DISCONTINUED - November 2015

Version 1.0 - Effective January 1, 2007 www.eac.gov

United States

Election Assistance

Commission

1225 New York Avenue. N.W.

Ste.1100

Washington, DC 20005

202-566-3100

Testing and Certification

Program Manual

OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

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

Act of 1995, Office of Management and Budget Control (OMB) Number 3265-0004, expiring 

March 31, 2007. Persons are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB number. Information gathered pursuant to this document and its 

forms will be used solely to administer the EAC Testing and Certification Program. This 

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

its requirements. The estimated total annual hourly burden on the voting system manufacturing 

industry and election officials is 114 hours. This estimate includes the time required for 

reviewing the instructions, gathering information, and completing the prescribed forms. Send 

comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Voting System

Testing and Certification Program, Office of the Program Director, 1225 New York Avenue, 

NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20005.

i OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Table of Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................. 1

2. Manufacturer Registration .................................................................................... 11

3. When Voting Systems Must Be Submitted for Testing and Certification ................ 17

4. Certification Testing and Technical Review.......................................................... 25

5. Grant of Certification............................................................................................. 32

6. Denial of Certification............................................................................................ 39

7. Decertification....................................................................................................... 45

8. Quality Monitoring Program.................................................................................. 56

9. Requests for Interpretations ................................................................................. 60

10. Release of Certification Program Information....................................................... 64

Appendix A. Manufacturer Registration Application Form ............................................. 69

Appendix B. Application for Voting System Testing Form ............................................. 70

Appendix C. Voting System Anomaly Reporting Form.................................................. 71

ii OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

1. Introduction

1.1. Background. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) adopted the first formal set of 

voluntary Federal standards for computer-based voting systems in January 1990. At that time, 

no national program or organization existed to test and certify such systems to the standards. 

The National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) stepped up to fill this void in 

1994. NASED is an independent, nongovernmental organization of State election officials. The 

organization formed the Nation’s first national program to test and qualify voting systems to 

the new Federal standards. The organization worked for more than a decade, on a strictly 

voluntary basis, to help ensure the reliability, consistency, and accuracy of voting systems 

fielded in the United States. In late 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 

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

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

and certification of voting systems. This mandate represented the first time the Federal 

government provided for the voluntary testing, certification, and decertification of voting 

systems nationwide. In response to this HAVA requirement, the EAC has developed the 

Voting System Testing and Certification Program (Certification Program).

1.2. Authority. HAVA requires that the EAC certify and decertify voting systems. Section 

231(a)(1) of HAVA specifically requires the EAC to “... provide for the testing, certification,

decertification and recertification of voting system hardware and software by accredited 

laboratories.” The EAC has the sole authority to grant certification or withdraw certification at 

the Federal level, including the authority to grant, maintain, extend, suspend, and withdraw the 

right to retain or use any certificates, marks, or other indicators of certification.

1.3. Scope. This Manual provides the procedural requirements of the EAC Voting System Testing 

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

program’s procedural requirements is mandatory for participants. The procedural requirements 

of this Manual supersede any prior voting system certification requirements issued by the 

EAC.

1.4. Purpose. The primary purpose of the EAC Certification Program Manual is to provide clear 

procedures to Manufacturers for the testing and certification of voting systems to specified 

Federal standards consistent with the requirements of HAVA Section 231(a)(1). Theprogram,

however, also serves to do the following:

1.4.1. Support State certification programs.

1.4.2. Support local election officials in the areas of acceptance testing and pre-election 

system verification.

1.4.3. Increase quality control in voting system manufacturing.

1.4.4. Increase voter confidence in the use of voting systems.

1 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

1.5. Manual. This Manual is a comprehensive presentation of the EAC Voting System Testing and

Certification Program. It is intended to establish all of the program’s administrative 

requirements.

1.5.1. Contents. The contents of the Manual serve as an overview of the program itself. The 

Manual contains the following chapters:

1.5.1.1. Manufacturer Registration. Under the program, a Manufacturer is required to 

register with the EAC prior to participation. This registration providesthe 

EAC with needed information and requires the Manufacturer to agree to the 

requirements of the Certification Program. This chapter sets out the 

requirements and procedures for registration.

1.5.1.2. When Voting Systems Must Be Submitted for Testing and Certification. All

voting systems must be submitted consistent with this Manual before they 

may receive a certification from the EAC. This chapter discusses the various 

circumstances that require submission to obtain or maintain a certification.

1.5.1.3. Certification Testing and Review. Under this program, the testing and review 

process requires the completion of an application, employment of an EACaccredited laboratory for system testing, and technical analysis of the 

laboratory test report by the EAC. The result of this process is an Initial 

Decision on Certification. This chapter discusses the required steps for voting 

system testing and review.

1.5.1.4. Grant of Certification. If an Initial Decision to grant certification is made, the 

Manufacturer must take additional steps before the Manufacturer may be 

issued a certification. These steps require the Manufacturer to document the 

performance of a trusted build (see definition at Section 1.16), the deposit of 

software into a repository, and the creation of system identification tools. This 

chapter outlines the action that a Manufacturer must take to receive a 

certification and the Manufacturer’s post-certification responsibilities.

1.5.1.5. Denial of Certification. If an Initial Decision to deny certification is made, the 

Manufacturer has certain rights and responsibilities under the program.This 

chapter contains procedures for requesting reconsideration, opportunity to 

cure defects, and appeal.

1.5.1.6. Decertification. Decertification is the process by which the EAC revokes a 

certification it previously granted to a voting system. It is an important part of

the Certification Program because it serves to ensure that the requirements of 

the program are followed and that certified voting systems fielded for use in 

Federal elections maintain the same level of quality as those presented for 

testing. This chapter sets procedures for Decertification and explains the 

Manufacturer’s rights and responsibilities during that process.

2 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

1.5.1.7. Quality Monitoring Program. Under the Certification Program, EAC will 

implement a quality monitoring process that will help ensure that voting 

systems certified by the EAC are the same systems sold by Manufacturers. 

The quality monitoring process is a mandatory part of the program and 

includes elements such as fielded voting system review, anomaly reporting,

and manufacturing site visits. This chapter sets forth the requirements of the 

Quality Monitoring Program.

1.5.1.8. Requests for Interpretations. An Interpretation is a means by which a 

registered Manufacturer or Voting System Test Laboratory (VSTL) may seek 

clarification on a specific Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 

standard. This chapter outlines the policy, requirements, and procedures for 

requesting an Interpretation.

1.5.1.9. Release of Certification Program Information. Federal law protects certain 

types of information individuals provided the government from release. This 

chapter outlines the program’s policies, sets procedures, and discusses 

responsibilities associated with the public release of potential protected 

commercial information.

1.5.2. Maintenance and Revision. This Manual, which sets the procedural requirements for a 

new Federal program, is expected to be improved and expanded as experience and 

circumstances dictate. The Manual will be reviewed periodically and updated to meet

the needs of the EAC, Manufacturers, VSTLs, election officials, and public policy. The 

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

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

whenever possible, at the discretion of the agency. Changes in policy requiring 

immediate implementation will be noticed via policy memoranda and will be issued to 

each registered Manufacturer. Changes, addendums, or updated versions will also be 

posted to the EAC Web site at www.eac.gov.

1.6. Program Methodology. EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program is but one 

part of the overall conformity assessment process that includes companion efforts at the State 

and local levels.

1.6.1. Federal and State Roles. The process to ensure that voting equipment meets the 

technical requirements is a distributed, cooperative effort of Federal, State, and local

officials in the United States. Working with voting equipment Manufacturers, these 

officials each have unique responsibility for ensuring that the equipment a voter uses on 

Election Day meets specific requirements.

1.6.1.1. The EAC Program has primary responsibility for ensuring that voting systems 

submitted under this program meet Federal standards established for voting 

systems.

3 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

1.6.1.2. State officials have responsibility for testing voting systems to ensure that 

they will support the specific requirements of each individual State. States 

may use EAC VSTLs to perform testing of voting systems to unique State 

requirements while the systems are being tested to Federal standards. The

EAC will not, however, certify voting systems to State requirements.

1.6.1.3. State or local officials are responsible for making the final purchase choice. 

They are responsible for deciding which system offers the best fit and total 

value for their specific State or local jurisdiction.

1.6.1.4. State or local officials are also responsible for acceptance testing to ensure 

that the equipment delivered is identical to the equipment certified on the

Federal and State levels, is fully operational, and meets the contractual 

requirements of the purchase.

1.6.1.5. State or local officials should perform pre-election logic and accuracy testing 

to confirm that equipment is operating properly and is unmodified from its 

certified state.

1.6.2. Conformity Assessment, Generally. Conformity assessment is a system established to 

ensure that a product or service meets the requirements that apply to it. Many 

conformity assessment systems exist to protect the quality and ensure compliance with 

requirements of products and services. All conformity assessment systems attempt to 

answer a variety of questions:

1.6.2.1. What specifications are required of an acceptable system? For votingsystems,

the EAC voting system standards (VVSG and Voting System Standards

[VSS]) address this issue. States and local jurisdictions also have 

supplementing standards.

1.6.2.2. How are systems tested against required specifications? The EAC Voting

System Testing and Certification Program is a central element of the larger 

conformity assessment system. The program, as set forth in this Manual, 

provides for the testing and certification of voting systems to identified 

versions of the VVSG. The Testing and Certification Program’s purpose is to 

ensure that State and local jurisdictions receive voting systems that meet the 

requirements of the VVSG.

1.6.2.3. Are the testing authorities qualified to make an accurate evaluation? The 

EAC accredits VSTLs, after the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) National Voluntary Lab Accreditation Program (NVLAP) 

has reviewed their technical competence and lab practices, to ensure these test 

authorities are fully qualified. Furthermore, EAC technical experts review all 

test reports from accredited laboratories to ensure an accurate and complete 

evaluation. Many States provide similar reviews of laboratory reports.

4 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

1.6.2.4. Will Manufacturers deliver units within manufacturing tolerances to those 

tested? The VVSG and this Manual require that vendors have appropriate 

change management and quality control processes to control the quality and 

configuration of their products. The Certification Program provides 

mechanisms for the EAC to verify Manufacturer quality processes through 

field system testing and manufacturing site visits. States have implemented 

policies for acceptance of delivered units.

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

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

Program will be subject to conflict-of-interest reporting and review, consistent with Federal 

law and regulation.

1.8. Program Records. The EAC Program Director is responsible for maintaining accurate records 

to demonstrate that the testing and certification program procedures have been effectively

fulfilled and to ensure the traceability, repeatability, and reproducibility of testing and test 

report review. All records will be maintained, managed, secured, stored, archived, and 

disposed of in accordance with Federal law, Federal regulations, and procedures of the EAC.

1.9. Submission of Documents. Any documents submitted pursuant to the requirements ofthis 

Manual shall be submitted:

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

otherwise specified.

1.9.2. In a Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF file, formatted to protect the document from 

alteration.

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

authorized signature may be signed with an electronic representation or image of the 

signature of an authorized management representative and must meet any and all 

subsequent requirements established by the Program Director regarding security.

1.9.4. If sent via physical delivery, by Certified MailTM (or similar means that allowes

tracking) to the following address:

Testing and Certification Program Director

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100

Washington, D.C. 20005

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

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

1.10.1. The actual, documented date the correspondence was received (either electronically or 

physically) at the Manufacturer’s place of business, or

5 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

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

the communication. For electronic correspondence, documents will be constructively

received the day after the date sent. For mail correspondence, the document will be 

constructively received 3 days after the date sent.

1.10.3. The term “receipt” shall mean the date a document or correspondence arrives (either 

electronically or physically) at the Manufacturer’s place of business. Arrival does not 

require that an agent of the Manufacturer open, read, or review the correspondence.

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

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

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

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

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

business day.

1.12. EAC Response Timeframes. In recognition of the responsibilities and challengesfacing 

Manufacturers as they work to meet the requirements imposed by this program, State 

certification programs, customers, State law and production schedules, the EAC will provide 

timeframes for its response to significant program elements. This shall be done by providing 

current metrics on EAC’s Web site regarding the actual average EAC response time for (1) 

approving Test Plans, (2) issuing Initial Decisions, and (3) issuing Certificates of 

Conformance.

1.13. Records Retention—Manufacturers. The Manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that all

documents submitted to the EAC or that otherwise serve as the basis for the certification of a 

voting system are retained. A copy of all such records shall be retained as long as a voting 

system is offered for sale or supported by a Manufacturer and for 5 years thereafter.

1.14. Record Retention—EAC. The EAC shall retain all records associated with the certification of 

a voting system as long as such system is fielded in a State or local election jurisdiction for use

in Federal elections. The records shall otherwise be retained or disposed of consistent with 

Federal statutes and regulations.

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

requirements of Federal law. It is EAC policy to make the certification process as open and 

public as possible. Any documents (or portions thereof) submitted under this program will be 

made available to the public unless specifically protected from release by law. The primary 

means for making this information available is through the EAC Web site.

6 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

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

definitions.

Appeal. A formal process by which the EAC is petitioned to reconsider an Agency Decision.

Appeal Authority. The individual or individuals appointed to serve as the determination 

authority on appeal.

Build Environment. The disk or other media that holds the source code, compiler, linker,

integrated development environments (IDE), and/or other necessary files for the compilation 

and on which the compiler will store the resulting executable code.

Certificate of Conformance. The certificate issued by the EAC when a system has been found 

to meet the requirements of the VVSG. The document conveys certification of a system.

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

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

Component. A discrete and identifiable element of hardware or software within a larger voting 

system.

Compiler. A computer program that translates programs expressed in a high-level language 

into machine language equivalents.

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

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

date the document was received.

Disk Image. An exact copy of the entire contents of a computer disk.

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

duties the management or administration of a Federal election.

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

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.

File Signature. A signature of a file or set of files produced using a HASH algorithm. A file 

signature, sometimes called a HASH value, creates a value that is computationally infeasible of 

being produced by two similar but different files. File signatures are used to verify that files are 

unmodified from their original versions.

7 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

HASH Algorithm. An algorithm that maps a bit string of arbitrary length to a shorter, fixedlength bit string. (A HASH uniquely identifies a file similar to the way a fingerprint identifies

an individual. Likewise, as an individual cannot be recreated from his or her fingerprint, a file 

cannot be recreated from a HASH. The HASH algorithm used primarily in the NIST(National 

Software Reference Library), and this program is the Secure HASH Algorithm (SHA-1) 

specified in Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 180-1.)

Installation Device. A device containing program files, software, and installation instructions 

for installing an application (program) onto a computer. Examples of such devicesinclude 

installation disks, flash memory cards, and PCMCIA cards.

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

assure that all legitimate configurations meet applicable standards.

Linker. A computer program that takes one or more objects generated by compilers and 

assembles them into a single executable program.

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

certification.

Mark of Conformance. A uniform notice permanently posted on a voting system thatsignifies 

that it has been certified by the EAC.

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

without a specific addressee other than the pertinent file.

Proprietary Information. Commercial information or trade secrets protected from release under 

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

System Identification Tools. Tools created by a Manufacturer of voting systems that allow 

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

to the systems certified by the EAC.

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

conformity assessment appointed by the EAC to provide expert guidance.

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

Executive Director.

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

Director to administer and manage the Testing and Certification Program.

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

help ensure that the executable code is a verifiable and faithful representation of the source 

code.

8 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

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 ordisplay 

election results, connect the voting system to the voter registration system, and maintain and 

produce any audit trail information.

Voting System Standards. Voluntary voting system standards developed by the FEC. Voting 

System Standards have been published twice: once in 1990 and again in 2002. TheHelp

America Vote Act made the 2002 Voting System Standards EAC guidance. All new voting 

system standards are issued by the EAC as Voluntary Voting System Guidelines.

Voting System Test Laboratories. Laboratories accredited by the EAC to test voting systems to 

EAC approved voting system standards. Each Voting System Test Laboratory (VSTL) must 

be accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and 

recommended by the National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST) before it may receive 

an EAC accreditation. NVLAP provides third party accreditation to testing and calibration 

laboratories. NVLAP is in full conformance with the standards of the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission 

(IEC), including ISO/IEC Guide 17025 and 17011.

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. Voluntary voting system standards developed, adopted, 

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

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

listed below represent the following terms.

