

the re-creation of the test. If the test engineer 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. The test supervisor 

present should be the most senior engineer or personnel 

assigned to the testing engagement. Documentation of the 

re-creation of the test should include lab personnel present 

at the time of the re-creation. 

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

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

28 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 46 of 214 PageID #: 943 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2.19.1.1.6. All documentation must be retained according to NVLAP 

and EAC requirements. 

2.19.1.2. The VSTL may, at its own discretion, create for the manufacturer either 

a closed circuit video feed or web cam feed of the official EAC 

Certification Testing being conducted and allow for real time 

correspondence between test engineers and the manufacturers 

provided that: 

2.19.1.2.1. All correspondence (i.e., letters, emails, memos, recorded 

video calls, etc.) between the test engineers and the 

manufacturer is documented and retained. 

2.19.1.2.2. Any changes to the testing that results from correspondence 

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. 

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

manufacturer prior to and during the official EAC Certification Testing 

to perform unscheduled and non-routine maintenance provided that: 

2.19.1.3.1. All documentation related to the maintenance activities is 

recorded within the "as run" test case. 

2.19.1.3.2. Any unscheduled maintenance that is performed is 

documented in the discrepancy report included as part of 

the test report materials. 

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

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

systems tested meet Federal voting system standards. A VSTL’s primary 

purpose shall be to serve the public interest through adherence to the EAC 

Testing and Certification Program. 

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

prohibits Manufacturers from changing laboratories during the testing process. 

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

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

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

Certification Program Manual. This strict policy supports VSTLs in their 

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

Certification Program Director any time a Manufacturer withdraws a product 

29 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 47 of 214 PageID #: 944 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

Manual). 

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

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

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

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

2.19.5. Communications. To ensure and document the independent relationship 

between test laboratories and Manufacturers, all substantive discussions 

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

documented in writing by the VSTL. This includes, but is not limited to: letters, 

emails, reports, meetings and telephone calls. These records shall be maintained 

consistent with Section 2.23 of this Manual. Examples of substantive discussions 

between the lead VSTL and a Manufacturer include but are not limited to: 

2.19.5.1. All contracts and amendments thereto; 

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

during testing; 

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

testing, or the test report; and 

2.19.5.4. All discussions regarding implementation or interpretation of the 

standards. 

2.19.6. Cooperation with EAC. Cooperate with any EAC inquiries and investigations 

into a certified system’s compliance with VVSG standards and any VSTL testing 

related to that system consistent with Chapter 7 of the Testing and Certification 

Program Manual. 

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

maintain laboratory independence, VSTLs shall not conduct testing7 at a 

Manufacturer owned or controlled facility. If exceptional circumstances exist 

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

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

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

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

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

certification activities such as trusted and witness builds. 

30 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 48 of 214 PageID #: 945 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

only in exceptional circumstances. 

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

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

Program Director. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certification Program Director, providing prompt response to requests for information 

regarding the Program. 

2.22. Resources and Financial Stability. As a condition of accreditation, all VSTLs shall 

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 shall maintain insurance policies sufficient to indemnify itself 

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

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

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

3.4.1.9.); and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and available to the EAC. 

31 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 49 of 214 PageID #: 946 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Accreditation Process 

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

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

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

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

review of an EAC application. 

3.2. NIST Recommendation. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 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, de-certification and re-certification of voting system 

hardware and software by accredited laboratories.” As part of this process, HAVA 

requires the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to evaluate 

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

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

Generally, a Laboratory must have a NIST recommendation before it may be considered 

for EAC accreditation. 

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

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

NVLAP process, assesses laboratory technical capabilities, procedures and 

personnel before recommending a laboratory for EAC accreditation. The 

requirements, procedures and application process for requesting consideration 

by NIST (for recommendation to the EAC) may be found at 

www.nist.gov/NVLAP or by contacting NIST at, National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program, Standards Services Division, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, 

Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899-2140. 

3.2.2. Emergency EAC Accreditation without NIST Recommendation. HAVA 

authorizes the EAC to consider and accredit laboratories without a NIST 

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

without a NIST recommendation only as an emergency action. 

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

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

laboratory testing capacity that cannot be met by existing VSTL’s, (2) the 

shortage of laboratory testing capacity may cause a disruption in the 

orderly administration of Federal elections, and (3) NIST is not capable 

of timely providing new laboratories to meet needs. Consistent with 

HAVA, the EAC will publish its basis for emergency action following 

the above standards. 

32 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 50 of 214 PageID #: 947 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

in an emergency action only after they have been properly assessed 

according to international standards and applicable NIST Guidance. 

These standards include International Standard ISO/IEC 17025, General 

Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories; 

NIST Handbook 150, Procedures and General Requirement; NIST 

Handbook 150-22, Voting System Testing; and/or any documents 

supplementing, updating or replacing these standards or handbooks. 

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

through its emergency action authority will be provisional in nature and 

limited in scope. All emergency accreditations must expire on a date 

certain. 

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

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

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

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

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

procedure noted in Section 3.4, below. 

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

While NIST’s recommendation serves as a reliable indication 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. 

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

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

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

and Certification Program Director and attach (in either hard copy or on CD/DVD) (1) all 

required information and documentation; (2) a signed letter of agreement; and (3) a signed 

certification of conditions and practices. 

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

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

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

applicant laboratory meets the program requirements identified in Chapter 2. 

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

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

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

release under Federal law. 

3.4.1.1. The legal name of the laboratory 

33 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 51 of 214 PageID #: 948 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

3.4.1.2. Mailing address of the laboratory 

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

address). 

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

system testing program manager or individual otherwise immediately 

responsible for the voting system testing program. 

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

individual, CEO, president or otherwise titled head of the laboratory. 

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

individual or individuals designated to speak for and take action on 

behalf of the laboratory pursuant to Section 2.21 of this Manual. 

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

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

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

coverage limits for any comprehensive general liability policies, errors 

and omissions policies, professional liability policies, and bailee policies. 

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

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

compensation policy coverage sufficient to meet the applicable State’s 

minimum requirements. 

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

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

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

the standards of Section 2.5 of this Manual. 

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

standards of Section 2.6 of this Manual. 

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

standards of Section 2.23 of this Manual. 

3.4.1.15. A copy of the laboratory facilities brochure. 

34 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 52 of 214 PageID #: 949 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

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

majority shareholders, and audited financial statements of the 

companies or entities that own and operate the laboratory. Laboratories 

not incorporated should provide comparable information. 

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

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

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

bind the applicant laboratory (see Section 2.21). The purpose of this letter is to 

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

requirements of the EAC Voting System Testing Laboratory Accreditation 

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

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

the following: 

The undersigned representative of ___________ (hereinafter “Laboratory”), 

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

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

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

Manual. Laboratory shall meet all program requirements as they relate to 

NVLAP accreditation; conflict of interest and prohibited practices; personnel 

policies; notification of changes; resources; site visits, notice of law suits; testing, 

technical practices and reporting; laboratory independence; authority to do 

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

recordkeeping. Laboratory further recognizes that meeting these program 

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

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

suspension of accreditation or a revocation of accreditation. 

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

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

its application. No applicant laboratory will be considered for accreditation 

unless it has properly affirmed its conditions and practices through the 

certification document. A Certification of Laboratory Conditions and Practices form 

may be found at Attachment C and is available electronically at www.eac.gov. 

By signing the certification, a laboratory affirms that it, in fact, has in place the 

policies, procedures, practices, resources and personnel stated in the document. 

Any false representations made in the certification process may result in the 

revocation of accreditation and/or criminal prosecution. 

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

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

35 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 53 of 214 PageID #: 950 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

the program requirements. Each package will be reviewed to identify any apparent 

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

Laboratories of any such nonconformities or deficiencies and provide them an 

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

Program Director will issue a recommendation to the Commissioners when forwarding 

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

accreditation only upon a vote of the Commissioners. 

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

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

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

an application package the Testing and Certification Program Director shall 

review the package to ensure: 

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

Commission for a vote on accreditation unless is contains all required 

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

3.4.2), and a signed Certification of Laboratory Conditions and Practices 

(Section 3.4.3). 

3.5.1.2. Evidence of compliance with program requirements. The Program Director 

shall also review the submissions to ensure that the information 

provided properly reflects and documents compliance with program 

requirements. 

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

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

Program Director shall notify the Applicant Laboratory of the deficiencies prior 

to forwarding a recommendation to the Commissioners. The written notice of 

nonconformity shall: 

3.5.2.1. Identify any missing documentation or information; 

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

3.5.2.3. Provide Applicant Laboratory a reasonable time period to submit 

additional information or amend their application package in response 

to identified non-conformities. 

3.5.3. Applicant Laboratory Action on Notice of Nonconformity. Applicant 

Laboratories shall respond to a notice of nonconformity within the timeframe 

identified by the Program Director. Responses shall include any missing 

36 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 54 of 214 PageID #: 951 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

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

3.5.3.1. Request for Additional Time. Applicant Laboratories may request 

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

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

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

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

Applicant Laboratory fails to provide required information or 

documentation within the timeframe provided in the notice of 

noncompliance, the Program Director shall reject the application as 

incomplete, returning the package to the applicant for resubmission 

consistent with the requirements of this Chapter. 

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

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

has provide all required documentation) fails to provide additional, 

clarifying information or documentation in response to an identified 

issue of program noncompliance, the Program Director shall forward 

the original application to the Chair of the Commission for action. 

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

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

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

recommendation as to disposition. This application package shall include all 

documents and correspondence between the applicant laboratory and the EAC 

Program Director. 

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

recommendation from the Testing and Certification Program Director, the Chair 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

issue a Certificate of Accreditation and post information regarding the laboratory on the 

EAC Web site. 

37 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 55 of 214 PageID #: 952 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

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

signed by the Chair of the Commission and state: 

3.6.1.1. The name of the VSTL; 

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

to which the VSTL is competent to test; 

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

two (2) years; and 

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

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

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

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

3.6.2.1. NIST’s Recommendation Letter; 

3.6.2.2. The VSTL’s Letter of Agreement; 

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

3.6.2.4. The Commissioner’s Decision on Accreditation; and 

3.6.2.5. The Certificate of Accreditation. 

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

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

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

Program. 

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

of accreditation as stated on its Certificate of Accreditation. 

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

beyond its scope of accreditation. 

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

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

38 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 56 of 214 PageID #: 953 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

renewal application package shall retain their accreditation while the review and 

processing of their application is pending. VSTLs in good standing shall also retain their 

accreditation should circumstances leave the EAC without a quorum to conduct the vote 

required under Section 3.5.5. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

for the decision; 

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

3.9.1.3. A copy of the Commissioners’ Decision. 

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

site: 

3.9.2.1. A copy of the Commissioners’ Decision, and 

3.9.2.2. The Notice of Denial. 

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

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

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

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

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

39 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 57 of 214 PageID #: 954 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

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

considered. 

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

Commissioners’ Decision and clearly state the specific conclusions of the 

Decision the Applicant Laboratory wishes to appeal. 

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

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

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

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

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

appeal per Section 3.12 of this Manual. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

application package, Commissioners’ Decision, and Program Director’s recommendation. 

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

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

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

Decision on Appeal. 

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

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

3.14.1. Contents. The Decision on Appeal shall: 

3.14.1.1. State the final determination of the Commission. 

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

40 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 58 of 214 PageID #: 955 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

3.14.1.3. Provide the reasoning behind the decision. 

3.14.1.4. State that the Decision on Appeal is final. 

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

appeal. 

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

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

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

accreditation. 

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

previous Decision of the Commission shall be upheld such that the 

procedural requirements of Chapter 3 or the Program requirements of 

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

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

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

Laboratory. No additional request for appeal shall be granted. 

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

applicant laboratory has failed to document or otherwise demonstrate that it has the 

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

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

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

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

package consistent with Section 3.4 of this Chapter. 

41 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 59 of 214 PageID #: 956 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Compliance Management Program 

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

Laboratory Accreditation Program and testing; increase coordination, communication and 

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

elections by facilitating VSTL accountability. The program accomplishes this by 

increasing personal interaction between EAC staff and VSTL personnel, collecting 

information and performing reviews to ensure continued compliance with program 

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

noncompliance. 

4.2. Compliance Management Program, Generally. The Compliance Management Program 

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

There are three main sources of information: (1) VSTL Notifications of Changes, (2) EAC 

Requests for Documents or Information and (3) EAC On Site Reviews. The information 

collected is reviewed by the EAC to ensure that VSTLs are meeting all program 

requirements. Any areas of noncompliance or recommendations for improvement are 

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

promptly remedy any noncompliance or face revocation of accreditation. 

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

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

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

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

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

and procedures of Chapter 5. 

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

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

continuing compliance with the Accreditation Program requirements noted in Chapter 2 

(See Section 2.2). 

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

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

The request may be for documents, information or both: 

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

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

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

any existing documentation responsive to the request. 

42 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 60 of 214 PageID #: 957 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

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

VSTLs are expected to provide complete answers to each question. 

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

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

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

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

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

by having knowledgeable staff conduct a thorough search of VSTL 

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

request. If any document responsive to a request is considered 

privileged or otherwise protected from release under Federal law, it 

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

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

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

by having knowledgeable staff answer each question posed. VSTLs 

shall ensure that each question is answered completely and accurately. 

The VSTL may submit documents in support of its responses. 

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

information may result in a suspension or revocation of accreditation consistent 

with the requirements and procedures of Chapter 5. 

4.5. Proficiency Testing. VSTLs will comply with any guidelines and tests developed and 

administered by the EAC. This will include, but is not limited to, a written test focusing 

on scenario based and knowledge based questions. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

policies, procedures and practices meet the requirements of the Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (Chapter 2). 

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

Observation and Technical Assessment Review requires an expert EAC 

laboratory assessor to enter a VSTL facility and assess the laboratory’s technical 

43 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 61 of 214 PageID #: 958 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

procedures, policies, management and personnel to verify compliance with 

applicable laboratory standards. Additionally, the EAC assessor may observe 

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

practices match technical policies.8 

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

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

years. Whenever possible, the EAC will conduct the required audits or follow up on site 

visits at the same time as NVLAP audits or follow up visits. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

prior to the termination of the onsite review. 

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

management. As reviews require the availability of laboratory documents and 

key personnel, a notice of onsite review shall be in writing and be provided to 

the VSTL at least 15 calendar days before the onsite review date. The notice shall 

provide the VSTL with the following information: 

4.8.1.1. Duration of Review. The notice shall provide an estimated timeframe 

during which EAC reviewers will be on site. 

4.8.1.2. Type of Review. The notice shall identify the type of review to be 

performed (see Section 4.6). 

4.8.1.3. Scope of Review. The notice shall provide information regarding the 

scope of review. This information shall be sufficient to allow the VSTL 

to identify the documents, personnel and testing it must make available 

to EAC reviewers. The notice shall specifically identify: 

4.8.1.3.1. The type of documents and/or program areas to be 

reviewed. 

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

to ensure technical compliance. The primary means by which EAC ensures technical compliance is 

through NIST’s NVLAP program. The NVLAP program monitors laboratories by requiring regular 

assessments. Laboratories are reviewed one year after their initial accreditation and biennially thereafter. 

44 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 62 of 214 PageID #: 959 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

4.8.1.3.2. The testing that is to be observed. 

4.8.1.4. VSTL’s Responsibilities. The notice shall briefly inform the VSTL of its 

responsibility to coordinate and cooperate with the EAC throughout the 

onsite review process. 

4.8.2. VSTL Response to Notice. Upon receipt of a notice of onsite review, the VSTL 

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

event the noticed date or timeframe makes access to the required personnel, 

documents or testing untenable, the VSTL shall contact the Program Director in 

writing and identify, (1) The conflict or other problem which makes the proposed 

date and timeframe untenable, and (2) a proposed alternative date for the onsite 

review. The acceptance of an alternative on site review date is at the sole 

discretion of the Program Director. 

4.8.3. Review. An onsite review begins upon the arrival of EAC personnel at the 

VSTL’s facility. EAC reviewers will ordinarily conduct reviews during the 

VSTL’s normal working hours. The reviewers will make every effort to work as 

efficiently as possible and avoid impacting the laboratory’s routine operations. 

The VSTL and its employees are required to cooperate with EAC reviewers. This 

cooperation includes providing a private, physical location for EAC personnel to 

review documents and speak with VSTL employees. Generally, the VSTL shall 

be responsible for ensuring: 

4.8.3.1. Document Access and Availability. That the reviewers have access to all 

requested VSTL documents. All documents specifically identified in the 

notice of onsite review shall be presented to reviewers upon arrival. 

4.8.3.2. Personnel Access and Availability. That the reviewers have reasonable 

access to requested personnel. The VSTL shall ensure that key 

personnel for each substantive area identified in the notice of onsite 

review be available to EAC reviewers during the noticed review period. 

4.8.3.3. Facilities and Testing Access and Availability. That the reviewers have 

access to VSTL facilities involved in the testing of voting systems, 

including the facilities of third party contractor laboratories. 

Additionally, VSTLs must coordinate access to view testing consistent 

with the notice of onsite review. 

4.8.4. Exit Briefing. EAC reviewers shall provide the VSTL personnel an exit briefing. 

Exit briefings shall be informal. The briefing shall identify any documents, 

information or personnel which the VSTL remains responsible for making 

available to the reviewers; inform the VSTL of the next steps in the review 

45 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 63 of 214 PageID #: 960 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

process; and provide the VSTL an opportunity to ask questions about the 

process. 

4.9. EAC Compliance Management Reports. The EAC shall issue a written Compliance 

Management Report after performing any on site review. A Compliance Management 

Report shall also be issued after a Request for Documents/Information or VSTL 

Notification of Change when either indicates a noncompliance with program 

requirements. All reports shall be posted on the EAC Web site and (1) provide a brief 

summary of the review process, request for information or VSTL Notification of Change 

(2) state any findings resulting from the review, and (3) identify any corrective action 

required. 

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

regarding its program so that: 

4.9.1.1. Items of noncompliance may be identified and rectified, 

4.9.1.2. Exceptional practices may be identified and encouraged, and 

4.9.1.3. EAC recommendations (beyond the program requirements) may be put 

forth in an effort to improve the VSTL’s program. 

4.9.2. Summary of Process. The report shall provide a brief summary of the review 

process, request for information or VSTL Notification of Change. The purpose of 

this summary is to provide background information regarding how the 

information supporting EAC findings was collected. This includes identifying 

sources of information, methodology and standards. For the purposes of onsite 

reviews, the summary shall state: 

4.9.2.1. The dates of the review, 

4.9.2.2. The type of review performed, 

4.9.2.3. The program areas reviewed, including any specific documents and 

personnel discussions which were integral to the report findings, and 

4.9.2.4. The processes used by the reviewers to determine compliance. 

4.9.3. Findings. The report shall outline any findings of the review, request for 

information or VSTL Notification of Change. A finding is any factual 

determination that the VSTL is not in compliance with the program requirements 

identified in Chapter 2 of this Manual or an EAC recommendation for program 

improvement which does not rise to the level of noncompliance. While reports 

46 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 64 of 214 PageID #: 961 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

may also contain recognition of exceptional practices, such statements are not 

considered findings. Reports shall identify three types of findings: 

4.9.3.1. Critical. A critical finding is a determination that the VSTL has not met 

a requirement of the program that is fundamentally critical to the 

VSTL’s technical capability to test voting systems. A critical 

noncompliance is a violation of program requirements that by its very 

nature comprises the integrity of the EAC Testing and Certification 

Program. 

4.9.3.2. Required. A required finding is a determination that the VSTL has failed 

to meet a requirement of the program that is not considered technically 

critical pursuant to Section 4.8.3.1., above. 

4.9.3.3. Recommended. A recommended finding is a determination that VSTL 

practices could be improved, but that the identified improvement is not 

required by the program. In some cases, recommended practices may 

be practices the EAC plans to make program requirements. 

4.9.4. Corrective Action. The report shall specify the action to be taken by the EAC 

and/or VSTL based upon the review findings. 

4.10. Corrective Action. Based upon the Compliance Management Report, corrective action 

may be required. EAC action and VSTL responsibilities will vary depending upon the 

nature of the report’s findings. 

4.10.1. Critical. Critical Findings require the EAC to initiate the immediate suspension 

of the VSTL consistent with the requirements and procedures of Chapter 5, 

Revocation of Accreditation. The VSTL’s rights to remedy its noncompliance or be 

heard are laid out in Chapter 5. 

4.10.2. Required. Required Findings obligate the VSTL to resolve the identified noncompliance within 20 days. Failure to do so within the 20 day timeframe will 

result in suspension or revocation of accreditation consistent with the procedures 

laid out in Chapter 5, Revocation of Accreditation. The VSTL may resolve a 

Required Finding by: 

4.10.2.1. Challenging the Finding. The VSTL may challenge a finding if it believes 

its procedures and practices were in compliance with program 

requirements at the time of the review. A VSTL shall challenge a 

Required Finding by providing factual information which documents its 

claim of compliance. Challenges must be filed within 5 days of receipt 

of the EAC Report. The challenge must be in writing, state the basis for 

47 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 65 of 214 PageID #: 962 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

the challenge, address the facts and conclusions in the EAC report, and 

provide information which unambiguously documents that the VSTL 

was in compliance at the time of the review, request for information or 

VSTL Notification of Change. The EAC Program Director will accept or 

reject a VSTL’s challenge in writing. If a challenge is accepted, no 

corrective action will be required. If the challenge is rejected, the VSTL 

will have 20 days from receipt of the notice of rejection to perform 

remedial action. 

4.10.2.2. Conducting Remedial Action. VSTLs may take corrective action by 

submitting a remedial plan within 20 days of receipt of the report. The 

remedial plan shall (for each finding of noncompliance) identify the 

noncompliance, outline the steps to be taken to achieve compliance, 

state the timeframe for each step and identify the means and final date 

by which the VSTL will document compliance. A remedial plan is 

subject to approval from the Program Director. A VSTL’s failure to 

obtain approval of a remedial plan or unauthorized deviation from an 

approved plan’s requirements or deadlines will result in suspension or 

revocation of accreditation consistent with the procedures laid out in 

Chapter 5, Revocation of Accreditation. 

4.10.3. Recommended. Recommended findings do not require VSTL action. The 

proposed remedial actions for recommended findings are not program 

requirements, but EAC suggested practices. 

48 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 66 of 214 PageID #: 963 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Revocation of Accreditation 

5.1. Overview. This chapter puts forth the process for revoking the accreditation of an EAC 

VSTL. The process for revocation begins with factual findings made pursuant to the 

Compliance Management Program (Chapter 4). Prior to any revocation of accreditation, 

VSTLs which fail to comply with program requirements are provided notice of (1) EAC’s 

intent to suspend, (2) suspension and (3) an opportunity to be heard or cure 

noncompliance. A laboratory that has its accreditation revoked has the right to appeal. 

5.2. Revocation Policy. EAC Accreditation is subject to revocation. The EAC shall revoke an 

accreditation upon a factual finding that a VSTL has failed to meet a requirement of the 

Accreditation Program and is unable or unwilling to timely and properly remedy the noncompliance. 

5.3. Revocation—Generally. The EAC monitors its VSTLs through its Compliance 

Management Program (Chapter 4). This program monitors compliance through (1) the 

VSTL’s continuing obligation to provide EAC Notifications of Changes, (2) EAC’s 

authority to issue Requests for Documents or Information and (3) the performance of On 

Site Reviews. Determinations that a VSTL is not complying with program requirements 

shall be made in Compliance Management Reports (findings of non-compliance). The 

process outlined in this chapter to suspend and revoke a VSTL’s accreditation shall be 

initiated (1) immediately for Critical Findings of noncompliance and (2) after an 

opportunity to remedy the noncompliance for Required Findings (consistent with the 

process mandated by Section 4.9). Revocation of Accreditation is a three step process: 

5.3.1. Notice of Intent to Suspend; 

5.3.2. Suspension of Accreditation; and 

5.3.3. Commissioners’ Decision on Revocation of Accreditation. 

5.4. Notice of Intent to Suspend. The revocation process shall be initiated by issuing a Notice 

of Intent to Suspend to a non-compliant VSTL. Such notices shall be issued by the 

Program Director. VSTLs shall have three days to submit a response to the notice. The 

EAC will issue a decision on suspension after consideration of the VSTL’s submission. 

5.4.1. Written Notice. The Notice of Intent to Suspend shall be in writing and: 

5.4.1.1. Inform the VSTL of the EAC’s intent to suspend the laboratory; 

5.4.1.2. Identify the program requirement or requirements with which the VSTL 

has failed to comply; 

49 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 67 of 214 PageID #: 964 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

5.4.1.3. State the factual finding or findings that serve as the basis of the action; 

5.4.1.4. Provide a copy of the relevant Compliance Management Report; and 

5.4.1.5. Inform the VSTL of its right to file a response to the notice. 

5.4.2. VSTL Response. The VSTL may respond to the notice of intent to suspend. 

Responses must be received by the EAC Program Director within three days of 

the VSTLs receipt of the Notice of Intent to Suspend to be eligible for 

consideration. The VSTL response: 

5.4.2.1. Must be in writing; 

5.4.2.2. Must be timely submitted to be considered; 

5.4.2.3. Must challenge the factual finding or findings that serve as the basis of 

the suspension; 

5.4.2.4. May include relevant documentation in support of its challenge. 

5.4.3. EAC Consideration of Response. The EAC shall consider the timely submission 

of a VSTL before issuing a Decision of Suspension. The EAC may consult 

experts, perform research and request additional information from the VSTL 

during the consideration process. 

5.4.4. EAC Decision on Suspension. The EAC shall issue a Decision on Suspension. 

The decision shall be made in writing by the Program Director. A decision shall 

state (1) the decision of the Program Director, (2) the basis for and reasoning 

behind the decision and (3) the VSTL’s obligations and rights during suspension 

(if applicable). A Decision on Suspension shall be provided to the VSTL, issued 

to all registered Manufacturers and posted on EAC’s Web site. The Program 

Director may make one of two determinations in a Decision on Suspension: 

5.4.4.1. Program Compliance. Based upon the EAC’s consideration of a VSTL’s 

response to the notice of intent to suspend, the Program Director may 

overturn the factual findings that served as the basis of the notice. In 

such cases, the Program Director shall determine that the VSTL is in 

compliance with all program requirements. A decision that the VSTL is 

in compliance shall end the revocation process. 

5.4.4.2. Suspension. The Program Director shall suspend the VSTL consistent 

with the notice of intent to suspend when the preponderance of the 

50 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 68 of 214 PageID #: 965 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

evidence indicates noncompliance with program requirements. 

Suspension is effective as of the VSTL’s receipt of the decision. 

5.5. Suspension of Accreditation. Suspension is the second step in the revocation process. 

The purpose of Suspension is (1) to provide the suspended VSTL an opportunity to timely 

cure the noncompliance which served as the basis of Suspension or (2) grant the 

suspended VSTL an opportunity to be heard prior to revocation of accreditation. A 

suspended VSTL shall have 20 days to either cure its noncompliance or request an 

opportunity to be heard. If no action is taken by the suspended VSTL within the 20 days, 

the EAC Commissioners shall make a decision on revocation. 

5.5.1. Effect of Suspension. A suspended VSTL shall immediately cease all testing of 

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

by a suspended VSTL during its suspension will not be accepted by the EAC 

under its Voting System Certification Program. Any period of suspension must 

be clearly documented in a VSTL’s test report (see Chapter 4 of the EAC Voting 

System Testing and Certification Manual). Testing under the EAC Certification 

Program shall not resume unless the suspension is lifted or the VSTL is otherwise 

authorized by the EAC (in writing) to recommence testing. 

5.5.2. Opportunity to Cure. A suspended VSTL may request the opportunity to cure 

its noncompliance within 20 days of its receipt of the Program Director’s 

Decision on Suspension. The request must include a detailed remedial plan. If 

this plan is accepted, properly executed and verified, the VSTL’s suspension will 

be lifted and it may resume testing. 

5.5.2.1. Remedial Plan. A request to cure noncompliance must include a plan by 

which the VSTL outlines how it will timely bring its laboratory into full 

compliance with the program. The remedial plan shall: 

5.5.2.1.1. Identify each noncompliance which served as the basis of its 

suspension; 

5.5.2.1.2. For each identified noncompliance, outline the steps to be 

taken to achieve compliance. This includes identifying the 

resources and personnel needed for each step; 

5.5.2.1.3. Provide a timeframe for the completion of each identified 

step and state the final date by which the VSTL will 

complete the compliance plan; 

5.5.2.1.4. Provide a schedule of periodic progress reports to the 

Program Director; and 

51 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 69 of 214 PageID #: 966 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

5.5.2.2. 

5.5.2.3. 

5.5.2.4. 

5.5.2.1.5. Require the VSTL to provide the EAC a written certification 

attesting to its completion of the remedial plan and full 

compliance with program requirements at close of the 

process. 

