Voting System Test Laboratory 

Program Manual

Version 2.0

Effective May 31, 2015

United States Election Assistance Commission

1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300, Silver Spring, MD 20910 www.eac.gov

OMB Control # 3265-0018
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

i OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

ii OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

iii OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

iv OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

5 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

6 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

7 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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.
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

8 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

- 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.
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

9 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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.
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

10 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

11 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

12 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

13 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 

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

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

business and may include indebtedness or compensated employment 

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

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

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

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

commodity future. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

upon the occurrence of events that are speculative or that are 

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

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

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

section. 

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

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

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

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

gain or loss is immaterial.

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

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

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

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

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

be imputed to an employee. 

2.5.1.5.2. The financial interest of any organization in which a 

laboratory, Parent Corporation, or a laboratory employee 

serves as an employee, officer, board member, partner, 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

14 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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

 

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.

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

15 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

16 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

17 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

18 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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; 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

19 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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; 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

20 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

21 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

22 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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.
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

23 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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

 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.

 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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

24 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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;
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

25 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

26 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

27 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

28 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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.
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

29 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

30 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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

 

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. 

 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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

31 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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.
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

32 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

33 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

34 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

35 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

36 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

37 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

38 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

39 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

40 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

41 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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.
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

42 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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.
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

43 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

44 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

45 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

46 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

47 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

48 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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.
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

49 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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;
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

50 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

51 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

52 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

5.5.2.1.5. Require the VSTL to provide the EAC a written certification 

attesting to its completion of the remedial plan and full 

compliance with program requirements at close of the 

process. 

5.5.2.2. EAC Action on Plan. A remedial plan is subject to approval by the 

Program Director. The Program Director will work with the suspended 

VSTL to develop and approve a Remedial Plan that appropriately 

brings the laboratory into compliance within an acceptable timeframe. 

Remedial Plans shall be approved in writing. Ultimately, a VSTL’s 

failure to cooperate or otherwise obtain approval of a remedial plan will 

result in the termination of the cure process. A determination to 

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

Director. Upon receipt of a notice that the cure process has been 

terminated, a suspended VSTL shall have 10 days to request an 

opportunity to be heard on revocation of accreditation (see Section 

5.5.3., below).

5.5.2.3. VSTL Implementation of Plan. After the remedial plan has been approved 

by the Program Director, the VSTL shall begin implementation. The 

VSTL shall not deviate from an approved plan’s procedures, 

requirements or deadlines without the written consent of the Program 

Director. Failure to follow the remedial plan will result in the 

termination of the cure process. A determination to terminate the cure 

process will be made in writing by the Program Director. Upon receipt 

of a notice that the cure process has been terminated, a suspended VSTL 

shall have 10 days to request an opportunity to be heard on revocation 

of accreditation (see Section 5.5.3., below).

5.5.2.4. EAC Verification of Remedy. Upon a VSTL’s timely completion of the 

remedial plan and receipt of the VSTL’s Certification (see Section 

5.5.2.1.5.), the Program Director shall verify compliance. At the 

discretion of the Program Director, he or she may verify compliance 

through the acceptance of the VSTL’s Certification or through the 

various components of the Compliance Management Program (Chapter 

4). If the Program Director determines that the remedial plan was not 

completed, he or she may terminate the cure process. A determination 

to terminate the cure process will be made in writing. Upon receipt of a 

notice that the cure process has been terminated, a suspended VSTL 

shall have 10 days to request an opportunity to be heard on revocation 

of accreditation (see Section 5.5.3., below).
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

53 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

54 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

55 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

56 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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.
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

57 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

58 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

59 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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:
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

60 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

61 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

62 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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;
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

63 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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.
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

64 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

65 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

66 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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.
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

67 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

Appendix A 

Voting System Test Plan Outline
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

68 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

69 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

70 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

Appendix B

Voting System Modification Test Plan Outline
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

71 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

72 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

73 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

Appendix C

Voting System Test Report Outline
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

74 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

75 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

Appendix D

Voting System Modification Test Report Outline 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

76 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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)
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

77 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

Appendix E

Certification of Laboratory Conditions and Practices 

Form

Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

78 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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. 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

79 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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) 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

80 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

Appendix F

Specification for Reproduction and use of the EAC 

Laboratory Accreditation Logo

Accreditation Logo Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

81 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

82 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

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 
Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0

83 OMB Control Number: 3265-0018

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

VSTL