Certification Program. The EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program 

Decision Authority. Testing and Certification Decision Authority

EAC. United States Election Assistance Commission 

FEC. Federal Election Commission

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

Labs or Laboratories. Voting System Test Laboratories

NASED. National Association of State Election Directors 

NIST. National Institute of Standards andTechnology

NVLAP. National Voluntary Laboratory AccreditationProgram

Program Director. Director of the EAC Testing and Certification Program

9 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

VSS. Voting System Standards

VSTL. Voting System Test Laboratory 

VVSG. Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

10 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2. Manufacturer Registration

2.1. Overview. Manufacturer Registration is the process by which voting system Manufacturers 

make initial contact with the EAC and provide information essential to participate in the EAC 

Voting System Testing and Certification Program. Before a Manufacturer of a voting system 

can submit an application to have a voting system certified by the EAC, the Manufacturer must 

be registered. This process requires the Manufacturer to provide certain contact information

and agree to certain requirements of the Certification Program. After successfully registering, 

the Manufacturer will receive an identification code.

2.2. Registration Required. To submit a voting system for certification or otherwise participate in 

the EAC voluntary Voting System Testing and Certification Program, a Manufacturer must 

register with the EAC. Registration does not constitute an EAC endorsement of the 

Manufacturer or its products. Registration of a Manufacturer is not a certification of that 

Manufacturer’s products.

2.3. Registration Requirements. The registration process will require the voting system 

Manufacturer to provide certain information to the EAC. This information is necessary to 

enable the EAC to administer the Certification Program and communicate effectively with the 

Manufacturer. The registration process also requires the Manufacturer to agree to certain 

Certification Program requirements. These requirements relate to the Manufacturer’s duties

and responsibilities under the program. For this program to succeed, it is vital that a 

Manufacturer know and assent to these duties at the outset of the program.

2.3.1. Information. Manufacturers are required to provide the following information.

2.3.1.1. The Manufacturer’s organizational information:

2.3.1.1.1. The official name of the Manufacturer.

2.3.1.1.2. The address of the Manufacturer’s official place of business.

2.3.1.1.3. A description of how the Manufacturer is organized (i.e., type of 

corporation or partnership).

2.3.1.1.4. Names of officers and/or members of the board of directors.

2.3.1.1.5. Names of all partners and members (if organized as a partnership 

or limited liability corporation).

2.3.1.1.6. Identification of any individual, organization, or entity with a

controlling ownership interest in the Manufacturer.

11 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.3.1.2. The identity of an individual authorized to represent and make binding 

commitments and management determinations for the Manufacturer 

(management representative). The following information is required for the 

management representative:

2.3.1.2.1. Name and title.

2.3.1.2.2. Mailing and physical addresses.

2.3.1.2.3. Telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address.

2.3.1.3. The identity of an individual authorized to provide technical information on

behalf of the Manufacturer (technical representative). The following 

information is required for the technical representative:

2.3.1.3.1. Name and title.

2.3.1.3.2. Mailing and physical addresses.

2.3.1.3.3. Telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address.

2.3.1.4. The Manufacturer’s written policies regarding its quality assurance system. 

This policy must be consistent with guidance provided in the VVSG and this 

Manual.

2.3.1.5. The Manufacturer’s written polices regarding internal proceduresfor

controlling and managing changes to and versions of its voting systems. Such 

polices shall be consistent with this Manual and guidance provided in the 

VVSG.

2.3.1.6. The Manufacturer’s written polices on document retention. Such policies must 

be consistent with the requirements of this Manual.

2.3.1.7. A list of all manufacturing and/or assembly facilities used by the 

Manufacturer and the name and contact information of a person at each 

facility. The following information is required for a person at eachfacility:

2.3.1.7.1. Name and title.

2.3.1.7.2. Mailing and physical addresses.

2.3.1.7.3. Telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address.

12 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.3.2. Agreements. Manufacturers are required to take or abstain from certain actions to

protect the integrity of the Certification Program and promote quality assurance. 

Manufacturers are required to agree to the following program requirements:

2.3.2.1. Represent a voting system as certified only when it is authorized by the EAC 

and is consistent with the procedures and requirements of this Manual.

2.3.2.2. Produce and affix an EAC certification label to all production units of the 

certified system. Such labels must meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 

5 of this Manual.

2.3.2.3. Notify the EAC of changes to any system previously certified by the EAC 

pursuant to the requirements of this Manual (see Chapter 3). Such systems 

shall be submitted for testing and additional certification when required.

2.3.2.4. Permit an EAC representative to verify the Manufacturer’s quality control 

procedures by cooperating with EAC efforts to test and review fieldedvoting 

systems consistent with Section 8.6 of this Manual.

2.3.2.5. Permit an EAC representative to verify the Manufacturer’s quality control

procedures by conducting periodic inspections of manufacturing facilities 

consistent with Chapter 8 of this Manual.

2.3.2.6. Cooperate with any EAC inquiries and investigations into a certified system’s 

compliance with VVSG standards or the procedural requirements of this 

Manual consistent with Chapter 7.

2.3.2.7. Report to the Program Director any known malfunction of a voting system 

holding an EAC Certification. A malfunction is a failure of a voting system,

not caused solely by operator or administrative error, which causes the system 

to cease operation during a Federal election or otherwise results in data loss. 

Malfunction notifications should be consolidated into one report. This report 

should identify the location, nature, date, impact, and resolution (if any) of the 

malfunction and be filed within 60 days of any Federal election.

2.3.2.8. Certify that the entity is not barred or otherwise prohibited by statute, 

regulation, or ruling from doing business in the United States.

2.3.2.9. Adhere to all procedural requirements of this Manual.

2.4. Registration Process. Generally, registration is accomplished through use of an EAC 

registration form. After the EAC has received a registration form and other required 

registration documents, the agency reviews the information for completeness before approval.

2.4.1. Application Process. To become a registered voting system Manufacturer, one must 

apply by submitting a Manufacturer Registration Application Form (Appendix A). This

13 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

form will be used as the means for the Manufacturer to provide the information and 

agree to the responsibilities required in Section 2.3, above.

2.4.1.1. Application Form. In order for the EAC to accept and process the registration

form, the applicant must adhere to the following requirements:

2.4.1.1.1. All fields must be completed by the Manufacturer.

2.4.1.1.2. All required attachments prescribed by the form and this Manual 

must be identified, completed, and forwarded in a timely manner to 

the EAC (e.g., Manufacturer’s quality control and system change 

policies).

2.4.1.1.3. The application form must be affixed with the handwritten

signature (including a digital representation of the handwritten

signature) of the authorized representative of the vendor.

2.4.1.2. Availability and Use of the Form. The Manufacturer Registration Application 

Form may be accessed through the EAC Web site at www.eac.gov.

Instructions for completing and submitting the form are included on the Web

site. The Web site will also provide contact information regarding questions 

about the form or the application process.

2.4.2. EAC Review Process. The EAC will review all registration applications.

2.4.2.1. After the application form and required attachments have been submitted, the 

applicant will receive an acknowledgment that the EAC has received the 

submission and that the application will be processed.

2.4.2.2. If an incomplete form is submitted or an attachment is not provided, the EAC

will notify the Manufacturer and request the information. Registration 

applications will not be processed until they are complete.

2.4.2.3. Upon receipt of the completed registration form and accompanying 

documentation, the EAC will review the information for sufficiency. If the 

EAC requires clarification or additional information, the EAC will contact the 

Manufacturer and request the needed information.

2.4.2.4. Upon satisfactory completion of a registration application’s sufficiency

review, the EAC will notify the Manufacturer that it has been registered.

2.5. Registered Manufacturers. After a Manufacturer has received notice that it is registered,it 

will receive an identification code and will be eligible to participate in the voluntary voting 

system Certification Program.

14 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.5.1. Manufacturer Code. Registered Manufacturers will be issued a unique, three-letter 

identification code. This code will be used to identify the Manufacturer and its 

products.

2.5.2. Continuing Responsibility To Report. Registered Manufacturers are required to keep all 

registration information up to date. Manufacturers must submit a revised application 

form to the EAC within 30 days of any changes to the information required on the 

application form. Manufacturers will remain registered participants in the program 

during this update process.

2.5.3. Program Information Updates. Registered Manufacturers will be automatically 

provided timely information relevant to the Certification Program.

2.5.4. Web site Postings. The EAC will add the Manufacturer to the EAC listing of registered 

voting system Manufacturers publicly available at www.eac.gov.

2.6. Suspension of Registration. Manufacturers are required to establish policies and operate 

within the EAC Certification Program consistent with the procedural requirements presented in 

this Manual. When Manufacturers engage in management activities that are inconsistent with 

this Manual or fail to cooperate with the EAC in violation the Certification Program’s 

requirements, their registration may be suspended until such time as the problem isremedied.

2.6.1. Procedures. When a Manufacturer’s activities violate the procedural requirements of

this Manual, the Manufacturer will be notified of the violations, given an opportunity to 

respond, and provided the steps required to bring itself into compliance.

2.6.1.1. Notice. Manufacturers shall be provided written notice that they have taken 

action inconsistent with or acted in violation of the requirements of this 

Manual. The notice will state the violations and the specific steps required to 

cure them. The notice will also provide Manufacturers with 30 days (or a 

greater period of time as stated by the Program Director) to (1) respond to the 

notice and/or (2) cure the defect.

2.6.1.2. Manufacturer Action. The Manufacturer is required to either respond in a 

timely manner to the notice (demonstrating that it was not in violation of

program requirements) or cure the violations identified in a timely manner. In 

any case, the Manufacturer’s action must be approved by the Program 

Director to prevent suspension.

15 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

2.6.1.3. Non-Compliance. If the Manufacturer fails to respond in a timely manner, is 

unable to provide a cure or response that is acceptable to the Program 

Director, or otherwise refuses to cooperate, the Program Director may suspend 

the Manufacturer’s registration. The Program Director shall issue a notice of 

his or her intent to suspend the registration and provide the Manufacturer five

(5) business days to object to the action and submit information in support of 

the objection.

2.6.1.4. Suspension. After notice and opportunity to be heard (consistent with the

above), the Program Director may suspend a Manufacturer’s registration. The 

suspension shall be noticed in writing. The notice must inform the 

Manufacturer of the steps that can be taken to remedy the violations and lift 

the suspension.

2.6.2. Effect of Suspension. A suspended Manufacturer may not submit a voting system for 

certification under this program. This prohibition includes a ban on the submissionof

modifications and changes to certified system. A suspension shall remain in effect until

lifted. Suspended Manufacturers will have their registration status reflected on the

EAC Web site. Manufacturers have the right to remedy a non-compliance issue at any 

time and lift a suspension consistent with EAC guidance. Failure of a Manufacturer to

follow the requirements of this section may also result in Decertification of voting 

systems consistent with Chapter 7 of this Manual.

16 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3. When Voting Systems Must Be Submitted for Testing and Certification

3.1. Overview. An EAC certification signifies that a voting system has been successfully tested to 

identified voting system standards adopted by the EAC. Only the EAC can issue a Federal 

certification. Ultimately, systems must be submitted for testing and certification under this 

program to receive this certification. Systems will usually be submitted when (1) they are new 

to the marketplace, (2) they have never before received an EAC certification, (3) they are 

modified, or (4) the Manufacturer wishes to test a previously certified system to a different 

(newer) standard. This chapter also discusses the submission of de minimis changes, which 

may not require additional testing and certification, as well as provisional, pre-election

emergency modifications, which provide for pre-election, emergency waivers.

3.2. What Is an EAC Certification? Certification is the process by which the EAC, through 

testing and evaluation conducted by an accredited Voting System Test Laboratory, validates 

that a voting system meets the requirements set forth in existing voting system testing 

standards (Voting System Standards [VSS] or VVSG), and performs according to the 

Manufacturer’s specifications for the system. An EAC certification may be issued only by the 

EAC in accordance with the procedures presented in this Manual. Certifications issued by 

other bodies (e.g., the National Association of State Election Directors and State certification 

programs) are not EAC certifications.

3.2.1. Types of Voting Systems Certified. The EAC Certification Program is designed to test

and certify electromechanical and electronic voting systems. The EAC will not accept 

for certification review voting systems that do not contain any electronic components. 

Ultimately, the determination of whether a voting system may be submitted for testing 

and certification under this program is solely at the discretion of the EAC.

3.2.2. Voting System Standards. Voting systems certified under this program are tested to a 

set of voluntary standards providing requirements that voting systems must meet to 

receive a Federal certification. Currently, these standards are referred to as Voluntary 

Voting System Guidelines (in the past they were called Voting System Standards).

3.2.2.1. Versions—Availability and Identification. Voluntary Voting System

Guidelines (or applicable Voting System Standards) are published by the EAC 

and are available on the EAC Web site (www.eac.gov). The standards will be 

routinely updated. Versions will be identified by version number and/or 

release date.

3.2.2.2. Versions—Basis for Certification. The EAC will promulgate which version or 

versions of the standards it will accept as the basis for testing and certification. 

This effort may be accomplished through the setting of an implementation 

date for a particular version’s applicability, the setting of a date by which 

testing to a particular version is mandatory, or the setting of a date by which 

the EAC will no longer test to a particular standard. The EAC will certify

only those voting systems tested to standards that the EAC has identified 

as valid for certification.

17 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3.2.2.2.1. End date. When a version’s status as the basis of an EAC 

certification is set to expire on a certain date, the submission of the 

system’s test report will be the controlling event (see Chapter 4). 

This requirement means the system’s test report must be received 

by the EAC on or before the end date to be certified to the 

terminating standard.

3.2.2.2.2. Start date. When a version’s status as the basis of an EAC

certification is set to begin on a certain date, the submission of the 

system’s application for certification will be the controlling event 

(see Chapter 4). This requirement means the system’s application, 

requesting certification to the new standard, will not be accepted

by the EAC until the start date.

3.2.2.3. Version—Manufacturer’s Option. When the EAC has authorized certification 

to more than one version of the standards, the Manufacturer must choose

which version it wishes to have its voting system tested against. The voting 

system will then be certified to that version of the standards. Manufacturers 

must ensure that all applications for certification identify a particular version 

of the standards.

3.2.2.4. Emerging Technologies. If a voting system or component thereof is eligible 

for a certification under this program (see Section 3.2.1.) and employs 

technology that is not addressed by a currently accepted version of theVVSG

or VSS, the relevant technology shall be subjected to full integration testing

and shall be tested to ensure that it operates to the Manufacturer’s 

specifications. The remainder of the system will be tested to the applicable 

Federal standards. Information on emerging technologies will be forwarded 

to the EAC’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC).

3.2.3. Significance of an EAC Certification. An EAC certification is an official recognition 

that a voting system (in a specific configuration or configurations) has been tested to

and has met an identified set of Federal voting standards. An EAC certification isnot

any of the following:

3.2.3.1. An endorsement of a Manufacturer, voting system, or any of the system’s 

components.

3.2.3.2. A Federal warranty of the voting system or any of its components.

3.2.3.3. A determination that a voting system, when fielded, will be operated in a 

manner that meets all HAVA requirements.

3.2.3.4. A substitute for State or local certification and testing.

18 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3.2.3.5. A determination that the system is ready for use in an election.

3.2.3.6. A determination that any particular component of a certified system is itself 

certified for use outside the certified configuration.

3.3. Effect of the EAC Certification Program on Other National Certifications. Before the

creation of the EAC Certification Program, national voting system qualification was conducted 

by a private membership organization, the National Association of State Election Directors 

(NASED). NASED offered a qualification for voting systems for more than a decade, using 

standards issued by the Federal government. The EAC Certification Program does not repeal 

NASED-issued qualifications. All voting systems previously qualified under the NASED 

program retain their NASED qualification consistent with State law; however, aNASEDqualified voting system is not an EAC-certified system and is treated like an uncertified system 

for purposes of the EAC Certification Program.

3.4. When Certification Is Required Under the Program. To obtain or maintain an EAC 

certification, Manufacturers must submit a voting system for testing and certification under this 

program. Such action is usually required for (1) new systems not previously tested to any 

standard; (2) existing systems not previously certified by the EAC; (3) previously certified 

systems that have been modified; (4) systems or technology specifically identified for retesting 

by the EAC; or (5) previously certified systems that the Manufacturer seeks to upgrade to a 

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

3.4.1. New System Certification. For purposes of this Manual, new systems are defined as 

voting systems that have not been previously tested to applicable Federal standards. 