EAC Action on Plan. A remedial plan is subject to approval by the 

Program Director. The Program Director will work with the suspended 

VSTL to develop and approve a Remedial Plan that appropriately 

brings the laboratory into compliance within an acceptable timeframe. 

Remedial Plans shall be approved in writing. Ultimately, a VSTL’s 

failure to cooperate or otherwise obtain approval of a remedial plan will 

result in the termination of the cure process. A determination to 

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

Director. Upon receipt of a notice that the cure process has been 

terminated, a suspended VSTL shall have 10 days to request an 

opportunity to be heard on revocation of accreditation (see Section 

5.5.3., below). 

VSTL Implementation of Plan. After the remedial plan has been approved 

by the Program Director, the VSTL shall begin implementation. The 

VSTL shall not deviate from an approved plan’s procedures, 

requirements or deadlines without the written consent of the Program 

Director. Failure to follow the remedial plan will result in the 

termination of the cure process. A determination to terminate the cure 

process will be made in writing by the Program Director. Upon receipt 

of a notice that the cure process has been terminated, a suspended VSTL 

shall have 10 days to request an opportunity to be heard on revocation 

of accreditation (see Section 5.5.3., below). 

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

remedial plan and receipt of the VSTL’s Certification (see Section 

5.5.2.1.5.), the Program Director shall verify compliance. At the 

discretion of the Program Director, he or she may verify compliance 

through the acceptance of the VSTL’s Certification or through the 

various components of the Compliance Management Program (Chapter 

4). If the Program Director determines that the remedial plan was not 

completed, he or she may terminate the cure process. A determination 

to terminate the cure process will be made in writing. Upon receipt of a 

notice that the cure process has been terminated, a suspended VSTL 

shall have 10 days to request an opportunity to be heard on revocation 

of accreditation (see Section 5.5.3., below). 

52 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 70 of 214 PageID #: 967 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

5.5.2.5. Notice of Compliance. The Program Director shall document his or her 

verification that the remedial plan was complete by providing a written 

notice of compliance to the VSTL. This notice shall state that the VSTL 

is in compliance with program requirements and that the suspension is 

lifted. The notice shall be posted on the EAC’s Web site and provided to 

all registered Manufacturers. 

5.5.3. Opportunity to be Heard on Revocation of Accreditation. A VSTL has the right 

to timely challenge the revocation of its accreditation prior to an EAC Decision 

on Revocation. Unless otherwise noted above, a VSTL has 20 days from the date 

it received its Decision on Suspension to submit a challenge. Late submissions 

will not be considered. All challenges of revocation will be heard by the EAC 

Commissioners. A challenge of revocation shall be submitted to the Program 

Director, and addressed to the Chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 

Each challenge of revocation shall be in writing and: 

5.5.3.1. Shall identify each noncompliance which served as the basis of its 

suspension; 

5.5.3.2. Shall identify, document and provide verification of any remedial action 

completed; 

5.5.3.3. Shall provide, for each identified noncompliance, a written argument 

challenging the finding of noncompliance; and 

5.5.3.4. May provide any documentation and information in support of the 

written statement. 

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

may have its accreditation revoked only by a vote of the EAC Commissioners. Upon a 

timely receipt of a challenge of revocation, the program Director shall provide each 

Commissioner all relevant documentation including: (1) the VSTL’s submission 

challenging revocation, (2) copies of any terminated cure plans (3) the Notice of Intent to 

Suspend, (4) the Compliance Management Report; (5) any documents pertaining to 

challenges or remedial plans provided by the VSTL in response to a relevant Compliance 

Management report; and (5) a Program Director recommendation as to disposition. 

5.6.1. Consideration. Each Commissioner shall review and consider all relevant 

materials he or she has been provided. A Commissioner may request the 

Program Director to provide additional relevant materials or information held by 

the EAC or VSTL. Such requests and any responsive materials shall be provided 

to each Commissioner. The Chair of the Commission shall ensure that each 

53 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 71 of 214 PageID #: 968 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Commissioner has sufficient time to consider the relevant material before a vote 

is called. 

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

the Commission shall bring the Decision of Revocation of Accreditation to a vote, 

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

shall take the form of a written Commissioners’ Decision on Revocation, which: 

5.6.2.1. Makes a clear determination as to revocation on accreditation. The 

Commissioners shall ultimately make one of two decisions: 

5.6.2.1.1. Program Compliance. If the VSTL demonstrates that it 

meets all program requirements, successfully challenging 

all previous findings of noncompliance, the 

Commissioners shall find the VSTL compliant, reject the 

revocation of accreditation and lift the VSTL’s suspension. 

5.6.2.1.2. Revocation of Accreditation. If the VSTL does not 

demonstrate that it meets all program requirements and at 

least one previous finding of noncompliance stands, the 

Commissioners shall find the VSTL noncompliant and 

revoke its accreditation. 

5.6.2.2. Provides a finding with regard to each identified noncompliance which served 

as the basis of suspension; and 

5.6.2.3. Identifies the documents and information that served as the basis for the 

Decision. 

5.6.3. Decision—Notice. After a vote of the Commissioners adopting a Decision on 

Revocation, the Program Director shall forward the decision to the VSTL. At that 

time the Program Director shall provide the VSTL notice of decision which 

includes a summary of the laboratory’s appeal rights consistent with Section 5.8., 

below. 

5.6.4. Decision—Publication. After a vote of the Commissioners adopting a Decision 

on Revocation, the Program Director shall cause the decision to be posted on the 

EAC’s Web site, issue a copy to each registered voting system Manufacturer and 

provide the decision to the Director of NIST. 

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

vote of the Commissioners. Laboratories that have had their accreditation revoked may 

no longer test voting systems or submit test reports under the EAC certification program. 

54 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 72 of 214 PageID #: 969 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

The laboratories may not represent themselves as accredited by EAC. A laboratory which 

has had its accreditation revoked may reapply for an EAC accreditation consistent with 

the requirements of Chapter 2, only after the EAC receives a new recommendation for 

their participation from NIST. Where a revocation of accreditation results in the 

termination of testing prior to completion, the laboratory which has had its accreditation 

revoked must provide information to the EAC consistent with 2.10.7. of this manual. 

Manufacturers may request the EAC grant permission to replace their lead VSTL pursuant 

to section 4.3.1.2. of the Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual. 

5.8. Requesting Appeal. A laboratory that has had its accreditation revoked by a vote of the 

Commissioners shall have the right to appeal. A Laboratory may appeal a Decision to 

Revoke an Accreditation by first issuing a written request for appeal. 

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

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

5.8.2. Timing of Appeal. The laboratory may request an appeal within 7 calendar days 

of receipt of the Notice of Decision. Late requests will not be considered. 

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

Commissioners’ Decision on Revocation and clearly state the specific conclusions 

of the Decision the laboratory wishes to appeal. 

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

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

for appeal, the Program Director shall notify the requestor laboratory, in writing, as to 

whether their appeal has been accepted as timely. The notice for accepted requests shall 

inform the applicant laboratory of the requirements for submitting their appeal per 

Section 5.10. of this Manual. 

5.10. Submission of Appeal. After submission of a timely request for appeal, the Laboratory 

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

Commissioners’ Decision the laboratory wishes to challenge, (2) provide the basis for its 

position on appeal and (3) submit a written argument in support of its appeal. In 

addition, the applicant laboratory may submit documentary or other relevant, physical 

evidence in support of the appeal. The Appeal and all supporting materials must be 

received by the EAC within 20 days of the applicant laboratory’s receipt of the Program 

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

5.11. Consideration of Appeal. All timely appeals will be considered by the Commissioners. 

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

Commissioner the laboratory’s appellate submission, along with the original information 

considered during the Commissioners Decision on Revocation (see Section 5.6.). After a 

55 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 73 of 214 PageID #: 970 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

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

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

Decision on Appeal. 

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

Decision on Appeal and shall provide it to the laboratory. 

5.12.1. Contents. The Decision on Appeal shall: 

5.12.1.1. State the final determination of the Commission. 

5.12.1.2. Address the matters raised by the laboratory on appeal. 

5.12.1.3. Provide the reasoning behind the decision. 

5.12.1.4. State that the Decision on Appeal is final. 

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

appeal. 

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

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

laboratory meets all program requirements, the appeal shall be 

granted. In such cases, the laboratory shall have its accreditation 

immediately reinstated. 

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

previous Decision of the Commission shall be upheld such that the 

procedural requirements of Chapter 3 or the Program requirements of 

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

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

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

Laboratory. No additional request for appeal shall be granted. 

5.12.4. Notice. After a vote of the Commissioners adopting a Decision on Appeal, the 

Program Director shall forward the decision to the VSTL. 

5.12.5. Publication. After a vote of the Commissioners adopting a Decision on Appeal, 

the Program Director shall cause the decision to be posted on the EAC Web site, 

issue a copy to each registered voting system Manufacturer and provide the 

decision to the Director of NIST. 

56 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 74 of 214 PageID #: 971 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Requests for Interpretations 

6.1. Overview. A Request for Interpretation is a means by which a registered Manufacturer or 

VSTL may seek clarification on a specific EAC voting system standard (VVSG). An 

Interpretation is a clarification of the voting system standards and guidance on how to 

properly evaluate conformance to it. Suggestions or requests for modifications to the 

standards are provided by other processes. This chapter outlines the policy, requirements, 

and procedures for submitting a Request for Interpretation. 

6.2. Policy. Registered Manufacturers or VSTLs may request that the EAC provide a definitive 

Interpretation of EAC-accepted voting system standards (VVSG) when, in the course of 

developing or testing a voting system, facts arise that make the meaning of a particular 

standard ambiguous or unclear. The EAC may self-initiate such a request when its agents 

identify a need for interpretation within the program. An Interpretation issued by the 

EAC will serve to clarify what a given standard requires and how to properly evaluate 

compliance. An Interpretation does not amend voting system standards, but serves only 

to clarify existing standards. 

6.3. Requirements for Submitting a Request for Interpretation. An EAC Interpretation is 

limited in scope. The purpose of the Interpretation process is to provide Manufacturers or 

VSTLs who are in the process of developing or testing a voting system a means for 

resolving the meaning of a voting system standard in light of specific voting system 

technology without having to present a finished product to EAC for certification. To 

submit a Request for Interpretation, one must (1) be a proper requester, (2) request 

interpretation of an applicable voting system standard, (3) present an actual controversy, 

and (4) seek clarification on a matter of unsettled ambiguity. 

6.3.1. Proper Requestor. A Request for Interpretation may be submitted only by a 

registered Manufacturer or a VSTL. Requests for Interpretation will not be 

accepted from any other parties. 

6.3.2. Applicable Standard. A Request for Interpretation is limited to queries on EAC 

voting system standards (i.e., VVSG). Moreover, a Manufacturer or VSTL may 

submit a Request for Interpretation only on a version of EAC voting system 

standards to which the EAC currently offers certification. 

6.3.3. Existing Factual Controversy. To submit a Request for Interpretation, a 

Manufacturer or VSTL must present a question relative to a specific voting 

system or technology proposed for use in a voting system. A Request for 

Interpretation on hypothetical issues will not be addressed by the EAC. To 

submit a Request for Interpretation, the need for clarification must have arisen 

from the development or testing of a voting system. A factual controversy exists 

57 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 75 of 214 PageID #: 972 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

when an attempt to apply a specific section of the VVSG to a specific system or 

piece of technology creates ambiguity. 

6.3.4. Unsettled, Ambiguous Matter. Requests for Interpretation must involve actual 

controversies that have not been previously settled. This requirement mandates 

that interpretations contain actual ambiguities not previously clarified. 

6.3.4.1. Actual Ambiguity. A proper Request for Interpretation must contain an 

actual ambiguity. The interpretation process is not a means for 

challenging a clear EAC voting system standard. Recommended 

changes to voting system standards are welcome and may be forwarded 

to the EAC, but they are not part of this program. An ambiguity arises 

(in applying a voting system standard to a specific technology) when 

one of the following occurs: 

6.3.4.1.1. The language of the standard is unclear on its face; 

6.3.4.1.2. One section of the standard seems to contradict another, 

relevant section; 

6.3.4.1.3. The language of the standard, though clear on its face, lacks 

sufficient detail or breadth to determine its proper 

application to a particular technology; 

6.3.4.1.4. The language of a particular standard, when applied to a 

specific technology, clearly conflicts with the established 

purpose or intent of the standard; or 

6.3.4.1.5. The language of the standard is clear, but the proper means 

to assess compliance is unclear. 

6.3.4.2. Not Previously Clarified. The EAC will not accept a Request for 

Interpretation when the issue has previously been clarified. 

6.4. Procedure for Submitting a Request for Interpretation. A Request for Interpretation 

shall be made in writing to the Program Director. All requests should be complete and as 

detailed as possible because Interpretations issued by the EAC are based on, and limited 

to, the facts presented. Failure to provide complete information may result in an 

Interpretation that is off point and immaterial to the issue at hand. The following steps 

must be taken when writing a Request for Interpretation: 

6.4.1. Establish Standing To Make the Request. To make a request, one must meet the 

requirements identified in Section 6.3. above. Thus, the written request must 

58 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 76 of 214 PageID #: 973 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

provide sufficient information for the Program Director to conclude that the 

requestor is (1) a proper requester, (2) requesting an Interpretation of an 

applicable voting system standard, (3) presenting an actual factual controversy, 

and (4) seeking clarification on a matter of unsettled ambiguity. 

6.4.2. Identify the EAC Voting System Standard To Be Clarified. The request must 

identify the specific standard or standards for which the requestor seeks 

clarification. The request must state the version of the voting system standards 

at issue (if applicable) and quote and correctly cite the applicable standards. 

6.4.3. State the Facts Giving Rise to the Ambiguity. The request must provide the facts 

associated with the voting system technology that gave rise to the ambiguity in 

the identified standard. The requestor must be careful to provide all necessary 

information in a clear, concise manner. Any Interpretation issued by the EAC 

will be based on the facts provided. 

6.4.4. Identify the Ambiguity. The request must identify the ambiguity it seeks to 

resolve. The ambiguity shall be identified by stating a concise question that 

meets the following requirements: 

6.4.4.1. Shall be clearly stated; 

6.4.4.2. Shall be related to and reference the voting system standard and voting 

system technology information provided; and 

6.4.4.3. Shall be limited to a single issue. Each question or issue arising from an 

ambiguous standard must be stated separately. Compound questions 

are unacceptable. If multiple issues exist, they should be presented as 

individual, numbered questions. 

6.4.4.4. Shall be stated in a way that can ultimately be answered yes or no. 

6.4.5. Provide a Proposed Interpretation. A Request for Interpretation should propose 

an answer to the question posed. The answer should interpret the voting system 

standard in the context of the facts presented. It should also provide the basis 

and reasoning behind the proposal. 

6.5. EAC Action on a Request for Interpretation. Upon receipt of a Request for 

Interpretation, the EAC shall take the following action: 

6.5.1. Review the Request. The Program Director shall review the request to ensure it 

is complete, is clear, and meets the requirements of Section 6.3. Upon review, the 

Program Director may take the following action: 

59 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 77 of 214 PageID #: 974 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

6.5.1.1. Request Clarification. If the Request for Interpretation is incomplete or 

additional information is otherwise required, the Program Director may 

request that the Manufacturer or VSTL clarify its Request for 

Interpretation and identify any additional information required. 

6.5.1.2. Reject the Request for Interpretation. If the Request for Interpretation does 

not meet the requirements of Section 6.3., the Program Director may 

reject it. Such rejection must be provided in writing to the Manufacturer 

or VSTL and must state the basis for the rejection. 

6.5.1.3. Notify Acceptance of the Request. If the Request for Interpretation is 

acceptable, the Program Director will notify the Manufacturer or VSTL 

in writing and provide it with an estimated date of completion. A 

Request for Interpretation may be accepted in whole or in part. A notice 

of acceptance shall state the issues accepted for interpretation. 

6.5.2. Consideration of the Request. After a Request for Interpretation has been 

accepted, the matter shall be investigated and researched. Such action may 

require the EAC to employ technical experts. It may also require the EAC to 

request additional information from the Manufacturer or VSTL. The 

Manufacturer or VSTL shall respond promptly to such requests. 

6.5.3. Interpretation. The Decision Authority shall be responsible for making 

determinations on a Request for Interpretation. After this determination has 

been made, a written Interpretation shall be sent to the Manufacturer or VSTL. 

The following actions are necessary to prepare this written Interpretation: 

6.5.3.1. State the question or questions investigated; 

6.5.3.2. Outline the relevant facts that served as the basis of the Interpretation; 

6.5.3.3. Identify the voting system standards interpreted; 

6.5.3.4. State the conclusion reached; and 

6.5.3.5. Inform the Manufacturer or VSTL of the effect of an Interpretation (see 

Section 6.6.). 

6.6. Effect of Interpretation. Interpretations are fact specific and case specific. They are not 

tools of policy, but specific, fact-based guidance useful for resolving a particular problem. 

An Interpretation is determinative and conclusive only with regard to the case presented. 

Nevertheless, Interpretations do have some value as precedent. Interpretations published 

60 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 78 of 214 PageID #: 975 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

by the EAC shall serve as reliable guidance and authority over identical or similar 

questions of interpretation. These Interpretations will help users understand and apply 

the provisions of EAC voting system standards. 

6.7. Library of Interpretations. To better serve Manufacturers, VSTLs, and those interested in 

the EAC voting system standards, the Program Director shall publish EAC 

Interpretations. All proprietary information contained in an Interpretation will be 

redacted before publication consistent with Chapter 7 of this Manual. The library of 

published opinions is posted on the EAC Web site: www.eac.gov. 

61 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 79 of 214 PageID #: 976 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Release of Laboratory Accreditation Program Information 

7.1. Overview. VSTLs participating in the Certification Program will be required to provide 

the EAC a variety of documents. In general, these documents will be releasable to the 

public. Moreover, in many cases, the information provided will be affirmatively 

published by the EAC. In limited cases, however, documents may not be released if they 

include trade secrets, confidential commercial information, or personal information. 

While the EAC is ultimately responsible for determining which documents Federal law 

protects from release, VSTLs must identify the information they believe is protected and 

provide substantiation and a legal basis for withholding. This chapter discusses EAC’s 

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

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

commercial information. 

7.2. EAC Policy on the Release of Certification Program Information. The EAC seeks to 

make its Voting System Test Laboratory Program as transparent as possible. The agency 

believes that such action benefits the program by increasing public confidence in the 

process and creating a more informed and involved public. As such, it is the policy of the 

EAC to make all documents, or severable portions thereof, available to the public 

consistent with Federal law (e.g. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Trade Secrets 

Act). 

7.2.1. Requests for information. As in any Federal program, members of the public 

may request access to Certification Program documents under FOIA (5 U.S.C. 

§552). The EAC will promptly process such requests per the requirements of that 

Act. 

7.2.2. Publication of documents. Beyond the requirements of FOIA, the EAC intends to 

affirmatively publish program documents (or portions of documents) it believes 

will be of interest to the public. This publication will be accomplished through 

the use of the EAC Web site (www.eac.gov). The published documents will 

cover the full spectrum of the program, including information pertaining to: 

7.2.2.1. Accredited Laboratories; 

7.2.2.2. VSTL test plans; 

7.2.2.3. VSTL test reports; 

7.2.2.4. Agency decisions; 

7.2.2.5. Denials of Certification; 

62 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 80 of 214 PageID #: 977 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

7.2.2.6. Issuance of Certifications; 

7.2.2.7. Compliance Management Reports; 

7.2.2.8. Suspensions or Revocation of Accreditations; 

7.2.2.9. Appeals; 

7.2.2.10. Official Interpretations (VVSG); and 

7.2.2.11. Other topics as determined by the EAC. 

7.2.3. Trade Secret and Confidential Commercial Information. Federal law places a 

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

the public. Two such restrictions are particularly relevant to the Accreditation 

Program: (1) trade secrets information and (2) privileged or confidential 

commercial information. Both types of information are explicitly prohibited 

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

7.3. Trade Secrets. A trade secret is a secret, commercially valuable plan, process, or device 

that is used for the making or processing of a product and that is the end result of either 

innovation or substantial effort. It relates to the productive process itself, describing how 

a product is made. It does not relate to information describing end product capabilities, 

features, or performance. 

7.3.1. The following examples illustrate productive processes that may be trade secrets: 

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

7.3.1.2. Specifications of materials used in production. 

7.3.1.3. Voting system source code used to develop or manufacture software 

where release would reveal actual programming. 

7.3.1.4. Technical descriptions of manufacturing processes and other secret 

information relating directly to the production process. 

7.3.2. The following examples are likely not trade secrets: 

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

7.3.2.2. Information pertaining to a finished product’s performance. 

63 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 81 of 214 PageID #: 978 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

7.3.2.3. Information regarding product components that would not reveal any 

commercially valuable information regarding production. 

7.4. Privileged or Confidential Commercial Information. Privileged or confidential 

commercial information is that information submitted by a VSTL that is commercial or 

financial in nature and privileged or confidential. 

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

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

VSTL has any commercial interest. 

7.4.2. Privileged or Confidential Information. Commercial or financial information is 

privileged or confidential if its disclosure would likely cause substantial harm to 

the competitive position of the submitter. The concept of harm to one’s 

competitive position focuses on harm flowing from a competitor’s affirmative 

use of the proprietary information. It does not include incidental harm 

associated with upset customers or employees. 

7.5. EAC’s Responsibilities. The EAC is ultimately responsible for determining whether or 

not a document (in whole or in part) may be released pursuant to Federal law. In doing 

so, however, the EAC will require information and input from the VSTL submitting the 

documents. This requirement is essential for the EAC to identify, track, and make 

determinations on the large volume of documentation it receives. The EAC has the 

following responsibilities: 

7.5.1. Managing Documentation and Information. The EAC will control the 

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

third parties only after the appropriate review and determination. 

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

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

provided by a VSTL or the EAC otherwise proposes the release of such 

documents, the EAC will take the following actions: 

7.5.2.1. Review the documents to determine if they are potentially protected 

from release as trade secrets or confidential commercial information. 

The documents at issue may have been previously identified as 

protected by the VSTL when submitted (see Section 7.6.1. below) or 

identified by the EAC on review. 

7.5.2.2. Grant the submitting VSTL an opportunity to provide input. In the 

event the information has been identified as potentially protected from 

release as a trade secret or confidential commercial information, the 

64 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 82 of 214 PageID #: 979 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

EAC will notify the submitter and allow it an opportunity to submit its 

position on the issue prior to release of the information. The submitter 

shall respond consistent with Section 7.6.1. below. 

7.5.3. Final Determination on Release. After providing the submitter of the 

information an opportunity to be heard, the EAC will make a final decision on 

release. The EAC will inform the submitter of this decision. 

7.6. VSTL’s Responsibilities. Although the EAC is ultimately responsible for determining if a 

document, or any portion thereof, is protected from release as a trade secret or 

confidential commercial information, the VSTL shall be responsible for identifying 

documents, or portions of documents, it believes warrant such protection. Moreover, the 

VSTL will be responsible for providing the legal basis and substantiation for its 

determination regarding the withholding of a document. This responsibility arises in two 

situations: (1) upon the initial submission of information and (2) upon notification by the 

EAC that it is considering the release of potentially protected information. 

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

EAC as required by the Accreditation or Certification Programs, it is responsible 

for identifying any document or portion of a document that it believes is 

protected from release by Federal law. VSTLs shall identify protected 

information9 by taking the following action: 

7.6.1.1. Submitting a Notice of Protected Information. This notice shall identify the 

document, document page, or portion of a page that the VSTL believes 

should be protected from release. This identification must be done with 

specificity. For each piece of information identified, the VSTL must 

state the legal basis for its protected status. 

7.6.1.1.1. Cite the applicable law that exempts the information from 

release. 

7.6.1.1.2. Clearly discuss why that legal authority applies and why the 

document must be protected from release. 

7.6.1.1.3. If necessary, provide additional documentation or 

information. For example, if the VSTL claims a document 

contains confidential commercial information, it would also 

9 Documents submitted by the VSTL may include information that is a trade secret or confidential 

commercial information of a Manufacturer. The VSTL shall take steps to identify any information it 

believes may be protected. The VSTL may seek the input of the Manufacturer when identifying 

potentially protected information pursuant to the requirements of this chapter. All communications on 

this matter shall be in writing. 

65 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 83 of 214 PageID #: 980 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

have to provide evidence and analysis of the competitive 

harm that would result upon release. 

7.6.1.2. Label Submissions. Label all submissions identified in the notice as 

“Proprietary Commercial Information.” Label only those submissions 

identified as protected. Attempts to indiscriminately label all materials 

as proprietary will render the markings moot. 

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

considering the release of information that may be protected, the VSTL shall take 

the following action: 

7.6.2.1. Respond to the notice in writing within 15 calendar days. If additional 

time is needed, the VSTL must promptly notify the Program Director. 

Requests for additional time will be granted only for good cause and 

must be made before the 15-day deadline. VSTLs that do not respond in 

a timely manner will be viewed as not objecting to release. 

7.6.2.2. Clearly state one of the following in the response: 

7.6.2.2.1. There is no objection to release, or 

7.6.2.2.2. The VSTL objects to release. In this case, the response must 

clearly state which portions of the document the VSTL 

believes should be protected from release. The VSTL shall 

follow the procedures discussed in Section 7.6.1 above. 

7.7. Personal Information. Certain personal information is protected from release under 

FOIA and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. §552a). This information includes private information 

about a person that, if released, would cause the individual embarrassment or constitute 

an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Generally, the EAC will not require the 

submission of private information about individuals. The incidental submission of such 

information should be avoided. If a VSTL believes it is required to submit such 

information, it should contact the Program Director. If the information will be submitted, 

it must be properly identified. Examples of such information include the following: 

7.7.1. Social Security Number. 

7.7.2. Bank account numbers. 

7.7.3. Home address. 

7.7.4. Home phone number. 

66 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 84 of 214 PageID #: 981 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Appendix A 

Voting System Test Plan Outline 

67 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 85 of 214 PageID #: 982 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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 

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 NA for this campaign 

4.2 Hardware Configuration and Design 

4.3 Software System Functions 

68 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 86 of 214 PageID #: 983 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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 

Proprietary Data 

69 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 87 of 214 PageID #: 984 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Appendix B 

Voting System Modification Test Plan Outline 

70 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 88 of 214 PageID #: 985 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Test Plans submitted for modifications to previously EAC certified voting systems should be 

brief and structured to minimize test plan development and review, while enabling the EAC to 

maintain solid control of the certification process. The test plan shall concisely document the 

strategy and plan for testing those sections of the VVSG applicable to the modification or 

modifications submitted. The test plan shall be written with clarity that will allow all 

constituents to understand what testing will be conducted, to verify compliance to VVSG 

requirements, and to assure that the test plan will remain a living document throughout the life 

of the test campaign for the modification. 

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 

71 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 89 of 214 PageID #: 986 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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 NA for 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 

72 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 90 of 214 PageID #: 987 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Appendix C 

Voting System Test Report Outline 

73 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 91 of 214 PageID #: 988 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Test Reports produced by VSTLs shall 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 and Recommendation 

3.1 Summary Finding and Recommendation 

3.2 Reasons for Recommendation to Reject 

3.3 Anomalies 

3.4 Correction of Deficiencies 

Appendix A. Additional Findings 

Appendix B. Warrant of Accepting Change Control Responsibility 

Appendix C. Trusted Build 

Appendix D. Test Plan 

Appendix E. State Test Reports 

74 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 92 of 214 PageID #: 989 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Appendix D 

Voting System Modification Test Report Outline 

75 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 93 of 214 PageID #: 990 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Test Reports produced by VSTLs shall 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 

1.1 References 

1.2 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) 

76 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 94 of 214 PageID #: 991 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Appendix E 

Certification of Laboratory Conditions and Practices 

Form 

Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov 

77 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 95 of 214 PageID #: 992 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

CERTIFICATION OF LABORATORY CONDITIONS AND 

PRACTICES 

I, the undersigned, having investigated or caused to be investigated each matter, below; 

certify, affirm and acknowledge that each of the following numbered statements are true 

and otherwise accurately reflect the status, condition and operations of 

___________________________ (hereinafter “Laboratory”). I understand that by certifying 

the information below, I am making a statement or representation to the U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission required for receiving a Laboratory Accreditation under 42 U.S.C. 

§15371(b). I further understand, that to the extent any of the below representations or 

certifications are found to be materially false, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission may 

revoke any Accreditations granted to the above named laboratory and that I may be subject 

to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §1001. 

1. Signing Official. I hereby certify that I am an officer, partner or other official vested 

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

noted company, corporation, partnership or organization (Laboratory). 

2. Personnel. I certify, consistent with Section 2.6. of the EAC Voting System Test Laboratory 

Accreditation Program Manual (hereinafter Laboratory Manual), that the laboratory has 

written policies in place to ensure that it does not currently, and will not in the future, 

employ any individuals in any capacity related to the testing of voting systems who 

have been convicted of a felony offense or any criminal offense involving fraud, 

misrepresentation, or deception under either Federal or State law. 