New voting systems must be fully tested and submitted to the EAC according to the 

requirements of Chapter 4 of this Manual.

3.4.2. System Not Previously EAC Certified. This term describes any voting system not 

previously certified by the EAC, including systems previously tested and qualified by

NASED or systems previously tested and denied certification by the EAC. Such 

systems must be fully tested and submitted to the EAC according to the requirements of 

Chapter 4 of this Manual.

3.4.3. Modification. A modification is any change to a previously EAC-certified voting 

system’s hardware, software, or firmware that is not a de minimis change. Any 

modification to a voting system will require testing and review by the EAC according 

to the requirements of Chapter 4 of this Manual.

3.4.4. EAC Identified Systems. Manufacturers may be required to submit systems previously 

certified by the EAC for retesting. This may occur when the EAC determines that the 

original tests conducted on the voting system are now insufficient to demonstrate 

compliance with Federal standards in light of newly discovered threats or information.

19 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3.4.5. Certification Upgrade. This term defines any system previously certified by the EAC 

but submitted for additional testing and certification to a higher standard (e.g., to a 

newer version of the VVSG). Any such system must be tested to the new standards and 

submitted to the EAC per Chapter 4 of this Manual.

3.5. De Minimis Changes. A de minimis change is a change to voting system hardware that isso 

minor in nature and effect that it requires no additional testing and certification. Such changes, 

however, require VSTL review and endorsement as well as EAC approval. Any proposed 

change not accepted as a de minimis change is a modification and shall be submitted fortesting 

and review consistent with the requirements of this Manual. An approved de minimis change 

is not a modification.

3.5.1. De Minimis Change—Defined. A de minimis change is a change to a certified voting 

system’s hardware, the nature of which will not materially alter the system’sreliability,

functionality, capability, or operation. Software and firmware modifications are not de 

minimis changes. In order for a hardware change to qualify as a de minimis change, it 

must not only maintain, unaltered, the reliability, functionality, capability and

operability of a system, it shall also ensure that when hardware is replaced, theoriginal

hardware and the replacement hardware are electronically and mechanically 

interchangeable and have identical functionality and tolerances. Under no circumstance

shall a change be considered a de minims change if it has reasonable and identifiable 

potential to impact the system’s operation and compliance with applicable voting 

system standards.

3.5.2. De Minimis Change—Procedure. Manufacturers who wish to implement a proposed de 

minimis change must submit it for VSTL review and endorsement and EAC approval. 

A proposed change is not a de minimis change and may not be implemented as such 

until it has been approved in writing by the EAC.

3.5.2.1. VSTL Review. Manufacturers must submit any proposed de minimis change 

to an EAC VSTL for review and endorsement. The Manufacturer will 

provide the VSTL (1) a detailed description of the change; (2) a description of

the facts giving rise to or necessitating the change; (3) the basis for its 

determination that the change will not alter the system’s reliability, 

functionality, or operation; and (4) upon request of the VSTL, a sample voting 

system at issue or any relevant technical information needed to make the 

determination. The VSTL will review the proposed de minimis change and 

make an independent determination as to whether the change meets the 

definition of de minimis change or requires the voting system to go through 

additional testing as a system modification. If the VSTL determines that a de 

minimis change is appropriate, it shall endorse the proposed change as a de 

minimis change. If the VSTL determines that modification testing and 

certification should be performed, it shall reject the proposed change. 

Endorsed changes shall be forwarded to the EAC Program Director for final

20 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

approval. Rejected changes shall be returned to the Manufacturer for 

resubmission as system modifications.

3.5.2.2. VSTL Endorsed Changes. The VSTL shall forward to the EAC any change it 

has endorsed as de minimis. The VSTL shall forward its endorsement in a 

package that includes:

3.5.2.2.1. The Manufacturer’s initial description of the de minimis change, a 

narrative of facts giving rise to or necessitating the change, and the 

determination that the change will not alter the system’sreliability, 

functionality, or operation.

3.5.2.2.2. The written determination of the VSTL endorsement of the de 

minimis change. The endorsement document must explain why 

the VSTL, in its engineering judgment, determined that the 

proposed de minimis change met the definition in this section and 

otherwise does not require additional testing and certification.

3.5.2.3. EAC Action. The EAC will review all proposed de minimis changes endorsed 

by the VSTL. The EAC has sole authority to determine whether any VSTL 

endorsed change constitutes a de minimis change under this section. The 

EAC will inform the Manufacturer and VSTL of its determination in writing.

3.5.2.3.1. EAC approval. If the EAC approves the change as a de minimis 

change, it shall provide written notice to the Manufacturer and 

VSTL. The EAC will maintain copies of all approved de minimis 

changes and otherwise track such changes.

3.5.2.3.2. EAC denial. If the EAC determines that a proposed de minimis 

change cannot be approved, it will inform the VSTL and 

Manufacturer of its decision. The proposed change will be 

considered a modification and require testing and certification 

consistent with this Manual.

3.5.3. De Minimis Change—Effect of EAC Approval. EAC approval of a de minimis change 

permits the Manufacturer to implement the proposed change (as identified, endorsed,

and approved) without additional modification testing and certification. Fielding an 

engineering change not approved by the EAC is a basis for system Decertification.

3.6. Provisional, Pre-Election Emergency Modification. To deal with extraordinary pre-election 

emergency situations, the EAC has developed a special provisional modification process. This 

process is to be used only for the emergency situations indicated and only when there is a clear 

and compelling need for temporary relief until the regular certification process can be 

followed.

21 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3.6.1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow a mechanism within the EAC 

Certification Program for Manufacturers to modify EAC-certified voting systems in 

emergency situations immediately before an election. This situation arises when a 

modification to a voting system is required and an election deadline isimminent, 

preventing the completion of the full certification process (and State and/or local testing 

process) in time for Election Day. In such situations the EAC may issue a waiver to the 

Manufacturer, granting it leave to make the modification without submission for 

modification testing and certification.

3.6.2. General Requirements. A request for an emergency modification waiver may be made 

by a Manufacturer only in conjunction with the State election official whose 

jurisdiction(s) would be adversely affected if the requested modification were not 

implemented before Election Day. Requests must be submitted at least 5 calendar days 

before an election. Only systems previously certified are eligible for such a waiver. To 

receive a waiver, a Manufacturer must demonstrate the following:

3.6.2.1. The modification is functionally or legally required; that is, the system cannot 

be fielded in an election without the change.

3.6.2.2. The voting system requiring modification is needed by State or local election 

officials to conduct a pending Federal election.

3.6.2.3. The voting system to be modified has previously been certified by the EAC.

3.6.2.4. The modification cannot be tested by a VSTL and submitted to the EAC for 

certification, consistent with the procedural requirements of this Manual, at 

least 30 days before the pending Federal election.

3.6.2.5. Relevant State law requires Federal certification of the requested 

modification.

3.6.2.6. The Manufacturer has taken steps to ensure that the modification will properly 

function as designed, is suitably integrated with the system, and otherwise will 

not negatively affect system reliability, functionality, or accuracy.

3.6.2.7. The Manufacturer (through a VSTL) has completed as much of the evaluation 

testing as possible for the modification and has provided the results ofsuch 

testing to the EAC.

3.6.2.8. The emergency modification is required and otherwise supported by the Chief 

State Election Official seeking to field the voting system in an impending 

Federal election.

3.6.3. Request for Waiver. A Manufacturer’s request for waiver shall be made in writing to 

the Decision Authority and shall include the following elements:

22 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3.6.3.1. A signed statement providing sufficient description, background, information, 

documentation, and other evidence necessary to demonstrate that the request 

for a waiver meets each of the eight requirements stated in Section 3.5.2 

above.

3.6.3.2. A signed statement from the Chief State Election Official requiring the 

emergency modification. This signed statement shall identify the pending 

election creating the emergency situation and attest that (1) the modification is 

required to field the system, (2) State law (citation) requires EAC action to 

field the system in an election, and (3) normal timelines required under the

EAC Certification Program cannot be met.

3.6.3.3. A signed statement from a VSTL that there is insufficient time to perform 

necessary testing and complete the certification process. The statementshall 

also state what testing the VSTL has performed on the modification to date, 

provide the results of such tests, and state the schedule for completion of 

testing.

3.6.3.4. A detailed description of the modification, the need for the modification, how 

it was developed, how it addresses the need for which it was designed, its 

impact on the voting system, and how the modification will be fielded or 

implemented in a timely manner consistent with the Manufacturer’squality

control program.

3.6.3.5. All documentation of tests performed on the modification by the 

Manufacturer, a laboratory, or other third party.

3.6.3.6. A stated agreement signed by the Manufacturer’s representative agreeing to 

take the following action:

3.6.3.6.1. Submit for testing and certification, consistent with Chapter 4 of 

this Manual, any voting system receiving a waiver under this 

section that has not already been submitted. This action shall be 

taken immediately.

3.6.3.6.2. Abstain from representing the modified system as EAC certified. 

The modified system has not been certified; rather, the originally 

certified system has received a waiver providing the Manufacturer 

leave to modify it.

3.6.3.6.3. Submit a report to the EAC regarding the performance of the

modified voting system within 60 days of the Federal election that 

served as the basis for the waiver. This report shall (at a minimum) 

identify and describe any (1) performance failures, (2) technical 

failures, (3) security failures, and/or (4) accuracy problems.

23 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

3.6.4. EAC Review. The EAC will review all waiver requests submitted in a timelymanner 

and make determinations regarding the requests. Incomplete requests will be returned 

for resubmission with a written notification regarding its deficiencies.

3.6.5. Letter of Approval. If the EAC approves the modification waiver, the Decision 

Authority shall issue a letter granting the temporary waiver within five (5) business 

days of receiving a complete request.

3.6.6. Effect of Grant of Waiver. An EAC grant of waiver for an emergency modification is

not an EAC certification of the modification. Waivers under this program grant 

Manufacturers leave to only temporarily amend previously certified systems without 

testing and certification for the specific election noted in the request. Without such a 

waiver, such action would ordinarily result in Decertification of the modified system 

(See Chapter 7). Systems receiving a waiver shall satisfy any State requirement that a 

system be nationally or federally certified. In addition—

3.6.6.1. All waivers are temporary and expire 60 days after the Federal election for 

which the system was modified and the waiver granted.

3.6.6.2. Any system granted a waiver must be submitted for testing and certification. 

This shall be accomplished as soon as possible.

3.6.6.3. The grant of a waiver is no indication that the modified system will ultimately 

be granted a certification.

3.6.7. Denial of Request for Waiver. A request for waiver may be denied by the EAC if the 

request does not meet the requirements noted above, fails to follow the procedure 

established by this section or otherwise fails to sufficiently support a conclusion that the 

modification at issue is needed, will function properly, and is in the public interest. A 

denial of a request for emergency modification by the EAC shall be final and not 

subject to appeal. Manufacturers may submit for certification, consistent with Chapter 4 

of this Manual, modifications for which emergency waivers were denied.

3.6.8. Publication Notice of Waiver. The EAC will post relevant information relating to the 

temporary grant of an emergency waiver on its Web site. This information will be 

posted upon grant of the waiver and removed upon the waiver’s expiration. This 

posting will include information concerning the limited nature and effect of the waiver.

24 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4. Certification Testing and Technical Review

4.1. Overview. This chapter discusses the procedural requirements for submitting a voting system

to the EAC for testing and review. The testing and review process requires an application, 

employment of an EAC-accredited testing laboratory, and technical analysis of the laboratory

test report by the EAC. The result of this process is an Initial Decision on Certification by the 

Decision Authority.

4.2. Policy. Generally, to receive an initial determination on an EAC certification for a voting 

system, a registered Manufacturer must have (1) submitted an EAC-approved application for 

certification, (2) had a VSTL submit an EAC-approved test plan, (3) had a VSTL test a voting 

system to applicable voting system standards, (4) had a VSTL submit a test report to the EAC 

for technical review and approval, and (5) received EAC approval of the report in anInitial 

Decision on Certification.

4.3. Certification Application. The first step in submitting a voting system for certification is 

submission of an application package. The package contains an application form and a copy of 

the voting system’s Implementation Statement (see VVSG 2005—Version 1.0, Vol. I, Section 

1.6.4), functional diagram, and System Overview documentation submitted to the VSTL as a 

part of the Technical Data Package (see VVSG 2005—Version 1.0, Vol. II, Section 2.2). This 

application process initiates the certification process and provides the EAC with needed 

information.

4.3.1. Information on Application Form. The application (application form) provides theEAC

certain pieces of information that are essential at the outset of the certification process. 

This information includes the following:

4.3.1.1. Manufacturer Information. Identification of the Manufacturer (name and 

three-letter identification code).

4.3.1.2. Selection of Accredited Laboratory. Selection and identification of the VSTL 

that will perform voting system testing and other prescribed laboratory action

consistent with the requirements of this Manual. Once selected, a 

Manufacturer may NOT replace the selected VSTL without the express 

written consent of the Program Director. Such permission will be granted 

solely at the discretion of the Program Director and only upon demonstration 

of good cause.

4.3.1.3. Voting System Standards Information. Identification of the VVSG or VSS,

including the document’s date and version number, to which the Manufacturer 

wishes to have the identified voting system tested and certified.

4.3.1.4. Nature of the Submission. Manufacturers must identify the nature oftheir 

submission by selecting one of the following four submission types:

25 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4.3.1.4.1. New system. For purposes of this Manual, a new system is defined 

as a voting system that has not been previously tested to any 

applicable Federal standards.

4.3.1.4.2. System not previously EAC certified. This term describes any 

voting system not previously certified by the EAC, including 

systems previously tested and qualified by NASED or systems 

previously tested and denied certification by the EAC.

4.3.1.4.3. Modification. A modification is any change to a previously EACcertified voting system’s hardware, software, or firmware.

4.3.1.4.4. Certification upgrade. This term defines any system previously 

certified by the EAC but submitted (without modification) for 

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

newer version of the VVSG).

4.3.1.5. Identification of the Voting System. Manufacturers must identify the system 

submitted for testing by providing its name and applicable version number. If 

the system submitted has been previously fielded, but the Manufacturer 

wishes to change its name or version number after receipt of EAC 

certification, it must provide identification information on both the pastname 

or names and the new, proposed name. This requirement might occur in 

systems submitted for modification, for their first EAC certification, or for a 

certification upgrade.

4.3.1.6. Description of the Voting System. Manufacturers must provide a brief

description of the system or modification being submitted for testing and 

certification. This description shall include the following information:

4.3.1.6.1. A listing of all components of the system submitted.

4.3.1.6.2. Each component’s version number.

4.3.1.6.3. A complete list of each configuration of the system’s components 

that could be fielded as the certified voting system.1

4.3.1.6.4. Any other information necessary to identify the specific 

configuration being submitted for certification.

1 An EAC certification applies to the configuration of components (the voting system) presented for testing. A

voting system may be fielded without using each of the components that formed the system presented,since

voting systems, as certified, may contain optional or redundant components to meet the varying needsof

election officials. Systems may not be fielded with additional components or without sufficient components to

properly prosecute an election, as neither individual components nor separately tested systems maybe

combined to create new certified votingsystems.

26 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4.3.1.7. Date Submitted. Manufacturers must note the date the application was 

submitted for EAC approval.

4.3.1.8. Signature. The Manufacturer must affix the signature of the authorized 

management representative.

4.3.2. Submission of the Application Package. Manufacturers must submit a copy of the

application form described above and copies of the voting system’s (1) Implementation 

Statement, (2) functional diagram, and (3) System Overview documentation submitted 

to the VSTL as a part of the Technical Data Package

4.3.2.1. Application Form. Application forms will be available on the EAC Web site:

www.eac.gov. The application form submitted to the EAC must be signed; 

dated; and fully, accurately, and completely filled out. The EAC will not 

accept incomplete or inaccurate applications.

4.3.2.2. Implementation Statement. The Manufacturer must submit with the 

application form a copy of the voting system’s Implementation Statement, 

which must meet the requirements of the VVSG (VVSG 2005—Version1.0,

Vol. I, Section 1.6.4). If an existing system is being submitted with a 

modification, the Manufacturer must submit a copy of a revised 

Implementation Statement.