3. Conflicts of Interest and Prohibited Practices. I certify, consistent with Section 2.5. of 

the Laboratory Manual, that the Laboratory maintains and enforces written policies 

which: 

a. Prohibit conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest pursuant to 

Section 2.5.1. of the Laboratory Manual. 

b. Prohibit practices such as participation in both the development and testing of a 

voting system or the solicitation or acceptance of gifts from a voting system 

manufacture pursuant to Section 2.5.2. of the Laboratory Manual. 

78 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 96 of 214 PageID #: 993 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

pursuant to Section 2.5.3. of the Laboratory Manual. 

4. Financial Stability. I certify, consistent with Section 2.14. of the Laboratory Manual, 

that the laboratory possess sufficient resources to enable it to properly use and maintain 

its test equipment and facility, to satisfactorily perform all required functions, and to 

adequately indemnify itself against financial liabilities or penalties that may result from 

its operations. 

5. Authority to do Business in the United States. I certify, consistent with Section 2.12. of 

the Laboratory Manual, that the Laboratory is lawfully entitled or otherwise not 

prohibited from doing business with the United States or its citizens or operating in the 

United States. 

6. Recordkeeping. I certify, consistent with Section 2.15. of the Laboratory Manual, that 

the laboratory operates and manages a records system in which it maintains all forms, 

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

for a period of at least 5 years. 

I, by signing my name below, certify, affirm and acknowledge, under penalty of Federal law, 

that each of the above numbered paragraphs accurately represent the operations, conditions 

and practices of _____________________________ (Laboratory). 

Signed this day,_____________: 

________________________________________(Signature) 

_________________________________________(Name of Signing Official) 

__________________________________________(Title of Signing Official) 

79 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 97 of 214 PageID #: 994 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Appendix F 

Specification for Reproduction and use of the EAC 

Laboratory Accreditation Logo 

Accreditation Logo Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov 

80 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 98 of 214 PageID #: 995 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Specification for Reproduction and use of the EAC Laboratory Accreditation Logo 

To maintain a high level of quality and consistency in a variety of applications, the following 

guidelines have been developed for VSTL use of the EAC laboratory accreditation logo. 

Use and Display 

The EAC VSTL logo contains the following elements: 

The “U.S. Election Assistance Commission” and “VSTL” logotype separated by a divider rule. 

The EAC will provide all accredited VSTLs with high resolution digital files for use on 

approved written or electronic documents. 

The logo may only be used by EAC accredited VSTLs and shall not misrepresent the specific 

standards or guidelines to which the VSTL has been accredited. The EAC VSTL logo may be 

displayed on all reports and work documents that contain exclusive results from testing 

activities that have been carried out within the labs’ EAC scope of accreditation. Accredited 

laboratories may also incorporate the logo in publicity and/or advertising materials, including 

brochures and organization publications, technical literature, business reports, Web sites and 

quotations or proposals for work. 

Only the approved version of the VSTL logo may be used. When using the logo: 

• Do not print the logo in black over a dark background. 

• Do not change any colors of the logo. 

• Do not configure the elements of the logo in a different format. 

• Do not crop or remove any part of the logo. 

• Do not distort the logo. 

• Do not tilt the logo in any direction. 

• Do not add shadows, effects or other elements to the logo. 

• Do not change the typeface/font used in the logo. 

Minimum Size 

The full VSTL logo must remain readable in all uses and should not be reduced to a size smaller 

than 2.5 inch x 1 inch. 

Minimum Clear Space 

The clear space surrounding the VSTL logo is an integral part of the logo design. An area of 

clear space must be maintained around the logo to prevent it from being in conflict with other 

design elements on the page. The clear space should measure at least X on all sides, where X 

81 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 99 of 214 PageID #: 996 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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 

82 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
 

VSTL

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 100 of 214 PageID #: 997 

Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

VSTL 

83 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018 
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 101 of 214 PageID #: 998 

EXHIBIT C - VSTC Program Manual Version 2.0 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 102 of 214 PageID #: 999 

Testing & Certification Program

Manual 

Version 2.0

Effective May 31, 2015

United States Election Assistance Commission

1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

OMB Control # 3265-0019

www.eac.gov
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 103 of 214 PageID #: 

1000 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

1995, OMB Control No. 3265-0019, expiring June 30, 2018. Persons are not required to respond to 

this collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number. Information gathered 

pursuant to this document and its forms will be used solely to administer the EAC Testing and 

Certification Program. This program is voluntary. Individuals who wish to participate in the 

program, however, must meet its requirements. The estimated total annual hourly burden on the 

voting system manufacturing industry and election officials is 105 hours. This estimate includes the 

time for reviewing the instructions, gathering information and completing the prescribed forms. Send 

comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection, including suggestions 

for reducing this burden, to the U. S. Election Assistance Commission, Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program, Office of the Program Director, 1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 i 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 104 of 214 PageID #: 

1001 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 

2. Manufacturer Registration...................................................................................... 12 

3. When Voting Systems Must Be Submitted for Testing and.................................... 19 

Certification ................................................................................................................... 19 

4. Certification Testing and Technical Review ........................................................... 30 

5. Grant of Certification .............................................................................................. 44 

6. Denial of Certification............................................................................................. 53 

7. Decertification ........................................................................................................ 59 

8. Quality Monitoring Program ................................................................................... 70 

9. Requests for Interpretations................................................................................... 75 

10. Release of Certification Program Information ........................................................ 79 

Appendix A.................................................................................................................... 84 

Appendix B.................................................................................................................... 85 

Appendix C ................................................................................................................... 86 

Appendix D ................................................................................................................... 89 

Appendix E.................................................................................................................... 92 

Appendix F.................................................................................................................... 94 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 ii 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 105 of 214 PageID #: 

1002 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 106 of 214 PageID #: 

1003 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

1. Introduction 

1.1. Background. In late 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which 

created the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and vested it with the responsibility of 

setting voting system standards and for providing for the testing and certification of voting 

systems. This mandate represented the first time the Federal government provided for the 

voluntary testing, certification and decertification of voting systems nationwide. In response 

to this HAVA requirement, the EAC has developed the Federal Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program (“Certification Program”). 

1.2. Authority. HAVA requires that the EAC certify and decertify voting systems. Section 231(a)(1) 

of HAVA specifically requires the EAC to “... provide for the certification, de-certification and 

re-certification of voting system hardware and software by accredited laboratories.” The EAC 

has the sole authority to grant certification or withdraw certification at the Federal level, 

including the authority to grant, maintain, extend, suspend, and withdraw the right to retain 

or use any certificates, marks, or other indicators of certification. 

1.3. Scope. This Manual provides the procedural requirements of the EAC Voting System Testing 

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

the program’s procedural requirements is mandatory for participants. The procedural 

requirements of this Manual supersede any prior voting system certification requirements 

issued by the EAC. 

1.4. Purpose. The primary purpose of the EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program 

Manual is to provide clear procedures to Manufacturers for the testing and certification of 

voting systems to specified Federal standards consistent with the requirements of HAVA 

Section 321(a)(1). The program, however, also serves to do the following: 

1.4.1.Support State certification programs. 

1.4.2.Support local election officials in the areas of acceptance testing and pre-election system 

verification. 

1.4.3.Increase quality control in voting system manufacturing. 

1.4.4.Increase voter confidence in the use of voting systems. 

1.5. Manual. This Manual is a comprehensive presentation of the EAC’s Voting System Testing 

and Certification Program. It is intended to establish all of the program’s administrative 

requirements. 

1.5.1.Contents. The contents of the Manual serve as an overview to the program itself. The 

Manual contains the following chapters: 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 107 of 214 PageID #: 

1004 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

1.5.1.1. Manufacturer Registration. Under the program, a Manufacturer is required to 

register with the EAC prior to participation. This registration provides the EAC 

with needed information and requires the Manufacturer to agree to the 

requirements of the Certification Program. This chapter sets out the requirements 

and procedures for registration. 

1.5.1.2. When Voting Systems Must Be Submitted for Testing and Certification. All systems 

must be submitted consistent with this Manual before they may receive a 

certification from the EAC. This chapter discusses the various circumstances that 

require submission to obtain or maintain a certification. 

1.5.1.3. Certification Testing and Review. Under this program, the testing and review 

process requires the completion of an application, employment of an EACaccredited laboratory for system testing, and technical analysis of the laboratory 

test report by the EAC. The result of this process is an Initial Decision on 

Certification. This chapter discusses the required steps for voting system testing 

and review. 

1.5.1.4. Grant of Certification. If an Initial Decision to grant certification is made, the 

Manufacturer must take additional steps before it may be issued a certification. 

These steps require the Manufacturer to document the performance of a trusted 

build (see definition at section 1.16), the deposit of software into a repository, and 

the creation of system identification tools. This chapter outlines the action that a 

Manufacturer must take to receive a certification and the Manufacturer’s postcertification responsibilities. 

1.5.1.5. Denial of Certification. If an Initial Decision to deny certification is made, the 

Manufacturer has certain rights and responsibilities under the program. This 

chapter contains procedures for requesting reconsideration, opportunity to cure 

defects, and appeal. 

1.5.1.6. Decertification. Decertification is the process by which the EAC revokes a 

certification it previously granted to a voting system. It is an important part of 

the Certification Program because it serves to ensure that the requirements of the 

program are followed and that certified voting systems fielded for use in Federal 

elections maintain the same level of quality as those presented for testing. This 

chapter sets procedures for Decertification and explains the Manufacturer’s 

rights and responsibilities during that process. 

1.5.1.7. Quality Monitoring Program. Under the Certification Program, the EAC will 

implement a quality monitoring process that will help ensure that voting systems 

certified by the EAC are the same systems sold by Manufacturers. The quality 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 108 of 214 PageID #: 

1005 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

monitoring process is a mandatory part of the program and includes elements 

such as fielded voting system review, anomaly reporting, and manufacturing site 

visits. This chapter sets forth the requirements of the Quality Monitoring 

Program. 

1.5.1.8. Interpretation. An Interpretation is a means by which a registered Manufacturer 

or Voting System Test Laboratory (VSTL) may seek clarification on a specific 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) standard. This chapter outlines the 

policy, requirements, and procedures for requesting an Interpretation. 

1.5.1.9. Trade Secrets, Confidential Commercial, and Personal Information. Federal law 

protects certain types of information provided to the government from public 

release. This chapter outlines the program’s policies, procedures, and 

responsibilities associated with the public release of potentially protected 

commercial information. 

1.5.2.Maintenance and Revision. Version 2.0 of the Manual will continue to be improved and 

expanded as experience and circumstances dictate. The Manual will be reviewed 

periodically and updated to meet the needs of the EAC, Manufacturers, VSTLs, election 

officials, and public policy. The EAC is responsible for revising this document. And all 

revisions will be made consistent with Federal law. Substantive input from stakeholders 

and the public will be sought whenever possible, at the discretion of the agency. Changes in 

policy requiring immediate implementation will be noticed via policy memoranda and will 

be issued to each registered Manufacturer. Changes, addendums, or updated versions will 

also be posted to the EAC’s website at www.eac.gov. 

1.6. Program Methodology. The EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program is one 

part of the overall conformity assessment process that includes companion efforts at State and 

local levels. 

1.6.1.Federal and State Roles. The process to ensure voting equipment meets the technical 

requirements is a distributed, cooperative effort of Federal, State, and local officials in the 

United States. Working with voting equipment manufacturers, each of these officials has a 

unique responsibility for ensuring the equipment a voter uses on Election Day meets 

specific requirements. 

1.6.1.1. The EAC Program has primary responsibility for ensuring voting systems 

submitted under this program meet Federal standards established for voting 

systems. 

1.6.1.2. State officials have responsibility for testing voting systems to ensure the system 

will support the specific unique requirements of each individual State. States 

may use EAC VSTLs to perform testing of voting systems to unique state 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 109 of 214 PageID #: 

1006 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

standards while the systems are being tested to Federal standards. The EAC will 

not, however, certify voting systems to state standards. 

1.6.1.3. State or local officials are responsible for making the final purchase choice and 

are responsible for deciding which system offers the best fit and value for their 

specific State or local jurisdiction. 

1.6.1.4. State or local officials are also responsible for performing acceptance testing to 

ensure that the equipment delivered is identical to the equipment certified at the 

federal and state levels, is fully operational, and meets the contractual 

requirements of the purchase. 

1.6.1.5. State or local officials should perform pre-election logic and accuracy testing 

and post-election auditing to confirm equipment is operating properly and is 

unmodified from its certified state. 

1.6.2.Conformity Assessment, Generally. Conformity assessment is a system established to 

ensure a product or service meets the applicable requirements. Many conformity 

assessment systems exist to protect the quality and ensure compliance with standards of 

products and services. All conformity assessment systems attempt to answer a variety of 

questions: 

1.6.2.1. What specifications are required of an acceptable system? For voting systems, the 

EAC Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), Notice of Clarification and 

Request for Information address this issue. States and local jurisdictions also 

have supplementing standards. 

1.6.2.2. How are systems tested against required specifications? The EAC Voting System 

Testing and Certification Program is a central element of the larger conformity 

assessment system. The program, as set forth in this Manual, provides for the 

testing and certification of voting systems to identified versions of the VVSG. The 

Testing and Certification Program’s purpose is to verify voting systems meet 

manufacturer specifications and the requirements of the VVSG. 

1.6.2.3. Are the testing authorities qualified to make an accurate evaluation? The EAC 

accredits VSTLs, after the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

National Voluntary Lab Accreditation Program (NVLAP) has reviewed their 

technical competence and lab practices to ensure the test authorities are fully 

qualified. Furthermore, EAC technical experts review all test plans and test 

reports from accredited laboratories to ensure an accurate and complete 

evaluation. Many States provide similar reviews of laboratory reports. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 110 of 214 PageID #: 

1007 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

1.6.2.4. Will Manufacturers deliver units within manufacturing tolerances equivalent to those 

tested? The VVSG and this Manual require vendors to have appropriate change 

management and quality control processes to control the quality and 

configuration of their products. The Certification Program provides mechanisms 

for the EAC to verify Manufacturer quality processes through field system 

testing and manufacturing site visits. States have implemented policies for 

acceptance of delivered units. 

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

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

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

regulation. 

1.8. Program Records. The EAC Program Director is responsible for maintaining accurate records 

to demonstrate the testing and certification program procedures have been effectively fulfilled 

and to ensure the traceability, repeatability, and reproducibility of testing and test report 

review. All records will be maintained, managed, secured, stored, archived, and disposed of in 

accordance with Federal law, Federal regulations, and procedures of the EAC. 

1.9. Submission of Documents. Any documents submitted pursuant to the requirements of this 

Manual shall be submitted: 

1.9.1. Via secure e-mail, if sent electronically, or physical delivery of a compact disk or other 

media deemed acceptable by the EAC, unless otherwise specified. 

1.9.2.In a Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF file, formatted to protect the document from alteration. 

1.9.3.With a proper signature when required by this manual. Documents requiring an authorized 

signature may be signed with an electronic representation or image of the signature of an 

authorized management representative and must meet any and all subsequent 

requirements established by the Program Director regarding security. 

1.9.4. By certified mail or similar means allowing for tracking, if sent via physical delivery, to 

the following address: 

Testing and Certification Program Director 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

1.10. Receipt of Documents—Manufacturer. For purposes of this Manual, a document, notice, 

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

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 111 of 214 PageID #: 

1008 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

1.10.1. The actual, documented date the correspondence was received (either electronically or 

physically) at the Manufacturer’s place of business; or 

1.10.2. If no documentation of the actual delivery date exists, the date of constructive receipt for 

the communication. For electronic correspondence, documents will be constructively 

received the day after the date sent. For mail correspondence, the document will be 

constructively received 3 days after the date sent. 

1.10.3. The term receipt shall mean the date a document or correspondence arrives (either 

electronically or physically) at the Manufacturer’s place of business. Arrival does not 

require that an agent of the Manufacturer open, read, or review the correspondence. 

1.11. Receipt of Documents—EAC. For purposes of this Manual, a document, notice, or other 

communication is considered received by the EAC upon its physical or electronic arrival at the 

agency. All documents received by the agency will be physically or electronically date 

stamped and this stamp shall serve as the date of receipt. Documents received after the 

regular business day (5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time), will be treated as if received on the 

next business day. 

1.12. EAC Response Timeframes. In recognition of the responsibilities and challenges facing 

Manufacturers as they work to meet the requirements imposed by this program, State 

certification programs, customers, State law and production schedules, the EAC will provide 

timeframes for its response to significant program elements. This shall be done by providing 

current metrics on the EAC’s website regarding the average EAC response time for (1) 

approving Test Plans, (2) issuing Initial Decisions, and (3) issuing Certificates of Conformance. 

1.13. Records Retention—Manufacturers. The Manufacturer is responsible for ensuring all 

documents submitted to the EAC, or that otherwise serve as the basis for the certification of a 

voting system, are retained. A copy of all such records shall be retained as long as a voting 

system is offered for sale or supported by a Manufacturer and for 5 years thereafter. 

1.14. Record Retention—EAC. The EAC shall retain all records associated with the certification 

of a voting system as long as such system is fielded in a State or local election jurisdiction for 

use in Federal elections. The records shall otherwise be retained or disposed of consistent with 

Federal statutes and regulations. 

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

the requirements of Federal law. It is EAC policy to make the certification process as open and 

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

will be made available to the public unless specifically protected from release by law. The 

primary means for making this information available is through the EAC website. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 112 of 214 PageID #: 

1009 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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

definitions. 

Appeal. A formal process by which the EAC is petitioned to reconsider an Agency Decision. 

Appeal Authority. The individual or individuals appointed to serve as the determination 

authority on appeal. 

Build Environment. The disk or other media that holds the source code, compiler, linker, 

integrated development environments (IDE), and/or other necessary files for the compilation and 

on which the compiler will store the resulting executable code. 

Certificate of Conformance. The certificate issued by the EAC when a system has been found to 

meet the requirements of the VVSG. The document conveys certification of a system. 

Commercial Off-the-Shelf. Software, firmware, device or component that is used in the United 

States by many different people or organizations for many different applications other than 

certified voting systems and that is incorporated into the voting system with no manufacturer- or 

application-specific modification. 

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. 

Compiler. A compiler is a computer program that translates programs expressed in a high-level 

language into machine language equivalents. 

Days. The term days shall refer to calendar days, unless otherwise noted. When counting days, 

for the purpose of submitting or receiving a document, the count shall begin on the first full 

calendar day after the day the document was received. 

De minimis change order. A de minimis change order is a change to a certified voting system’s 

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

Disk Image. An exact copy of the entire contents of a computer disk. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 113 of 214 PageID #: 

1010 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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. In addition, for the 

purposes of this Manual, the term will include any and all Pre-Election Testing and Post-Election 

Testing and/or auditing done in conjunction with any primary, general, runoff, or special election 

involving a candidate for Federal office. 

Fielded Voting System. A voting system purchased or leased by a State or local government that 

is being use in a Federal election. 

File Signature. A file signature, sometimes called a HASH value, creates a value that is 

computationally infeasible of being produced by two similar but different files. File signatures, a 

set of files produced using HASH algorithm, are used to verify that files are unmodified from 

their original version. 

HASH Algorithm. An algorithm that maps a bit string of arbitrary length to a shorter, fixedlength bit string. (A HASH uniquely identifies a file similar to the way a fingerprint identifies an 

individual. Likewise, as an individual cannot be recreated from his or her fingerprint, a file 

cannot be recreated from a HASH. The HASH algorithm used primarily in the NIST National 

Software Reference Library (NSRL), and this program, is the Secure HASH Algorithm (SHA-1) 

specified in Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 180-1.) 

Installation Device. A device containing program files, software, and installation instructions for 

installing an application (program) onto a computer. Examples of such devices include 

installation disks, flash memory cards, and PCMCIA cards. 

Integration Testing. The end-to-end testing of a full system configured for use in an election to 

assure that all legitimate configurations meet applicable standards. 

Lines of Code. Any executable statements, flow control statements, formatting (e.g. Blank lines) 

and comments. 

Linker. A computer program that takes one or more objects generated by compilers and 

assembles them into a single executable program. 

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

certification. 

Mark of Conformance. A uniform notice permanently posted on a voting system signifying it is 

EAC certified. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 114 of 214 PageID #: 

1011 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Memorandum for the Record. A written statement drafted to document an event or finding, 

without a specific addressee other than the pertinent file. 

Modification. A modification is any change to a previously EAC-certified voting system’s hardware, 

software, or firmware that is not classified as a de minimis change order. 

Proprietary Information. Commercial information or trade secrets protected from release under 

the Freedom of Information Act and the Trade Secrets Act. 

Sub-assembly. A major functional piece of equipment essential to the operational completeness 

of a component of a voting system. Examples of major sub-assemblies for voting systems 

include, but are not limited to: 

• Printers 

• Touch screen terminals 

• Scanners/Tabulators 

• Card readers 

• Ballot boxes 

• Keyboards 

• CPUs 

• Memory modules, USB drives, and other portable memory devices 

• External data storage devices, external hard drives, etc. 

• Motherboards, processor board and other PWB assemblies, when supplied separately 

from a complete unit 

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. 

Technical Reviewers. Experts in the area of voting system technology and conformity assessment 

appointed by the EAC to provide expert guidance. 

Testing and Certification Decision Authority. The EAC Executive Director or Acting Executive 

Director. 

Testing and Certification Program Director. The individual appointed by the EAC Executive 

Director to administer and manage the Testing and Certification Program. 

Trusted Build. A witnessed software build where source code is converted 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. 

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

equipment (including the software, firmware, and documentation required to program, control, 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 115 of 214 PageID #: 

1012 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

and support the equipment) used to define ballots; cast and count votes; report or display 

election results; connect the voting system to the voter registration system; and maintain and 

produce any audit trail information. 

Voting System Test Laboratories. Independent testing laboratories accredited by the EAC to test 

voting systems to EAC approved voting system standards. Each Voting System Test Laboratory 

(VSTL) must be accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(NVLAP) and recommended by the National Institute of Standards Technology before it may 

receive an EAC accreditation. NVLAP provides third party accreditation to testing and 

calibration laboratories. NVLAP is in full conformance with the standards of the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 

including ISO/IEC Guide 17025 and 17011. 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. Voluntary voting system standards developed, adopted, 

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

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

abbreviations listed below represent the following terms. 

Certification Program. The EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program 

COTS. Commercial Off-the-Shelf 

Decision Authority. Testing and Certification Decision Authority 

EAC. United States Election Assistance Commission 

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

Labs or Laboratories. Voting System Test Laboratories 

LOC. Lines of Code 

NASED. National Association of State Election Directors 

NIST. National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NVLAP. National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

Program Director. Director of the EAC’s Testing and Certification Program 

VSS. Voting System Standards 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 10 
 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 116 of 214 PageID #: 

1013 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

VSTL. Voting System Test Laboratory 

VVSG. Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 117 of 214 PageID #: 

1014 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2. Manufacturer Registration 

2.1. Overview. Manufacturer Registration is the process by which voting system Manufacturers 

make initial contact with the EAC and provide information essential to participate in the EAC 

Voting System Testing and Certification Program. Before a Manufacturer of a voting system 

can submit an application to have a voting system certified by the EAC, the Manufacturer 

must be registered. This process requires the Manufacturer to provide certain contact 

information and agree to certain requirements of the Certification Program. After successfully 

registering, the Manufacturer will receive an identification code. 

2.2. Registration Required. To submit a voting system for certification or otherwise participate in 

the EAC voluntary Voting System Testing and Certification Program, a Manufacturer must 

register with the EAC. Registration does not constitute an EAC endorsement of the 

Manufacturer or its products. Registration of a Manufacturer is not a certification of that 

Manufacturer’s products. 

2.3. Registration Requirements. The registration process will require the voting system 

Manufacturer to provide certain information to the EAC. This information is necessary to 

enable the EAC to administer the Certification Program and communicate effectively with the 

Manufacturer. The registration process also requires the Manufacturer to agree to certain 

Certification Program requirements. These requirements relate to the Manufacturer’s duties 

and responsibilities under the program. For this program to succeed, it is vital that a 

Manufacturer know and assent to these duties at the outset of the program. 

2.3.1.Information. Manufacturers are required to provide the following information. 

2.3.1.1. The Manufacturer’s organizational information: 

2.3.1.1.1. The official name of the Manufacturer. 

2.3.1.1.2. The address of the Manufacturer’s official place of business. 

2.3.1.1.3. A description of how the Manufacturer is organized (i.e., type of 

corporation or partnership). 

2.3.1.1.4. Names of officers and/or members of the board of directors. 

2.3.1.1.5. Names of all partners and members (if organized as a partnership or 

limited liability corporation). 

2.3.1.1.6. Identification of any individual, organization, or entity with a 

controlling ownership interest in the Manufacturer. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 118 of 214 PageID #: 

1015 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2.3.1.2. The identity of an individual authorized to represent and make binding 

commitments and management determinations for the Manufacturer 

(management representative). The following information is required for the 

management representative: 

2.3.1.2.1. Name and title. 

2.3.1.2.2. Mailing and physical addresses. 

2.3.1.2.3. Telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address. 

2.3.1.3. The identity of an individual authorized to provide technical information on 

behalf of the Manufacturer (technical representative). The following information 

is required for the technical representative: 

2.3.1.3.1. Name and title. 

2.3.1.3.2. Mailing and physical addresses. 

2.3.1.3.3. Telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address. 

2.3.1.4. The Manufacturer’s written policies regarding its quality assurance system. This 

policy must be consistent with guidance provided in the VVSG and this Manual. 

2.3.1.5. The Manufacturer’s written policies regarding internal procedures for 

controlling and managing changes to, and versions of, its voting systems. Such 

polices shall be consistent with this Manual and guidance provided in the VVSG. 

2.3.1.6. The Manufacturer’s written policies on document retention. Such policies must 

be consistent with the requirements of this Manual. 

A list of all manufacturing and/or assembly facilities used by the Manufacturer 

and the name and contact information of a person at each facility. The term 

“manufacturing and/or assembly facilities” applies to facilities that provide the 

following manufacturing services: 

2.3.1.6.1 Final system configuration and loading of programs for customer 

delivery. 

2.3.1.6.2. Manufacturing of component units of the voting system. 

2.3.1.6.3. Manufacturing of major sub-assemblies of the voting system. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 119 of 214 PageID #: 

1016 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Manufacturing facilities for COTS components and plastic modeling facilities are 

not included in this definition and need not be reported to the EAC. The EAC 

reserves the right to request additional information from manufacturers related 

to the manufacturing process, including manufacturing facilities for the benefit of 

the testing and certification program. 

Manufacturers shall report all current facilities that meet the above criteria. If 

manufacturing is not in progress at the time of a manufacturer’s submission of 

their registration package to the EAC, the manufacturer shall report the last 

manufacturing facility which meets the definitions in this section. Manufacturers 

should also be aware that the reporting requirement is continuous and that when 

new manufacturing facilities are engaged, the EAC registration package 

submitted to the EAC must be updated to reflect the new facilities as required by 

Section 2.5.2 of this Manual. 

2.3.1.7. The following information is required for a person at each facility: 

2.3.1.7.1. Name and title. 

2.3.1.7.2. Mailing and physical addresses. 

2.3.1.7.3. Telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address. 

2.3.2.Agreements. Manufacturers are required to take or abstain from certain actions to protect 

the integrity of the Certification Program and promote quality assurance. Manufacturers are 

required to agree to the following program requirements: 

2.3.2.1. Represent a voting system as certified only when it is authorized by the EAC 

and is consistent with the procedures and requirements of this Manual. 

2.3.2.2. Produce and affix an EAC certification label to all production units of the 

certified system. Such labels must meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 5 of 

this Manual. 

2.3.2.3. Notify the EAC of changes to any system previously certified by the EAC 

pursuant to the requirements of this Manual (see Chapter 3). Such systems shall 

be submitted for testing and additional certification when required. 

2.3.2.4. Permit an EAC representative to verify the Manufacturer’s quality control by 

cooperating with EAC efforts to test and review fielded voting systems 

consistent with Section 8.6 of this Manual. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 120 of 214 PageID #: 

1017 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2.3.2.5. Permit an EAC representative to verify the Manufacturer’s quality control by 

conducting periodic inspections of manufacturing facilities consistent with 

Chapter 8 of this Manual. 

2.3.2.6. Cooperate with any EAC inquiries and investigations into a certified system’s 

compliance with VVSG standards or the procedural requirements of this Manual 

consistent with Chapter 7. 

2.3.2.7. Report to the Program Director any known malfunction of a voting system 

holding an EAC Certification. A malfunction is a failure of a voting system, not 

caused solely by operator or administrative error, which causes the system to not 

function as expected during a Federal election or otherwise results in data loss. 

Initial Malfunction Reports should identify the location, nature, date, impact, and 

status of resolution (if any) of the malfunction and be filed within 30 business 

days of occurrence during or in preparation for a Federal election, as defined in 

this Manual. Final malfunction Reports shall be submitted to the EAC after the 

root cause of the malfunction has been determined and a permanent fix 

developed. 

2.3.2.8. Report to the Program Director the names of each State and/or local jurisdiction 

using an EAC certified voting system within 5 business days of delivery of the 

first production unit of the voting system to the jurisdiction. 

2.3.2.9. Certify the entity is not barred or otherwise prohibited by statute, regulation, or 

ruling from doing business in the United States. 

2.3.2.10. Agree to participate in a Kick-off Meeting at the beginning of every 

certification effort. The purposes of these meetings are to permit an in-depth 

discussion of the candidate voting system and allow both the EAC and the VSTL 

staff to have a live, hands-on demonstration of the voting system. The duration 

of this meeting shall be mutually agreed upon by all parties, but shall not be less 

than one business day. Topics of discussion during this meeting include, but are 

not limited to: 

• System architecture 

• System security design 

• System data flows 

• System limits 

2.3.2.11. Adhere to all procedural requirements of this Manual. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 121 of 214 PageID #: 

1018 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2.4. Registration Process. Generally, registration is accomplished through use of the EAC 

registration form. After the EAC has received a registration form and other required 

registration documents, the agency reviews the information for completeness before approval. 

2.4.1.Application Process. To become a registered voting system Manufacturer, interested parties 

must apply by submitting a Manufacturer Registration Application form (Appendix A). 

This form will be used as the means for the Manufacturer to provide the information and 

agree to the responsibilities required in Section 2.3, above. 

2.4.1.1. Application Form. In order for the EAC to accept and process the registration 

form, the applicant must adhere to the following requirements: 

2.4.1.1.1. All fields must be completed by the Manufacturer. 

2.4.1.1.2. All required attachments prescribed by the form and this Manual 

must be identified, completed, and forwarded in a timely manner to 

the EAC (e.g., Manufacturer’s quality control and system change 

policies). 

2.4.1.1.3. The application form must be affixed with the hand written signature 

(including a digital representation of the handwritten signature) of 

the authorized representative of the vendor. 

2.4.1.2. Availability and Use of the Form. The Manufacturer Registration Application Form 

may be accessed through the EAC’s website at www.eac.gov. Instructions for 

completing and submitting the form are included on the website along with 

contact information regarding questions about the form or the application 

process. 

2.4.2.EAC Review Process. The EAC will review all registration applications. 

2.4.2.1. After the application form and required attachments have been submitted, the 

applicant will receive an acknowledgment that the EAC has received the 

submission and that the application will be processed. 

2.4.2.2. If an incomplete form is submitted, or an attachment is not provided, the EAC 

will notify the Manufacturer and request the omitted information. Registration 

applications will not be processed until they are deemed complete. 

2.4.2.3. Upon receipt of the completed registration form and accompanying 

documentation, the EAC will review the information for sufficiency. If the EAC 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 122 of 214 PageID #: 

1019 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

requires clarification or additional information, the EAC will contact the 

Manufacturer and request the needed information. 

2.4.2.4. Upon the determination that an application has been satisfactorily completed, 

the EAC will notify the Manufacturer that it has been registered. 

2.5. Registered Manufacturers. After a Manufacturer has received notice that it is registered, it 

will receive an identification code and will be eligible to participate in the voluntary voting 

system Certification Program. 

2.5.1.Manufacturer Code. Registered Manufacturers will be issued a unique, three-letter 

identification code. This code will be used to identify the Manufacturer and its products. 

2.5.2.Continuing Responsibility to Report. Registered Manufacturers are required to keep all 

registration information up to date. Manufacturers must submit a revised application form 

to the EAC within 30 days of any changes to the information required on the application 

form. Manufacturers will remain registered participants in the program during this update 

process. 

2.5.3.Program Information Updates. Registered Manufacturers will automatically be provided 

timely information relevant to the Certification Program. 

2.5.4.Website Postings. The EAC will add the Manufacturer to the EAC’s listing of registered 

voting system Manufacturers publicly available at www.eac.gov. 

2.6. Suspension of Registration. Manufacturers are required to establish policies and operate 

within the EAC Certification Program consistent with the procedural requirements presented 

in this Manual. When Manufacturers violate the certification program’s requirements by 

engaging in management activities inconsistent with this Manual or failing to cooperate with 

the EAC, their registration may be suspended until such time as the issue is remedied. 

2.6.1 Procedures. When a Manufacturer’s activities violate the procedural requirements of this 

Manual, the Manufacturer will be notified of the violations, given an opportunity to 

respond, and provided with the suggested steps to bring itself into compliance. 

2.6.1.1. Notice. Manufacturers shall be provided written notice that they have taken 

action inconsistent with or acted in violation of the requirements of this Manual. 

The notice will state the violations and the specific steps required to cure them. 

The notice will also provide Manufacturers with 30 days (or a greater period of 

time as stated by the Program Director) to (1) respond to the notice and/or (2) 

cure the defect. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 123 of 214 PageID #: 

1020 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

2.6.1.2. Manufacturer Action. The Manufacturer is required to either respond in a timely 

manner to the notice (demonstrating it was not in violation of program 

requirements) or cure the violations identified in a timely manner. The steps 

required to cure a violation will include addressing the direct violation and the 

underlying root cause. In any case, the Manufacturer’s action must be approved 

by the Program Director to prevent suspension. 

2.6.1.3. Non-Compliance. If the Manufacturer fails to respond in a timely manner, is 

unable to provide a cure or response that is acceptable to the Program Director, 

or otherwise refuses to cooperate, the Program Director may suspend the 

Manufacturer’s registration. The Program Director shall issue a notice of his or 

her intent to suspend and provide the Manufacturer five (5) business days to 

object to the action and submit information in support of the objection. 

2.6.1.4. Suspension. After notice and opportunity to be heard (consistent with the above), 

the Program Director may suspend a Manufacturer’s registration. The 

suspension shall be provided in writing and must inform the Manufacturer of 

the steps available to remedy the violations and lift the suspension. 

2.6.2.Effect of Suspension. A suspended Manufacturer may not submit a voting system for 

certification under this program. This prohibition includes a ban on the submission of 

modifications and changes to certified system. A suspension shall remain in effect until 

lifted. Suspended Manufacturers will have their registration status reflected on the EAC 

website. Manufacturers have the right to remedy a non-compliance issue at any time and 

lift a suspension consistent with EAC guidance. Failure of a Manufacturer to follow the 

requirements of this section may also result in Decertification of voting systems consistent 

with Chapter 7 of this Manual. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 124 of 214 PageID #: 

1021 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

3. When Voting Systems Must Be Submitted for Testing and 

Certification 

3.1. Overview. An EAC certification signifies that a voting system has been successfully tested 

against an identified voting system standard adopted by the EAC. Only the EAC can issue a 

Federal certification. Ultimately, systems must be submitted for testing and certification under 

this program to receive this certification. Systems will usually be submitted when (1) they are 

new to the marketplace, (2) they have never before received an EAC certification, (3) they are 

modified, or (4) the Manufacturer wishes to test a previously certified system to a different 

(newer) standard. This chapter discusses the submission of de minimis change orders, which 

may not require additional testing and certification. Additionally, this chapter outlines 

provisional, pre-election emergency modifications, which provide for pre-election, emergency 

waivers. 

3.2. EAC Certification. Certification is the process by which the EAC, through testing and 

evaluation conducted by an accredited Voting System Test Laboratory, validates that a voting 

system meets the requirements set forth in existing voting system testing standards (VVSG), 

and performs according to the Manufacturer’s specifications for the system. An EAC 

certification may be issued only by the EAC in accordance with the procedures presented in 

this Manual. Certifications issued by other bodies (e.g., the National Association of State 

Election Directors and State certification programs) are not EAC certifications. 

3.2.1.Types of Voting Systems Certified. The EAC Certification Program is designed to test and 

certify electromechanical and electronic voting systems. Ultimately, the determination of 

whether a voting system may be submitted for testing and certification under this program 

is solely at the discretion of the EAC. 

3.2.2.Voting System Standards. Voting systems certified under this program are tested to a set of 

voluntary standards providing requirements that voting systems must meet to receive a 

Federal certification. These standards are referred to as Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines (VVSG). 

3.2.2.1. Versions—Availability and Identification. Voluntary Voting System Guidelines are 

published by the EAC and are available on the EAC’s website (www.eac.gov). 

The standards will be routinely updated and versions will be identified by 

version number and/or release date. 

3.2.2.2. Versions—Basis for Certification. The EAC will promulgate which version or 

versions of the standards it will accept as the basis for testing and certification. 

This effort may be accomplished through the setting of an implementation date 

for a particular version’s applicability, the setting of a date by which testing to a 

particular version is mandatory or the setting of date by which the EAC will no 

longer test to a particular standard. The EAC will certify only those voting 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 125 of 214 PageID #: 

1022 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

systems tested to standards that the EAC has identified as valid for 

certification. 

3.2.2.2.1. End date. When a version’s status as the basis of an EAC certification 

is set to expire on a certain date, the submission of the system’s test 

report will be the controlling event (see Chapter 4). This requirement 

means the system’s test report must be received by the EAC on or 

before the expiration date to be certified to the terminating standard. 

3.2.2.2.2. Start date. When a version’s status as the basis of an EAC 

certification is set to begin on a certain date, the submission of the 

system’s application for certification will be the controlling event (see 

Chapter 4). This requirement means the system’s application, 

requesting certification to the new standard, will not be accepted by 

the EAC until the start date. 

3.2.2.3. Version—Manufacturer’s Option. When the EAC has authorized the option of 

certification to more than one version of the standards, the Manufacturer must 

choose which version it wishes to have its voting system tested against. The 

voting system will then be certified to that version of the standards upon 

successful completion of testing. Manufacturers must ensure all applications for 

certification identify a particular version of the standards. 

3.2.2.4. Emerging Technologies. If a voting system or component thereof is eligible for a 

certification under this program (see Section 3.2.1.) and employs technology that 

is not addressed by a currently accepted version of the VVSG the relevant 

technology shall be subjected to full integration testing and shall be tested to 

ensure that it operates to the Manufacturer’s specifications and that the proper 

security risk assessments and quality assurance processes are in place. The 

Technology Testing Agreement (TTA) process described below is intended to 

provide additional clarification and guidance to enhance the testing and 

certification process for voting systems incorporating new or emerging 

technology. The remainder of the system will be tested to the applicable Federal 

standards. Information on emerging technologies will be forwarded to the 

EAC’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC). 

3.2.2.4.1. TTA Meeting. 

3.2.2.4.1.1. The manufacturer should contact the Certification Division as early 

as possible in their design and development process to have a general 

discussion regarding new or emerging technology in any voting 

system product. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 126 of 214 PageID #: 

1023 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

3.2.2.4.1.2. A formal request for a TTA Meeting should be: a) clearly identified 

as such and b) submitted via email or other secure means to the 

Director of the EAC Testing and Certification Division. The EAC 

expects that the submission will be as detailed as design and 

development allow, but should include the following items: 

• Description of the product, highlighting elements involving new 

technologies testable requirements and other testing protocol issues. 

This description should include, at a minimum: 

o General product description 

o Engineering drawing(s) 

o Product composition/key components/materials 

• Device specifications 

• Analysis of potential failure modes and threat model/risk analysis 

• Outline of the proposed conditions of use 

• Summary of instructions for use of the product (voter and poll 

worker/election official) 

• Relevant performance information on the product, especially if 

routinely used in other industries. This information may include: 

o Published and/or unpublished data 

o Summary of test data 

o Summary of prior user experience. 

3.2.2.4.1.3. Prior to the formal TTA Meeting, the manufacturer should arrange 

for a preliminary meeting (videoconference or teleconference) to 

review the submitted information and discuss any additional 

questions that may arise prior to the actual formal TTA Meeting. The 

manufacturer may then submit any additional information as 

required, and finalize the date and time for formal TTA Meeting with 

the EAC and VSTL. Because of logistics and budgetary considerations 

for all parties, the location of the meeting (EAC, VSTL or manufacturer 

location) will be mutually agreed upon. Meeting plans should 

generally be finalized within 30 days of the preliminary meeting. 

3.2.2.4.1.4. TTA Meetings should generally be face-to-face, or by 

videoconference, and should be scheduled for approximately 2-4 

hours or longer depending on the complexity of the issues to be 

discussed. The EAC and VSTL staff may raise any questions for the 

manufacturer about the product, but should be focused on the key 

issues of the products test plan development and testing that will 

ultimately lead to the Technology Testing Agreement. The Director of 

the Certification Division will determine which EAC staff should 

attend the meeting, but will generally include: the EAC Project 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 127 of 214 PageID #: 

1024 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Manager and any or all Technical Reviewers with interest or expertise 

in specific areas under discussion. 

3.2.2.4.2. Post TTA Meeting Activities 

3.2.2.4.2.1. At the end of the meeting, the EAC Project Manager for the voting 

system will summarize the agreement(s) or explain any reasons for 

tabling the agreement(s), including the date of any follow-on meeting, 

if appropriate. A record of attendees and minutes of the meeting shall 

be kept by both a designated EAC staff member and manufacturer 

representative. EAC and the manufacturer should exchange their 

respective meeting minutes for review following the meeting and 

share the minutes with the VSTL. The minutes shall be in sufficient 

detail to reflect the substance of the issues discussed at the meeting 

and the final agreement. 

3.2.2.4.2.2. The EAC Project Manager will prepare a memorandum outlining the 

TTA. Within ten (10) business days of the meeting, a draft of the 

memorandum should be circulated for comment among all TTA 

Meeting participants. Comments shall be returned to EAC in 5 

business days. The final memorandum shall be signed by the Director 

and conveyed to the applicant and VSTL within 5 business days of the 

receipt of final comments. 

3.2.3.Significance of an EAC Certification. An EAC certification is an official recognition that a 

voting system (in a specific configuration or configurations) has been tested by a VSTL to be 

in conformance with an identified set of Federal voting standards. An EAC certification is 

not: 

3.2.3.1. An official endorsement of a Manufacturer, voting system, or any of the 

system’s components. 

3.2.3.2. A Federal warranty of the voting system or any of its components. 

3.2.3.3. A determination that a voting system, when fielded, will be operated in a 

manner that meets all HAVA requirements. 

3.2.3.4. A substitute for State or local certification and testing. 

3.2.3.5. A determination that any particular component of a certified system is itself 

certified for use outside the certified configuration. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 128 of 214 PageID #: 

1025 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

3.3. When Certification Is Required Under the Program. To obtain or maintain an EAC 

certification, Manufacturers must submit a voting system for testing and certification under 

this program. Such action is usually required for (1) new systems not previously tested to any 

standard; (2) existing systems not previously certified by the EAC; (3) previously certified 

systems that have been modified; (4) systems or technology specifically identified for retesting 

by the EAC; or (5) previously certified systems that the Manufacturer seeks to upgrade to a 

higher standard (e.g., more recent version of the VVSG). 

3.3.1.New System Certification. For purposes of this Manual, new systems are defined as voting 

systems that have not been previously tested to applicable Federal standards. New voting 

systems must be fully tested and submitted to the EAC according to the requirements of 

Chapter 4 of this Manual. 

3.3.2.System Not Previously EAC Certified. This term describes any voting system not 

previously certified by the EAC, including systems previously tested and qualified by 

NASED or systems previously tested and denied certification by the EAC. Such systems 

must be fully tested and submitted to the EAC according to the requirements of Chapter 4 

of this Manual. 

3.3.3.Modification. A modification is any change to a previously EAC-certified voting system’s 

hardware, software, or firmware that is not a de minimis change. Any modification to a 

voting system will require testing and review by the EAC according to the requirements of 

Chapter 4 of this Manual. 

3.3.4.EAC Identified Systems. Manufacturers may be required to submit systems previously 

certified by the EAC for retesting. This may occur when the EAC determines that the 

original tests conducted on the voting system are now insufficient to demonstrate 

compliance with Federal standards in light of newly discovered threats or information. 

3.4. Changes to Voting Systems in the EAC Certification Program – Change Order. A change 

order does not apply to a system under test; any changes made to a system under test are 

considered part of the test campaign. A single change order can be applied to multiple 

systems as long as a VSTL reviews and approves the change order for each EAC certified 

system. 

3.4.1.Change Order. A change order is a change to a previously EAC certified voting system’s 

hardware, documentation, or data that is minor in nature and effect. Such changes, 

however, require VSTL review and endorsement as well as EAC approval. Any proposed 

change not accepted as a de minimis change is a modification and shall be submitted for 

testing and review consistent with the requirements of this Manual. 

3.4.2.De Minimis Change – Defined. A de minimis change is a change to a certified voting 

system’s hardware, software, TDP, or data, the nature of which will not materially alter the 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 129 of 214 PageID #: 

1026 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

system’s reliability, functionality, capability, or operation. Under no circumstance shall a 

change be considered de minimis if it has reasonable and identifiable potential to impact the 

system’s performance and compliance with the applicable voting Standard. 

3.4.3.De Minimis Change – Procedure. Manufacturers who wish to implement a proposed de 

minimis change must submit it for VSTL review and endorsement and EAC approval. A 

proposed de minimis change may not be implemented as such until it has been approved in 

writing by the EAC. 

3.4.3.1. VSTL Review. Manufacturers must submit any proposed de minimis change to a 

VSTL and the EAC for review and endorsement. The Manufacturer will provide 

the VSTL: (1) a detailed description of the change; (2) a description of the facts 

giving rise to or necessitating the change; (3) the basis for its determination that 

the change will not alter the system’s reliability, functionality, or operation; (4) 

upon request of the VSTL, a sample voting system at issue or any relevant 

technical information needed to make the determination; (5) document any 

potential impact to election officials currently using the system and any required 

notifications to those officials; (6) a description of how this change will impact 

any relevant system documentation;; and (7) any other information the EAC or 

VSTL needs to make a determination. The VSTL will review the proposed de 

minimis change and make an independent determination as to whether the 

change meets the definition of de minimis change or requires the voting system 

to undergo additional testing as a system modification. If the VSTL determines 

that a de minimis change is appropriate, it shall endorse the proposed change as 

a de minimis change. If the VSTL determines that modification testing and 

certification should be performed, it shall reclassify the proposed change as a 

modification. Endorsed de minimis changes shall be forwarded to the Voting 

System’s Project Manager for final approval. Rejected changes shall be returned 

to the Manufacturer for resubmission as system modifications. 

3.4.3.2. VSTL Endorsed Changes. The VSTL shall forward to the EAC any change it has 

endorsed as de minimis. The VSTL shall forward its endorsement in a package 

that includes: 

3.4.3.2.1. The Manufacturer’s initial description of the de minimis change, a 

narrative of facts giving rise to, or necessitating, the change, and the 

determination that the change will not alter the system’s reliability, 

functionality, or operation. 

3.4.3.2.2. The written determination of the VSTL’s endorsement of the de 

minimis change. The endorsement document must explain why the 

VSTL, in its engineering judgment, determined that the proposed de 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 130 of 214 PageID #: 

1027 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

minimis change met the definition in this section and otherwise does 

not require additional testing and certification. 

3.4.3.3. EAC Action. The EAC will review all proposed de minimis changes endorsed by 

a VSTL. The EAC has sole authority to determine whether any VSTL endorsed 

change constitutes a de minimis change under this section. The EAC will inform 

the Manufacturer and VSTL of its determination in writing. 

3.4.3.3.1. If the EAC approves the change as a de minimis change, it shall 

provide written notice to the Manufacturer and VSTL. The EAC will 

maintain copies of all approved de minimis changes and otherwise 

track such changes. 

3.4.3.3.2. If the EAC determines that a proposed de minimis change cannot be 

approved, it will inform the VSTL and Manufacturer of its decision. 

The proposed change will be considered a modification and require 

testing and certification consistent with this Manual. De minimis 

changes cannot be made to voting systems currently undergoing 

testing; these changes are merely changes to an uncertified system 

and may require an Application update. 

3.5. Changes to Voting Systems in the EAC Certification Program - Modification. 

3.5.1.Modification – Defined. A modification is any change to a previously EAC-certified voting 

system’s hardware, software, or firmware that is not a de minimis change. Any modification 

to a voting system will require testing and review by the EAC according to the 

requirements of Chapter 4 of this Manual. 

3.5.2.Modification – Procedure. Once a VSTL has submitted a modification application, a Test 

Plan shall be created and submitted to the EAC for the Test Plan review process. Any 

modification shall be subject to full testing of the modifications (delta -testing) and those 

systems or subsystems altered or impacted by the modification (regression testing). The 

system will also be subject to system integration testing to ensure overall functionality. 

Once testing is completed, a Test Report will be generated by the VSTL and submitted to 

the EAC for approval. 

3.5.3.EAC Approval. If the EAC approves the change as a modification, it shall provide written 

notice to the Manufacturer and VSTL and generate a Certificate of Conformance. The EAC 

will maintain copies of all approved modifications and otherwise track such changes 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 131 of 214 PageID #: 

1028 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

3.5.4.EAC Denial. If the EAC determines that a modification cannot be approved, it will inform 

the VSTL and Manufacturer of its decision. The Denial of Certification appeals process 

would govern this testing campaign. 

3.5.5.Modification Change – Effect of EAC Approval. EAC approval of a modification permits 

the Manufacturer to implement the proposed change (as identified, endorsed, and 

approved). Fielding a change not approved by the EAC is a basis for system 

Decertification. 

3.6. Provisional, Pre-Election Emergency Modification. To address extraordinary pre-election 

emergency situations, the EAC has developed a special provisional modification process. This 

process is to be used only for the emergency situations indicated and only when there is a 

clear and compelling need for temporary relief until the regular certification process can be 

followed. 

3.6.1.Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow for a mechanism within the EAC 

Certification Program for Manufacturers to modify EAC-certified voting systems in 

emergency situations immediately before an election. This situation arises when a 

modification to a voting system is required and an election deadline is imminent, 

preventing the completion of the full certification process (and State and/or local testing 

process) prior to Election Day. In such situations, the EAC may issue a waiver to the 

Manufacturer authorizing it to make the modification without submission for modification 

testing and certification. 

3.6.2.General Requirements. A request for an emergency modification waiver may be made by a 

Manufacturer only in conjunction with the State election official whose jurisdiction(s) would 

be adversely affected if the requested modification were not implemented before Election 

Day. Requests must be submitted at least 5 calendar days before an election. Only systems 

previously certified are eligible for such a waiver. To receive a waiver, a Manufacturer must 

demonstrate the following: 

3.6.2.1. The modification is functionally or legally required; that is, the system cannot be 

fielded in an election without the change. 

3.6.2.2. The voting system requiring modification is needed by State or local election 

officials to conduct a pending Federal election. 

3.6.2.3. The voting system to be modified has previously been certified by the EAC. 

3.6.2.4. The modification cannot be tested by a VSTL and submitted to the EAC for 

certification, consistent with the procedural requirements of this Manual, at least 

30 days before the pending Federal election. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 132 of 214 PageID #: 

1029 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

3.6.2.5. Relevant State law requires Federal certification of the requested modification. 

3.6.2.6. The Manufacturer has taken steps to ensure the modification will properly 

function as designed, is suitably integrated with the system, and otherwise will 

not negatively affect system reliability, functionality, or accuracy. 

3.6.2.7. The Manufacturer (through a VSTL) has completed as much of the evaluation 

testing as possible for the modification and has provided the results of such 

testing to the EAC. 

3.6.2.8. The emergency modification is required and otherwise supported by the Chief 

State Election Official seeking to field the voting system in an impending Federal 

election. 

3.6.3.Request for Waiver. A Manufacturer’s request for waiver shall be made in writing to the 

Decision Authority and shall include the following elements: 

3.6.3.1. A signed statement providing sufficient description, background, information, 

documentation, and other evidence necessary to demonstrate that the request for 

a waiver meets each of the eight requirements stated in Section 3.6.2 above. 

3.6.3.2. A signed statement from the Chief State Election Official requiring the 

emergency modification. This signed statement shall identify the pending 

election creating the emergency situation and attest that (1) the modification is 

required to field the system, (2) State law (citation) requires EAC action to field 

the system in an election, and (3) normal timelines required under the EAC 

Certification Program cannot be met. 

3.6.3.3. A signed statement from a VSTL stating there is insufficient time to perform 

necessary testing and complete the certification process. The statement shall also 

state what testing the VSTL has performed on the modification to date, provide 

the results of such tests, and state the schedule for the completion of testing. 

3.6.3.4. A detailed description of the modification, the need for the modification, how it 

was developed, how it addresses the need for which it was designed, its impact 

on the voting system, and how the modification will be fielded or implemented 

in a timely manner consistent with the Manufacturer’s quality control program. 

3.6.3.5. All documentation of tests performed on the modification by the Manufacturer, 

a laboratory, or other third party. 

3.6.3.6. A stated agreement signed by the Manufacturer’s representative agreeing to 

take the following action: 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 133 of 214 PageID #: 

1030 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

3.6.3.6.1. Submit for testing and certification, consistent with Chapter 4 of this 

Manual, any voting system receiving a waiver under this section that 

has not already been submitted. This action shall be taken 

immediately. 

3.6.3.6.2. Abstain from representing the modified system as EAC certified. The 

modified system has not been certified; rather, the originally certified 

system has received a waiver providing the Manufacturer a 

temporary exemption allowing its modification. 

3.6.3.6.3. Submit a report to the EAC regarding the performance of the 

modified voting system within 60 days of the Federal election that 

served as the basis for the waiver. This report shall (at a minimum) 

identify and describe any (1) performance failures, (2) technical 

failures, (3) security failures, and/or (4) accuracy problems. 

3.6.4.EAC Review. The EAC will review all waiver requests submitted in a timely manner and 

make determinations regarding the requests. Incomplete requests will be returned for 

resubmission with a written notification regarding its deficiencies. 

3.6.5.Letter of Approval. If the EAC approves the modification waiver, the Decision Authority 

shall issue a letter granting the temporary waiver within five (5) business days of receiving 

a complete request. 

3.6.6.Effect of Grant of Waiver. An EAC grant of waiver for an emergency modification is not an 

EAC certification of the modification. Waivers under this program grant Manufacturers 

leave to only temporarily amend previously certified systems without testing and 

certification for the specific election noted in the request. Without such a waiver, such 

action would ordinarily result in Decertification of the modified system (See Chapter 7). 

Systems receiving a waiver shall satisfy any State requirement that a system be nationally or 

federally certified. In addition— 

3.6.6.1. All waivers are temporary and expire 60 days after the Federal Election for 

which the system was modified and the waiver granted. 

3.6.6.2. Any system granted a waiver must be submitted for testing and certification. 

This shall be accomplished as soon as possible. 

3.6.6.3. The grant of a waiver does not predispose the modified system to being granted 

a certification. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 134 of 214 PageID #: 

1031 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

3.6.7.Denial of Request for Waiver. A request for waiver may be denied by the EAC if the request 

does not meet the requirements noted above, fails to follow the procedure established by 

this section, or otherwise fails to sufficiently support a conclusion that the modification at 

issue is needed, will function properly, and is in the public interest. A denial of a request 

for an emergency modification by the EAC shall be final and not subject to appeal. 

Manufacturers may submit for certification, consistent with Chapter 4 of this Manual, 

modifications for which emergency waivers were denied. 

3.6.8.Publication Notice of Waiver. The EAC will post relevant information relating to the 

temporary grant of an emergency waiver on its website. This information will be posted 

upon grant of the waiver and removed upon the waiver’s expiration. This posting will 

include information concerning the limited nature and effect of the waiver. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 135 of 214 PageID #: 

1032 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

4. Certification Testing and Technical Review 

4.1. Overview. This chapter discusses the procedural requirements for submitting a voting system 

to the EAC for testing and review. The testing and review process requires an application, 

employment of an EAC-accredited testing laboratory, and technical analysis of the laboratory 

test report by the EAC. The result of this process is an Initial Decision on Certification by the 

Decision Authority. 

4.2. Policy. Generally, to receive an initial determination on an EAC certification for a voting 

system, a registered Manufacturer must have (1) submitted an EAC-approved application for 

certification, (2) had a VSTL submit an EAC-approved test plan, (3) had a VSTL test a voting 

system to applicable voting system standards, (4) had a VSTL submit a test report to the EAC 

for technical review and approval, and (5) received EAC approval of the report in an Initial 

Decision on Certification. 

4.3. Certification Application. The first step in submitting a voting system for certification is 

submission of an application package. The nature of the submission will determine what 

information is required from the manufacturer. Manufacturers must identify the nature of 

their submission by selecting one of two submission types: 

• New system. A new system is a voting system not previously certified by the EAC. The 

application package must contain an application form, Summative Usability Testing 

Report and the Test Readiness Review. 