4.3.2.3. Functional Diagram. The Manufacturer must submit with the application 

form a high-level Functional Diagram of the voting system that includes all of 

its components. The diagram must portray how the various components relate 

and interact.

4.3.2.4. System Overview. The Manufacturer must submit with the application form a 

copy of the voting system’s System Overview documentation submitted to the 

VSTL as a part of the Technical Data Package. This document must meet the 

requirements of the VVSG (VVSG 2005—Version 1.0, Vol. II, Section 2.2).

4.3.2.5. Submission. Applications, with the accompanying documentation, shall be 

submitted in Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, or other electronic formats as 

prescribed by the Program Director. Information on how to submit packages 

will be posted on the EAC Web site: www.eac.gov.

4.3.3. EAC Review. Upon receipt of a Manufacturer’s application package, the EAC will 

review the submission for completeness and accuracy. If the application package is 

incomplete, the EAC will return it to the Manufacturer with instructions for 

resubmission. If the form submitted is acceptable, the Manufacturer will be notified and 

provided a unique application number within five (5) business days of the EAC’s

receipt of the application.

27 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4.4. Test Plan. The Manufacturer shall authorize the VSTL identified in its application to submit a 

test plan directly to the EAC. This plan shall provide for testing of the system sufficient to 

ensure it is functional and meets all applicable voting system standards.

4.4.1. Development. An accredited laboratory will develop test plans that use appropriate test 

protocols, standards, or test suites developed by the laboratory. Laboratories must use 

all applicable protocols, standards, or test suites issued by the EAC.

4.4.2. Required Testing. Test plans shall be developed to ensure that a voting system is 

functional and meets all requirements of the applicable, approved voting system 

standards. The highest level of care and vigilance is required to ensure that

comprehensive test plans are created. A test plan should ensure that the voting system 

meets all applicable standards and that test results and other factual evidence of the 

testing are clearly documented. System testing must meet the requirements of the 

VVSG. Generally, full testing will be required of any voting system applying for 

certification, regardless of previous certification history.

4.4.2.1. New System. A new system shall be subject to full testing of all hardware and 

software according to applicable voting system standards.

4.4.2.2. System Not Previously EAC Certified. A system not previously certified by the 

EAC shall be fully tested as a new system.

4.4.2.3. Modification. A modification to a previously EAC-certified voting system 

shall be tested in a manner necessary to ensure that all changes meet 

applicable voting system standards and that the modified system (as a whole) 

will properly and reliably function. Any system submitted for modification 

shall be subject to full testing of the modifications (delta testing) and those 

systems or subsystems altered or impacted by the modification (regression 

testing). The system will also be subject to system integration testing to ensure 

overall functionality. The modification will be tested to the version or versions 

of the VVSG/VSS currently accepted for testing and certification by the EAC. 

This requirement, however, does not mean that the full system must be tested 

to such standards. If the system has been previously certified to aVVSG/VSS

version deemed acceptable by the EAC (see Section 3.2.2.2), it may retain that 

level of certification with only the modification being tested to the present 

version(s).

4.4.2.4. EAC Identified Systems. Previously certified systems identified for retesting

by the EAC (see Section 3.4.4) shall be tested as directed by the Program 

Director (after consultation with NIST, VSTLs, or other technical experts as 

necessary).

4.4.2.5. Certification Upgrade. A previously certified system submitted for testing to a 

new voting system standard (without modification) shall be tested in a manner 

necessary to ensure that the system meets all requirements of the new

28 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

standards. The VSTL shall create a test plan that identifies thedifferences

between the new and old standards and, based upon the differences, fully 

retest all hardware and software components affected.

4.4.3. Format. Test labs shall issue test plans consistent with the requirements in VVSG, 

Vol. II and any applicable EAC guidance.

4.4.4. EAC Approval. All test plans are subject to EAC approval. No test report will be 

accepted for technical review unless the test plan on which it is based has been 

approved by EAC’s Program Director.

4.4.4.1. Review. All test plans must be reviewed for adequacy by the Program 

Director. For each submission, the Program Director will determine whether 

the test plan is acceptable or unacceptable. Unacceptable plans will be 

returned to the laboratory for further action. Acceptable plans will be 

approved. Although Manufacturers may direct test labs to begin testing before 

approval of a test plan, the Manufacturer bears the full risk that the test plan 

(and thus any tests preformed) will be deemed unacceptable.

4.4.4.2. Unaccepted Plans. If a plan is not accepted, the Program Director will return 

the submission to the Manufacturer’s identified VSTL for additional action. 

Notice of unacceptability will be provided in writing to the laboratory and 

include a description of the problems identified and steps required to remedy

the test plan. A copy of this notice will also be sent to the Manufacturer. 

Questions concerning the notice shall be forwarded to the Program Director in 

writing. Plans that have not been accepted may be resubmitted for review 

after remedial action is taken.

4.4.4.3. Effect of Approval. Approval of a test plan is required before a test reportmay 

be filed. In most cases, approval of a test plan signifies that the tests proposed, 

if performed properly, are sufficient to fully test the system. A test plan, 

however, is approved based on the information submitted. New or additional 

information may require a change in testing requirements at any point in the 

certification process.

4.5. Testing. During testing, Manufacturers are responsible for enabling VSTLs to report any

changes to a voting system or an approved test plan directly to the EAC. Manufacturersshall 

also enable VSTLs to report all test failures or anomalies directly to the EAC.

4.5.1. Changes. Any changes to a voting system, initiated as a result of the testing process, 

will require submission of an updated Implementation Statement, functional diagram, 

and System Overview document and, potentially, an updated test plan. Test plans must 

be updated whenever a change to a voting system requires deviation from the test plan 

originally approved by the EAC. Changes requiring alteration or deviation from the 

originally approved test plan must be submitted to the EAC (by the VSTL) for approval 

before the completion of testing. The submission shall include an updated

29 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Implementation Statement, functional diagram, and System Overview, as needed. 

Changes not affecting the test plan shall be reported in the test report. The submission 

shall include an updated Implementation Statement, functional diagram, and System 

Overview document, as needed.

4.5.2. Test Anomalies or Failures. Manufacturers shall enable VSTLs to notify the EAC

directly and independently of any test anomalies, or failures during testing. The VSTLs

shall ensure that all anomalies or failures are addressed and resolved before testing is 

completed. All test failures, anomalies and actions taken to resolve such failures and 

anomalies shall be documented by the VSTL in an appendix to the test report submitted 

to the EAC. These matters shall be reported in a matrix, or similar format, that 

identifies the failure or anomaly, the applicable voting system standards, and a 

description of how the failure or anomaly was resolved. Associated or similar 

anomalies/failures may be summarized and reported in a single entry on the report 

(matrix) as long as the nature and scope of the anomaly/failure is clearly identified.

4.6. Test Report. Manufacturers shall enable their identified VSTL to submit test reports directly 

to the EAC. The VSTL shall submit test reports only if the voting system has been tested and 

all tests identified in the test plan have been successfully performed.

4.6.1. Submission. The test reports shall be submitted to the Program Director. The Program 

Director shall review the submission for completeness. Any reports showing 

incomplete or unsuccessful testing will be returned to the test laboratory for action and 

resubmission. Notice of this action will be provided to the Manufacturer. Test reports 

shall be submitted in Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, or other electronic formats as 

prescribed by the Program Director. Information on how to submit reports will be 

posted on the EAC Web site: www.eac.gov.

4.6.2. Format. Manufacturers shall ensure that test labs submit reports consistent with the 

requirements in the VVSG and this Manual.

4.6.3. Technical Review. A technical review of the test report, technical documents, and test

plan will be conducted by EAC technical experts. The EAC may require the submission 

of additional information from the VSTL or Manufacturer if deemed necessary to 

complete the review. These experts will submit a report outlining their findings to the 

Program Director. The report will provide an assessment of the completeness, 

appropriateness, and adequacy of the VSTL’s testing as documented in the test report.

4.6.4. Program Director’s Recommendation. The Program Director shall review the report 

and take one of the following actions:

4.6.4.1. Recommend certification of the candidate system consistent with the reviewed 

test report and forward it to the Decision Authority for action (Initial 

Decision); or

30 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

4.6.4.2. Refer the matter back to the technical reviewers for additional specified action 

and resubmission.

4.7. Initial Decision on Certification. Upon receipt of the report and recommendation forwarded 

by the Program Director, the Decision Authority shall issue an Initial Decision on Certification. 

The decision shall be forwarded to the Manufacturer consistent with the requirements of this 

Manual.

4.7.1. An Initial Decision granting certification shall be processed consistent with Chapter 5 

of this Manual.

4.7.2. An Initial Decision denying certification shall be processed consistent with Chapter 6 

of this Manual.

31 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

5. Grant of Certification

5.1. Overview. The grant of certification is the formal process through which EAC acknowledges

that a voting system has successfully completed conformance testing to an appropriate set of 

standards or guidelines. The grant of certification begins with the Initial Decision of the 

Decision Authority. This decision becomes final after the Manufacturer confirms that the final 

version of the software that was certified and which the Manufacturer will deliver with the 

certified system has been subject to a trusted build, placed in an EAC-approved repository,and 

can be verified using the Manufacturer’s system identification tools. After a certification is 

issued, the Manufacturer is provided a Certificate of Conformance and relevant information 

about the system is added to the EAC Web site. Manufacturers with certified voting systems 

are responsible for ensuring that each system they produce is properly labeled as certified.

5.2. Applicability of This Chapter. This chapter applies when the Decision Authority makes an 

Initial Decision to grant a certification to a voting system based on the materials and

recommendation provided by the Program Director.

5.3. Initial Decision. The Decision Authority shall make a written decision on all voting systems 

submitted for certification and issue the decision to a Manufacturer. When such decisions 

result in a grant of certification, the decision shall be considered preliminary and referred to as 

an Initial Decision pending required action by the Manufacturer. The Initial Decisionshall:

5.3.1. State the preliminary determination reached (granting certification).

5.3.2. Inform the Manufacturer of the steps that must be taken to make the determination final 

and receive a certification. This action shall include providing the Manufacturer with 

specific instructions, guidance, and procedures for confirming and documenting that the 

final certified version of the software meets the requirements for:

5.3.2.1. Performing and documenting a trusted build pursuant to Section 5.6 ofthis

chapter.

5.3.2.2. Depositing software in an approved repository pursuant to Section 5.7 ofthis

chapter.

5.3.2.3. Creating and making available system verification tools pursuant to Section

5.8 of this chapter.

5.3.3. Certification is not final until the Manufacturer accepts the certification and all 

conditions placed on the certification.

5.4. Pre-Certification Requirements. Before an Initial Decision becomes final and a certification 

is issued, Manufacturers must ensure certain steps are taken. They must confirm that the final 

version of the software that was certified and which the Manufacturer will deliver with the 

certified system has been subject to a trusted build (see Section 5.6), has been delivered for 

deposit in an EAC-approved repository (see Section 5.7), and can be verified using

32 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Manufacturer-developed identification tools (see Section 5.8). The Manufacturer must provide 

the EAC documentation demonstrating compliance with these requirements.

5.5. Trusted Build. A software build (also referred to as a compilation) is the process whereby 

source code is converted to machine-readable binary instructions (executable code) for the 

computer. A “trusted build” (or trusted compilation) is a build performed with adequate 

security measures implemented to give confidence that the executable code is a verifiable and

faithful representation of the source code. A trusted build creates a chain of evidence from the 

Technical Data Package and source code submitted to the VSTLs to the actual executable 

programs that are run on the system. Specifically, the build will do the following:

5.5.1. Demonstrate that the software was built as described in the Technical Data Package.

5.5.2. Show that the tested and approved source code was actually used to build the 

executable code used on the system.

5.5.3. Demonstrate that no elements other than those included in the Technical Data Package 

were introduced in the software build.

5.5.4. Document for future reference the configuration of the system certified.

5.6. Trusted Build Procedure. A trusted build is a three-step process: (1) the build environmentis 

constructed, (2) the source code is loaded onto the build environment, and (3) the executable 

code is compiled and the installation device is created. The process may be simplified for

modification to previously certified systems. In each step, a minimum of two witnessesfrom 

different organizations is required to participate. These participants must include a VSTL 

representative and vendor representative. Before creating the trusted build, the VSTL must 

complete the source code review of the software delivered from the vendor for compliance 

with the VVSG and must produce and record file signatures of all source code modules.

5.6.1. Constructing the Build Environment. The VSTL shall construct the build environment 

in an isolated environment controlled by the VSTL, as follows:

5.6.1.1. The device that will hold the build environment shall be completely erased by 

the VSTL to ensure a total and complete cleaning of it. The VSTL shall use 

commercial off-the-shelf software, purchased by the laboratory, for cleaning

the device.

5.6.1.2. The VSTL, with vendor consultation and observation, shall construct the build 

environment.

5.6.1.3. After construction of the build environment, the VSTL shall produceand 

record a file signature of the build environment.

33 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

5.6.2. Loading Source Code Onto the Build Environment. After successful source code 

review, the VSTL shall load source code onto the build environment as follows:

5.6.2.1. The VSTL shall check the file signatures of the source code modules and

build environment to ensure that they are unchanged from their original form.

5.6.2.2. The VSTL shall load the source code onto the build environment and produce 

and record the file signature of the resulting combination.

5.6.2.3. The VSTL shall capture a disk image of the combination build environment 

and source code modules immediately before performing the build.

5.6.2.4. The VSTL shall deposit the disk image into an authorized archive to ensure 

that the build can be reproduced, if necessary, at a later date.

5.6.3. Creating the Executable Code. Upon completion of all the tasks outlined above, the 

VSTL shall produce the executable code.

5.6.3.1. The VSTL shall produce and record a file signature of the executable code.

5.6.3.2. The VSTL shall deposit the executable code into an EAC-approved software 

repository and create installation disk(s) from the executable code.

5.6.3.3. The VSTL shall produce and record file signatures of the installation disk(s)

in order to provide a mechanism to validate the software before installationon

the voting system in a purchasing jurisdiction.

5.6.3.4. The VSTL shall install the executable code onto the system submitted for 

testing and certification before completion of system testing.

5.6.4. Trusted Build for Modifications. The process of building new executable code when a 

previously certified system has been modified is somewhat simplified.

5.6.4.1. The build environment used in the original certification is removed from 

storage and its file signature verified.

5.6.4.2. After source code review, the modified files are placed onto the verified build 

environment and new executable files are produced.

5.6.4.3. If the original build environment is unavailable or its file signatures cannot be

verified against those recorded from the original certification, then the more 

labor-intensive process of creating the build environment must be performed. 

Further source code review may be required of unmodified files to validate 

that they are unmodified from their originally certified versions.

34 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

5.7. Depositing Software in an Approved Repository. After EAC certification has been granted, 

the VSTL project manager, or an appropriate delegate of the project manager, shall deliver for

deposit the following elements in one or more trusted archive(s) (repositories) designated by 

the EAC:

5.7.1. Source code used for the trusted build and its file signatures.

5.7.2. Disk image of the pre-build, build environment, and any file signatures to validate that 

it is unmodified.

5.7.3. Disk image of the post-build, build environment, and any file signatures to validate that 

it is unmodified.

5.7.4. Executable code produced by the trusted build and its file signatures of all files 

produced.

5.7.5. Installation device(s) and file signatures.

5.8. System Identification Tools. The Manufacturer shall provide tools through which a fielded 

voting system may be identified and demonstrated to be unmodified from the system that was 

certified. The purpose of this requirement is to make such tools available to Federal, State, and 

local officials to identify and verify that the equipment used in elections is unmodified from its 

certified version. Manufacturers may develop and provide these tools as they see fit. The tools, 

however, must provide the means to identify and verify hardware and software. The EAC may 

review the system identification tools developed by the Manufacturer to ensure compliance. 

System identification tools include the following examples:

5.8.1. Hardware is commonly identified by model number and revision number on the unit, its 

printed wiring boards (PWBs), and major subunits. Typically, hardware is verified as 

unmodified by providing detailed photographs of the PWBs and internal construction of 

the unit. These images may be used to compare with the unit being verified.