• Modification. A modification is a change to a system previously certified by the EAC. A 

modification does not include de minimis changes to the system. The application package 

must contain an application form, and updated Summative Usability Testing Report (if 

modification impacts usability). 

Manufacturers must use the appropriate application form for submitting a voting system for 

testing. Any submission that is not on the EAC provided form will be rejected. In addition, a 

manufacturer must submit a complete certification application package and receive 

notification from the EAC that it is accepted prior to conducting any certification testing. Any 

testing occurring after the execution of a contract or agreement for certification testing (not 

including the Test Readiness Review) between a VSTL and a registered manufacturer is 

presumed to be certification testing. 

4.3.1.Information on Application Form- New System. The application provides the EAC with 

essential information at the outset of the certification process. This information includes: 

4.3.1.1. Manufacturer Information. Identification of the Manufacturer (name and threeletter identification code). 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 136 of 214 PageID #: 

1033 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

4.3.1.2. Selection of Accredited Laboratory. Selection and identification of the VSTL that 

will perform voting system testing and other prescribed laboratory action 

consistent with the requirements of this Manual. Once selected, a Manufacturer 

may NOT replace the selected VSTL without the express written consent of the 

Program Director. Such permission is granted solely at the discretion of the 

Program Director and only upon demonstration of good cause. 

4.3.1.3. Voting System Standards Information. Identification of the VVSG, including the 

document’s date and version number, to which the Manufacturer wishes to have 

the identified voting system tested and certified. 

4.3.1.4. Identification of the Voting System/system overview. Manufacturers must identify 

the system submitted for testing by providing its name and version number. If 

the system submitted was previously fielded, but the Manufacturer wishes to 

change its name or version number after receipt of EAC certification, it must 

provide identification information on both the past name or names and the new, 

proposed name. 

4.3.1.4.1. Separate identification of each device that is part of the voting 

system. This includes all COTS components. A keyboard, mouse, 

accessibility peripheral or printer connected to a programmed voting 

device, as well as any optical drive, hard drive or similar component 

installed within it, are considered components of the voting device, 

not separate devices. 

4.3.1.5. Voting variations. Manufactures must identify the voting variations supported 

by the voting system. These variations are described in Volume 1 Section 2.1.7.2 

of the 2005 VVSG. 

4.3.1.6. Languages support. The electronic display or printed document on which the 

user views the ballot must be capable of rendering an image of the ballot in any 

of the languages required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. 

4.3.1.7. List of accessibility capabilities. Manufacturers must provide a detailed explanation 

of the accessibility capabilities present in their system 

4.3.1.8. Device capacities and limits. 

4.3.1.9. Coding Standard. Each voting system component must have a single coding 

convention selected for every programming language used in the voting system. 

This information must include: 

• System Component 

• Language Used 

• Specified Coding Convention 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 137 of 214 PageID #: 

1034 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

• Source of Coding Convention 

4.3.1.10. Functional Diagrams. Diagram(s) that display all components and how the 

components relate and interact in each configuration. 

4.3.1.11. Certification Number. Manufacturers must provide their desired EAC 

certification number. 

4.3.1.12. Test Readiness Review. Manufacturers must submit confirmation that a test 

readiness review has been completed by a VSTL per Section 4.5 of this manual. 

4.3.1.13. Date Submitted. Manufacturers must note the date the application was 

submitted for EAC approval. 

4.3.1.14. Signature. The Manufacturer must affix the signature of the authorized 

management representative. 

4.3.2.Information on Application Form- Modification. If submitting an application for 

modification, the application must contain: 

4.3.2.1. Manufacturer Information. Identification of the Manufacturer (name and threeletter identification code). 

4.3.2.2. Selection of Accredited Laboratory. Selection and identification of the VSTL that 

will perform voting system testing and other prescribed laboratory action 

consistent with the requirements of this Manual. Once selected, a Manufacturer 

may NOT replace the selected VSTL without the express written consent of the 

Program Director. Such permission is granted solely at the discretion of the 

Program Director and only upon demonstration of good cause. 

4.3.2.3. Voting System Standards Information. Identification of the VVSG, including the 

document’s date and version number, to which the Manufacturer wishes to have 

the identified voting system tested and certified. 

4.3.2.4. Manufacturers must provide a detailed overview of the modification containing: 

4.3.2.4.1. Modified system components 

4.3.2.4.2. Component version numbers 

4.3.2.4.3. Detailed description of the change(s) 

4.3.2.4.4. Listing of all TDP documents impacted by the change 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 138 of 214 PageID #: 

1035 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

4.3.2.4.5. Usability impact 

4.3.2.4.6. Functional diagram(s) that display all components and how the 

components relate and interact in each configuration if impacted by 

modification. 

4.3.2.5. Certification Number. Manufacturers must provide their desired EAC certification 

number. 

4.3.2.6. Date Submitted. Manufacturers must note the date the application was submitted 

for EAC approval. 

4.3.2.7. Signature. The Manufacturer must affix the signature of the authorized 

management representative. 

4.3.3.Submission of the Application Package. Manufacturers must submit a copy of the 

application form described above and the required additional information. Manufacturers 

must submit the required information in a concise and efficient manner. 

4.3.3.1. Submission. Applications and accompanying documentation must be submitted 

in Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, or other electronic format as prescribed by the 

Program Director. Applications must be submitted via the VRT. 

4.4. EAC Review. Upon receipt of a Manufacturer’s application package, the EAC will review the 

submission for completeness and accuracy. The manufacturer will be notified of acceptance or 

rejection of the application package within five business days of the EAC’s receipt of the 

application. If the application package is incomplete or inaccurate, the EAC will return it to 

the Manufacturer with instructions for resubmission. If the form submitted is acceptable, the 

Manufacturer will be notified and provided a unique application number. 

4.5. Test Readiness Review. The Test Readiness Review (TRR) is the mechanism used by the EAC 

to ensure that test and evaluation resources are not committed to a voting system that is not 

ready for testing by a VSTL. The TRR determines if the submitted voting system and 

documentation are ready to enter certification testing. The TRR shall be completed by the 

VSTL and the subsequent Test Readiness Acknowledgement must be received by the EAC 

prior to the initiation of any certification testing. To assess the readiness of a voting system for 

certification testing, the VSTL shall review: 

• System Technical Data Package (TDP): The voting system technical data package shall be 

reviewed to ensure all elements required by the VVSG are present. 

• System Components: The VSTL shall review the submitted voting system to ensure all 

components required to configure the voting system as defined in the system TDP are 

delivered to the VSTL and appear to be operational and in good working order. System 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 139 of 214 PageID #: 

1036 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Component information should match the Manufacturer’s application submitted to the 

EAC. All components submitted for testing must be equivalent to the final production 

model of the voting system in fit, form and function. Any component not available at the 

time of this review shall be delivered to the VSTL by the voting system manufacturer 

within 30 days of the initial TRR, or testing of the system will be halted and the EAC 

notified that the system is not ready for testing. 

• Preliminary Source Code Review: The VSTL shall conduct a preliminary review of no less 

than 1% of the total lines of code (LOC) of every software package or product submitted for 

testing in order to ensure that the code is mature and does not contain any systematic nonconformities. 

• Mark Reading: The system shall be able to read a fully filled mark if it is an optical scan 

system. 

• Summary of COTS components. This summary should outline which components of the 

voting system are COTS products and shall be updated with each test campaign. 

4.5.1.Test Readiness Notification. Upon completion of the TRR, the VSTL shall submit a signed 

statement to the EAC confirming that the voting system completed the TRR and the VSTL 

determined that the system is ready for certification testing to applicable Voluntary Voting 

System Guidelines. 

4.5.2.Test Readiness Acknowledgement. Upon receipt of the Test Readiness Notification from the 

VSTL, the EAC shall issue an acknowledgement in writing stating that the VSTL and 

manufacturer may commence certification testing. This acknowledgement will be issued 

within 3 business days of receipt of the Notification. Systems not passing the Test Readiness 

Review will be remanded to the manufacturer for additional work as noted in the Test 

Readiness Notification. 

4.6. Test Plan. The Manufacturer shall authorize the VSTL identified in its application to submit a 

test plan directly to the EAC. The test plan shall document the strategy and plan for testing 

each section of the applicable version of the VVSG and is to be used as a key tool to manage 

the test campaign and to verify that a voting system or component meets all VVSG and 

program defined requirements. The test plan shall be written with completeness and clarity 

that will allow all constituents to understand what testing will be conducted, to assess each 

group of VVSG requirements, and to assure the test plan will remain a living document 

throughout the life of the test campaign. The objective is to address each section of the VVSG 

in detail, and to clearly and succinctly describe the strategy and/or approach for testing each 

section. 

4.6.1.Development. An accredited laboratory will develop test plans that use appropriate test 

protocols, standards, or test suites developed by the laboratory. Laboratories must use all 

applicable protocols, standards, or test suites issued by the EAC. Care should be taken to 

clearly communicate the scope and requirements of testing, the test strategies, and the 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 140 of 214 PageID #: 

1037 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

resource needs. This information identifies the purpose and boundaries of the test 

campaign: 

• What will be tested, 

• How it will be tested, 

• What resources are needed for testing. 

Because future events in any test campaign cannot be 100% predicted and controlled, the 

initial submission of the test plan is viewed as a baseline that enables periodic updates as 

events cause the plan to change. The VSTL is expected to update specific sections of the 

plan and resubmit as necessary to enable all stakeholders (Manufacturer, EAC, the public 

and states or jurisdictions) to understand and use the test plan. As the Target of 

Evaluation changes via Change Orders, component changes, or COTS products change, 

the test plan shall be updated since these changes may significantly impact the testing. 

These test plan changes might also alter the original schedule and may require an 

updated schedule be submitted with the revised test plan. The following are examples of 

instances that would likely require updating the test plan: 

• Changes to the manufacturer’s application for testing. 

• Engineering Changes that alter the scope or function of the voting system. 

• Information discovered during testing that change the strategy on how best to test the 

voting system. 

For the test plan to be an effective, living document it needs to be clear and complete so 

stakeholders (VSTL project manager, VSTL testers, third party lab personnel, 

manufacturer, EAC, states and jurisdictions) can review the plan and understand what 

needs to be done to complete the project. In order to accomplish these goals the following 

general topics, which are further defined in the test plan outline later in the document, 

shall be included in the test plan. 

• A detailed, comprehensive knowledge of the scope of evaluation 

o That each requirement or set of requirements is going to be evaluated for 

compliance 

o That all features, interfaces and characteristics of the individual devices and the 

system are evaluated to applicable standards 

• Titles of test lab personnel who will be responsible for each aspect of the test 

campaign 

• Detailed project schedule including what the critical path is for timely project 

completion 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 141 of 214 PageID #: 

1038 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

• What test methods will be used to evaluate each section of the standards (more than 

one test method may be used for a section) 

o What is tested in document review 

o What is tested in source code review 

o What is operationally tested 

o What is tested at a component/subsystem level 

o What is tested at a system only level 

4.6.2.Required Testing. Test plans shall be developed to ensure a voting system is functional and 

meets all requirements of the applicable, approved voting system standards. The highest 

level of care and vigilance is required to ensure comprehensive test plans are created. A test 

plan should ensure the voting system meets all applicable standards and test results, and 

other factual evidence of the testing, are clearly documented. System testing must meet all 

of the requirements of the VVSG. Generally, full testing will be required of any voting 

system applying for certification, regardless of previous certification history. 

4.6.2.1. New System. A new system shall be subject to full testing of all hardware and 

software according to applicable voting system standards. 

4.6.2.2. System Not Previously EAC Certified. A system not previously certified by the 

EAC shall be fully tested as a new system. 

4.6.2.3. Modification. A modification to a previously EAC-certified voting system shall be 

tested in a manner necessary to ensure all changes meet applicable voting system 

standards and the modified system (as a whole) will function properly and 

reliably. Any system submitted for modification shall be subject to full testing of 

the modifications (delta-testing) and those systems or subsystems altered or 

impacted by the modification (regression testing). The system will also be subject 

to system integration testing to ensure overall functionality. The modification 

will be tested to the version or versions of the VVSG currently accepted for 

testing and certification by the EAC. This requirement, however, does not mean 

that the full system must be tested to such standards. If the system has been 

previously certified to a VVSG version deemed acceptable by the EAC (see 

Section 3.2.2.2), it may retain that level of certification with only the modification 

being tested to the current version(s). 

4.6.2.3.1. Modification Test Plans. Test Plans submitted for modifications to 

previously EAC certified voting systems should be brief and 

structured to minimize test plan development and review, while 

enabling the EAC to maintain solid control of the certification 

process. The test plan shall concisely document the strategy and plan 

for testing those sections of the VVSG applicable to the modification 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 142 of 214 PageID #: 

1039 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

or modifications submitted. The test plan shall be written with clarity 

that will allow all constituents to understand what testing will be 

conducted, to verify compliance to the VVSG standard, and to assure 

that the test plan will remain a living document throughout the life of 

the test campaign for the modification. 

Care should be taken to clearly communicate the scope and 

requirements of testing, the test strategies, and the resource needs. In 

order to accomplish these goals the following general topics shall be 

included in all modification test plans. 

• Complete definition of the baseline certified system. 

• Detailed description of all the engineering changes and/or 

modifications to the certified system and why the modification 

was implemented. 

• Cite the standard (VVSG) to which the original system was 

certified. 

• Cite the standard (VVSG) to which the modified system is to be 

tested. 

• Detailed description of which specific components, including 

version, are tested to which standard. 

• An initial assessment of the impact the changes have on the 

current system and any previous certification. 

• An initial assessment of the impact the changes have on TDP 

documents. 

• A table or list indicating how each of the existing NOCs/RFIs will 

be addressed and why this plan is valid for this test campaign. 

• Description of what will be tested (regression) to establish 

assurance that the change(s) have no adverse impact on the 

compliance, integrity, or the performance of the equipment. 

• Description of what will be tested (regression) to establish 

assurance that the change(s) create no inconsistencies with the 

TDP and further are correctly documented and reflected in the 

TDP. 

• A summary of the test methods that will be used to validate 

compliance. This summary may include existing, modified or 

new test methods, test cases or test sequences. 

• Titles of test lab personnel who will be responsible for each 

aspect of the test campaign. 

• Detailed project schedule including what the critical path is for 

timely project completion. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 143 of 214 PageID #: 

1040 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

4.6.2.4. EAC Identified Systems. Previously certified systems identified for retesting by 

the EAC (see Section 3.4.4) shall be tested as directed by the Program Director 

(after consultation with technical experts as necessary). 

4.6.2.5. Certification Upgrade. A previously certified system submitted for testing to a 

new voting system standard (without modification) shall be tested in a manner 

necessary to ensure that the system meets all requirements of the new standard. 

The VSTL shall create a test plan that identifies the differences between the new 

and old standards and, based upon the differences, fully retest all hardware and 

software components affected. 

4.6.3.Format. Test labs shall issue test plans consistent with the format outlined in Appendix D of 

this document and any applicable EAC guidance. 

4.6.4.EAC Approval. All test plans are subject to EAC approval. No test report will be accepted 

for technical review unless the test plan on which it is based has been approved by EAC’s 

Program Director. 

4.6.4.1. Review. All test plans must be reviewed for adequacy by the Program Director. 

For each submission, the Program Director will determine whether the test plan 

is acceptable or unacceptable. Unacceptable plans will be returned to the VSTL 

for further action. Acceptable plans will be approved and appropriate 

notifications will be made. Although Manufacturers may direct test labs to begin 

testing before approval of a test plan, the Manufacturer bears the full risk that the 

test plan (and thus any tests preformed) may be deemed unacceptable. 

4.6.4.2. Unaccepted Plans. If a test plan is not accepted, the Program Director will return 

the submission to the Manufacturer’s identified VSTL for additional action. 

Notice of unacceptability will be provided in writing to the laboratory and 

include a description of the deficiencies identified and steps required to remedy 

the test plan. A copy of this notice will also be sent to the Manufacturer. 

Questions concerning the notice shall be forwarded to the Program Director in 

writing. Plans that have not been accepted may be resubmitted for review after 

remedial action is taken. 

4.6.4.3. Effect of Approval. Approval of a test plan is required before a test report may be 

filed. EAC approval of the Test Plan does not mean the EAC accepts 

responsibility that efforts described in the Test Plan will produce full and 

adequate testing to certify the system. The following discuss the meaning of 

EAC’s approval of the Test Plan: 

• Approval simply signifies that the tests proposed, if performed properly, 

appear to be sufficient to fully test the system. A final determination of 

the sufficiency of the testing is a global evaluation based on the test plan, 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 144 of 214 PageID #: 

1041 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

test cases, and test report reviews, as well as the EAC’s Quality 

Monitoring Process outlined in Ch. 8 of the Program Manual. 

• Approval allows the VSTL to begin test case development, testing, and 

test report submittal. 

• A test plan is approved based on information submitted; therefore it is 

unknown if relevant information was omitted that would affect the 

testing campaign. 

• The test plan is a living document and is expected to change and be 

updated during various phases of the testing life cycle. A final version 

that reflects all of the testing completed (TDP, S/W, Hardware, Software 

etc) should be submitted to the EAC at the completion of testing. If this 

final “as run” test plan does not reflect all the testing required the EAC 

reserves the right to request further updates to the test plan and possibly 

additional testing. 

4.7. Testing. During testing, Manufacturers are responsible for enabling VSTLs to report any 

changes to a voting system, or an approved test plan, directly to the EAC. Manufacturers shall 

also enable VSTLs to report all test failures or anomalies directly to the EAC. 

4.7.1.Changes. Any changes to a voting system, initiated as a result of the testing process, will 

require submission of an updated Implementation Statement, functional diagram, and 

System Overview document and, potentially, an updated test plan. Test plans must be 

updated whenever a change to a voting system requires deviation from the test plan 

originally approved by the EAC. Changes requiring alteration or deviation from the 

originally approved test plan must be submitted to the EAC (by the VSTL) for approval 

before the completion of testing and shall include an updated Implementation Statement, 

functional diagram, and System Overview, as needed. Changes not affecting the test plan 

shall be reported in the test report and shall include an updated Implementation Statement, 

functional diagram, and System Overview document, as needed. 

4.7.2.Test Anomalies or Failures. Manufacturers shall enable VSTLs to notify the EAC directly 

and independently of any test anomalies or failures during testing. The VSTLs shall ensure 

all anomalies or failures are addressed and resolved before testing is completed. All test 

failures, anomalies and actions taken to resolve such failures and anomalies shall be 

documented by the VSTL in an appendix to the Test Report submitted to the EAC. These 

matters shall be reported in a matrix, or similar format, that identifies the failure or 

anomaly, the applicable voting system standards, and a description of how the failure or 

anomaly was resolved. Associated or similar anomalies/failures may be summarized and 

reported in a single entry on the report (matrix) as long as the nature and scope of the 

anomaly/failure is clearly identified. The manufacturer shall conduct a root cause analysis 

for each anomaly following the format provided by the EAC. This analysis must be 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 145 of 214 PageID #: 

1042 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

provided to the VSTL and the EAC prior to the beginning the Test Report phase of the test 

campaign. 

4.7.3.Deficiency Criteria. The EAC has developed a number of metrics to determine if voting 

systems under test by a VSTL shall be removed from the EAC’s Testing and Certification 

Program and returned to a manufacturer for further readiness review and/or QA testing. 

These metrics include: 

• The duration of time a system is in a VSTL for testing 

• Significant delays/inactivity during a test campaign 

• Type or significance of deficiencies found 

• Total number of deficiencies, excluding source code coding convention deficiencies 

• Defect Density Ratio 

• A maximum number of errors in each of four categories, as defined later on in this 

section 

Note: A deficiency, for the purposes of this document, is considered a non-conformity to the 

voting standard to which the voting system is being certified. 

Voting systems shall be returned to a manufacturer for further readiness review and/or QA 

testing if any of the following conditions occur: 

• Testing continues for more than 18 months without a test report being issued; 

• Inactivity as a result of a manufacturer’s decision or lack of action, which hinders 

the reasonable progression of the test campaign, that exceeds 90 calendar days; 

• A significant deficiency caused by one or more major architectural flaws, requiring 

significant redesign to adequately eliminate the deficiency; 

o Two factors shall be considered in determining the significance of a 

deficiency: 

 The consequences of the deficiency to proper voting system function. 

 The extent of redesign necessary to fully remedy the deficiency. A 

full remedy goes beyond a superficial response to the symptoms, 

which leaves an underlying architectural flaw unaddressed, creating 

the potential for other manifestations of the deficiency to re-occur. A 

full remedy addresses the root cause of the deficiency and removes 

the cause of the problem that created the deficiency. 

• The occurrence of 250 or more unique deficiencies, excluding coding convention 

deficiencies; 

• Software defect density ratio (errors per 1000 lines of code) of 

o > 2.00 for voting systems of less than 250,000 lines of code 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 146 of 214 PageID #: 

1043 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

o > 1.75 for voting systems between 250,000 and 500,000 lines of code 

o > 1.50 for voting systems of more than 500,000 lines of code; 

Additionally, the following four categories of deficiencies shall also be used to determine 

when to return a voting system to a manufacturer: 

• Category 1 (Fatal Deficiency): A logic defect responsible for the incorrect 

recording, tabulation, or reporting of a vote. 

o Voting systems shall be returned to a manufacturer if one or more 

unique fatal deficiencies are discovered during one test campaign.1 

• Category 2 (Severe Deficiency): A deficiency that causes program execution to 

abort or causes a program not to perform properly or to produce unreliable 

results. 

o Voting systems shall be returned to a manufacturer if 10 or more unique 

severe deficiencies are discovered during one test campaign. 

• Category 3 (Significant Deficiency): A deficiency that is not a Category 1 or 

Category 2 deficiency. 

o Voting systems shall be returned to a manufacturer if 200 or more 

unique significant deficiencies are discovered during one test campaign. 

• Category 4 (Insignificant Deficiency): A minor deficiency, (including a source 

code coding convention deficiency, e.g. naming convention, control construct, 

coding or comment convention deficiency), a documentation deficiency, or a 

deficiency caused by a typographical error, and is not a Category 1, 2, or 3 

deficiency. 

o Category 4 deficiencies are unlimited. 

Two or more instances of a deficiency are considered to be the same unique deficiency if: 1) 

the outputs of each instance are identical; and 2) the same, specific remedy cures all 

instances of the deficiency. If a second deficiency is discovered that results in the same 

output as the first deficiency, but requires a different remedy to cure it, it shall be 

considered a second unique deficiency. Two similar deficiencies that require a 

modification within different areas of the source code to remedy the deficiency are to be 

considered separate and unique deficiencies. 

1 Note that for some requirements, for example the accuracy requirements, some errors are allowed, so 

long as they remain below a specified threshold. A voting system that had errors under the specified 

threshold would not be judged deficient because the system meets the requirements of the voting system 

standard. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 147 of 214 PageID #: 

1044 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Note: The above categories of deficiencies describe conditions under which the voting 

system is returned to a manufacturer for further readiness review and/or QA testing. 

However, even if the thresholds for return to a manufacturer are not met, all deficiencies 

shall be corrected for a certificate to be issued. 

The VSTL shall make the initial assignment for each deficiency into one of the four 

categories described above. The VSTL shall ensure that each deficiency is described and 

documented accurately in order to ensure the correct categorization of each deficiency. The 

EAC shall review the determinations of the VSTL and make the final determinations as to 

the categorization of deficiencies. 

When a voting system is returned to a manufacturer for reasons described in this section, 

the manufacturer shall perform a thorough QA analysis to determine the reason for the 

deficiencies (root cause analysis). In addition, the manufacturer shall review its quality 

process and perform an analysis of how the identified deficiencies passed through its 

quality system. The manufacturer shall perform an extensive quality review to determine 

the extent of the QA issues and shall document the appropriate measures that are 

implemented to ensure that similar deficiencies do not occur again. Specifically, the 

manufacturer shall detail the specific changes made to its quality process and then the 

voting system to remedy the failures in the design and the quality process. All such 

documentation shall be submitted to the EAC for review. The manufacturer may re-apply 

for certification only after the EAC makes the determination that the QA analysis/review 

and the measures put in place, in both the quality system and the voting system design, are 

deemed adequate. 

4.8. Test Report. Manufacturers shall enable VSTLs to submit test reports directly to the EAC. The 

VSTL shall submit test reports only if the voting system has been tested and all tests identified 

in the test plan have been successfully performed. 

4.8.1.Submission. The test reports shall be submitted to the Program Director. The Program 

Director shall review the submission for completeness. Any reports showing incomplete or 

unsuccessful testing will be returned to the test laboratory for action and resubmission. 

Notice of this action will be provided to the Manufacturer. Test reports shall be submitted 

in Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, or other electronic formats as prescribed by the Program 

Director. Information on how to submit reports will be posted on the EAC’s website: 

www.eac.gov. 

4.8.2.Format. Manufacturers shall ensure VSTLs submit reports consistent with the requirements 

in the VVSG and in the format outlined in Appendix E of this Manual. All information 

provided in the Test Report shall be provided in a clear, complete and unambiguous 

manner, so that a wide range of readers and users of the document will be able to 

understand the evaluation supporting a system’s certification. In addition, the Test Report 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 148 of 214 PageID #: 

1045 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

must show that all mandatory (shall) requirements in the standard have been tested and 

successfully completed by the voting system as a prerequisite to certification. 

4.8.3.Technical Review. A technical review of the test report, technical documents, and test plan 

will be conducted by EAC technical experts. The EAC may require the submission of 

additional information from the VSTL or Manufacturer if deemed necessary to complete the 

review. These experts will submit a report outlining their findings to the Program Director. 

The report will provide an assessment of the completeness, appropriateness, and adequacy 

of the VSTL’s testing as documented in the test report. 

4.8.4.Program Director’s Recommendation. The Program Director shall review the report and 

take one of the following actions: 

4.8.4.1. Recommend certification of the voting system consistent with the reviewed test 

report and forward it to the Decision Authority for action (Initial Decision); OR 

4.8.4.2. Refer the matter back to the technical reviewers for additional, specified action 

and resubmission. 

4.9. Initial Decision on Certification. Upon receipt of the report and recommendation of the 

Program Director, the Decision Authority shall issue an Initial Decision on Certification. The 

decision shall be forwarded to the Manufacturer consistent with the requirements of this 

Manual. 

4.9.1.An Initial Decision granting certification shall be processed consistent with Chapter 5 of this 

Manual. 

4.9.2.An Initial Decision denying certification shall be processed consistent with Chapter 6 of this 

Manual. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 149 of 214 PageID #: 

1046 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

5. Grant of Certification 

5.1. Overview. The grant of certification is the formal process through which the EAC 

acknowledges that a voting system has successfully completed conformance testing to an 

appropriate set of standards or guidelines. The grant of certification begins with the Initial 

Decision of the Decision Authority. This decision becomes final after the Manufacturer 

confirms that the final version of the software that was certified, and which the Manufacturer 

will deliver with the certified system, has been subject to a trusted build (see Section 5.6), 

placed in an EAC-approved repository (see Section 5.7), and can be verified using the 

Manufacturer’s system identification tools (see Section 5.8). After a certification is issued, the 

Manufacturer is provided a Certificate of Conformance and relevant information about the 

system is added to the EAC’s website. Manufacturers with certified voting systems are 

responsible for ensuring that each system it produces is properly labeled as certified. 

5.2. Applicability of This Chapter. This chapter applies when the Decision Authority makes an 

Initial Decision to grant a certification to a voting system based on the materials and 

recommendation provided by the Program Director. 

5.3. Initial Decision. The Decision Authority shall make a written decision on all voting systems 

submitted for certification and issue the decision to a Manufacturer. When such decisions 

result in a grant of certification, the decision shall be considered preliminary and referred to as 

an Initial Decision pending required action by the Manufacturer. The Initial Decision shall: 

5.3.1.State the preliminary determination reached (granting certification). 

5.3.2.Inform the Manufacturer of the steps that must be taken to make the determination final 

and receive a certification. This action shall include providing the Manufacturer with 

specific instructions, guidance, and procedures for confirming and documenting that the 

final certified version of the software meets the requirements for: 

5.3.2.1. Performing and documenting a trusted build pursuant to Section 5.6 of this 

chapter. 

5.3.2.2. Depositing software in an approved repository pursuant to Section 5.7 of this 

chapter. 

5.3.2.3. Creating and making available system verification tools pursuant to Section 5.8 

of this chapter. 

5.3.3.Certification is not final until the Manufacturer accepts the certification and all conditions 

placed on the certification. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 150 of 214 PageID #: 

1047 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

5.4. Pre-Certification Requirements. Before an Initial Decision becomes final and a certification is 

issued, Manufacturers must ensure certain steps are taken. They must confirm that the final 

version of the software that was certified and which the Manufacturer will deliver with the 

certified system has been subject to a trusted build (see Section 5.6), has been delivered for 

deposit in an EAC-approved repository (see Section 5.7), and can be verified using 

Manufacturer-developed identification tools (see Section 5.8). The Manufacturer must provide 

the EAC documentation demonstrating compliance with these requirements. 