5.8.2. Software operating on a host computer will typically be verified by providing a selfbooting compact disk (CD) or similar device that verifies the file signatures of the

voting system application files AND the signatures of all nonvolatile files that the 

application files access during their operation. Note that the creation of such aCD 

requires having a file map of all nonvolatile files that are used by the voting system. 

Such a tool must be provided for verification using the file signatures of the original 

executable files provided for testing. If during the certification process modifications 

are made and new executable files created, then the tool must be updated to reflect the 

file signatures of the final files to be distributed for use. For software operating on 

devices in which a self-booting CD or similar device cannot be used, a procedure must 

be provided to allow identification and verification of the software that is being usedon

the device.

5.9. Documentation. Manufacturers shall provide documentation to the Program Director verifying 

that the trusted build has been performed, software has been deposited in an approved

repository, and system identification tools are available to election officials. The Manufacturer

35 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

shall submit a letter, signed by both its management representative and a VSTL official,stating 

(under penalty of law) that it has (1) performed a trusted build consistent with the requirements 

of Section 5.6 of this Manual, (2) deposited software consistent with Section 5.7 of this 

Manual, and (3) created and made available system identification tools consistent with Section

5.8 of this Manual. This letter shall also include (as attachments) a copy and description of the 

system identification tool developed under Section 5.8 above.

5.10. Agency Decision. Upon receipt of documentation demonstrating the successful completion of 

the requirements above and recommendation of the Program Director, the Decision Authority 

will issue an Agency Decision granting certification and providing the Manufacturer with a 

certification number and Certificate of Conformance.

5.11. Certification Document. A Certificate of Conformance will be provided to Manufacturers for 

voting systems that have successfully met the requirements of the EAC Certification Program. 

The document will serve as the Manufacturer’s evidence that a particular system is certified to 

a particular set of voting system standards. The EAC certification and certificate apply only to 

the specific voting system configuration(s) identified, submitted and evaluated under the 

Certification Program. Any modification to the system not authorized by the EAC will void the 

certificate. The certificate will include the product (voting system) name, the specific model or 

version of the product tested, the name of the VSTL conducting the testing, identification of 

the standards to which the system was tested, the EAC certification number for the product, 

and the signature of the EAC Executive Director. The certificate will also identify each of the 

various configurations of the voting system’s components that may be represented as certified.

5.12. Certification Number and Version Control. Each system certified by the EAC will receive a 

certification number that is unique to the system and will remain with the system untilsuch

time as the system is decertified, sufficiently modified, or tested and certified to newer 

standards. Generally, when a previously certified system is issued a new certification number, 

the Manufacturer will be required to change the system’s name or version number.

5.12.1. New Voting Systems and Those Not Previously Certified by the EAC. All systems 

receiving their first certification from the EAC will receive a new certification number. 

Manufacturers must provide the EAC with the voting system’s name and version 

number during the application process (see Chapter 4). Systems previously certified by 

another body may retain the previous system name and version number unless the 

system was modified before its submission to the EAC. Such modified systems must be 

submitted with a new naming convention (i.e., a new version number).

5.12.2. Modifications. Voting systems previously certified by the EAC and submitted for 

certification of a modification will generally receive a new voting system certification

number. Such modified systems must be submitted with a new naming convention (i.e., 

a new version number). In rare instances, the EAC may authorize retention of the same 

certification and naming convention when the modification is so minor that is does not 

represent a substantive change in the voting system. A request for suchauthorization

must be made and approved by the EAC during the application phase of the program.

36 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

5.12.3. Certification Upgrade. Voting systems previously certified and submitted (without 

modification) for testing to a new version of the VVSG will receive a new certification 

number. In such cases, however, the Manufacturer will not be required to change the 

system name or version.

5.12.4. De Minimis Change. Voting systems previously certified and implementing an 

approved de minimis change (per Chapter 3) will not be issued a new certification 

number and are not required to implement a new naming convention.

5.13. Publication of EAC Certification. The EAC will publish and maintain on its Web site a list of 

all certified voting systems, including copies of all Certificates of Conformance, the supporting 

test report, and information about the voting system and Manufacturer. Such information will 

be posted immediately following the Manufacturer’s receipt of the EAC Final Decision and 

Certificate of Conformance.

5.14. Representation of EAC Certification. Manufacturers may not represent or imply that avoting 

system is certified unless it has received a Certificate of Conformance for that system. 

Statements regarding EAC certification in brochures, on Web sites, on displays, and in 

advertising/sales literature must be made solely in reference to specific systems. Any action by 

a Manufacturer to suggest EAC endorsement of its product or organization is strictly prohibited

and may result in a Manufacturer’s suspension or other action pursuant to Federal civil and 

criminal law.

5.15. Mark of Certification Requirement. Manufacturers shall post a mark of certification on all 

EAC-certified voting systems produced. This mark or label must be securely attached to the 

system before sale, lease, or release to third parties. A mark of certification shall be made using 

an EAC-mandated template available for download on the EAC Web site: www.eac.gov. 

These templates identify the version of the VVSG or VSS to which the system is certified. Use 

of this template shall be mandatory. The EAC mark must be displayed as follows:

5.15.1. The Manufacturer may use only the mark of certification that accurately reflects the 

certification held by the voting system as a whole. The certification of individual

components or modifications shall not be independently represented by a mark of 

certification. In the event a system has components or modifications tested to various 

(later) versions of the VVSG, the system shall bear only the mark of certification of the 

standard to which the system (as a whole) was tested and certified (i.e. the lesser 

standard). Ultimately, a voting system shall only display the mark of certification of 

the oldest or least rigorous standard to which any of its components are certified.

5.15.2. The mark shall be placed on the outside of a unit of voting equipment in a place readily 

visible to election officials. The mark need not be affixed to each of the voting 

system’s components. The mark shall be affixed to either (1) each unit that is used to 

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

5.15.3. The notice shall be securely affixed to the voting system. The label shall not be a paper 

label. “Securely affixed” means that the label is etched, engraved, stamped, silk37 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

screened, indelibly printed, or otherwise securely marked on a permanently attached 

part of the equipment or on a nameplate of metal, plastic, or other sturdy material 

fastened to the equipment by use of welding, riveting, or adhesive.

5.15.4. The label must be designed to last the expected lifetime of the voting system in the 

environment in which the system may be operated and must not be readily detachable.

5.16. Information to Election Officials Purchasing Voting Systems. The user’s manual or 

instruction manual for a certified voting system shall warn purchasers that changes or 

modifications not tested and certified by the EAC will void the EAC certification of the voting 

system. In cases in which the manual is provided only in a form other than paper, such as on a 

CD or over the Internet, the information required in this section may be included in this 

alternative format provided the election official can reasonably be expected to have the 

capability to access information in that format.

38 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

6. Denial of Certification

6.1. Overview. When the Decision Authority issues an Initial Decision denying certification, the 

Manufacturer has certain rights and responsibilities. The Manufacturer may request an

opportunity to cure the defects identified by the Decision Authority. In addition, the 

Manufacturer may request that the Decision Authority reconsider the Initial Decision after the 

Manufacturer has had the opportunity to review the record and submit supportingwritten 

materials, data, and the rationale for its position. Finally, in the event reconsideration is denied, 

the Manufacturer may appeal the decision to the Appeal Authority.

6.2. Applicability of This Chapter. This chapter applies when the Decision Authority makes an 

Initial Decision to deny an application for voting system certification based on the materials 

and recommendation provided by the Program Director.

6.3. Form of Decisions. All agency determinations shall be made in writing. Moreover, all

materials and recommendations reviewed or used by agency decision makers in arriving at an 

official determination shall be in written form.

6.4. Effect of Denial of Certification. Upon receipt of the agency’s decision denying 

certification—or in the event of an appeal, subject to the Decision on Appeal—the

Manufacturer’s application for certification is denied. Such systems will not be reviewed again 

by the EAC for certification unless the Manufacturer alters the system, retests it, and submits a 

new application for system certification.

6.5. The Record. The Program Director shall maintain all documents related to a denial of 

certification. Such documents shall constitute the procedural and substantive record of the 

decision making process. Records may include the following:

6.5.1. The Program Director’s report and recommendation to the Decision Authority.

6.5.2. The Decision Authority’s Initial Decision and Final Decision.

6.5.3. Any materials gathered by the Decision Authority that served as a basis for a 

certification determination.

6.5.4. All relevant and allowable materials submitted by the Manufacturer upon request for 

reconsideration or appeal.

6.5.5. All correspondence between the EAC and a Manufacturer after the issuance of an 

Initial Decision denying certification.

6.6. Initial Decision. The Decision Authority shall make and issue a written decision on voting 

systems submitted for certification. When such decisions result in a denial of certification, the 

decision shall be considered preliminary and referred to as an Initial Decision. Initial Decisions 

shall be in writing and contain (1) the Decision Authority’s basis and explanation for the 

decision and (2) notice of the Manufacturer’s rights in the denial of certification process.

39 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

6.6.1. Basis and Explanation. The Initial Decision of the Decision Authority shall accomplish 

the following:

6.6.1.1. Clearly state the agency’s decision on certification.

6.6.1.2. Explain the basis for the decision, including identifying the following:

6.6.1.2.1. The relevant facts.

6.6.1.2.2. The applicable EAC voting system standards (VVSG or VSS).

6.6.1.2.3. The relevant analysis in the Program Director’s recommendation.

6.6.1.2.4. The reasoning behind the decision.

6.6.1.3. State the actions the Manufacturer must take, if any, to cure all defects in the

voting system and obtain a certification.

6.6.2. Manufacturer’s Rights. The written Initial Decision must also inform the Manufacturer 

of its procedural rights under the program, including the following:

6.6.2.1. Right to request reconsideration. The Manufacturer shall be informed ofits 

right to request a timely reconsideration (see Section 6.9). Such request must 

be made within 10 calendar days of the Manufacturer’s receipt of the Initial 

Decision.

6.6.2.2. Right to request a copy or otherwise have access to the information that 

served as the basis of the Initial Decision (“the record”).

6.6.2.3. Right to cure system defects prior to final Agency Decision (see Section 6.8). 

A Manufacturer may request an opportunity to cure within 10 calendar days of 

its receipt of the Initial Decision.

6.7. No Manufacturer Action on Initial Decision. If a Manufacturer takes no action (by either 

failing to request an opportunity to cure or request reconsideration) within 10 calendar days of

its receipt of the Initial Decision, the Initial Decision shall become the agency’s Final Decision 

on Certification. In such cases, the Manufacturer is determined to have foregone its right to 

reconsideration, cure, and appeal. The certification application shall be considered finally 

denied.

6.8. Opportunity To Cure. Within 10 calendar days of receiving the EAC’s Initial Decision on 

Certification, a Manufacturer may request an opportunity to cure the defects identified in the

EAC’s Initial Decision. If the request is approved, a compliance plan must be created, 

approved, and followed. If this cure process is successfully completed, a voting system denied 

certification in an Initial Decision may receive a certification without resubmission.

40 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

6.8.1. Manufacturer’s Request To Cure. The Manufacturer must send a request to cure within 

10 calendar days of receipt of an Initial Decision. The request must be sent to the 

Program Director.

6.8.2. EAC Action on Request. The Decision Authority will review the request and approve it. 

The Decision Authority will deny a request to cure only if the proposed plan to cure is 

inadequate or does not present a viable way to remedy the identified defects. Approval

or denial of a request to cure shall be provided the Manufacturer in writing. If the 

Manufacturer’s request to cure is denied, it shall have 10 calendar days from the date 

it received such notice to request reconsideration of the Initial Decision pursuant to 

Section 6.6.2.

6.8.3. Manufacturer’s Compliance Plan. Upon approval of the Manufacturer’s request for an 

opportunity to cure, it shall submit a compliance plan to the Decision Authority for 

approval. This compliance plan must set forth steps to be taken to cure all identified 

defects. It shall include the proposed changes to the system, updated technical 

information (as required by Section 4.3.2), and a new test plan created and submitted 

directly to the EAC by the VSTL (testing the system consistent with Section 4.4.2.3). 

The plan shall also provide for the testing of the amended system and submission of a 

test report by the VSTL to the EAC for approval. It should provide an estimated date 

for receipt of this test report and include a schedule of periodic VSTL progress reports

to the Program Director.

6.8.4. EAC Action on the Compliance Plan. The Decision Authority must review and approve 

the compliance plan. The Decision Authority may require the Manufacturer to provide 

additional information and modify the plan as required. If the Manufacturer is unable or

unwilling to provide a compliance plan acceptable to the Decision Authority, the 

Decision Authority shall provide written notice terminating the “opportunity to cure” 

process. The Manufacturer shall have 10 calendar days from the date it receivessuch

notice to request reconsideration of the Initial Decision pursuant to Section 6.6.2.

6.8.5. Compliance Plan Test Report. The VSTL shall submit the test report created pursuant

to its EAC-approved compliance plan. The EAC shall review the test report, along with 

the original test report and other materials originally provided. The report will be 

technically reviewed by the EAC consistent with the procedures laid out in Chapter 4of

this Manual.

6.8.6. EAC Decision on the System. After receipt of the test plan, the Decision Authority 

shall issue a decision on a voting system amended pursuant to an approved compliance

plan. This decision shall be issued in the same manner and with the same process and 

rights as an Initial Decision on Certification.

41 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

6.9. Requests for Reconsideration. Manufacturers may request reconsideration of an Initial 

Decision.

6.9.1. Submission of Request. A request for reconsideration must be made within 10 calendar 

days of the Manufacturer’s receipt of an Initial Decision. The request shall be made and 

sent to the Decision Authority.

6.9.2. Acknowledgment of Request. The Decision Authority shall acknowledge receipt of the 

Manufacturer’s request for reconsideration. This acknowledgment shall either enclose 

all information that served as the basis for the Initial Decision (the record) or provide a 

date by which the record will be forwarded to the Manufacturer.

6.9.3. Manufacturer’s Submission. Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the record, a 

Manufacturer may submit written materials in support of its position, including the 

following:

6.9.3.1. A written argument responding to the conclusions in the Initial Decision.

6.9.3.2. Documentary evidence relevant to the issues raised in the Initial Decision.

6.9.4. Decision Authority’s Review of Request. The Decision Authority shall review and

consider all relevant submissions of the Manufacturer. In making a decision on

reconsideration, the Decision Authority shall also consider all documents that make up 

the record and any other documentary information he or she determines relevant.

6.10. Agency Final Decision. The Decision Authority shall issue a written Agency Decision after 

review of the Manufacturer’s request for reconsideration. This Decision shall be the decision of 

the agency. The following actions are necessary for writing the decision:

6.10.1.1. Clearly state the agency’s determination on the application for certification.

6.10.1.2. Address the issues raised by the Manufacturer in its request for 

reconsideration.

6.10.1.3. Identify all facts, evidence, and EAC voting system standards (VVSG or VSS) 

that served as the basis for the decision.

6.10.1.4. Provide the reasoning behind the determination.

6.10.1.5. Identify and provide, as an attachment, any additional documentary 

information that served as a basis for the decision and that was not part of the 

Manufacturer’s submission or the prior record.

6.10.1.6. Provide the Manufacturer notice of its right to appeal.

42 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

6.11. Appeal of Agency Final Decision. A Manufacturer may, upon receipt of an Agency Final 

Decision denying certification, issue a request for appeal.

6.11.1. Requesting Appeal. A Manufacturer may appeal a final decision of the agency by

issuing a written request for appeal.

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

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

6.11.1.2. Timing of Appeal. The Manufacturer may request an appeal within 20 

calendar days of receipt of the Agency Final Decision. Late requests will not 

be considered.

6.11.1.3. Contents of Request.

6.11.1.3.1. The request must clearly state the specific conclusions of the Final 

Decision the Manufacturer wishes to appeal.

6.11.1.3.2. The request may include additional written argument. 

6.11.1.3.3. The request may not reference or include any factual material not

in the record.

6.11.2. Consideration of Appeal. All timely appeals will be considered by the Appeal 

Authority.

6.11.2.1. The Appeal Authority shall be two or more EAC Commissioners or other 

individuals appointed by the Commissioners who have not previously served 

as the initial or reconsideration authority on the matter.

6.11.2.2. All decisions on appeal shall be based on the record.

6.11.2.3. The determination of the Decision Authority shall be given deference by the 

Appeal Authority. Although it is unlikely that the scientific certification 

process will produce factual disputes, in such cases, the burden of proof shall 

belong to the Manufacturer to demonstrate by clear and convincingevidence

that its voting system met all substantive and procedural requirements for 

certification. In other words, the determination of the Decision Authority will 

be overturned only when the Appeal Authority finds the ultimate facts in 

controversy highly probable.

43 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

6.12. Decision on Appeal. The Appeal Authority shall make a written, final Decision on Appeal and 

shall provide it to the Manufacturer.

6.12.1. Contents. The following actions are necessary to write the Decision on Appeal:

6.12.1.1. State the final determination of the agency.

6.12.1.2. Address the matters raised by the Manufacturer on appeal.

6.12.1.3. Provide the reasoning behind the decisions.

6.12.1.4. State that the Decision on Appeal is final.

6.12.2. Determinations. The Appeal Authority may make one of two determinations:

6.12.2.1. Grant of Appeal. If the Appeal Authority determines that the conclusions of 

the Decision Authority shall be overturned in full, the appeal shall be granted. 

In such cases, certification will be approved subject to the requirements of 

Chapter 5.

6.12.2.2. Denial of Appeal. If the Appeal Authority determines that any part of the

Decision Authority’s determination shall be upheld, the appeal shall be

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

6.12.3. Effect. All Decisions on Appeal shall be final and binding on the Manufacturer. No 

additional appeal shall be granted.

44 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7. Decertification

7.1. Overview. Decertification is the process by which the EAC revokes a certification previously 

granted to a voting system. It is an important part of the Certification Program because itserves 

to ensure that the requirements of the program are followed and that certified voting systems 

fielded for use in Federal elections maintain the same level of quality as those presented for 

testing. Decertification is a serious matter. Its use will significantly affect Manufacturers, State

and local governments, the public, and the administration of elections. As such, the processfor 

Decertification is complex. It is initiated when the EAC receives information that a voting 

system may not be in compliance with the applicable voting system standard or the procedural 

requirements of this Manual. Upon receipt of such information, the Program Director may 

initiate an Informal Inquiry to determine the credibility of the information. If the information is 

credible and suggests the system is non-compliant, a Formal Investigation will be initiated. If 

the results of the Formal Investigation demonstrate non-compliance, the Manufacturer will be 

provided a Notice of Non-Compliance. Before a Final Decision on Decertification is made, the 

Manufacturer will have the opportunity to remedy any defects identified in the voting system 

and present information for consideration by the Decertification Authority. A Decertification of 

a voting system may be appealed in a timely manner.

7.2. Decertification Policy. Voting systems certified by the EAC are subject to Decertification. 

Systems shall be decertified if (1) they are shown not to meet applicable voting system 

standard, (2) they have been modified or changed without following the requirements of this 

Manual, or (3) the Manufacturer has otherwise failed to follow the procedures outlined in this 

Manual so that the quality, configuration, or compliance of the system is in question. 

Decertification of a voting system is a serious matter. Systems will be decertified only after 

completion of the process outlined in this chapter.

7.3. Informal inquiry. An Informal Inquiry is the first step taken when information is presented to 

the EAC that suggests a voting system may not be in compliance with the applicable voting 

system standard or the procedural requirements of this Manual.

7.3.1. Informal Inquiry Authority. The authority to conduct an Informal Inquiry shall rest with 

the Program Director.

7.3.2. Purpose. The sole purpose of the Informal Inquiry is to determine whether a Formal

Investigation is warranted. The outcome of an Informal Inquiry is limited to a decision 

on referral for investigation.

7.3.3. Procedure. Informal Inquiries do not follow a formal process.

7.3.3.1. Initiation. Informal Inquiries are initiated at the discretion of the Program 

Director. They may be initiated any time the Program Director receives 

attributable, relevant information that suggests a certified voting system may 

require Decertification. The information shall come from a source that has 

directly observed or witnessed the reported occurrence. Such information may 

be a product of the Certification Quality Monitoring Program (see Chapter 8).

45 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Information may also come from State and local election officials, voters, or 

others who have used or tested a given voting system. The Program Director 

may notify a Manufacturer that an Informal Inquiry has been initiated, but 

such notification is not required. Initiation of an inquiry shall be documented 

through the creation of a Memorandum for the Record.

7.3.3.2. Inquiry. The Informal Inquiry process is limited to that inquiry necessary to 

determine whether a Formal Investigation is required. In other words, the 

Program Director shall conduct such inquiry necessary to determine (1) that 

the information obtained is credible and (2) that the information, if true, would 

serve as a basis for Decertification. The nature and extent of the inquiry 

process will vary depending on the source of the information. For example, an 

Informal Inquiry initiated as a result of action taken under theCertification

Quality Monitoring Program will often require the Program Director merely to 

read the report issued as a result of the Quality Monitoring action. On the 

other hand, information provided by election officials or by voters who have

used a voting system may require the Program Director (or assigned technical 

experts) to perform an in-person inspection or make inquiries of the 

Manufacturer.

7.3.3.3. Conclusion. An Informal Inquiry shall be concluded after the Program 

Director is in a position to determine the credibility of the information that 

initiated the inquiry and whether that information, if true, would require 

Decertification. The Program Director may make only two conclusions: (1) 

refer the matter for a Formal Investigation or (2) close the matter without 

additional action or referral.

7.3.4. Closing the Matter Without Referral. If the Program Director determines, after Informal 

Inquiry, that a matter does not require a Formal Investigation, the Program Director

shall close the inquiry by filing a Memorandum for the Record. This documentshall 

state the focus of the inquiry, the findings of the inquiry and the reasons a Formal 

Investigation was not warranted.

7.3.5. Referral. If the Program Director determines, after Informal Inquiry, that a matter 

requires a Formal Investigation, the Program Director shall refer the matter in writing 

to the Decision Authority. In preparing this referral, the Program Director shall do the 

following:

7.3.5.1. State the facts that served as the basis for the referral.

7.3.5.2. State the findings of the Program Director.

7.3.5.3. Attach all documentary evidence that served as the basis for the conclusion.

7.3.5.4. Recommend a Formal Investigation, specifically stating the system to be 

investigated and the scope and focus of the proposed investigation.

46 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7.4. Formal Investigation. A Formal Investigation is an official investigation to determine whether 

a voting system requires Decertification. The end result of a Formal Investigation is a Report of 

Investigation.

7.4.1. Formal Investigation Authority. The Decision Authority shall have the authority to 

initiate and conclude a Formal Investigation by the EAC.

7.4.2. Purpose. The purpose of a Formal Investigation is to gather and document relevant 

information sufficient to make a determination on whether an EAC-certified voting 

system requires Decertification consistent with the policy put forth in Section 7.2 

above.

7.4.3. Initiation of Investigation. The Decision Authority shall authorize the initiation of an 

EAC Formal Investigation.

7.4.3.1. Scope. The Decision Authority shall clearly set the scope of the investigation

by identifying (in writing) the voting system (or systems) and specific 

procedural or operational non-conformance to be investigated. The nonconformance or non-conformances to be investigated shall be set forth in the 

form of numbered allegations.

7.4.3.2. Investigator. The Program Director shall be responsible for conducting the 

investigation unless the Decision Authority appoints another individual to

conduct the investigation. The Program Director (or Decision Authority 

appointee) may assign staff or technical experts, as required, to investigate the 

matter.

7.4.4. Notice of Formal Investigation. Upon initiation of a Formal Investigation, notice shall 

be given the Manufacturer of the scope of the investigation. The following actions are 

necessary to prepare this notice:

7.4.4.1. Identify the voting system and specific procedural or operation nonconformance being investigated (scope of investigation).

7.4.4.2. Provide the Manufacturer an opportunity to provide relevant informationin

writing.

7.4.4.3. Provide an estimated timeline for the investigation.

7.4.5. Investigation. Because voting systems play a vital role in our democratic process, 

investigations shall be conducted impartially, diligently, promptly, and confidentially.

Investigators shall use techniques to gather necessary information that meet these 

requirements.

47 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7.4.5.1. Fair and Impartial Investigation. All Formal Investigations shall be conducted

in a fair and impartial manner. All individuals assigned to aninvestigation

must be free from any financial conflicts of interest.

7.4.5.2. Diligent Collection of Information. All investigations shall be conducted in a 

meticulous and thorough manner. Investigations shall gather all relevant 

information and documentation that is reasonably available. The diligent 

collection of information is vital for informed decision making.

7.4.5.3. Prompt Collection of Information. Determinations that may affect the 

administration of Federal elections must be made with all reasonable speed. 

EAC determinations on Decertification will affect the actions of State and 

local election officials conducting elections. As such, all investigations 

regarding Decertification must proceed with an appropriate sense of urgency.

7.4.5.4. Confidential Collection of Information. Consistent with Federal law, 

information pertaining to a Formal Investigation should not be made public 

until the Report of Investigation is complete. The release of incomplete and

unsubstantiated information or predecisional opinions that may be contrary or 

inconsistent with the final determination of the EAC could cause public 

confusion or could unnecessarily negatively affect public confidence in active 

voting systems. Such actions could serve to impermissibly affect election 

administration and voter turnout. All predecisional investigative materials 

must be appropriately safeguarded.

7.4.5.5. Methodologies. Investigators shall gather information by means consistent

with the four principles noted above. Investigative tools include (but arenot 

limited to) the following:

7.4.5.5.1. Interviews. Investigators may interview individuals (such as State 

and local election officials, voters, or representatives of the 

Manufacturer) with relevant information. All interviews shall be 

reduced to written form; each interview should be summarized in a 

statement that is reviewed, approved, and signed by the subject.

7.4.5.5.2. Field audits.

7.4.5.5.3. Manufacturer site audits.

7.4.5.5.4. Written interrogatories. Investigators may pose specific, written 

questions to the Manufacturer for the purpose of gathering 

information relevant to the investigation. The Manufacturer shall 

respond to the queries within a reasonable timeframe (as specified 

in the request).

48 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7.4.5.5.5. System testing. Testing may be performed in an attempt to 

reproduce a condition or failure that has been reported. This 

testing will be conducted at a VSTL under contract with the EAC.

7.4.5.6. Report of Investigation. The end result of a Formal Investigation is a Report of 

Investigation.

7.4.6. Report of Investigation. The Report of Investigation serves, primarily, to document (1) 

all relevant and reliable information gathered in the course of the investigation, and (2) 

the conclusion reached by the Decision Authority.

7.4.6.1. When Complete. The report is complete and final when certified and signedby

the Decision Authority.

7.4.6.2. Contents of the Report of Investigation. The following actions are necessary to 

prepare the written report:

7.4.6.2.1. Restate the scope of the investigation, identifying the voting 

system and specific matter investigated.

7.4.6.2.2. Briefly describe the investigative process employed.

7.4.6.2.3. Summarize the relevant and reliable facts and information gathered 

in the course of the investigation.

7.4.6.2.4. Attach all relevant and reliable evidence collected in the course of 

the investigation that documents the facts. All facts shall be 

documented in written form.

7.4.6.2.5. Analyze the information gathered.

7.4.6.2.6. Clearly state the findings of the investigation.

7.4.7. Findings, Report of Investigation. The Report of Investigation shall state one of two

conclusions. After gathering and reviewing all applicable facts, the report shall find 

each allegation investigated to be either (1) substantiated, or (2) unsubstantiated.

7.4.7.1. Substantiated Allegation. An allegation is substantiated if a preponderanceof

the relevant and reliable information gathered requires that the voting system 

at issue be decertified (consistent with the policy set out in Section 7.2). If any 

allegation is substantiated, a Notice of Non-Compliance must be issued.

7.4.7.2. Unsubstantiated Allegation. An allegation is unsubstantiated if the 

preponderance of the relevant and reliable information gathered does not

require Decertification (see Section 7.2). If all allegations are unsubstantiated,

49 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

the matter shall be closed and a copy of the report forwarded to the 

Manufacturer.

7.4.8. Publication of Report. The report shall not be made public nor released to the public 

until final.

7.5. Effect of Informal Inquiry or Formal Investigation on Certification. A votingsystem’s

EAC certification is not affected by the initiation or conclusion of an Informal Inquiry or 

Formal Investigation. Systems under investigation remain certified until a final Decision on 

Decertification is issued by the EAC.

7.6. Notice of Non-Compliance. If an allegation in a Formal Investigation is substantiated, the

Decision Authority shall send the Manufacturer a Notice of Non-Compliance. The Notice of 

Non-Compliance is not, itself, a Decertification of the voting system. The purpose of the notice 

is to (1) notify the Manufacturer of the non-compliance and the EAC’s intent to Decertify the 

system and (2) inform the Manufacturer of its procedural rights so that it may be heard prior to 

Decertification.

7.6.1. Non-Compliance Information. The following actions are necessary for preparing a 

Notice of Non-Compliance:

7.6.1.1. Provide a copy of the Report of Investigation to the Manufacturer.

7.6.1.2. Identify the non-compliance, consistent with the Report of Investigation.

7.6.1.3. Inform the Manufacturer that if the voting system is not made compliant, the 

voting system will be decertified.

7.6.1.4. State the actions the Manufacturer must take, if any, to bring the voting 

system into compliance and avoid Decertification.

7.6.2. Manufacturer’s Rights. The written Notice of Non-Compliance must also inform the 

Manufacturer of its procedural rights under the program, which include the following:

7.6.2.1. Right to Present Information Prior to Decertification Decision. The 

Manufacturer shall be informed of its right to present information to the 

Decision Authority prior to a determination of Decertification.

7.6.2.2. Right to Have Access to the Information That Will Serve as the Basis ofthe

Decertification Decision. The Manufacturer shall be provided the Report of 

Investigation and any other materials that will serve as the basis of an Agency 

Decision on Decertification.

7.6.2.3. Right to Cure System Defects Prior to the Decertification Decision. A 

Manufacturer may request an opportunity to cure within 20 calendar days of

its receipt of the Notice of Non-Compliance.

50 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7.7. Procedure for Decision on Decertification. The Decision Authority shall make and issue a 

written Decision on Decertification whenever a Notice of Non-Compliance is issued. The 

Decision Authority will not take such action until the Manufacturer has had a reasonable 

opportunity to cure the non-compliance and submit information for consideration.

7.7.1. Opportunity to Cure. The Manufacturer shall have an opportunity to cure a nonconforming voting system in a timely manner prior to Decertification. A cure istimely 

when the cure process can be completed before the next Federal election, meaning that 

any proposed cure must be in place before any individual jurisdiction fielding the 

system holds a Federal election. The Manufacturer must request the opportunity to

cure. If the request is approved, a compliance plan must be created, approved, and 

followed. If this cure process is successfully completed, a Manufacturer may modify a 

non-compliant voting system, remedy procedural discrepancies, or otherwise bring its 

system into compliance without resubmission or Decertification.

7.7.1.1. Manufacturer’s Request to Cure. Within 10 calendar days of receiving the 

EAC’s Notice of Non-Compliance, a Manufacturer may request an 

opportunity to cure all defects identified in the Notice of Non-Compliance in a 

timely manner. The request must be sent to the Decision Authority and outline 

how the Manufacturer would modify the system, update the technical 

information (as required by Section 4.3.2), have the VSTL create a test plan 

and test the system, and obtain EAC approval before the next election for 

Federal office.

7.7.1.2. EAC Action on Request. The Decision Authority will review the request and 

approve it if the defects identified in the Notice of Non-Compliance may

reasonably be cured before the next election for Federal office.

7.7.1.3. Manufacturer’s Compliance Plan. Upon approval of the Manufacturer’s 

request for an opportunity to cure, the Manufacturer shall submit a compliance

plan to the Decision Authority for approval. This compliance plan must set 

forth the steps to be taken (including time frames) to cure all identified defects 

in a timely manner. The plan shall describe the proposed changes to the 

system, provide for modification of the system, update the technical 

information required by Section 4.3.2, include a test plan delivered to the 

EAC by the VSTL (testing the system consistent with Section 4.4.2.3), and

provide for the VSTL’s testing of the system and submission of the test report 

to the EAC for approval (assume at least 20 working days). The plan shall 

also include a schedule of periodic progress reports to the Program Director2

.

2 Manufacturers should also be cognizant of State certification procedures and local pre-election logic and

accuracy testing. Systems that meet EAC guidelines will also be impacted by independent State and local

requirements. These requirements may also prevent a system from being fielded, irrespective of EAC

Certification.

51 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7.7.1.4. EAC Action on the Compliance Plan. The Decision Authority must review

and approve the compliance plan. The Decision Authority may require the 

Manufacturer to provide additional information and modify the plan as 

required. If the Manufacturer is unable or unwilling to provide a Compliance 

Plan acceptable to the Decision Authority, the Decision Authority shall 

provide written notice terminating the “opportunity to cure” process.

7.7.1.5. VSTL’s Submission of the Compliance Plan Test Report. The VSTLshall 

submit the test report created pursuant to the Manufacturer’s EAC-approved

Compliance Plan. The EAC shall review the test report and any other 

necessary or relevant materials. The report will be technically reviewed by the 

EAC in a manner similar to the procedures described in Chapter 4 of this 

Manual.

7.7.1.6. EAC Decision on the System. After receipt of the VSTL’s test report, the 

Decision Authority shall issue a decision on a voting system amended 

pursuant to an approved Compliance Plan. For the purpose of planning, the 

Manufacturer should allow at least 20 working days for this process.

7.7.2. Opportunity to Be Heard. The Manufacturer may submit written materials in response 

to the Notice of Non-Compliance and Report of Investigation. These documents shall 

be considered by the Decision Authority when making a determination on

Decertification. The Manufacturer shall ordinarily have 20 calendar days from the date 

it received the Notice of Non-Compliance (or in the case of a failed effort to cure, the 

termination of that process) to deliver its submissions to the Decision Authority. When 

warranted by public interest (because a delay in making a determination on 

Decertification would affect the timely, fair, and effective administration of a Federal 

election), however, the Decision Authority may provide a Manufacturer less time to 

submit information. This alternative period (and the basis for it) must be stated in the 

Notice of Non-Compliance. The alternative time period must allow the Manufacturer a 

reasonable amount of time to gather its submissions. Submissions may include the 

following materials:

7.7.2.1. A written argument responding to the conclusions in the Notice of NonCompliance or Report of Investigation.

7.7.2.2. Documentary evidence relevant to the allegations or conclusions in the Notice 

of Non-Compliance.

7.7.3. Decision on Decertification. The Decision Authority shall make an agency 

determination on Decertification.

7.7.3.1. Timing. The Decision Authority shall promptly make a decision on 

Decertification. The Decision Authority may not issue such a decision, 

however, until the Manufacturer has provided all of its written materialsfor

52 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

consideration or the time allotted for submission (usually 20 calendar days) 

has run out.

7.7.3.2. Considered Materials. The Decision Authority shall review and consider all

relevant submissions of the Manufacturer. In making a Decision on 

Decertification, the Decision Authority shall also consider all documents that 

make up the record and any other documentary information he or she 

determines relevant.

7.7.3.3. Agency Decision. The Decision Authority shall issue a written Agency 

Decision after review of applicable materials. This decision shall be the final 

decision of the agency. The following actions are necessary to write the 

decision:

7.7.3.3.1. Clearly state the agency’s determination on the Decertification, 

specifically addressing the areas of non-compliance investigated.

7.7.3.3.2. Address the issues raised by the Manufacturer in the materialsit 

submitted for consideration.

7.7.3.3.3. Identify all facts, evidence, procedural requirements, and/or voting 

system standards (VVSG or VSS) that served as the basis for the 

decision.

7.7.3.3.4. Provide the reasoning behind the decision.

7.7.3.3.5. Identify, and provide as an attachment, any additional documentary 

information that served as a basis for the decision and that was not 

part of the Manufacturer’s submission or the Report of 

Investigation.

7.7.3.3.6. Provide the Manufacturer notice of its right to appeal.

7.8. Effect of Decision Authority’s Decision on Decertification. The Decision Authority’s

Decision on Decertification is the determination of the agency. A Decertification is effective 

upon the EAC’s publication or Manufacturer’s receipt of the decision (whichever is earlier). A 

Manufacturer that has had a voting system decertified may appeal that decision.

7.9. Appeal of Decertification. A Manufacturer may, upon receipt of an Agency Final Decision on 

Decertification, request an appeal in a timely manner.

7.9.1. Requesting Appeal.

7.9.1.1. Submission. Requests must be submitted by the Manufacturer in writing to the 

Chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

53 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7.9.1.2. Timing of Appeal. The Manufacturer may request an appeal within 20 

calendar days of receipt of the Agency Final Decision on Decertification. Late 

requests will not be considered.

7.9.1.3. Contents of Request. The following actions are necessary for the Manufacturer 

to write and submit a request for appeal:

7.9.1.3.1. Clearly state the specific conclusions of the Final Decision the 

Manufacturer wishes to appeal.

7.9.1.3.2. Include additional written argument, if any.

7.9.1.3.3. Do not reference or include any factual material not previously 

considered or submitted to the EAC.

7.9.1.4. Effect of Appeal on Decertification. The initiation of an appeal does not affect

the decertified status of a voting system. Systems are decertified upon notice 

of Decertification in the agency’s Decision on Decertification (see Section 

7.8).

7.9.2. Consideration of Appeal. All timely appeals will be considered by the Appeal 

Authority.

7.9.2.1. The Appeal Authority shall be two or more EAC Commissioners or other 

individual or individuals appointed by the Commissioners who have not 

previously served as investigators, advisors, or decision makers in the 

Decertification process.

7.9.2.2. All decisions on appeal shall be based on the record.

7.9.2.3. The decision of the Decision Authority shall be given deference by the Appeal 

Authority. Although it is unlikely that the scientific certification process will 

produce factual disputes, in such cases the burden of proof shall belong to the 

Manufacturer to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that its voting 

system met all substantive and procedural requirements for certification. In 

other words, the determination of the Decision Authority will be overturned

only when the Appeal Authority finds the ultimate facts in controversy to be 

highly probable.

7.9.3. Decision on Appeal. The Appeal Authority shall make a written, final Decision on 

Appeal that it shall provide to the Manufacturer. Each Decision on Appeal shall be final 

and binding on the Manufacturer. No additional appeal shall be granted. The following 

actions are necessary to write a Decision on Appeal:

7.9.3.1. State the final determination of the agency.

54 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

7.9.3.2. Address the matters raised by the Manufacturer on appeal.

7.9.3.3. Provide the reasoning behind the decision.

7.9.3.4. State that the Decision on Appeal is final.

7.9.4. Effect of Appeal.

7.9.4.1. Grant of Appeal. If a Manufacturer’s appeal is granted in whole, the decision 

of the Decision Authority is reversed. The voting system shall have its 

certification reinstated. For purposes of this program, the system shall be 

treated as though it was never decertified.

7.9.4.2. Denial of Appeal. If a Manufacturer’s appeal is denied in whole or in part,the 

decision of the Decision Authority is upheld. The voting system remains 

decertified and no additional appeal is available.

7.10. Effect of Decertification. A voting system that has been decertified no longer holds anEAC

certification under the Certification Program. For purposes of this Manual and the program, a 

decertified system will be treated as any other uncertified voting system. As such, the effects of 

Decertification are as follows:

7.10.1. The Manufacturer may not represent the voting system as certified.

7.10.2. The voting system may not be labeled with a mark of certification.

7.10.3. The voting system will be removed from the EAC list of certified systems.

7.10.4. The EAC will notify State and local election officials of the Decertification.

7.11. Recertification. A decertified system may be resubmitted for certification. Such systemsshall 

be treated as any other system seeking certification. The Manufacturer shall present an 

application for certification consistent with the instructions of this Manual.

55 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

8. Quality Monitoring Program

8.1. Overview. The quality of any product, including a voting system, depends on two specific 

elements: (1) the design of the product or system and (2) the care and consistency of the

manufacturing process. The EAC testing and certification process focuses on voting system 

design by ensuring that a representative sample of a system meets the technical specifications 

of the applicable EAC voting system standards. This process, commonly called “type

acceptance,” determines whether the representative sample submitted for testing meetsthe 

requirements. What type acceptance does not do is explore whether variations in 

manufacturing may allow production of non-compliant systems. Generally, the quality of the 

manufacturing is the responsibility of the Manufacturer. After a system is certified, the vendor 

assumes primary responsibility for compliance of the products produced. This level of

compliance is accomplished by the Manufacturer’s configuration management and quality 

control processes. The EAC’s Quality Monitoring Program, as outlined in this chapter, 

however, provides an additional layer of quality control by allowing the EAC to perform 

manufacturing site reviews, carry out fielded system reviews, and gather information on voting 

system anomalies from election officials. These additional tools help ensure that voting

systems continue to meet the requirements of EAC’s voting system standards as the systems 

are manufactured, delivered, and used in Federal elections. These aspects of the program

enable the EAC to independently monitor the continued compliance of fielded voting systems.

8.2. Purpose. The purpose of the Quality Monitoring Program is to ensure that EAC-certified 

voting systems are identical to those fielded in election jurisdictions. This level of quality 

control is accomplished primarily by identifying (1) potential quality problems in

manufacturing, (2) uncertified voting system configurations, and (3) field performance issues 

with certified systems.

8.3. Manufacturer’s Quality Control. EAC’s Quality Monitoring Program is not a substitute for 

the Manufacturer’s quality control program. As stated in Chapter 2 of this Manual, all 

Manufacturers must have an acceptable quality control program in place before they may be 

registered. The EAC’s program serves as an independent and complementary process of 

quality control that works in tandem with the Manufacturer’s efforts.

8.4. Quality Monitoring Methodology. This chapter provides the EAC with three primary tools 

for assessing the level of effectiveness of the certification process and the compliance of

fielded voting systems. These tools include (1) manufacturing site reviews, (2) fielded system 

reviews, and (3) a means for receiving anomaly reports from the field.

8.5. Manufacturing Site Review. Facilities that produce certified voting systems will be reviewed 

periodically, at the discretion of the EAC, to verify that the system being manufactured, 

shipped, and sold is the same as the sample submitted for certification testing. All registered 

Manufacturers must cooperate with such audits as a condition of program participation.

8.5.1. Notice. The site review may be scheduled or unscheduled, at the discretion of the EAC. 

Unscheduled reviews will be performed with at least 24 hours notice. Scheduling and

56 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

notice of site reviews will be coordinated with and provided to both the manufacturing 

facility’s representative and the Manufacturer’srepresentative.

8.5.2. Frequency. At a minimum, at least one manufacturing facility of a registered 

Manufacturer shall be subject to a site review at least once every 4 years.

8.5.3. The Review. The production facility and production test records must be made 

available for review. When requested, production schedules must be provided to the 

EAC. Production or production testing may be witnessed by EAC representatives. If

equipment is not being produced during the inspection, the review may be limited to 

production records. During the inspection, the Manufacturer must make available to the 

EAC representative the Manufacturer’s quality manual and other documentation 

sufficient to enable the inspector to evaluate the following factors of the facility’s 

production:

8.5.3.1. Manufacturing quality controls.

8.5.3.2. Final inspection and testing.

8.5.3.3. History of deficiencies or anomalies and corrective actions taken.

8.5.3.4. Equipment calibration and maintenance.

8.5.3.5. Corrective action program.

8.5.3.6. Policies on product labeling and the application of the EAC mark of 

certification.

8.5.4. Exit Briefing. Site reviewers will provide the manufacturing facility representative a

verbal exit briefing regarding the preliminary observations of the review.

8.5.5. Written Report. A written report documenting the review will be drafted by theEAC

representative and provided to the Manufacturer. The report will detail the findings of 

the review and identify actions that are required to correct any deficiencies.

8.6. Fielded System Review and Testing. Upon invitation or with the permission of a State or 

local election authority, the EAC may, at its discretion, conduct a review of fielded voting 

systems. Such reviews will be done to ensure that a fielded system is in the same configuration 

as that certified by the EAC and that it has the proper mark of certification. This review may 

include the testing of a fielded system, if deemed necessary. Any anomalies found during this 

review and testing will be provided to the election jurisdiction and the Manufacturer.

8.7. Field Anomaly Reporting. As another means of gathering field data, the EAC will collect 

information from election officials who field EAC-certified voting systems. Information on 

actual voting system field performance is a basic means for assessing the effectiveness of the 

Certification Program and the manufacturing quality and version control. The EAC will

57 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

provide a mechanism for election officials to provide real-world input on voting system 

anomalies.

8.7.1. Anomaly Report. Election officials may use the Voting System Anomaly Reporting 

Form to report voting system anomalies to the EAC. The form and instructions for its 

completion are available as Appendix C in this Manual or on the EAC Web site, 

www.eac.gov. The form may be filed with the EAC on line, by mail or by facsimile. 

Use of the form is required.

8.7.2. Who May Report? State or local election officials who have experienced votingsystem

anomalies in their jurisdiction may file anomaly reports. The individuals reporting must 

identify themselves and have firsthand knowledge of or official responsibility over the 

anomaly being reported. Anonymous or hearsay reporting will not be accepted.

8.7.3. What Is Reported? Election officials shall report voting system anomalies. An anomaly 

is defined as an irregular or inconsistent action or response from the voting system or

system component resulting in some disruption to the election process. Incidents 

resulting from administrator error or procedural deficiencies are not considered 

anomalies for purposes of this chapter. The report must include the following 

information:

8.7.3.1. The official’s name, title, contact information, and jurisdiction.

8.7.3.2. A description of the voting system at issue.

8.7.3.3. The date and location of the reported occurrence.

8.7.3.4. The type of election.

8.7.3.5. A description of the anomaly witnessed.

8.7.4. Distribution of Credible Reports. Credible reports will be distributed to State and local 

election jurisdictions who field similar systems, the Manufacturer of the voting system 

at issue, and the VSTLs. Reports are reviewed by EAC staff in coordinationwith

relevant State officials. Credible reports:

8.7.4.1. Meet the definition of anomaly under Section 8.7.3,

8.7.4.2. Constitute a complete report per the requirements of Sections 8.7.3.1 through 

8.7.3.5,

8.7.4.3. Have had alleged facts confirmed by contacting filer and/or others present at

the time of the incident, and

8.7.4.4. Have been verified by the relevant State’s chief election official.

58 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

8.8. Use of Quality Monitoring Information. Ultimately, the information the EAC gathers from 

manufacturing site reviews, fielded system reviews, and field anomaly reports will be used to 

improve the program and ensure the quality of voting systems. The Quality Monitoring 

Program is not designed to be punitive but to be focused on improving the process. Information 

gathered will be used to accomplish the following:

8.8.1. Identify areas for improvement in the EAC Testing and Certification Program.

8.8.2. Improve manufacturing quality and change control processes.

8.8.3. Increase voter confidence in voting technology.

8.8.4. Inform Manufacturers, election officials, and the EAC of issues associated with voting 

systems in a real-world environment.

8.8.5. Share information among jurisdictions that use similar voting systems.

8.8.6. Resolve problems associated with voting technology or manufacturing in a timely 

manner by involving Manufacturers, election officials, and the EAC.

8.8.7. Provide feedback to the EAC and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee 

(TGDC) regarding issues that may need to be addressed through a revision to the 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines.

8.8.8. Initiate an investigation when information suggests that Decertification is warranted 

(see Chapter 7).

59 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

9. Requests for Interpretations

9.1. Overview. A Request for Interpretation is a means by which a registered Manufacturer or 

VSTL may seek clarification on a specific EAC voting system standard (VVSG or VSS). An

Interpretation is a clarification of the voting system standards and guidance on how to properly 

evaluate conformance to it. Suggestions or requests for modifications to the standards are 

provided by other processes. This chapter outlines the policy, requirements, and proceduresfor 

submitting a Request for Interpretation.

9.2. Policy. Registered Manufacturers or VSTLs may request that the EAC provide a definitive 

Interpretation of EAC-accepted voting system standards (VVSG or VSS) when, in the course 

of developing or testing a voting system, facts arise that make the meaning of a particular 

standard ambiguous or unclear. The EAC may self-initiate such a request when its agents 

identify a need for interpretation within the program. An Interpretation issued by the EAC will 

serve to clarify what a given standard requires and how to properly evaluate compliance. 

Ultimately, an Interpretation does not amend voting system standards, but serves only to clarify 

existing standards.

9.3. Requirements for Submitting a Request for Interpretation. An EAC Interpretation is

limited in scope. The purpose of the Interpretation process is to provide Manufacturers or 

VSTLs who are in the process of developing or testing a voting system a means for resolving 

the meaning of a voting system standard in light of a specific voting system technology without 

having to present a finished product to EAC for certification. To submit a Request for 

Interpretation, one must (1) be a proper requester, (2) request interpretation of an applicable 

voting system standard, (3) present an actual controversy, and (4) seek clarification on a matter 

of unsettled ambiguity.

9.3.1. Proper Requestor. A Request for Interpretation may be submitted only by a registered 

Manufacturer or a VSTL. Requests for Interpretation will not be accepted from any 

other parties.

9.3.2. Applicable Standard. A Request for Interpretation is limited to queries on EAC voting 

system standards (i.e., VVSG or VSS). Moreover, a Manufacturer or VSTL may submit 

a Request for Interpretation only on a version of EAC voting system standards to which 

the EAC currently offers certification.

9.3.3. Existing Factual Controversy. To submit a Request for Interpretation, a Manufacturer 

or VSTL must present a question relative to a specific voting system or technology 

proposed for use in a voting system. A Request for Interpretation on hypothetical issues

will not be addressed by the EAC. To submit a Request for Interpretation, the need for 

clarification must have arisen from the development or testing of a voting system. A

factual controversy exists when an attempt to apply a specific section of the VVSG or 

VSS to a specific system or piece of technology creates ambiguity.

60 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

9.3.4. Unsettled, Ambiguous Matter. Requests for Interpretation must involve actual 

controversies that have not been previously settled. This requirement mandates that 

interpretations contain actual ambiguities not previously clarified.

9.3.4.1. Actual Ambiguity. A proper Request for Interpretation must contain an actual 

ambiguity. The interpretation process is not a means for challenging a clear 

EAC voting system standard. Recommended changes to voting system 

standards are welcome and may be forwarded to the EAC, but they are not 

part of this program. An ambiguity arises (in applying a voting system 

standard to a specific technology) when one of the following occurs:

9.3.4.1.1. The language of the standard is unclear on its face.

9.3.4.1.2. One section of the standard seems to contradict another, relevant 

section.

9.3.4.1.3. The language of the standard, though clear on its face, lacks

sufficient detail or breadth to determine its proper application to a 

particular technology.

9.3.4.1.4. The language of a particular standard, when applied to a specific 

technology, clearly conflicts with the established purpose or intent 

of the standard.

9.3.4.1.5. The language of the standard is clear, but the proper means to 

assess compliance is unclear.

9.3.4.2. Not Previously Clarified. The EAC will not accept a Request for 

Interpretation when the issue has previously been clarified.

9.4. Procedure for Submitting a Request for Interpretation. A Request for Interpretation shall 

be made in writing to the Program Director. All requests should be complete and as detailed as 

possible because Interpretations issued by the EAC are based on, and limited to, the facts 

presented. Failure to provide complete information may result in an Interpretation that is off 

point and ultimately immaterial to the issue at hand. The following steps must be taken when 

writing a Request for Interpretation:

9.4.1. Establish Standing To Make the Request. To make a request, one must meet the 

requirements identified in Section 9.3 above. Thus, the written request must provide 

sufficient information for the Program Director to conclude that the requestor is (1) a

proper requester, (2) requesting an Interpretation of an applicable voting system

standard, (3) presenting an actual factual controversy, and (4) seeking clarification on a 

matter of unsettled ambiguity.

9.4.2. Identify the EAC Voting System Standard To Be Clarified. The request must identify 

the specific standard or standards to which the requestor seeks clarification. The request

61 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

must state the version of the voting system standards at issue (if applicable) andquote

and correctly cite the applicable standards.

9.4.3. State the Facts Giving Rise to the Ambiguity. The request must provide the facts 

associated with the voting system technology that gave rise to the ambiguity in the 

identified standard. The requestor must be careful to provide all necessary information 

in a clear, concise manner. Any Interpretation issued by the EAC will be based on the 

facts provided.

9.4.4. Identify the Ambiguity. The request must identify the ambiguity it seeks to resolve. 

The ambiguity shall be identified by stating a concise question that meets the following 

requirements:

9.4.4.1. Shall be clearly stated.

9.4.4.2. Shall be related to and reference the voting system standard and voting system 

technology information provided.

9.4.4.3. Shall be limited to a single issue. Each question or issue arising from an 

ambiguous standard must be stated separately. Compound questions are 

unacceptable. If multiple issues exist, they should be presented asindividual, 

numbered questions.

9.4.4.4. Shall be stated in a way that can ultimately be answered yes or no.

9.4.5. Provide a Proposed Interpretation. A Request for Interpretation should propose an 

answer to the question posed. The answer should interpret the voting system standard in

the context of the facts presented. It should also provide the basis and reasoningbehind 

the proposal.

9.5. EAC Action on a Request for Interpretation. Upon receipt of a Request for Interpretation, 

the EAC shall take the following action:

9.5.1. Review the Request. The Program Director shall review the request to ensure it is 

complete, is clear, and meets the requirements of Section 9.3. Upon review, the 

Program Director may take the following action:

9.5.1.1. Request Clarification. If the Request for Interpretation is incomplete or 

additional information is otherwise required, the Program Director may 

request that the Manufacturer or VSTL clarify its Request for Interpretation 

and identify any additional information required.

9.5.1.2. Reject the Request for Interpretation. If the Request for Interpretation does not 

meet the requirements of Section 9.3, the Program Director may reject it. Such 

rejection must be provided in writing to the Manufacturer or VSTL and must

state the basis for the rejection.

62 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

9.5.1.3. Notify Acceptance of the Request. If the Request for Interpretation is 

acceptable, the Program Director will notify the Manufacturer or VSTL in 

writing and provide it with an estimated date of completion. A Request for 

Interpretation may be accepted in whole or in part. A notice of acceptance 

shall state the issues accepted for interpretation.

9.5.2. Consideration of the Request. After a Request for Interpretation has been accepted, the 

matter shall be investigated and researched. Such action may require the EAC to 

employ technical experts. It may also require the EAC to request additional information 

from the Manufacturer or VSTL. The Manufacturer or VSTL shall respond promptly to 

such requests.

9.5.3. Interpretation. The Decision Authority shall be responsible for making determinations 

on a Request for Interpretation. After this determination has been made, a written 

Interpretation shall be sent to the Manufacturer or VSTL. The following actions are 

necessary to prepare this written Interpretation:

9.5.3.1. State the question or questions investigated.

9.5.3.2. Outline the relevant facts that served as the basis of the Interpretation.

9.5.3.3. Identify the voting system standards interpreted.

9.5.3.4. State the conclusion reached.

9.5.3.5. Inform the Manufacturer or VSTL of the effect of an Interpretation (see 

Section 9.6).

9.6. Effect of Interpretation. Interpretations are fact specific and case specific. They are not tools 

of policy, but specific, fact-based guidance useful for resolving a particular problem. 

Ultimately, an Interpretation is determinative and conclusive only with regard to the case 

presented. Nevertheless, Interpretations do have some value as precedent. Interpretations 

published by the EAC shall serve as reliable guidance and authority over identical or similar 

questions of interpretation. These Interpretations will help users understand and apply the 

provisions of EAC voting system standards.

9.7. Library of Interpretations. To better serve Manufacturers, VSTLs, and those interested inthe

EAC voting system standards, the Program Director shall publish EAC Interpretations. All 

proprietary information contained in an Interpretation will be redacted before publication 

consistent with Chapter 10 of this Manual. The library of published opinions is posted on the 

EAC Web site: www.eac.gov.

63 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

10. Release of Certification Program Information

10.1. Overview. Manufacturers participating in the Certification Program will be required to provide

the EAC a variety of documents. In general, these documents will be releasable to the public. 

Moreover, in many cases, the information provided will be affirmatively published by the 

EAC. In limited cases, however, documents may not be released if they include trade secrets, 

confidential commercial information, or personal information. While the EAC is ultimately 

responsible for determining which documents Federal law protects from release, Manufacturers 

must identify the information they believe is protected and ultimately provide substantiation 

and a legal basis for withholding. This chapter discusses EAC’s general policy on the release 

of information and provides Manufacturers with standards, procedures, and requirements for 

identifying documents as trade secrets or confidential commercial information.

10.2. EAC Policy on the Release of Certification Program Information. The EAC seeks to make

its Voting System Testing and Certification Program as transparent as possible. The agency

believes that such action benefits the program by increasing public confidence in the process 

and creating a more informed and involved public. As such, it is the policy of the EAC to 

make all documents, or severable portions thereof, available to the public consistent with 

Federal law (e.g. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Trade Secrets Act).

10.2.1. Requests for information. As in any Federal program, members of the public may 

request access to Certification Program documents under FOIA (5 U.S.C. §552). The 

EAC will promptly process such requests per the requirements of that Act.

10.2.2. Publication of documents. Beyond the requirements of FOIA, the EAC intends to 

affirmatively publish program documents (or portions of documents) it believes will be 

of interest to the public. This publication will be accomplished through the use of the 

EAC Web site (www.eac.gov). The published documents will cover the fullspectrum 

of the program, including information pertaining to:

10.2.2.1. Registered Manufacturers;

10.2.2.2. VSTL test plans;

10.2.2.3. VSTL test reports;

10.2.2.4. Agency decisions;

10.2.2.5. Denials of Certification;

10.2.2.6. Issuance of Certifications;

10.2.2.7. Information on a certified voting system’s operation, components, features or 

capabilities;

10.2.2.8. Appeals;

64 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

10.2.2.9. Reports of investigation and Notice of Non-compliance;

10.2.2.10. Decertification actions;

10.2.2.11. Manufacturing facility review reports;

10.2.2.12. Official Interpretations (VVSG or VSS); and

10.2.2.13. Other topics as determined by the EAC.

10.2.3. Trade Secret and Confidential Commercial Information. Federal law places a number 

of restrictions on a Federal agency’s authority to release information to the public. Two 

such restrictions are particularly relevant to the Certification program: (1) trade secrets 

information and (2) privileged or confidential commercial information. Both types of 

information are explicitly prohibited from release by the FOIA and the Trade Secrets 

Act (18 U.S.C. §1905).

10.3. Trade Secrets. A trade secret is a secret, commercially valuable plan, process, or device thatis

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, orperformance.

10.3.1. The following examples illustrate productive processes that may be trade secrets:

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

10.3.1.2. Specifications of materials used in production.

10.3.1.3. Voting system source code used to develop or manufacture softwarewhere 

release would reveal actual programming.

10.3.1.4. Technical descriptions of manufacturing processes and othersecret 

information relating directly to the production process.

10.3.2. The following examples are likely not trade secrets:

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

10.3.2.2. Information pertaining to a finished product’s performance.

10.3.2.3. Information regarding product components that would not reveal any 

commercially valuable information regarding production.

65 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

10.4. Privileged or Confidential Commercial Information. Privileged or confidential commercial

information is that information submitted by a Manufacturer that is commercial or financial in 

nature and privileged or confidential.

10.4.1. Commercial or Financial Information. The terms commercial and financial should be 

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

Manufacturer has any commercial interest.

10.4.2. Privileged or Confidential Information. Commercial or financial information is 

privileged or confidential if its disclosure would likely cause substantial harm to the

competitive position of the submitter. The concept of harm to one’s competitive 

position focuses on harm flowing from a competitor’s affirmative use of the proprietary 

information. It does not include incidental harm associated with upset customers or 

employees.

10.5. EAC’s Responsibilities. The EAC is ultimately responsible for determining whether or not a 

document (in whole or in part) may be released pursuant to Federal law. In doing so,however,

the EAC will require information and input from the Manufacturer submitting the documents. 

This requirement is essential for the EAC to identify, track, and make determinations on the 

large volume of documentation it receives. The EAC has the following responsibilities:

10.5.1. Managing Documentation and Information. The EAC will control the documentation it 

receives by ensuring that documents are secure and released to third parties onlyafter

the appropriate review and determination.

10.5.2. Contacting Manufacturer on Proposed Release of Potentially Protected Documents. In

the event a member of the public submits a FOIA request for documents provided by a 

Manufacturer or the EAC otherwise proposes the release of such documents, theEAC 

will take the following actions:

10.5.2.1. Review the documents to determine if they are potentially protected from 

release as trade secrets or confidential commercial information. The 

documents at issue may have been previously identified as protected by the 

Manufacturer when submitted (see Section 10.7.1 below) or identified by the 

EAC on review.

10.5.2.2. Grant the submitting Manufacturer an opportunity to provide input. In the 

event the information has been identified as potentially protected from release 

as a trade secret or confidential commercial information, the EAC will notify 

the submitter and allow it an opportunity to submit its position on the issue 

prior to release of the information. The submitter shall respond consistent with 

Section 10.7.1 below.

10.5.3. Final Determination on Release. After providing the submitter of the information an 

opportunity to be heard, the EAC will make a final decision on release. The EAC will 

inform the submitter of this decision.

66 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

10.6. Manufacturer’s Responsibilities. Although the EAC is ultimately responsible for determining 

if a document, or any portion thereof, is protected from release as a trade secret or confidential 

commercial information, the Manufacturer shall be responsible for identifying documents, or 

portions of documents, it believes warrant such protection. Moreover, the Manufacturer will 

be responsible for providing the legal basis and substantiation for its determination regarding 

the withholding of a document. This responsibility arises in two situations: (1) upon the initial 

submission of information, and (2) upon notification by the EAC that it is considering the 

release of potentially protected information.

10.6.1. Initial Submission of Information. When a Manufacturer is submitting documents to the

EAC as required by the Certification Program, it is responsible for identifying any 

document or portion of a document that it believes is protected from release by Federal 

law. Manufacturers shall identify protected information by taking the following action:

10.6.1.1. Submitting a Notice of Protected Information. This notice shall identify the 

document, document page, or portion of a page that the Manufacturer believes 

should be protected from release. This identification must be done with 

specificity. For each piece of information identified, the Manufacturer must 

state the legal basis for its protected status.

10.6.1.1.1. Cite the applicable law that exempts the information from release. 

10.6.1.1.2. Clearly discuss why that legal authority applies and why the

document must be protected from release.

10.6.1.1.3. If necessary, provide additional documentation or information. For 

example, if the Manufacturer claims a document contains 

confidential commercial information, it would also have to provide

evidence and analysis of the competitive harm that would result 

upon release.

10.6.1.2. Label Submissions. Label all submissions identified in the notice as 

“Proprietary Commercial Information.” Label only those submissions 

identified as protected. Attempts to indiscriminately label all materials as 

proprietary will render the markings moot.

10.6.2. Notification of Potential Release. In the event a Manufacturer is notified that the EAC 

is considering the release of information that may be protected, the Manufacturershall

take the following action:

10.6.2.1. Respond to the notice within 15 calendar days. If additional time is needed, 

the Manufacturer must promptly notify the Program Director. Requests for 

additional time will be granted only for good cause and must be made before 

the 15-day deadline. Manufacturers that do not respond in a timely manner 

will be viewed as not objecting to release.

67 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

10.6.2.2. Clearly state one of the following in the response: 

10.6.2.2.1. There is no objection to release, or

10.6.2.2.2. The Manufacturer objects to release. In this case, the response 

must clearly state which portions of the document the 

Manufacturer believes should be protected from release. The 

Manufacturer shall follow the procedures discussed in Section

10.7.1 above.

10.7. Personal Information. Certain personal information is protected from release under FOIAand

the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. §552a). This information includes private information about a person 

that, if released, would cause the individual embarrassment or constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. Generally, the EAC will not require the submission of private 

information about individuals. The incidental submission of such information should be

avoided. If a Manufacturer believes it is required to submit such information, it should contact 

the Program Director. If the information will be submitted, it must be properly identified. 

Examples of such information include the following:

10.7.1. Social Security Number.

10.7.2. Bank account numbers.

10.7.3. Home address.

10.7.4. Home phone number.

68 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Appendix A

Manufacturer Registration Application Form

Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov

69 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Appendix B

Application for Voting System Testing Form

Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov

70 OMB Control Number 3265-0004
EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 1.0 DISCONTINUED

Appendix C

Voting System Anomaly Reporting Form

Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov

71 OMB Control Number 3265-0004