5.5. Trusted Build. A software build (also referred to as a compilation) is the process whereby 

source code is converted to machine-readable binary instructions (executable code) for the 

computer. A “trusted build” (or trusted compilation) is a build performed with adequate 

security measures implemented to give confidence that the executable code is a verifiable and 

faithful representation of the source code. The primary function of a trusted build is to create a 

chain of evidence which allows stakeholders to have an approved model to use for verification 

of a voting system. Specifically, the build will: 

5.5.1.Demonstrate that the software was built as described in the TDP. 

5.5.2.Show that the tested and approved source code was actually used to build the executable 

code used on the system. 

5.5.3.Demonstrate that no elements other than those included in the TDP were introduced in the 

software build. The vendor or source from which each COTS product was procured must 

be included in the TDP. 

5.5.4.Document for future reference the configuration of the system certified. 

5.5.5.Demonstrate that all COTS products are unmodified by requiring the VSTL to 

independently obtain all COTS products from an outside source. 

5.6. Trusted Build Procedure. A trusted build is a three-step process: (1) the build environment is 

constructed, (2) the executable code and installation disks are created, and (3) the VSTL 

verifies that the trusted build was created and functions properly. The process may be 

simplified for a modification to a previously certified system. In each step, a minimum of two 

witnesses from different organizations are required to participate. These participants must 

include a VSTL representative and a manufacturer representative. Before creating the trusted 

build, the VSTL must complete the source code review of the software delivered from the 

manufacturer for compliance with the VVSG and must produce and record file signatures of 

all source code modules. Hashes shall use a current FIPS 140-2 level 1 or higher validated 

cryptographic module. After the trusted build is completed, there shall be no other “final” 

build. As the final step, the trusted build must be submitted to the EAC on two separate forms 

of media. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 151 of 214 PageID #: 

1048 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

5.6.1.Constructing the Build Environment. The VSTL shall construct the build environment in 

an isolated environment controlled by the VSTL, as follows: 

5.6.1.1. The device that will hold the build environment shall be completely erased, in 

accordance with Department of Defense or NIST approved methods. The VSTL 

shall ensure a complete erasure of the device. 

5.6.1.2. The VSTL, with manufacturer observation, shall construct the build 

environment. 

5.6.1.3. After construction of the build environment, the VSTL shall produce and record 

a file signature of the build environment. 

5.6.1.4. A clone of the build environment computer’s main storage media shall be 

created. File signatures shall be taken by the VSTL for verification purposes. 

5.6.2.Creating the Executable Code and Installation Disks. After successful source code 

review the VSTL shall: 

5.6.2.1. Check the file signatures of the source code modules and build environment to 

ensure they are unchanged from their original form. 

5.6.2.2. Load the source code onto the build environment and produce and record the 

file signature of the resulting combination. 

5.6.2.3. Produce the executable code, and produce and record file signatures of the 

executable code. A clone of the computer’s main storage on which the executable 

code was created shall be created, with the file signatures verified by the VSTL. 

5.6.2.4. The VSTL shall create installation disk(s) from the executable code, and 

produce and record file signatures of the installation disk(s). 

5.6.3.Verification of the Created Media. Upon completion of all the tasks outlined above, the 

VSTL shall perform the following tasks: 

5.6.3.1. Install the executable code onto the system submitted for testing and 

certification before the completion of system testing. 

5.6.3.2. Produce and record file signatures of each voting system file resident on each 

device. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 152 of 214 PageID #: 

1049 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

5.6.3.3. Verify that all media to be included in the Trusted Build and submitted to the 

EAC functions properly. 

5.6.4.Trusted Build for Modifications. The process of building new executable code when a 

previously certified system has been modified can be somewhat simplified, if the build 

environment of the modification’s original certification can be obtained. 

5.6.4.1. The build environment used in the original certification is removed from 

storage and its file signature verified. 

5.6.4.2. After source code review, the modified files are placed onto the verified build 

environment and new executable files are produced. 

5.6.4.3. If the original build environment is unavailable or its file signatures cannot be 

verified against those recorded from the original certification, then the full 

process of creating the build environment must be performed. Further source 

code review may be required to validate that files are unmodified from the 

originally certified versions. 

5.7. Depositing Software in the EAC Repository. After EAC certification has been granted, the 

VSTL’s project manager, or an appropriate designee of the project manager, shall deliver for 

deposit the following elements into the EAC repository: 

5.7.1.Description of items located on the deposit media, including a description of items to be 

deposited. This description should include: 

5.7.1.1. Deposit size (physical and logical). 

5.7.1.2. Utilities or third-party applications used to create the deposit such as OS utilities 

or third party software. 

5.7.1.3. Encryption information, required passwords and/or crypto-keys or software 

programs required to access the deposited materials. 

5.7.2.Source code used for the trusted build and its file signatures. 

5.7.3.List identifying all known dependencies between components. 

5.7.4.The final TDP of the voting system submitted for testing including all product bills of 

material, assembly drawings and schematics for the version being certified. 

5.7.5.Build environment setup and configuration, including configuration settings for all 

compilers and third party components and whether the build process requires source 

code to be loaded to a specific location. 

5.7.6.Build control files and/or scripts that control the build process. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 153 of 214 PageID #: 

1050 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

5.7.7. Executable code produced by the trusted build and the file signatures of all files 

produced. 

5.7.8.A detailed description of the Build Environment. 

5.7.9.Installation device(s) and the file signatures of the installation devices. 

5.7.10. Build instructions describing how to compile the escrow deposit and build executable 

code. (Include hardware descriptions and OS system requirements, particularly any 

custom settings required. 

5.7.11. Names of all required applications necessary to compile and build executable code, 

objects, dynamic libraries, etc. 

5.7.12. A working copy of the certified version of the EMS for the voting system. 

5.7.13. The computer on which the trusted build was created shall have its hard disk drive, 

or other applicable storage media that contained the trusted build, removed and 

submitted to the EAC. 

5.7.14. The Manufacturer must provide hashes to the EAC. 

5.8. System Identification Tools. The Manufacturer shall provide tools through which a fielded 

voting system may be identified and demonstrated to be unmodified from the system that was 

certified. The purpose of this requirement is to make such tools available to Federal, State, and 

local officials to identify and verify that the equipment used in elections is unmodified from its 

certified version. Manufacturers may develop and provide these tools as they deem 

appropriate or as required by the EAC. The tools, however, must provide the means to 

identify and verify hardware and software. The EAC may review the system identification 

tools developed by the Manufacturer to ensure compliance. VSTLs shall test system 

identification tools during the test campaign to make sure they function properly and as 

intended. System identification tools include the following examples: 

5.8.1.Hardware is commonly identified by a model number and revision number on the unit, its 

printed wiring boards (PWBs), and major subunits. Typically, hardware is verified as 

unmodified by providing detailed photographs of the PWBs and internal construction of 

the unit. These images may be used to compare to the unit being verified. 

5.8.2.Software operating on a host computer will typically be verified by providing a self-booting 

compact disk (CD) or similar device that verifies the file signatures of the voting system 

application files and the signatures of all nonvolatile files the application files access during 

their operation. Note that the creation of such a CD requires having a file map of all 

nonvolatile files used by the voting system. Such a tool must be provided for verification 

using the file signatures of the original executable files provided for testing. If during the 

certification process modifications are made and new executable files created, then the tool 

must be updated to reflect the file signatures of the final files to be distributed for use. For 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 154 of 214 PageID #: 

1051 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

software operating on devices in which a self-booting CD or similar device cannot be used, 

a procedure must be provided to allow identification and verification of the software that is 

being used on the device. 

5.9. Documentation. Manufacturers shall provide documentation to the Program Director 

verifying the trusted build has been performed, software has been deposited in an approved 

repository, and system identification tools are available to election officials. The Manufacturer 

shall submit a letter, signed by both its management representative and a VSTL official, stating 

(under penalty of law) that it has (1) performed a trusted build consistent with the 

requirements of Section 5.6 of this Manual, (2) deposited software consistent with Section 5.7 

of this Manual, and (3) created and made available system identification tools consistent with 

Section 5.8 of this Manual. This letter shall also include (as attachments) a copy and 

description of the system identification tool developed under Section 5.8 above. 

5.10. Agency Decision. Upon receipt of documentation demonstrating the successful completion 

of the requirements above and recommendation of the Program Director, the Decision 

Authority will issue an Agency Decision granting certification and providing the 

Manufacturer with a certification number and Certificate of Conformance. 

5.11. Certification Document. A Certificate of Conformance will be provided to Manufacturers 

for voting systems that have successfully met the standard of the EAC Certification Program. 

The document will serve as the Manufacturer’s evidence that a particular system is certified to 

a particular set of voting system standards. The EAC certification and certificate apply only to 

the specific voting system configuration(s) identified, submitted and evaluated under the 

Certification Program. Any modification to the system not authorized by the EAC will void 

the certificate. The certificate will include the product (voting system) name, the specific 

model or version of the product tested, the name of the VSTL that conducted the testing, 

identification of the standards to which the system was tested, the EAC certification number 

for the product, and the signature of the EAC Executive Director. The certificate will also 

identify each of the various configurations of the voting system’s components that may be 

represented as certified. 

5.12. Certification Number and Version Control. Each system certified by the EAC will receive 

a certification number unique to the system which will remain with the system until such time 

as the system is decertified, sufficiently modified, or tested and certified to newer standards. 

Generally, when a previously certified system is issued a new certification number, the 

Manufacturer will be required to change the system’s name or version number. 

5.12.1. New Voting Systems and Those Not Previously Certified by the EAC. All systems 

receiving their first certification from the EAC will receive a new certification number. 

Manufacturers must provide the EAC with the voting system’s name and version number 

during the application process (Chapter 4). Systems previously certified by another body 

may retain the previous system name and version number unless the system was modified 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 155 of 214 PageID #: 

1052 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

before its submission to the EAC. Such modified systems must be submitted with a new 

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

5.12.2. Modifications. Voting systems previously certified by the EAC and submitted for 

certification of a modification will generally receive a new voting system certification 

number. Such modified systems must be submitted with a new naming convention. In rare 

instances, the EAC may authorize retention of the same certification and naming 

convention when the modification is so minor that is does not represent a substantive 

change to the voting system. A request for such authorization must be made and approved 

by the EAC during the application phase of the program. 

5.12.3. Certification Upgrade. Voting systems previously certified and submitted (without 

modification) for testing to a new version of the VVSG will receive a new certification 

number. In such cases, however, the Manufacturer will not be required to change the 

system name or version number. 

5.12.4. De Minimis Change. Voting systems previously certified and implementing an approved 

De Minimis Change Order (per Chapter 3) will not be issued a new certification number 

and are not required to implement a new naming convention. 

5.13. Publication of EAC Certification. The EAC will publish and maintain on its website a list 

of all certified voting systems, including copies of all Certificates of Conformance, supporting 

test reports, and voting system and Manufacturer information. Such information will be 

posted immediately following the Manufacturer’s receipt of the EAC Final Decision and 

Certificate of Conformance. 

5.14. Representation of EAC Certification. Manufacturers may not represent or imply a voting 

system is EAC certified unless it has received a Certificate of Conformance for the system. 

Statements regarding EAC certification in brochures, on websites, on displays, and in 

advertising/sales literature must be made solely in reference to specific systems. Any action by 

a Manufacturer to suggest EAC endorsement of its product or organization is strictly 

prohibited and may result in a Manufacturer’s suspension or other action pursuant to Federal 

civil and criminal law. Manufacturers must provide a copy of the Certificate and Scope of 

Certification document (found at www.eac.gov) to any jurisdiction purchasing an EAC 

certified system. 

5.15. Mark of Certification Requirement. Manufacturers shall post a Mark of Certification 

(Mark) on all EAC-certified voting systems produced. This mark or label must be securely 

attached to the system before sale, lease, or release to third parties. A mark of certification 

shall be made using an EAC-mandated template. These templates identify the version of the 

VVSG or VSS to which the system is certified. Use of this template shall be mandatory and the 

EAC will provide the Mark as a template in .jpg, .eps, .pdf, and .tif formats. Manufacturers 

who need access to the Mark pursuant to labeling an EAC certified voting system should send 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 156 of 214 PageID #: 

1053 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

a formal request, via email or letter, to the Director. The request must include the specific 

voting system and version number(s), indication of where the Mark will be displayed on the 

voting system, and specification of the format in which the Mark will be reproduced. The EAC 

Mark must be displayed as follows: 

5.15.1. The Manufacturer may use only the Mark of Certification that accurately reflects the 

certification held by the voting system as a whole. The certification of individual 

components or modifications shall not be independently represented by a Mark of 

Certification. In the event a system has components or modifications tested to various 

(later) versions of the VVSG, the system shall bear only the Mark of Certification of the 

standard to which the system (as a whole) was tested and certified (i.e. the lesser standard). 

Ultimately, a voting system shall only display the Mark of Certification of the oldest or least 

rigorous standard to which any of its components are certified. 

5.15.2. The Mark shall be placed on the outside of a unit of voting equipment in a place readily 

visible to election officials. The Mark need not be affixed to each of the voting system’s 

components. The Mark shall be affixed to either (1) each unit that is used to cast ballots or 

(2) each unit that is used to tabulate ballots. 

5.15.3. All labels bearing the EAC Mark of Certification shall be designed and applied to voting 

equipment so that the labels will remain in place and be clear and legible during the 

customary conditions of distribution, storage, voting and routine testing and maintenance. 

The materials used for the label, printing and adhesives shall be reasonably expected to last 

the normal and projected lifespan of the voting system. If using an adhesive type label for 

the Mark of Certification, the label stock material shall be such that the label cannot be 

removed intact and reapplied. The label shall also be designed to resist the effects of 

cleaning agents specified by the manufacturer. The Mark of Certification shall remain clear 

and legible after the use of any recommended cleaning agents as specified by the 

manufacturer and adhesive labels, if used, shall not have become loose or curled at the 

edges. 

5.15.4. If the EAC determines a voting system is not in compliance with the VVSG, and the 

system has already been sold or otherwise distributed bearing the Mark of Certification, the 

EAC shall provide written notice to the Manufacturer. If the Manufacturer fails to take 

corrective action within 15 days of receipt of such notice, the EAC shall have the right to 

announce publicly that the voting system may no longer comply with its original 

certification, and may choose to initiate decertification actions as outlined in Chapter 7 of 

the Manual, and/or suspension of Manufacturer Registration as outlined in Section 2.6 of the 

Manual. Corrective action may include modification of the voting system to bring it into 

compliance with the VVSG, or removal of the Mark of Certification from the product. 

5.16. Information to Election Officials Purchasing Voting Systems. The user’s manual or 

instruction manual for a certified voting system shall warn purchasers that any changes or 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 51 
 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 157 of 214 PageID #: 

1054 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

modifications to the system not tested and certified by the EAC will void the EAC certification 

of the voting system. In cases in which the manual is only provided in a form other than 

paper, such as on a CD or via the Internet, the information required in this section may be 

included in this alternative format provided the election official can reasonably be expected to 

have the capability to access information in that format. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 158 of 214 PageID #: 

1055 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

6. Denial of Certification 

6.1. Overview. When the Decision Authority issues an Initial Decision denying certification, the 

Manufacturer has certain rights and responsibilities. The Manufacturer may request an 

opportunity to cure the defects identified by the Decision Authority. In addition, the 

Manufacturer may request that the Decision Authority reconsider the Initial Decision after the 

Manufacturer has had the opportunity to review the record and submit supporting written 

materials, data, and the rationale for its position. Finally, in the event reconsideration is 

denied, the Manufacturer may appeal the decision to the Appeal Authority. 

6.2. Applicability of This Chapter. This chapter applies when the Decision Authority makes an 

Initial Decision to deny an application for voting system certification based on the materials 

and recommendation provided by the Program Director. 

6.3. Form of Decisions. All agency determinations shall be made in writing. All materials and 

recommendations reviewed, or used by agency decision makers in making an official 

determination, shall be in written form. 

6.4. Effect of Denial of Certification. Upon receipt of the agency’s decision denying certification— 

or in the event of an appeal, subject to the decision on appeal—the Manufacturer’s application 

for certification shall be denied. Such systems will not be reviewed again by the EAC for 

certification unless the Manufacturer alters the system, retests it, and submits a new 

application for system certification. 

6.5. The Record. The Program Director shall maintain all documents related to a denial of 

certification. Such documents shall constitute the procedural and substantive record of the 

decision making process. Records may include the following: 

6.5.1.The Program Director’s report and recommendation to the Decision Authority. 

6.5.2.The Decision Authority’s Initial Decision and Final Decision. 

6.5.3.Any materials gathered by the Decision Authority that serve as a basis for a certification 

determination. 

6.5.4.All relevant and allowable materials submitted by the Manufacturer upon request for 

reconsideration or appeal. 

6.5.5.All correspondence between the EAC and a Manufacturer after the issuance of an Initial 

Decision denying certification. 

6.6. Initial Decision. The Decision Authority shall make and issue a written decision for voting 

systems submitted for certification. When such decisions result in a denial of certification, the 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 159 of 214 PageID #: 

1056 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

decision shall be considered preliminary and referred to as an Initial Decision. Initial Decisions 

shall be in writing and contain (1) the Decision Authority’s basis and explanation for the 

decision and (2) notice of the Manufacturer’s rights in the denial of certification process. 

6.6.1.Basis and Explanation. The Initial Decision of the Decision Authority shall accomplish: 

6.6.1.1. Clearly state the agency’s decision on certification. 

6.6.1.2. Explain the basis for the decision, including: 

6.6.1.2.1. The relevant facts. 

6.6.1.2.2. The applicable EAC voting system standard. 

6.6.1.2.3. The relevant analysis in the Program Director’s recommendation. 

6.6.1.2.4. The reasoning behind the decision. 

6.6.1.3. State the actions the Manufacturer must take, if any, to cure all defects in the 

voting system and obtain a certification. 

6.6.2.Manufacturer’s Rights. The written Initial Decision must also inform the Manufacturer of its 

procedural rights under the program, including the following: 

6.6.2.1. Right to request reconsideration. The Manufacturer shall be informed of its right 

to request a timely reconsideration (see Section 6.9). Such request must be made 

within 10 calendar days of the Manufacturer’s receipt of the Initial Decision. 

6.6.2.2. Right to request a copy or otherwise have access to the information that served 

as the basis of the Initial Decision (the record). 

6.6.2.3. Right to cure system defects prior to Final Decision (see Section 6.8). A 

Manufacturer may request an opportunity to cure within 10 calendar days of its 

receipt of the Initial Decision. 

6.7. No Manufacturer Action on Initial Decision. If a Manufacturer takes no action (by either 

failing to request an opportunity to cure or request reconsideration) within 10 calendar days of 

its receipt of the Initial Decision, the Initial Decision shall become the agency’s Final Decision 

on certification. In such cases, the Manufacturer is determined to have foregone its right to 

reconsideration, cure, and appeal. The certification application shall be considered denied. 

6.8. Opportunity to Cure. Within 10 calendar days of receiving the EAC’s Initial Decision on 

certification, a Manufacturer may request an opportunity to cure the defects identified in the 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 160 of 214 PageID #: 

1057 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

EAC’s Initial Decision. If the request is approved, a compliance plan must be created, 

approved, and followed. If this cure process is successfully completed, a voting system 

denied certification in an Initial Decision may receive a certification without resubmission. 

6.8.1.Manufacturer’s Request to Cure. The Manufacturer must request to cure in writing to the 

Program Director within 10 calendar days of receipt of an Initial Decision. 

6.8.2.EAC Action on Request. The Decision Authority will review the request and notify the 

manufacturer in writing if the request to cure is approved or denied. The Decision 

Authority will deny a request to cure only if the proposed plan to cure is inadequate or 

does not present a viable way to remedy the identified defects. If the Manufacturer’s 

request to cure is denied, it shall have 10 calendar days from the date it received such notice 

to request reconsideration of the Initial Decision pursuant to Section 6.6.2. 

6.8.3.Manufacturer’s Compliance Plan. Upon approval of the Manufacturer’s request for an 

opportunity to cure, the manufacturer shall submit a compliance plan to the Decision 

Authority for approval. This compliance plan must set forth steps to be taken to cure all 

identified defects. It shall include the proposed changes to the system, updated technical 

information (as required by Section 4.3.2), and a new test plan created and submitted 

directly to the EAC by the VSTL (testing the system consistent with Section 4.4.2.3). The 

plan shall also provide for the testing of the amended system and submission of a test 

report by the VSTL to the EAC for approval. It should provide an estimated date for receipt 

of this test report and include a schedule of periodic VSTL progress reports to the Program 

Director. 

6.8.4.EAC Action on the Compliance Plan. The Decision Authority must review and approve the 

compliance plan. The Decision Authority may require the Manufacturer to provide 

additional information and modify the plan as required. If the Manufacturer is unable or 

unwilling to provide a compliance plan acceptable to the Decision Authority, the Decision 

Authority shall provide written notice terminating the cure process. The Manufacturer shall 

have 10 calendar days from the date it receives such notice to request reconsideration of the 

Initial Decision pursuant to Section 6.6.2. 

6.8.5.Compliance Plan Test Report. The VSTL shall submit the test report created pursuant to its 

EAC-approved compliance plan. The EAC shall review the test report, along with the 

original test report and other materials originally provided. The report will be technically 

reviewed by the EAC consistent with the procedures laid out in Chapter 4 of this Manual. 

6.8.6.EAC Decision on the System. After receipt of the test plan, the Decision Authority shall 

issue a decision on a voting system amended pursuant to an approved compliance plan. 

This decision shall be issued in the same manner and with the same process and rights as an 

Initial Decision on Certification. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 161 of 214 PageID #: 

1058 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

6.9. Requests for Reconsideration. Manufacturers may request reconsideration of an Initial 

Decision. 

6.9.1.Submission of Request. A request for reconsideration must be made within 10 calendar 

days of the Manufacturer’s receipt of an Initial Decision. The request shall be made and sent 

to the Decision Authority. 

6.9.2.Acknowledgment of Request. The Decision Authority shall acknowledge receipt of the 

Manufacturer’s request for reconsideration. This acknowledgment shall either enclose all 

information that served as the basis for the Initial Decision (the record) or provide a date by 

which the record will be forwarded to the Manufacturer. 

6.9.3.Manufacturer’s Submission. Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the record, a 

Manufacturer may submit written materials in support of its position, including the 

following: 

6.9.3.1. A written argument responding to the conclusions in the Initial Decision. 

6.9.3.2. Documentary evidence relevant to the issues raised in the Initial Decision. 

6.9.4. Decision Authority’s Review of Request. The Decision Authority shall review and consider 

all relevant submissions of the Manufacturer. In making a decision on reconsideration, the 

Decision Authority shall also consider all documents that make up the record and any other 

documentary information he or she determines relevant. 

6.10. Agency Final Decision. The Decision Authority shall issue a written Final Decision after 

review of the Manufacturer’s request for reconsideration. This Decision shall be the decision of 

the agency and shall include: 

6.10.1. The agency’s determination on the application for certification. 

6.10.2. The issues raised by the Manufacturer in its request for reconsideration. 

6.10.3. All facts, evidence, and EAC voting system standards that serve as the basis for the 

decision. 

6.10.4. The reasoning behind the determination. 

6.10.5. Any additional documentary information identified and provided as an attachment that 

serves as a basis for the decision and was not part of the Manufacturer’s submission or the 

prior record. 

6.10.6. The Manufacturer notice of its right to appeal. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 162 of 214 PageID #: 

1059 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

6.11. Appeal of Agency Final Decision. A Manufacturer may, upon receipt of a Final Decision 

denying certification, issue a request for appeal. 

6.11.1. Requesting Appeal. A Manufacturer may appeal a final decision of the agency by issuing 

a written request for appeal. 

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

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

6.11.1.2. Timing of Appeal. The Manufacturer may request an appeal within 20 

calendar days of receipt of the Agency Final Decision. Late requests will not be 

considered. 

6.11.1.3. Contents of Request. 

6.11.1.3.1. The request must clearly state the specific conclusions of the Final 

Decision it wishes to appeal. 

6.11.1.3.2. The request may include additional written argument. 

6.11.1.3.3. The request may not reference or include any factual material not in 

the record. 

6.11.2. Consideration of Appeal. All timely appeals will be considered by the Appeal Authority. 

6.11.2.1. The Appeal Authority shall be two or more EAC Commissioners or other 

individuals appointed by the Commissioners who have not previously served as 

the initial or reconsideration authority on the matter. 

6.11.2.2. All decisions on appeal shall be based on the record. 

6.11.2.3. The determination of the Decision Authority shall be given deference by the 

Appeal Authority. Although it is unlikely that the scientific certification process 

will produce factual disputes, in such cases, the burden of proof shall belong to 

the Manufacturer, to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, that its 

voting system met all substantive and procedural requirements for certification. 

In other words, the determination of the Decision Authority will be overturned 

only when the Appeal Authority finds the ultimate facts in controversy highly 

probable. 

6.12. Decision on Appeal. The Appeal Authority shall make a written, final Decision on Appeal 

and shall provide it to the Manufacturer. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 57 
 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 163 of 214 PageID #: 

1060 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

6.12.1. Contents. The following are required to be contained in the Decision on Appeal: 

6.12.1.1. The final determination of the agency. 

6.12.1.2. The matters raised by the Manufacturer on appeal. 

6.12.1.3. The reasoning behind the decisions. 

6.12.1.4. Statement that the Decision on Appeal is final. 

6.12.2. Determinations. The Appeal Authority may make one of two determinations. 

6.12.2.1. Grant of Appeal. If the Appeal Authority determines that the conclusions of 

the Decision Authority shall be overturned in full, the appeal shall be granted. In 

such cases, certification will be approved subject to the requirements of Chapter 

5. 

6.12.2.2. Denial of Appeal. If the Appeal Authority determines that any part of the 

Decision Authority’s determination shall be upheld, the appeal shall be denied. 

In such cases, the application for appeal is denied. 

6.12.3. Effect. All Decisions on Appeal shall be final and binding on the Manufacturer. No 

additional appeal shall be granted. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 58 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 164 of 214 PageID #: 

1061 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

7. Decertification 

7.1. Overview. Decertification is the process by which the EAC revokes a certification previously 

granted to a voting system. It is an important part of the Certification Program because it 

serves to ensure the standards of the program are followed and certified voting systems 

fielded for use in Federal elections maintain the same level of quality as those presented for 

testing. Decertification is a serious matter. Its use will significantly affect Manufacturers, State 

and local governments, the public, and the administration of elections. As such, the process for 

Decertification is complex. It is initiated when the EAC receives information that a voting 

system may not be in compliance with the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines or the 

procedural requirements of this Manual. Upon receipt of this information, the Program 

Director may initiate an Informal Inquiry to determine the credibility of the information. If the 

information is credible and suggests the system is non-compliant, a Formal Investigation will 

be initiated. If the results of the Formal Investigation demonstrate non-compliance, the 

Manufacturer will be provided a Notice of Non-Compliance. Before a final decision on 

Decertification is made, the Manufacturer will have the opportunity to remedy any defects 

identified in the voting system and present information for consideration by the 

Decertification Authority. A Decertification of a voting system may be appealed in a timely 

manner. 

7.2. Decertification Policy. Voting systems certified by the EAC are subject to Decertification. 

Systems shall be decertified if (1) they are shown not to meet applicable Voluntary Voting 

System Guidelines standards, (2) they have been modified or changed without following the 

requirements of this Manual, or (3) the Manufacturer has otherwise failed to follow the 

procedures outlined in this Manual and the quality, configuration, or compliance of the 

system is in question. Systems will be decertified only after completion of the process outlined 

in this chapter. 

7.3. Informal inquiry. An Informal Inquiry is the first step taken when information is presented to 

the EAC that suggests a voting system may not be in compliance with the Voluntary Voting 

System Guidelines standards or the procedural requirements of this Manual. 

7.3.1.Informal Inquiry Authority. The authority to conduct an Informal Inquiry shall rest with the 

Program Director. 

7.3.2.Purpose. The sole purpose of the Informal Inquiry is to determine whether a Formal 

Investigation is warranted. The outcome of an Informal Inquiry is limited to a decision on 

referral for investigation. 

7.3.3.Procedure. Informal Inquiries do not follow a formal process. 

7.3.3.1. Initiation. Informal Inquiries are initiated at the discretion of the Program 

Director. They may be initiated any time the Program Director receives 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 165 of 214 PageID #: 

1062 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

attributable, relevant information that suggests a certified voting system may 

require Decertification. The information shall come from a source that has 

directly observed or witnessed the reported occurrence. Such information may 

be a product of the Certification Quality Monitoring Program (see Chapter 8). 

Information may also come from State and local election officials, voters or 

others who have used or tested a given voting system. The Program Director 

may notify a Manufacturer that an Informal Inquiry has been initiated, but such 

notification is not required. Initiation of an inquiry shall be documented through 

the creation of a Memorandum for the Record. 

7.3.3.2. Inquiry. The Informal Inquiry process is limited to inquiries necessary to 

determine whether a Formal Investigation is required. In other words, the 

Program Director shall conduct such inquiry necessary to determine (1) the 

accuracy of the information obtained; and (2) if the information, if true, would 

serve as a basis for Decertification. The nature and extent of the inquiry process 

will vary depending on the source of the information. For example, an Informal 

Inquiry initiated as a result of action taken under the Certification Quality 

Monitoring Program will often require the Program Director merely to read the 

report issued as a result of the Quality Monitoring action. On the other hand, 

information provided by election officials or by voters who have used a voting 

system may require the Program Director (or assigned technical experts) to 

perform an in-person inspection or make inquiries of the Manufacturer. 

7.3.3.3. Conclusion. An Informal Inquiry shall be concluded after the Program Director 

determines the accuracy of the information that initiated the inquiry and whether 

that information, if true, would warrant Decertification. The Program Director 

may make only two conclusions: (1) refer the matter for a Formal Investigation or 

(2) close the matter without additional action or referral. 

7.3.4.Closing the Matter without Referral. If the Program Director determines, after Informal 

Inquiry, a matter does not require a Formal Investigation, the Program Director shall close 

the inquiry by filing a Memorandum for the Record. This document shall state the focus of 

the inquiry, the findings of the inquiry and the reasons a Formal Investigation was not 

warranted. 

7.3.5.Referral. If the Program Director determines, after Informal Inquiry, a matter requires a 

Formal Investigation, the Program Director shall refer the matter in writing to the Decision 

Authority. In preparing this referral, the Program Director: 

7.3.5.1. State the facts that served as the basis for the referral. 

7.3.5.2. State the findings of the Program Director. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 166 of 214 PageID #: 

1063 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

7.3.5.3. Attach all documentary evidence that served as the basis for the conclusion. 

7.3.5.4. Recommend a Formal Investigation, specifically stating the system to be 

investigated and the scope and focus of the proposed investigation. 

7.4. Formal Investigation. A Formal Investigation is an official investigation to determine whether 

a voting system warrants Decertification. The end result of a Formal Investigation is a Report 

of Investigation. 

7.4.1.Formal Investigation Authority. The Decision Authority shall have the authority to initiate 

and conclude a Formal Investigation by the EAC. 

7.4.2.Purpose. The purpose of a Formal Investigation is to gather and document relevant 

information sufficient to make a determination on whether an EAC-certified voting system 

warrants Decertification consistent with the policy put forth in Section 7.2. 

7.4.3.Initiation of Investigation. The Decision Authority shall authorize the initiation of an EAC 

Formal Investigation. 

7.4.3.1. Scope. The Decision Authority shall clearly set the scope of the investigation by 

identifying (in writing) the voting system (or systems) and specific procedural or 

operational non-conformance to be investigated. The non-conformance to be 

investigated shall be set forth in the form of numbered allegations. 

7.4.3.2. Investigator. The Program Director shall be responsible for conducting the 

investigation unless the Decision Authority appoints another individual to 

conduct the investigation. The Program Director (or Decision Authority 

appointee) may assign staff or technical experts, as required, to investigate the 

matter. 

7.4.4.Notice of Formal Investigation. Upon initiation of a Formal Investigation, notice shall be 

given to the Manufacturer of the scope of the investigation, which shall include: 

7.4.4.1. Identification of the voting system and specific procedural or operation nonconformance being investigated (scope of investigation). 

7.4.4.2. An opportunity for the manufacturer to provide relevant information in writing. 

7.4.4.3. An estimated timeline for the investigation. 

7.4.5.Investigation. Investigations shall be conducted impartially, diligently, promptly, and 

confidentially and shall utilize appropriate techniques to gather the necessary information. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 167 of 214 PageID #: 

1064 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

7.4.5.1. Fair and Impartial Investigation. All Formal Investigations shall be conducted in a 

fair and impartial manner. All individuals assigned to an investigation must be 

free from any financial conflicts of interest. 

7.4.5.2. Diligent Collection of Information. All investigations shall be conducted in a 

meticulous and thorough manner. Investigations shall gather all relevant 

information and documentation that is reasonably available. The diligent 

collection of information is vital for informed decision making. 

7.4.5.3. Prompt Collection of Information. Determinations that may affect the 

administration of Federal elections must be made in a reasonable, yet expedited 

manner. The EAC’s determinations on Decertification will affect the actions of 

State and local election officials conducting elections and as such, all 

investigations regarding Decertification must proceed with an appropriate sense 

of urgency. 

7.4.5.4. Confidential Collection of Information. Consistent with Federal law, information 

pertaining to a Formal Investigation should not be made public until the Report 

of Investigation is complete. The release of incomplete and unsubstantiated 

information or predecisional opinions that may be contrary or inconsistent with 

the final determination of the EAC could cause public confusion or could 

unnecessarily negatively affect public confidence in active voting systems. Such 

actions could serve to impermissibly affect election administration and voter 

turnout. All predecisional investigative materials must be appropriately 

safeguarded. 

7.4.5.5. Methodologies. Investigators shall gather information by means consistent with 

the four principles noted above. Investigative tools include (but are not limited 

to) the following: 

7.4.5.5.1. Interviews. Investigators may interview individuals (such as State 

and local election officials, voters, or manufacturer representatives). 

All interviews shall be reduced to written form; each interview 

should be summarized in a statement that is reviewed, approved, 

and signed by the interviewee. 

7.4.5.5.2. Field audits. 

7.4.5.5.3. Manufacturer site audits. 

7.4.5.5.4. Written interrogatories. Investigators may pose specific, written 

questions to the Manufacturer for the purpose of gathering 

information relevant to the investigation. The Manufacturer shall 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 62 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 168 of 214 PageID #: 

1065 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

respond to the queries within a reasonable timeframe (as specified in 

the request). 

7.4.5.5.5. System testing. Testing may be performed in an attempt to reproduce 

a condition or failure that has been reported. This testing will be 

conducted at a VSTL as designated by the EAC. 

7.4.5.6. Report of Investigation. The end result of a Formal Investigation is a Report of 

Investigation. 

7.4.6.Report of Investigation. The Report of Investigation serves primarily to document: (1) all 

relevant and reliable information gathered in the course of the investigation; and (2) the 

conclusion reached by the Decision Authority. 

7.4.6.1. When Complete. The report is complete and final when certified and signed by 

the Decision Authority. 

7.4.6.2. Contents of the Report of Investigation. The following shall be included in the 

written report: 

7.4.6.2.1. The scope of the investigation, identification of the voting system and 

specific matter investigated. 

7.4.6.2.2. Description of the investigative process employed. 

7.4.6.2.3. Summary of the relevant and reliable facts and information gathered 

in the course of the investigation. 

7.4.6.2.4. All relevant and reliable evidence collected in the course of the 

investigation that documents the facts shall be documented and 

attached. 

7.4.6.2.5. Analysis of the information gathered. 

7.4.6.2.6. Statement of the findings of the investigation. 

7.4.7.Findings, Report of Investigation. The Report of Investigation shall state one of two 

conclusions. After gathering and reviewing all applicable facts, the report shall find each 

allegation investigated to be either (1) substantiated or (2) unsubstantiated. 

7.4.7.1. Substantiated Allegation. An allegation is substantiated if a preponderance of the 

relevant and reliable information gathered requires the voting system in question 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 169 of 214 PageID #: 

1066 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

to be decertified (consistent with the policy set out in Section 7.2). If any 

allegation is substantiated a Notice of Non-Compliance shall be issued. 

7.4.7.2. Unsubstantiated Allegation. An allegation is unsubstantiated if the preponderance 

of the relevant and reliable information gathered does not warrant 

Decertification (see Section 7.2). If all allegations are unsubstantiated, the matter 

shall be closed and a copy of the report forwarded to the Manufacturer. 

7.4.8.Publication of Report. The report shall not be made public nor released to the public until 

final. 

7.5. Effect of Informal Inquiry or Formal Investigation on Certification. A voting system’s EAC 

certification is not affected by the initiation or conclusion of an Informal Inquiry or Formal 

Investigation. Systems under investigation remain certified until a final Decision on 

Decertification is issued by the EAC. 

7.6. Notice of Non-Compliance. If an allegation in a Formal Investigation is substantiated, the 

Decision Authority shall send the Manufacturer a Notice of Non-Compliance. The Notice of 

Non-Compliance is not, itself, a Decertification of the voting system. The purpose of the notice 

is to (1) notify the Manufacturer of the non-compliance and the EAC’s intent to Decertify the 

system; and (2) inform the Manufacturer of its procedural rights so that it may be heard prior 

to Decertification. 

7.6.1.Noncompliance Information. The following shall be included in a Notice of NonCompliance: 

7.6.1.1. A copy of the Report of Investigation to the Manufacturer. 

7.6.1.2. The non-compliance, consistent with the Report of Investigation. 

7.6.1.3. Notification to the Manufacturer that if the voting system is not made 

compliant, the voting system will be decertified. 

7.6.1.4. State the actions the Manufacturer must take, if any, to bring the voting system 

into compliance and avoid Decertification. 

7.6.2.Manufacturer’s Rights. The written Notice of Non-compliance shall also inform the 

Manufacturer of its procedural rights under the program, which include the following: 

7.6.2.1. Right to Present Information Prior to Decertification Decision. The Manufacturer 

shall be informed of its right to present information to the Decision Authority 

prior to a determination of Decertification. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 170 of 214 PageID #: 

1067 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

7.6.2.2. Right to Have Access to the Information That Will Serve as the Basis of the 

Decertification Decision. The Manufacturer shall be provided the Report of 

Investigation and any other materials that will serve as the basis of an agency 

Decision on Decertification. 

7.6.2.3. Right to Cure System Defects Prior to the Decertification Decision. A Manufacturer 

may request an opportunity to cure within 20 calendar days of its receipt of the 

Notice of Non-Compliance. 

7.7. Procedure for Decision on Decertification. The Decision Authority shall make and issue a 

written Decision on Decertification whenever a Notice of Non-Compliance is issued. The 

Decision Authority will not take such action until the Manufacturer has had a reasonable 

opportunity to cure the non-compliance and submit information for consideration. 

7.7.1.Opportunity to Cure. The Manufacturer shall have an opportunity to cure a nonconformant voting system in a timely manner prior to Decertification. A cure shall be 

considered timely when the process can be completed before the next Federal election, 

meaning that any proposed cure must be in place before any individual jurisdiction fielding 

the system holds a Federal election. The Manufacturer must request the opportunity to cure 

and if the request is approved, a compliance plan must be created, approved by the EAC, 

and adhered to. If the cure process is successfully completed, a Manufacturer may modify a 

non-compliant voting system, remedy procedural discrepancies, or otherwise bring its 

system into compliance without resubmission or Decertification. 

7.7.1.1. Manufacturer’s Request to Cure. Within 10 calendar days of receiving the EAC’s 

Notice of Non-Compliance, a Manufacturer may request an opportunity to cure 

all defects identified in the Notice of Non-Compliance in a timely manner. The 

request must be sent to the Decision Authority and outline how the 

Manufacturer intends to modify the system, update the technical information (as 

required by Section 4.3.2), have a VSTL create a test plan and test the system, and 

obtain EAC approval before the next election for Federal office. 

7.7.1.2. EAC Action on Request. The Decision Authority will review the request and 

approve it if the defects identified in the Notice of Non-Compliance may 

reasonably be cured before the next election for Federal office. 

7.7.1.3. Manufacturer’s Compliance Plan. Upon approval of the Manufacturer’s request for 

an opportunity to cure, the Manufacturer shall submit a compliance plan to the 

Decision Authority for approval. This compliance plan must set forth the steps to 

be taken (including time frames) to cure all identified defects in a timely manner. 

The plan shall describe the proposed changes to the system, provide for 

modification of the system, update the technical information required by Section 

4.3.2, include a test plan delivered to the EAC by the VSTL (testing the system 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 171 of 214 PageID #: 

1068 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

consistent with Section 4.4.2.3), and provide for the VSTL’s testing of the system 

and submission of the test report to the EAC for approval. The plan shall also 

include a schedule of periodic progress reports to the Program Director.2 

7.7.1.4. EAC Action on the Compliance Plan. The Decision Authority must review and 

approve the compliance plan. The Decision Authority may require the 

Manufacturer to provide additional information and modify the plan as 

required. If the Manufacturer is unable or unwilling to provide a Compliance 

Plan acceptable to the Decision Authority, the Decision Authority shall provide 

written notice terminating the “opportunity to cure” process. 

7.7.1.5. VSTL’s Submission of the Compliance Plan Test Report. The VSTL shall submit the 

test report created pursuant to the Manufacturer’s EAC-approved Compliance 

Plan. The EAC shall review the test report and any other necessary or relevant 

materials. The report will be reviewed by the EAC in a manner similar to the 

procedures described in Chapter 4 of this Manual. 

7.7.1.6. EAC Decision on the System. After receipt of the VSTL’s test report, the Decision 

Authority shall issue a decision within 20 working days. 

7.7.2.Opportunity to Be Heard. The Manufacturer may submit written materials in response to 

the Notice of Non-Compliance and Report of Investigation. These documents shall be 

considered by the Decision Authority when making a determination on Decertification. The 

Manufacturer shall ordinarily have 20 calendar days from the date it received the Notice of 

Non-Compliance (or in the case of a failed effort to cure, the termination of that process) to 

deliver its submissions to the Decision Authority. When warranted by public interest 

(because a delay in making a determination on Decertification would affect the timely, fair, 

and effective administration of a Federal election), the Decision Authority may request a 

Manufacturer to submit information within a condensed timeframe. This alternative period 

(and the basis for it) must be stated in the Notice of Non-Compliance and must allow the 

Manufacturer a reasonable amount of time to gather its submissions. Submissions may 

include the following materials: 

7.7.2.1. A written argument responding to the conclusions in the Notice of NonCompliance or Report of Investigation. 

7.7.2.2. Documentary evidence relevant to the allegations or conclusions in the Notice of 

Non-Compliance. 

2 Manufacturers should also be cognizant of State certification procedures and local pre-election logic and accuracy 

testing. Systems that meet EAC guidelines will also be impacted by independent State and local requirements. 

These requirements may also prevent a system from being fielded, irrespective of EAC Certification. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 66 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 172 of 214 PageID #: 

1069 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

7.7.3.Decision on Decertification. The Decision Authority shall make an agency determination on 

Decertification. 

7.7.3.1. Timing. The Decision Authority shall promptly make a decision on 

Decertification. The Decision Authority may not issue such a decision, however, 

until the Manufacturer has provided all of its written materials for consideration 

or the time allotted for submission (usually 20 calendar days) has expired. 

7.7.3.2. Considered Materials. The Decision Authority shall review and consider all 

relevant submissions by the Manufacturer. To reach a decision on 

Decertification, the Decision Authority shall consider all documents that make 

up the record and any other documented information deemed relevant. 

7.7.3.3. Agency Decision. The Decision Authority shall issue a written Decision on 

Decertification after review of applicable materials. This decision shall be the 

final decision of the agency. The following shall be included in the decision: 

7.7.3.3.1. The agency’s determination on the Decertification, specifically 

addressing the areas of non-compliance investigated. 

7.7.3.3.2. The issues raised by the Manufacturer in the materials it submitted 

for consideration. 

7.7.3.3.3. Facts, evidence, procedural requirements, and/or voting system 

standards (VVSG or VSS) that served as the basis for the decision. 

7.7.3.3.4. The reasoning for the decision. 

7.7.3.3.5. Documented information, identified and provided as an attachment, 

that served as a basis for the decision and that was not part of the 

Manufacturer’s submission or the Report of Investigation. 

7.7.3.3.6. Notification to the Manufacturer of its right to appeal. 

7.8. Effect of Decision Authority’s Decision on Decertification. The Decision Authority’s 

Decision on Decertification is the determination of the agency. A Decertification is effective 

upon the EAC’s Publication or Manufacturer’s receipt of the decision (whichever is earlier). A 

Manufacturer that has had a voting system decertified may appeal that decision. 

7.9. Appeal of Decertification. A Manufacturer may, upon receipt of a Decision on Decertification, 

request an appeal in a timely manner. 

7.9.1.Requesting Appeal. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 173 of 214 PageID #: 

1070 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

7.9.1.1. Submission. Requests must be submitted by the Manufacturer in writing to the 

Chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 

7.9.1.2. Timing of Appeal. The Manufacturer may request an appeal within 20 calendar 

days of receipt of the Agency Final Decision on Decertification. Late requests will 

not be considered. 

7.9.1.3. Contents of Request. The following actions are necessary for the Manufacturer to 

write and submit a request for appeal: 

7.9.1.3.1. Clearly state the specific conclusions of the Final Decision the 

Manufacturer wishes to appeal. 

7.9.1.3.2. Include additional written argument, if any. 

7.9.1.3.3. Do not reference or include any factual material not previously 

considered or submitted to the EAC. 

7.9.1.4. Effect of Appeal on Decertification. The initiation of an appeal does not affect the 

decertified status of a voting system. Systems are decertified upon notice of 

Decertification in the agency’s Decision on Decertification (see Section 7.8). 

7.9.2.Consideration of Appeal. All timely appeals will be considered by the Appeal Authority. 

7.9.2.1. The Appeal Authority shall consist of two or more EAC Commissioners or other 

individual(s) designated by the Commissioners who has not previously served 

as an investigator, advisor, or decision maker in the Decertification process. 

7.9.2.2. All decisions on appeal shall be based on the record. 

7.9.2.3. The decision of the Decision Authority shall be given deference by the Appeal 

Authority. Although it is unlikely that the scientific certification process will 

produce factual disputes, in such cases, the burden of proof shall belong to the 

Manufacturer to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that its voting 

system met all substantive and procedural requirements for certification. In other 

words, the determination of the Decision Authority will be overturned only 

when the Appeal Authority finds the ultimate facts in controversy highly 

probable. 

7.9.3.Decision on Appeal. The Appeal Authority shall issue a written, final Decision on Appeal 

that shall be provided to the Manufacturer. Each Decision on Appeal shall be final and 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 174 of 214 PageID #: 

1071 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

binding and no additional appeal shall be granted. The following shall be included in a 

Decision on Appeal: 

7.9.3.1. The final determination of the agency. 

7.9.3.2. The matters raised by the Manufacturer on appeal. 

7.9.3.3. The reasoning behind the decision. 

7.9.3.4. Statement that the decision on appeal is final. 

7.9.4.Effect of Appeal. 

7.9.4.1. Grant of Appeal. If a Manufacturer’s appeal is granted in whole, the decision of 

the Decision Authority shall be reversed and the voting system shall have its 

certification reinstated. For purposes of this program, the system shall be treated 

as though it was never decertified. 

7.9.4.2. Denial of Appeal. If a Manufacturer’s appeal is denied in whole or in part, the 

decertification decision of the Decision Authority shall be upheld. Therefore, the 

voting system shall remain decertified and no additional appeal shall be made 

available. 

7.10. Effect of Decertification. A decertified voting system no longer holds an EAC certification 

under the EAC Certification Program. For purposes of this Manual and the program, a 

decertified system will be treated as any other uncertified voting system. As such, the effects 

of Decertification are as follows: 

7.10.1. The Manufacturer may not represent the voting system as certified. 

7.10.2. The voting system may not be labeled with a Mark of Certification. 

7.10.3. The voting system will be removed from the EAC’s list of certified systems. 

7.10.4. The EAC will notify State and local election officials of the Decertification. 

7.11. Recertification. A decertified system may be resubmitted for certification. Such systems 

shall be treated as any other system seeking certification. The Manufacturer shall present an 

application for certification consistent with the instructions of this Manual. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 175 of 214 PageID #: 

1072 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

8. Quality Monitoring Program 

8.1. Overview. The quality of any product, including a voting system, depends on two specific 

elements: (1) the design of the product or system; and (2) the consistency of the manufacturing 

process. The EAC’s testing and certification process focuses on voting system design by 

ensuring that a representative sample of a system meets the technical specifications of the 

applicable EAC voting system standards. This process, commonly called ‘type acceptance,’ 

determines whether the representative sample submitted for testing meets the standards. 

What type acceptance does not do is explore whether variations in manufacturing may allow 

production of non-compliant systems. Generally, the quality of the manufacturing is the 

responsibility of the Manufacturer. After a system is certified, the vendor assumes primary 

responsibility for compliance of the products produced. This level of compliance is 

accomplished by the Manufacturer’s configuration management and quality control processes. 

The EAC’s Quality Monitoring Program, as outlined in this chapter, however, provides an 

additional layer of quality control by allowing the EAC to perform manufacturing site 

reviews, carry out fielded system reviews, and gather information on voting system anomalies 

from election officials. These additional tools help ensure that voting systems continue to meet 

the EAC’s voting system standards as the systems are manufactured, delivered, and used in 

Federal elections. These aspects of the program enable the EAC to independently monitor the 

continued compliance of fielded voting systems. 

8.2. Purpose. The purpose of the Quality Monitoring Program is to ensure systems used by 

election jurisdictions are identical to those tested and certified by the EAC as well as to 

monitor the completeness and adequacy of testing with the desired performance in fielded 

voting systems. This level of quality control is accomplished primarily by identifying (1) 

potential quality problems in manufacturing, (2) uncertified voting system configurations, and 

(3) field performance issues with certified systems. 

8.3. Manufacturer’s Quality Control. The EAC’s Quality Monitoring Program shall not be 

considered a substitute for the Manufacturer’s own quality control program. As stated in 

Chapter 2 of this Manual, all Manufacturers must have an acceptable quality control program 

in place before they may be registered. The EAC’s program serves as an independent and 

complementary process of quality control that works in tandem with the Manufacturer’s 

efforts. 

8.4. Quality Monitoring Methodology. Provides the EAC with four primary tools for assessing 

the level of effectiveness of the certification process and the compliance of fielded voting 

systems, which includes: (1) manufacturing site reviews; (2) fielded system reviews; (3) a 

means for receiving anomaly reports from the field; and (4) technical bulletins or product 

advisories created by the manufacturer. 

8.5. Manufacturing Site Review. Facilities that produce certified voting systems will be reviewed 

periodically, at the discretion of the EAC, to verify that the system being manufactured, 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 176 of 214 PageID #: 

1073 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

shipped, and sold is the same as the certified system. All registered Manufacturers must 

cooperate with such site reviews as a condition of program participation. 

8.5.1.Notice. The site review may be conducted as either a pre-scheduled or as an impromptu 

visit, at the discretion of the EAC; however a Manufacturer will be given at least 24 hours 

notice. Scheduling and notice of site reviews will be coordinated with, and provided to, the 

manufacturing facility’s representative and the Manufacturer’s representative. 

8.5.2.Frequency. At a minimum, at least one manufacturing facility of a registered Manufacturer 

shall be subject to a site review at least once every 4 years. 

8.5.3.The Review. The production facility and production test records must be made available for 

review. When requested, production schedules must be provided to the EAC. Production or 

production testing may be witnessed by EAC representatives. If equipment is not being 

produced during the inspection, the review may be limited to production records. During 

the inspection, the Manufacturer must make available to the EAC’s representative the 

Manufacturer’s quality manual and other documentation sufficient to enable the 

representative to evaluate the following factors of the facility’s production: 

8.5.3.1. Manufacturing quality controls. 

8.5.3.2. Final inspection and testing. 

8.5.3.3. History of deficiencies or anomalies and corrective actions taken. 

8.5.3.4. Equipment calibration and maintenance. 

8.5.3.5. Corrective action program. 

8.5.3.6. Policies on product labeling and the application of the EAC mark of 

certification. 

8.5.4.Exit Briefing. EAC representatives will provide the manufacturing facility’s representative 

with a verbal exit briefing regarding the preliminary observations of the review. 

8.5.5.Written Report. A written report documenting the review will be drafted by the EAC and 

provided to the Manufacturer. The report will detail the findings of the review and identify 

actions that are required to correct any identified deficiencies. 

8.6. Fielded System Review and Testing. Upon invitation, or with the permission of a State or 

local election authority, the EAC may, at its discretion, conduct a review of fielded voting 

systems. Such reviews will be conducted to ensure that a fielded system is comprised of the 

same configuration as what was certified by the EAC and that the proper Mark of Certification 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 177 of 214 PageID #: 

1074 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

has been applied. This review may include the testing of a fielded system, if deemed 

necessary. Any anomalies found during this review will be provided to the appropriate 

election jurisdiction(s) and the Manufacturer. In addition, this review will evaluate the 

correspondence of the actual configuration and use of the voting system in the field with that 

envisioned during testing. If anomalies occur, these reviews seek to determine the direct 

cause, underlying root cause and appropriate remedial and/or preventative actions. 

8.7. Field Anomaly Reporting. The EAC will collect information from election officials with 

fielded EAC-certified voting systems. Information on the actual field performance of a voting 

system shall be used as a means for assessing the effectiveness of the Certification Program 

and the manufacturing quality and version control. The EAC will provide a mechanism for 

election officials to provide input related to voting system anomalies. 

8.7.1.Anomaly Report. Election officials may submit notices of voting system anomalies directly 

to the EAC in either WORD or .pdf format consistent with the requirements in Section 8.7.3 

below. 

8.7.2.Who May Report? State or local election officials who have experienced voting system 

anomalies in their jurisdiction may file anomaly reports. The individuals reporting must 

identify themselves and have firsthand knowledge of or official responsibility over the 

anomaly being reported. Anonymous or hearsay reporting will not be accepted. 

8.7.3.What Is Reported? Election officials shall report voting system anomalies. An anomaly is 

defined as an irregular or inconsistent action or response from the voting system, or system 

component, which resulted in the system or component not functioning as intended or 

expected. Anomalies resulting from administrator error or procedural deficiencies shall not 

be considered anomalies for purposes under this chapter. The report shall include: 

8.7.3.1. The official’s name, title, contact information, and jurisdiction. 

8.7.3.2. A description of the voting system that experienced the anomaly. 

8.7.3.3. The date and location of the reported occurrence. 

8.7.3.4. The type of election. 

8.7.3.5. A description of the anomaly witnessed with applicable supporting 

documentation, if available. 

8.7.4.Distribution of Reports. Reports which are deemed to contain credible information will be 

distributed to State and local election jurisdictions with similar systems, to the 

Manufacturer of the voting system, and to the VSTLs. Reports are deemed credible if: 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 178 of 214 PageID #: 

1075 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

8.7.4.1. The definition of an anomaly under Section 8.7.3 was met; 

8.7.4.2. A complete report, per the requirements of Sections 8.7.3.1 – 8.7.3.5 was 

submitted; 

8.7.4.3. Information contained within the report was confirmed by others present at the 

time of the anomaly; and 

8.7.4.4. Was verified by the relevant state’s chief election official. 

8.8. Manufacturer Created Technical Bulletins or Product Advisories. Manufacturers are 

required to provide any technical bulletins or product advisories issued on EAC certified 

voting systems to the EAC at the time they are issued to jurisdictions impacted by the 

advisory. EAC must receive these via email or postal mail within 24 hours of issuance. 

8.9. Use of Quality Monitoring Information. Ultimately, the information the EAC gathers from 

manufacturing site reviews, fielded system reviews, and field anomaly reports will be used to 

improve the program and ensure the quality of voting systems. The Quality Monitoring 

Program is not designed to be punitive but to be focused on improving the process. 

Information gathered will be used to accomplish the following: 

8.9.1.Identify areas for improvement in the EAC’s Testing and Certification Program. 

8.9.2.Improve the manufacturing quality and change control processes. 

8.9.3.Increase voter confidence in voting technology. 

8.9.4.Inform Manufacturers, election officials, and the EAC of issues associated with voting 

systems in a real-world environment. 

8.9.5.Share information among jurisdictions that use similar voting systems. 

8.9.6.Resolve problems associated with voting technology or manufacturing in a timely manner 

by involving Manufacturers, election officials, and the EAC. 

8.9.7.Strengthen the coordination between certification testing and the desired performance in 

deployed voting systems. 

8.9.8.Provide feedback to the EAC, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and 

the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) regarding issues that may need 

to be addressed through a revision to the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 73 
 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 179 of 214 PageID #: 

1076 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

8.9.9.Initiate an investigation when information suggests Decertification is warranted (see 

Chapter 7). 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 74 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 180 of 214 PageID #: 

1077 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

9. Requests for Interpretations 

9.1. Overview. A Request for Interpretation is a means by which a registered Manufacturer or 

VSTL may seek clarification on a specific EAC voting system standard. An Interpretation is a 

clarification of the voting system standards and guidance on how to properly evaluate 

conformance to it. Suggestions or requests for modifications to the standards are provided by 

other processes. This chapter outlines the policy, requirements, and procedures for submitting 

a Request for Interpretation. 

9.2. Policy. Registered Manufacturers or VSTLs may request the EAC to provide definitive 

Interpretation of EAC-accepted voting system standards when, in the course of developing or 

testing a voting system, the meaning of a particular standard becomes ambiguous or unclear. 

The EAC may self-initiate such a request when it agents identifies a need for interpretation 

within the program. An Interpretation issued by the EAC will serve to clarify what a given 

standard requires and how to properly evaluate compliance. An Interpretation does not 

amend voting system standards, but serves only to clarify existing standards. 

9.3. Requirements for Submitting a Request for Interpretation. An EAC Interpretation is limited 

in scope. The purpose of the Interpretation process is to provide Manufacturers or VSTLs, in 

the process of developing or testing a voting system a means for resolving the meaning of a 

VVSG requirement. A Request for Interpretation must: (1) be submitted by a registered 

manufacturer or VSTL; (2) request interpretation of an applicable VVSG requirement; (3) 

present an actual controversy; and (4) seek clarification on a matter of unsettled ambiguity. 

9.3.1.Proper Requestor. A Request for Interpretation may be submitted only by a registered 

Manufacturer or a VSTL. Requests for Interpretation will not be accepted from any other 

parties. 

9.3.2.Applicable Standard. A Request for Interpretation is limited to queries regarding 

requirements contained in EAC VVSG. A Manufacturer or VSTL may only submit a 

Request for Interpretation on a version of EAC VVSG to which the EAC currently offers 

certification. 

9.3.3.Existing Factual Controversy. To submit a Request for Interpretation, a Manufacturer or 

VSTL must present a question relative to a specific voting system or technology proposed 

for use in a voting system. A Request for Interpretation on hypothetical issues will not be 

addressed by the EAC. To submit a Request for Interpretation, the need for clarification 

must have arisen during the development or testing of a voting system. A factual 

controversy exists when an attempt to apply a specific section of the VVSG to a specific 

system or piece of technology creates ambiguity. 

9.3.4.Unsettled, Ambiguous Matter. Requests for Interpretation must involve actual 

controversies that have not been previously clarified. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 75 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 181 of 214 PageID #: 

1078 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

9.3.4.1. Actual Ambiguity. A proper Request for Interpretation must contain an actual 

ambiguity. The interpretation process is not a means for challenging a clear 

VVSG requirement or to recommend changes to requirements. An ambiguity 

arises (in applying a voting system standard to a specific technology) when one 

of the following occurs: 

9.3.4.1.1. The language of the standard is unclear on its face. 

9.3.4.1.2. One section of the standard seems to contradict another, relevant 

section. 

9.3.4.1.3. The language of the standard, though clear on its face, lacks sufficient 

detail or breadth to determine its proper application to a particular 

technology. 

9.3.4.1.4. The language of a particular standard, when applied to a specific 

technology, conflicts with the established purpose or intent of the 

standard. 

9.3.4.1.5. The language of the standard is clear, but the proper means to assess 

compliance is unclear. 

9.3.4.2. Not Previously Clarified. The EAC will not accept a Request for Interpretation 

when the issue has previously been clarified. 

9.4. Procedure for Submitting a Request for Interpretation. A Request for Interpretation shall be 

made in writing to the Program Director. EAC interpretations are based upon, and limited to, 

the facts presented; therefore all requests should be complete and as detailed as possible. . 

Failure to provide complete information may result in an Interpretation that is non-applicable 

and ultimately immaterial to the issue at hand. The following shall be included in a Request 

for Interpretation: 

9.4.1.Establish Standing To Make the Request. To make a request, one must meet the 

requirements identified in Section 9.3. Thus, the written request must provide sufficient 

information for the Program Director to conclude that the requestor is: (1) a proper 

requester; (2) requesting an Interpretation of an applicable voting system standard; (3) 

presenting an actual factual controversy; and (4) seeking clarification on a matter of 

unsettled ambiguity. 

9.4.2.Identify the EAC VVSG Requirement To Be Clarified. The request must identify the specific 

VVSG requirement or requirement(s) to which the requestor seeks clarification. The request 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 76 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 182 of 214 PageID #: 

1079 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

must state the version of the voting system standards at issue (if applicable) and quote and 

correctly cite the applicable requirement(s). 

9.4.3.State the Facts Resulting in Ambiguity. The request must provide the facts associated with 

the voting system technology that resulted in the ambiguity. The requestor must provide all 

necessary information in a clear, concise manner. Any Interpretation issued by the EAC will 

be based on the facts provided. 

9.4.4. Identify the Ambiguity. The request must identify the ambiguity it seeks to resolve and 

shall: 

9.4.4.1. Clearly state a concise question. 

9.4.4.2. Be related to, and reference, the voting system standard and voting system 

technology. 

9.4.4.3. Be limited to a single issue. Each question or issue arising from an ambiguous 

requirement must be stated separately. Compound questions are unacceptable. If 

multiple issues exist, they should be presented as individual, numbered 

questions. 

9.4.4.4. Be stated in a way that can ultimately be answered yes or no. 

9.4.5.Provide a Proposed Interpretation. A Request for Interpretation should propose an answer 

to the question posed. The answer should interpret the voting system standard in the 

context of the facts presented and it should provide the basis and reasoning behind the 

proposed interpretation. 

9.5. EAC Action on a Request for Interpretation. Upon receipt of a Request for Interpretation, the 

EAC shall: 

9.5.1.Review the Request. The Program Director shall review the request to ensure it is complete, 

clear, and meets the requirements of Section 9.3. Upon review, the Program Director may: 

9.5.1.1. Request Clarification. If the Request for Interpretation is incomplete, or additional 

information is otherwise required, the Program Director may request the 

Manufacturer or VSTL clarify its Request for Interpretation and identify any 

additional information required. 

9.5.1.2. Reject the Request for Interpretation. If the Request for Interpretation does not meet 

the requirements of Section 9.3, the Program Director may reject it. Such rejection 

must be provided in writing to the Manufacturer or VSTL and must state the 

basis for the rejection. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 77 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 183 of 214 PageID #: 

1080 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

9.5.1.3. Notify Acceptance of the Request. If the Request for Interpretation is accepted, the 

Program Director will notify the Manufacturer or VSTL in writing and provide it 

with an estimated date of completion. A Request for Interpretation may be 

accepted in whole or in part and the notice of acceptance shall state the issues 

accepted for interpretation. 

9.5.2.Consideration of the Request. After a Request for Interpretation has been accepted, the 

matter shall be analyzed and researched. Such action may require the EAC to employ 

technical experts and may also require the EAC to request additional information from the 

Manufacturer or VSTL. The Manufacturer or VSTL shall respond promptly to such 

requests. 

9.5.3.Interpretation. The Program Director shall be responsible for making determinations on a 

Request for Interpretation. After this determination has been made, a written Interpretation 

shall be sent to the Manufacturer or VSTL. The following actions shall be included in the 

Interpretation: 

9.5.3.1. The question or questions investigated. 

9.5.3.2. The relevant facts that served as the basis of the Interpretation. 

9.5.3.3. The voting system standards interpreted. 

9.5.3.4. The conclusion reached. 

9.5.3.5. The effect of an Interpretation (see Section 9.6). 

9.6. Effect of Interpretation. Interpretations are fact specific and case specific. They are not tools of 

policy, but specific, fact-based guidance useful for resolving a particular problem. Ultimately, 

an Interpretation is determinative and conclusive only with regard to the case presented. 

Nevertheless, Interpretations do have some value as precedent. Interpretations published by 

the EAC shall serve as reliable guidance and authority over identical or similar questions of 

interpretation. These Interpretations will help users understand and apply the individual 

requirements of EAC VVSG. 

9.7. Library of Interpretations. To better serve Manufacturers, VSTLs and those interested in the 

EAC’s voting system standards, the Program Director shall publish EAC Interpretations. All 

proprietary information contained in an Interpretation will be redacted before publication 

consistent with Chapter 10 of this Manual. The library of published Interpretations is posted 

on the EAC’s website: www.eac.gov. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 78 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 184 of 214 PageID #: 

1081 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

10. Release of Certification Program Information 

10.1. Overview. Manufacturers participating in the Certification Program will be required to 

provide the EAC with a variety of documents. In general, these documents will be releasable 

to the public and, in many cases, the information provided will be affirmatively published by 

the EAC. In limited cases, however, documents may not be released if they include trade 

secrets, confidential commercial information, or personal information. While the EAC is 

ultimately responsible for determining which documents Federal law protects from release, 

Manufacturers must identify the information they believe is protected and ultimately provide 

substantiation and a legal basis for withholding. This chapter discusses the EAC’s general 

policy on the release of information and provides Manufacturers with standards, procedures, 

and requirements for identifying documents as trade secrets or confidential commercial 

information. 

10.2. EAC Policy on the Release of Certification Program Information. The EAC seeks to make 

its Voting System Testing and Certification Program as transparent as possible. The agency 

believes such action benefits the program by increasing public confidence in the process and 

creating a more informed and involved public. As such, it is the policy of the EAC to make all 

documents, or severable portions thereof, available to the public consistent with Federal law 

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

10.2.1. Requests for Information. As in any Federal program, members of the public may 

request access to Certification Program documents under FOIA (5 U.S.C. §552). The EAC 

will promptly process such requests per the requirements of the Act. 

10.2.2. Publication of Documents. Beyond the requirements of FOIA, the EAC intends to 

affirmatively publish program documents (or portions of documents) it believes will be of 

interest to the public. This publication will be accomplished through the use of the EAC’s 

website (www.eac.gov). The published documents will cover the full spectrum of the 

program, including information pertaining to: 

10.2.2.1. Registered Manufacturers; 

10.2.2.2. VSTL Test Plans; 

10.2.2.3. VSTL Test Reports; 

10.2.2.4. Agency decisions; 

10.2.2.5. Denials of Certification; 

10.2.2.6. Issuance of Certifications; 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 79 
 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 185 of 214 PageID #: 

1082 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

10.2.2.7. Information on a certified voting system’s operation, components, features 

or capabilities; 

10.2.2.8. Appeals; 

10.2.2.9. Reports of investigation and Notice of Non-compliance; 

10.2.2.10. Decertification actions; 

10.2.2.11. Manufacturing facility review reports; 

10.2.2.12. Official Interpretations (VVSG); and 

10.2.2.13. Other topics as determined by the EAC. 

10.2.3. Trade Secret and Confidential Commercial Information. Federal law places a number of 

restrictions on a Federal agency’s authority to release information to the public. Two such 

restrictions are particularly relevant to the Certification program: (1) trade secrets 

information; and (2) privileged or confidential commercial information. Both types of 

information are explicitly prohibited from release by the FOIA and the Trade Secrets Act (18 

U.S.C. §1905). 

10.3. Trade Secrets. A secret, commercially valuable plan, process, or device used for the making 

or processing of a product and that is the end result of either innovation or substantial effort. It 

relates to the productive process itself, describing how a product is made. It does not relate to 

information describing end product capabilities, features, or performance. 

10.3.1. The following examples illustrate productive processes that may be trade secrets: 

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

10.3.1.2. Specifications of materials used in production. 

10.3.1.3. Voting system source code used to develop or manufacture software where 

release would reveal actual programming. 

10.3.1.4. Technical descriptions of manufacturing processes and other secret 

information relating directly to the production process. 

10.3.2. The following examples are likely not trade secrets: 

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

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 80 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 186 of 214 PageID #: 

1083 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

10.3.2.2. Information pertaining to a finished product’s performance. 

10.3.2.3. Information regarding product components that would not reveal any 

commercially valuable information regarding production. 

10.4. Privileged or Confidential Commercial Information. Privileged or confidential 

commercial information is information submitted by a Manufacturer that is commercial or 

financial in nature and privileged or confidential. 

10.4.1. Commercial or Financial Information. The terms commercial and financial should be given 

their ordinary meanings. They include records in which a submitting Manufacturer has any 

commercial interest. 

10.4.2. Privileged or Confidential Information. Commercial or financial information is privileged or 

confidential if its disclosure would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position 

of the submitter. The concept of harm to one’s competitive position focuses on harm 

flowing from a competitor’s affirmative use of the proprietary information. It does not 

include incidental harm associated with upset customers or employees. 

10.5. EAC’s Responsibilities. The EAC is ultimately responsible for determining whether or not 

a document (in whole or in part) may be released pursuant to Federal law. In doing so, 

however, the EAC will require information and input from the Manufacturer submitting the 

documents. This requirement is essential for the EAC to identify, track, and make 

determinations on the large volume of documentation it receives. The EAC has the following 

responsibilities: 

10.5.1. Managing Documentation and Information. The EAC will control the documentation it 

receives by ensuring that documents are secure and released to third parties only after the 

appropriate review and determination. 

10.5.2. Contacting Manufacturer on Proposed Release of Potentially Protected Documents. In the 

event a member of the public submits a FOIA request for documents provided by a 

Manufacturer or the EAC otherwise proposes the release of such documents, the EAC will 

take the following action: 

10.5.2.1. Review the documents to determine if they are potentially protected from 

release as trade secrets or confidential commercial information. The documents 

at issue may have been previously identified as protected by the Manufacturer 

when submitted (see Section 10.7.1 below) or identified by the EAC on review. 

10.5.2.2. Grant the submitting Manufacturer an opportunity to provide input. In the 

event the information has been identified as potentially protected from release as 

a trade secret or confidential commercial information, the EAC will notify the 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 187 of 214 PageID #: 

1084 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

submitter and allow them an opportunity to submit their position on the issue 

prior to release of the information. The submitter shall respond consistent with 

Section 10.7.1 below. 

10.5.3. Final Determination on Release. After providing the submitter of the information an 

opportunity to be heard, the EAC will make a final decision on release. The EAC will 

inform the submitter of this decision. 

10.6. Manufacturer’s Responsibilities. Although the EAC is ultimately responsible for 

determining if a document, or any portion thereof, is protected from release as a trade secret 

or confidential commercial information, the Manufacturer shall be responsible for identifying 

documents, or portions of documents, it believes warrant such protection. Moreover, the 

Manufacturer will be responsible for providing the legal basis and substantiation for their 

determination regarding the withholding of a document. This responsibility arises in two 

situations: (1) upon the initial submission of information; and (2) upon notification by the EAC 

that it is considering the release of potentially protected information. 

10.6.1. Initial Submission of Information. When a Manufacturer submits documents to the EAC 

as required by the Certification Program, it is responsible for identifying any document or 

portion of a document that it believes is protected from release by Federal law. 

Manufacturers shall identify protected information by the following: 

10.6.1.1. Submitting a Notice of Protected Information. This notice shall identify the 

document, document page, or portion of a page that the Manufacturer believes 

should be protected from release. This identification must be done with 

specificity. For each piece of information identified, the Manufacturer must state 

the legal basis for its protected status. 

10.6.1.1.1. Cite the applicable law that exempts the information from release. 

10.6.1.1.2. Clearly discuss why that legal authority applies and why the 

document must be protected from release. 

10.6.1.1.3. If necessary, provide additional documentation or information. For 

example, if the Manufacturer claims a document contains 

confidential commercial information, it would also have to provide 

evidence and analysis of the competitive harm that would result 

upon release. 

10.6.1.2. Label Submissions. Label all submissions identified in the notice as 

“Proprietary Commercial Information.” Label only those submissions identified 

as protected. Attempts to indiscriminately label all materials as proprietary will 

render the markings moot. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 82 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 188 of 214 PageID #: 

1085 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

10.6.2. Notification of Potential Release. In the event a Manufacturer is notified that the EAC is 

considering the release of information that may be protected, the Manufacturer shall: 

10.6.2.1. Respond to the notice within 15 calendar days. If additional time is needed, 

the Manufacturer must promptly notify the Program Director. Requests for 

additional time will be granted only for good cause and must be made before the 

15-day deadline. Manufacturers that do not respond in a timely manner will be 

viewed as not objecting to release. 

10.6.2.2. Clearly state one of the following in the response: 

10.6.2.2.1. There is no objection to release; OR 

10.6.2.2.2. The Manufacturer objects to release. In this case, the response must 

clearly state which portions of the document the Manufacturer 

believes should be protected from release. The Manufacturer shall 

follow the procedures discussed in Section 10.7.1. 

10.7. Personal Information. Certain personal information is protected from release under FOIA 

and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. §552a). This information includes private information about a 

person that, if released, would cause the individual embarrassment or constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Generally, the EAC will not require the submission 

of private, individual information and the incidental submission of such information should 

be avoided. If a Manufacturer believes it is required to submit such information, it should 

contact the Program Director. If the information will be submitted, it must be properly 

identified. Examples of such information include: 

10.7.1. Social Security Number. 

10.7.2. Bank account numbers. 

10.7.3. Home address. 

10.7.4. Home phone number. 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 83 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 189 of 214 PageID #: 

1086 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Appendix A 

Manufacturer Registration Application Form 

Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 84 
 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 190 of 214 PageID #: 

1087 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Appendix B 

Application for Voting System Testing Form 

Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 85 
 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 191 of 214 PageID #: 

1088 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Appendix C 

Voting System Test Plan Outline 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 86 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 192 of 214 PageID #: 

1089 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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 

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 NA for this campaign 

4.2 Hardware Configuration and Design 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 87 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 193 of 214 PageID #: 

1090 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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 

Proprietary Data 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 88 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 194 of 214 PageID #: 

1091 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Appendix D 

Voting System Modification Test Plan Outline 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 195 of 214 PageID #: 

1092 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Test Plans submitted for modifications to previously EAC certified voting systems should be brief 

and structured to minimize test plan development and review, while enabling the EAC to maintain 

solid control of the certification process. The test plan shall concisely document the strategy and 

plan for testing those sections of the VVSG applicable to the modification or modifications 

submitted. The test plan shall be written with clarity that will allow all constituents to understand 

what testing will be conducted, to verify compliance to VVSG requirements, and to assure that the 

test plan will remain a living document throughout the life of the test campaign for the 

modification. 

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 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 90 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 196 of 214 PageID #: 

1093 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

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 NA for 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 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 91 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 197 of 214 PageID #: 

1094 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Appendix E 

Voting System Test Report Outline 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 92 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 198 of 214 PageID #: 

1095 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Test Reports produced by VSTLs shall 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 and Recommendation 

3.1 Summary Finding and Recommendation 

3.2 Reasons for Recommendation to Reject 

3.3 Anomalies 

3.4 Correction of Deficiencies 

Appendix A. Additional Findings 

Appendix B. Warrant of Accepting Change Control Responsibility 

Appendix C. Trusted Build 

Appendix D. Test Plan 

Appendix E. State Test Reports 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 93 
 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 199 of 214 PageID #: 

1096 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Appendix F 

Voting System Modification Test Report Outline 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 94 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 200 of 214 PageID #: 

1097 

EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 2.0 

Test Reports produced by VSTLs shall 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 

1.1 References 

1.2 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) 

OMB Control Number 3265-0019 95 
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 201 of 214 PageID #: 

1098 

EXHIBIT D - Pro V&V Renewed Certificate of Accreditation 
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 202 of 214 PageID #: 

1099 

United States Election Assistance Commission

Certificate of Accreditation

Pro V&V, Inc.

Huntsville, Alabama

is recognized by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission for the testing of voting systems to the 

2005 and 2015 Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG 1.0 & 1.1) under the criteria set 

forth in the EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program and Laboratory Accreditation 

Program. Pro V&V is also recognized as having successfully completed assessments by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for conformance to the requirements of ISO/

IEC 17025 and the criteria set forth in NIST Handbooks 150 and 150-22. 

Original Accreditation Issued on: 2/24/2015

Accreditation remains effective until revoked 

by a vote of the EAC pursuant to 52 U.S.C. §

20971(c)(2).

Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Mona Harrington

Date: 2/1/21

EAC Lab Code: 1501
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 203 of 214 PageID #: 

1100 

EXHIBIT E – SLI Compliance Renewed Certificate of Accreditation 
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 204 of 214 PageID #: 

1101 

United States Election Assistance Commission

Certificate of Accreditation

SLI Compliance

Division of Gaming Laboratories International, LLC

Wheat Ridge, Colorado

is recognized by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission for the testing of voting systems to the 2005 and 2015 Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG 1.0 & 1.1) under 

the criteria set forth in the EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program and 

Laboratory Accreditation Program. SLI Compliance is also recognized as having successfully completed assessments by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation

Program for conformance to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and the criteria set 

forth in NIST Handbooks 150 and 150-22. 

Original Accreditation Issued on: 2/28/2007

Accreditation remains effective until revoked 

by a vote of the EAC pursuant to 52 U.S.C. §

20971(c)(2).

Mona Harrington

Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Date: 2/1/21

EAC Lab Code: 0701
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 205 of 214 PageID #: 

1102 

EXHIBIT F – NTS Huntsville Renewed Certificate of Accreditation 
se: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 206 of 214 PageID #: 

1103 

United States Election Assistance Commission U.S. Election Assist3nce Comm i

VSTL 

ssion 

---

Certificate of Accreditation 

--

Wyle Laboratories, Inc. 

Huntsville, Alabama 

d by the US Election Assistance Commission for the testing of voting systems to the 

ary Voting Systems Guidelines under the criteria set forth in the EAC Voting System 

 Certification Program and Laboratory Accreditation Program. Uyle is also recog

ving successfully completed assessments by the National Voluntary Laboratory Ac

Program for conformance to the requirements of ISOIIEC 17025 and the criteria set 

forth in NIST Handbooks 150 and 150-22. 

Effective Through 

April 27, 2012 

&~ Ji)~

Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Date, 5/04//10 

EAC Lab Code: 0704 
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 207 of 214 PageID #: 

1104 

EXHIBIT G – NTS Huntsville Notification of Acquisition of 

Wyle Laboratories 
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

  

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

  

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

  

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 208 of 214 PageID #: 

1105 

www.nts.com 

March 5, 2014

US Election Assistance Commission

Voting System Testing & Certification Program

1201 New York Ave., NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 2005

Attention: Mr. Brian Hancock

Subject: National Technical Systems (NTS) Completes Acquisition of

Wyle Laboratories, Inc.

Dear Mr. Hancock:

We are pleased to announce that NTS, the leading independent test, inspection, and

certification company in the United States, has acquired the testing business of Wyle

Laboratories. This acquisition is an exciting part of the significant investments we are making in

the capabilities we are able to deliver customers, all in support of our mission to be the natural

first choice for the world class companies we serve.

Wyle’s three testing laboratories – located in Huntsville, Alabama; El Segundo, California; and

San Bernardino, California – will be renamed, joining NTS’ national network of over 25 labs. In

particular, this combination, and the significant technological, personnel, and capital

investments we are making in support of it, will create extraordinary centers of excellence in

Alabama and Southern California with truly exceptional capabilities to serve your team’s needs.

The NTS management team is, of course, fully committed to not only providing, but also

enhancing, the high quality performance and superior customer service you have become

accustomed to over the past 60 years. You will continue to interface with the same people as

you have in the past, but you will also notice upgraded technologies and capabilities and be

provided access to our growing network of NTS facilities across the United States. We expect

the transition to be seamless, and – most importantly – note that all of your projects will

continue as planned without interruption.

We are enthusiastic about the investments we are making in being your natural first choice for

test, inspection, and certification services and look forward to sharing the exciting things we’re

doing to further enhance the leading network of capabilities we’ll be making available to the

NTS Huntsville (formerly Wyle Laboratories) 7800 Highway 20 W (Str. Zip 35806) P.O. Box 077777 Huntsville, AL 35807-7777 

Main Tel: (256) 837-4411 FAX No.: (256) 830-2109 
   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 209 of 214 PageID #: 

1106 

www.nts.com 

leading customers we serve. We sincerely appreciate your business and are always here in

support of your team; if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me, Keith

Wilson, at 256/719‐4227 or your Contracts representative (Neil Bunn at 256/716‐4120, Megan

Toomey at 256/716‐4276, Shannon Roden at 256/716‐4361, or Dawn Bates at 256/716‐4590).

Sincerely,

Keith Wilson

Vice President & General Manager

NTS Huntsville, formerly Wyle Laboratories

Bill McGinnis

President and CEO

NTS
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 210 of 214 PageID #: 

1107 

EXHIBIT H – NTS Huntsville Voluntary Withdrawal 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 211 of 214 PageID #: 

1108 

March 13, 2017 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1335 East West Highway 

Suite 4300 

Silver Spring, MD. 20910 

Subject: NTS is voluntarily withdrawing from the role and responsibility as an independent 

Voting System Test Lab (VSTL) 

To whom it may concern: 

This letter serves as the official notification to EAC, that NTS is voluntarily withdrawing from the 

role and responsibility as an independent Voting System Test Lab (VSTL), as accredited by the 

EAC. 

NTS will continue to provide support for all past vendors requiring data collection until March 31, 

2017. 

NTS will continue to provide hardware testing for any and all vendors, test labs, entities and/or 

individuals as contracted and/or subcontracted. 

Should you require additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact 

either Bobby Hardy (by phone 256-716-4437 or e-mail bobby.hardy@nts.com) or me (by phone 

256-716-4361 or e-mail shannon.roden@nts.com). 

Sincerely, 

NTS TECHNICAL SYSTEMS 

SHANNON RODEN, CPCM 

CONTRACTS MANAGER 

NTS HUNTSVILLE 

NTS Huntsville • 7800 Highway 20 West • Huntsville, AL 35806 • (256) 837-4411 • Fax: (256) 830-2109 • www.nts.com 
Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 212 of 214 PageID #: 

1109 

EXHIBIT I – EAC Notification to NTS Huntsville of Continuing 

Responsibilities 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 213 of 214 PageID #: 

1110 

U. S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

1335 East-West Highway, Ste. 4300 

Silver Spring, MD. 20910 

www.eac.gov 

April 6, 2017 

Shannon Roden, CPCM shannon.roden@nts.com 

Contracts Manager 

NTS Technical Systems 

Huntsville Operations 

7800 Hwy. 20 West 

Huntsville, AL 35806 

Re: Withdrawal from Election Assistance Commissions 

Voting Systems Test Laboratory Program 

Dear Ms. Roden, 

Thank you for your email and letter dated March 13, 2017 informing the Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) that NTS will be withdrawing from its role as a “testing laboratory” from the

EAC’s Voting Systems Test Laboratory Program. I also understand that a similar letter has been 

forwarded to the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) at NIST. 

In your letter, you indicated that NTS’ withdrawal would be effective as of March 31, 2017. While 

we interpret that date certain to mean that you will no longer be accepting voting systems for 

testing after that date, we are obligated to remind you of your responsibility to maintain certain 

records and documents which you have acquired during your tenure in the Program for the 

required period of time (5 years) as set forth in the Voting System Test Laboratory Program 

Manual. 

Pursuant to Section 2.23 (Recordkeeping) of the Voting System Test Laboratory Program 

Manual: 

“As a condition of accreditation, all laboratories shall have a written policy regarding the 

proper storage, management and retention of all records relating to the testing of voting 

systems. At a minimum, this policy shall require all forms, reports, test records, 

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

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

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

any version of said system). The policy shall require that all documents are 

maintained in a safe and secure environment and stored in a manner that provides 

for organized and timely identification and retrieval. Additionally, all records must 

be kept in a data format usable and available to the EAC.”
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 4:22-cv-00682-RLW Doc. #: 30-2 Filed: 08/12/22 Page: 214 of 214 PageID #: 

1111 

(Emphasis added) 

Our records indicate that you have provided testing for a large number of jurisdictions and for 

multiple vendors regarding multiple voting systems. We also understand that you may also be 

serving as a “source code” escrow agent for multiple jurisdictions. As a current repository for 

what is an undoubtedly a large volume of records, please advise us on how you will continue to 

store and provide access to the records you have amassed over the years. 

And while you do not directly house any “source code” data for the EAC, it will be helpful for us 

to be able to communicate to the jurisdictions that have used your services on what they can 

expect and what steps they may need to take to ensure access to their data or to effectuate the 

transfer of their data for future access. 

We assume voting system manufacturers that have worked with NTS/Wyle over the past years 

will be contacting you shortly to work out a mutually agreeable way to transfer any data, 

hardware, software or other materials necessary back into their custody in a reasonable 

timeframe, as well as the transfer of escrowed software to another trusted third party escrow 

agent for the State. 

As these transfers may take time, and because of the highly important nature of this information, 

particularly since the designation of elections as Critical Infrastructure by the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, we believe it is imperative that NTS be available and able to work with 

these jurisdictions and entities well beyond your stated date of March 31, 2017. 

We look forward to hearing from you on how you intend to proceed in regard to the abovementioned necessary actions. 

Thank you for your prompt response and for your years of dedicated service as an EAC voting 

system test laboratory. 

Sincerely, 

Brian D. Newby, Executive Director 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission