OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

 Version 1.0 - Effective XXX 1, 2010 www.eac.gov

United States

Election Assistance

Commission

1201 New York Avenue. N.W.

Ste.300

Washington, DC 20005

202-566-3100

Voting System Pilot

Program Testing &

Certification Manual
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx i

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

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

DATE. 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 Pilot Program Testing 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 XXX 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, 1201 New York Avenue, 

NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx ii

Table of Contents 

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

2. Manufacturer Registration...................................................................................... 10

3. When Voting Systems Intended for Use in Pilot Programs Must Be Submitted for 

Testing and Certification................................................................................................ 16

4. Certification Testing, Technical Review and Grant of Certification for Pilot Voting 

Systems ........................................................................................................................ 18

5. Denial of Certification............................................................................................. 29

6. Pilot Program Monitoring and Reporting ................................................................ 33

7. Requests for Interpretations................................................................................... 39

8. Release of Certification Program Information ........................................................ 43

Appendix A.................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix B.................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix C.................................................................................................................... 50

 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

1 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

1. Introduction 

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

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

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

certification of voting systems. In response to this HAVA requirement, the EAC developed the 

Voting System Testing and Certification Program (Certification Program). This manual, 

governing participation in Pilot Program testing and certification programs is a natural adjunct 

to the full EAC Testing and 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 Testing and 

Certification Program for voting systems used in pilot projects. Although participation in the 

program is voluntary, adherence to the program’s procedural requirements is mandatory for 

participants. 

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

clear procedures to Manufacturers for the testing and certification of voting systems to be used 

in pilot election projects. The program also recognizes that the Federal certification framework 

should encourage the voting systems industry to pursue technological innovation and 

experimentation in relation to the design of voting systems and the methods of providing a 

better and more secure voting experience for United States citizens. This Manual provides a 

clear and transparent process for the testing, certification, and evaluation of voting systems 

used for these pilot programs. 

1.5. Manual. This Manual is a comprehensive presentation of the EAC Pilot 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 in pilot programs requiring 

Federal certification. This registration provides the EAC with needed 

information and requires the Manufacturer to agree to the requirements of the 

Pilot Certification Program. This chapter sets out the requirements and 

procedures for registration. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

2 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

1.5.1.2. When Voting Systems Intended for Use in Pilot Programs Must Be Submitted 

for Testing and Certification. All pilot 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 a certification. 

1.5.1.3. Certification Testing, Technical Review and grant of Certification for Pilot 

Systems. This chapter discusses the procedural requirements for submitting a 

pilot 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 plan and test report by 

the EAC. The result of this process is a Decision on Certification by the 

Decision Authority. 

1.5.1.4. Denial of Certification. If a decision to deny certification is made, the 

Manufacturer has certain rights and responsibilities under the program. This 

chapter contains procedures for opportunity to cure defects, and appeal. 

1.5.1.5. Pilot Program Monitoring and Reporting. This chapter provides the EAC 

with two primary and one secondary tool for assessing the level of compliance 

to requirements and performance to mission (pilot) objectives of pilot program 

voting systems. The primary tools are (1) manufacturer declaration of 

conformity audits and (2) mandatory post election reporting by manufacturers. 

The secondary tool for monitoring the effectiveness of the program and of the 

pilot system consists of voluntary pilot program monitoring and reporting by 

State and local election jurisdiction participating in pilot programs. 

1.5.1.6. 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 Voting System standard or testable requirement. 

This chapter outlines the policy, requirements, and procedures for requesting 

an Interpretation. 

1.5.1.7. 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. 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 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

3 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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 Pilot Testing and Certification Program is but one part of the 

overall conformity assessment process that includes the EAC Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program as well as companion testing 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. 

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. 

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

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

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 pilot program testing and certification procedures have been effectively 

fulfilled and to ensure the traceability, repeatability, and reproducibility of testing and test 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

4 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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

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

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

Manual shall be submitted: 

1.9.1. 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 allows tracking) 

to the following address: 

Testing and Certification Program Director 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 

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 

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. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

5 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

1.12. EAC Response Timeframes. In recognition of the unique challenges facing Manufacturers 

and election jurisdictions as they work to meet the requirements imposed by this program, and 

by running an election using a pilot voting system, the EAC will respond in an expedited 

manner for each of the program areas outlined in this Manual. Specific response timeframes 

are noted in each section of the Manual. 

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. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

6 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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

definitions. 

Anomaly. An anomaly is any irregular or inconsistent action or response from the voting 

system or system component resulting in some disruption to the election process. 

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. 

Audit. An independent, systematic and documented process for obtaining evidence and 

evaluating it objectively to determine if the auditing criteria have been fulfilled by the voting 

system manufacturer. 

Audit Criteria. A set of policies, procedures and requirements used as a reference for audit 

evidence. 

Audit Evidence. Verifiable records, statements or other information relevant to the audit 

criteria. 

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. 

Contributing Cause. A reason that an anomaly occurred. A contributing cause indirectly 

affects that outcome or occurrence but on its own may not create the problem. 

Corrective Action. An action taken to eliminate the root cause of an existing anomaly in order 

to prevent future occurrences of the anomaly. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

7 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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. 

Declaration of Conformance. Procedure by which the manufacturer of a pilot voting system 

gives written assurance that their product, process and service conforms to specified 

requirements. 

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 her primary 

duties the management or administration of a Federal election. 

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

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

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

that is being use in a Federal election. 

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. 

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 devices include 

installation disks, flash memory cards, and PCMCIA cards. 

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

assure that all legitimate configurations meet applicable standards. 

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 that signifies 

that it has been certified by the EAC. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

8 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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. 

Root Cause. The fundamental reason an anomaly occurred. 

Root Cause Analysis. A systematic investigation of the circumstances and factors leading to 

an anomaly for purposes of finding the fundamental reason for that anomaly. 

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 measures that 

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

code. 

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

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

and support the equipment) that is used to define ballots, cast and count votes, report or display 

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

produce any audit trail information. 

Voting System Pilot Program. While there is no general statutory definition of “pilot program,” 

all such programs exhibit certain common characteristics: experimental purpose and limited 

duration and scope. The accepted definition of ‘pilot program’ means a limited roll out of a 

new system in order to test it under real world conditions, prior to use by an entire 

organization. For voting systems, the purpose of any pilot program is to gain first hand 

experience with the new technology implemented for the pilot program election, and to 

evaluate the system and its benefits to domestic or overseas voters. 

Voting System Standards. Voting System Standards have been published twice: once in 1990 

and again in 2002 by the FEC. The Help America Vote Act made the 2002 Voting System 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

9 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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 Pilot Voting System Testing and Certification Program 

Decision Authority. Testing and Certification Decision Authority 

EAC. United States Election Assistance Commission 

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

Labs or Laboratories. Voting System Test Laboratories 

NIST. National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NVLAP. National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

Program Director. Director of the EAC Testing and Certification Program 

VSTL. Voting System Test Laboratory 

VVSG. Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

10 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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 

Pilot Testing and Certification Program. Before a Manufacturer of a voting system can submit 

an application to have a pilot 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 Pilot 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 Pilot 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. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

11 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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 procedures for 

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

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

VVSG. 

2.3.1.6. The Manufacturer’s written 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 each facility: 

2.3.1.7.1. Name and title. 

2.3.1.7.2. Mailing and physical addresses. 

2.3.1.7.3. Telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

12 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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

protect the integrity of the Pilot 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 EAC certified for use in pilot programs only 

when it is authorized by the EAC and is consistent with the procedures and 

requirements of this Manual. 

2.3.2.2. 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. 

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

procedures by conducting manufacturing facility audits consistent with 

Chapter 6 of this Manual. 

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

compliance with VVSG standards, other applicable testable requirements or 

the procedural requirements of this Manual consistent with Chapter 6. 

2.3.2.5. Report to the Program Director any known malfunction of a pilot 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 30 days of any Federal election. 

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

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

2.3.2.7. 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 

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: 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

13 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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 within 10 business days of 

receipt of the complete application package. 

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. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

14 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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 Pilot 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 of the Program’s requirements, their 

registration may be suspended until such time as the problem is remedied. 

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

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

respond, and provided 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 ten (10) business 

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. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

15 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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 any voting system 

(pilot or otherwise) for certification under this program. 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. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

16 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

3. When Voting Systems Intended for Use in Pilot Programs Must Be 

Submitted for Testing and Certification 

3.1. Overview. An EAC pilot program certification signifies that a voting system has been 

successfully tested to identified voting system guidelines or testable requirements 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. 

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 specifically for use in pilot programs 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. 

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

and certify electromechanical and electronic voting systems submitted for use in pilot 

programs. 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 and Testable Requirements. Voting systems certified under 

this pilot program are tested to a set of voluntary requirements that voting systems must 

meet to receive a Federal certification. These standards may be the applicable versions 

of the EAC Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) or other testable 

requirements developed for specific pilot program scenarios. 

3.2.2.1. Versions—Availability and Identification. Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines (or testable requirements) 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 or requirements it will accept as the basis for pilot 

testing and certification programs. The EAC will certify only those voting 

systems tested to standards that the EAC has identified as valid for the 

specific pilot certification effort. 

3.2.3. Significance of an EAC Pilot Certification. An EAC pilot 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 system standards or 

requirements. An EAC certification is not 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 pilot voting system or any of its components. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

17 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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

manner that meets all HAVA requirements. 

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

3.2.3.5. A determination that 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. 

3.2.4. When Certification Is Required Under the Program. To obtain an EAC pilot 

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

under this program. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

18 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

4. Certification Testing, Technical Review and Grant of Certification for Pilot 

Voting Systems 

4.1. Overview. This chapter discusses the procedural requirements for submitting a pilot 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 a Decision on Certification by 

the Decision Authority. 

4.2. Policy. Generally, to receive a determination on an EAC certification for a pilot 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 a 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 the EAC 

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 other 

EAC approved testable requirements document, including the document’s 

date and version number, to which the Manufacturer wishes to have the 

identified voting system tested and certified. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

19 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

4.3.1.4. Identification of the Pilot Voting System. Manufacturers must identify the 

system submitted for testing by providing its name and applicable version 

number. 

4.3.1.5. Description of the Pilot Voting System. Manufacturers must provide a brief 

description of the system being submitted for testing and certification. This 

description shall include the following information: 

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

4.3.1.5.2. Each component’s version number. 

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

that could be fielded as the certified voting system.1

 

4.3.1.5.4. Any other information necessary to identify the specific 

configuration being submitted for certification. 

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

submitted for EAC approval. 

4.3.1.7. 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—Version 1.0, 

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

 

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 needs of 

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 may be 

combined to create new certified voting systems. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

20 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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. Declaration of Conformity. As part of the application package, Manufacturers must also 

submit a Declaration of Conformity form described below. This form is included as 

Appendix B of this Manual and on the EAC web site at www.eac.gov. For the 

purposes of EAC Pilot Certification Programs, a Declaration of Conformity is the 

procedure by which a pilot voting system manufacturer notifies and affirms to the EAC 

that the manufacturer has taken the necessary steps to ensure that the system conforms 

to the applicable technical standards and requirements promulgated by the EAC for a 

particular pilot program. All testing done by the manufacturer pursuant to the 

Declaration of Conformity must either be conducted by the manufacturer themselves 

under a quality process substantially similar to those noted in ISO/IEC 17025 or by a 

test laboratory accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(NVLAP) or by the American Association of Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). 

4.3.3.1. Declaration of Conformity Contents. The Declaration of Conformity must 

contain the following information as provided for on the Form: 

4.3.3.1.1. Name, address and country designation of the manufacturer. 

4.3.3.1.2. Model name/number of the pilot voting system (including a 

separate attached list of components submitted for the system. 

4.3.3.1.3. List of relevant standards/requirements for which the manufacturer 

is declaring conformity. 

4.3.3.1.4. Use Statement. This statement notes that the system must be used 

according to all the applicable installation, maintenance and use 

directions provided by the manufacturer. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

21 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

4.3.3.1.5. Authorized signature, including name, title, and address. 

4.3.3.1.6. Date. 

4.3.3.2. Signature Authority. The Declaration of Conformity must be signed by an 

individual with the authority to make binding commitments on behalf of the 

manufacturer. Preferably, the signatory should be an individual in a position 

to know on behalf of the manufacturer that the voting system complies with 

the standards/requirements based on the design, manufacture, testing and 

production control of the pilot voting system. 

4.3.3.3. Declaration of Conformity Record Retention Requirements. A copy of the 

Declaration of Conformity and all related documentation will be retained for a 

period of 5 years after the pilot voting system is no longer manufactured. Such 

documentation shall be retained on the premises of the manufacturer and must 

be made available to the EAC consistent with the requirements of Section 6.4 

of this Manual. The declaration of conformity shall be kept in a system 

construction file consisting of at minimum: 

4.3.3.3.1. An overall drawing of the system together with drawings of the 

control circuits. 

4.3.3.3.2. Full detailed drawings, accompanied by any calculation notes, test 

results or other information required to verify that the system 

conforms to the appropriate standards/requirements. 

4.3.4. 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. 

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. For EAC pilot 

programs, Test Plans must be reviewed and approved before any VSTL testing may 

commence. (Manufacturer testing used as the basis for the Declaration of Conformity 

should, of course, be done prior to the submission of an application package by the 

manufacturer of the pilot voting system seeking EAC certification under this program.) 

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, where applicable. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

22 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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

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

standards or requirements. 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 and/or any other requirements developed specifically for pilot program 

certifications. 

. 

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. All Pilot Program Test Plans will be reviewed by the EAC and 

either approved or rejected within 7 work days of receipt of the Test Plan. 

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 testing may 

commence. 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. Manufacturers shall 

also enable VSTLs to report all test failures or anomalies directly to the EAC. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

23 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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 

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. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

24 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

For Pilot Programs, Technical Review will be completed within 10 business days of the 

receipt of the Test Report by the EAC. 

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 

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

and resubmission. 

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

Program Director, the Decision Authority shall issue a Decision on Certification. The decision 

shall be forwarded to the Manufacturer consistent with the requirements of this Manual. 

4.8. Pre-Certification Requirements. Before a certification is issued for a pilot voting system, 

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 4.9), has been delivered for deposit in an 

EAC-approved repository (see Section 4.11), and can be verified using Manufacturerdeveloped identification tools (see Section 4.12). The Manufacturer must provide the EAC 

documentation demonstrating compliance with these requirements. 

4.9. 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: 

4.9.1. Demonstrate that the software was built as described in the Technical Data Package. 

4.9.2. Show that the tested and approved source code was actually used to build the 

executable code used on the system. 

4.9.3. Demonstrate that no elements other than those included in the Technical Data Package 

were introduced in the software build. 

4.9.4. Document for future reference the configuration of the system certified. 

4.10. Trusted Build Procedure. A trusted build is a three-step process: (1) the build environment is 

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 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

25 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

modification to previously certified systems. In each step, a minimum of two witnesses from 

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. 

4.10.1. Constructing the Build Environment. The VSTL shall construct the build environment 

in an isolated environment controlled by the VSTL, as follows: 

4.10.1.1. 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. 

4.10.1.2. The VSTL, with vendor consultation and observation, shall construct the build 

environment. 

4.10.1.3. After construction of the build environment, the VSTL shall produce and 

record a file signature of the build environment. 

4.10.2. Loading Source Code onto the Build Environment. After successful source code 

review, the VSTL shall load source code onto the build environment as follows: 

4.10.2.1. 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. 

4.10.2.2. The VSTL shall load the source code onto the build environment and produce 

and record the file signature of the resulting combination. 

4.10.2.3. The VSTL shall capture a disk image of the combination build environment 

and source code modules immediately before performing the build. 

4.10.2.4. 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. 

4.10.3. Creating the Executable Code. Upon completion of all the tasks outlined above, the 

VSTL shall produce the executable code. 

4.10.3.1. The VSTL shall produce and record a file signature of the executable code. 

4.10.3.2. The VSTL shall deposit the executable code into an EAC-approved software 

repository and create installation disk(s) from the executable code. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

26 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

4.10.3.3. The VSTL shall produce and record file signatures of the installation disk(s) 

in order to provide a mechanism to validate the software before installation on 

the voting system in a purchasing jurisdiction. 

4.10.3.4. The VSTL shall install the executable code onto the system submitted for 

testing and certification before completion of system testing. 

4.11. 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: 

 

4.11.1. Source code used for the trusted build and its file signatures. 

4.11.2. Disk image of the pre-build, build environment, and any file signatures to validate that 

it is unmodified. 

4.11.3. Disk image of the post-build, build environment, and any file signatures to validate that 

it is unmodified. 

4.11.4. Executable code produced by the trusted build and its file signatures of all files 

produced. 

4.11.5. Installation device(s) and file signatures. 

4.12. 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: 

4.12.1. 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. 

4.12.2. 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 a CD 

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 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

27 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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 used on 

the device. 

4.13. 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 

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 4.9 of this Manual, (2) deposited software consistent with Section 4.11 of this 

Manual, and (3) created and made available system identification tools consistent with Section 

4.12 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. 

4.14. 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 pilot certification and providing the Manufacturer with 

a certification number and Certificate of Conformance. 

4.15. Certification Document. A Certificate of Conformance will be provided to Manufacturers for 

voting systems that have successfully met the requirements of the EAC Pilot Program. The 

document will serve as the Manufacturer’s evidence that a particular pilot system is certified to 

a specific set of testable requirements. The EAC certification and certificate apply only to the 

specific voting system configuration(s) identified, submitted and evaluated under this Program. 

Any modification to the system not authorized by the EAC will void the certificate. The 

certificate will include the product (voting system) name, the specific model or version of the 

product tested, the name of the VSTL that conducted the testing, identification of the standards 

to which the system was tested, the EAC certification number for the product, and the signature 

of the EAC Executive Director. The certificate will also identify the configurations of the 

voting system’s components that may be represented as certified and will specify the date of 

expiration for the pilot program certification.

4.16. Certification Number. Each pilot system certified by the EAC will receive a certification 

number that is unique to the system and will remain with the system until the expiration of the 

pilot program. 

4.17. Publication of EAC Certification. The EAC will publish and maintain on its web site a list of 

all certified pilot 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 

Decision and Certificate of Conformance.

4.18. Representation of EAC Certification. Manufacturers may not represent or imply that a pilot 

voting system is certified unless it has received a Certificate of Conformance for that system. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

28 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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. 

4.18.1. No Mark of Certification Requirement. Manufacturers are not required to label 

machines used in EAC Pilot Programs with the EAC Mark of Certification. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

29 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

5. Denial of Certification 

5.1. Overview. When the Decision Authority issues a Decision denying certification of a pilot 

voting system, 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 appeal the decision to the Appeal Authority.

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

Decision to deny an application for pilot voting system certification based on the materials 

and recommendation provided by the Program Director. 

5.3. 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. 

5.4. 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.

5.5. 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: 

5.5.1. The Program Director’s report and recommendation to the Decision Authority. 

5.5.2. The Decision Authority’s Decision. 

5.5.3. Any materials gathered by the Decision Authority that served as a basis for a 

certification determination. 

5.5.4. All correspondence between the EAC and a Manufacturer after the issuance of a 

Decision denying certification. 

5.6. The Decision Authority shall make and issue a written decision on pilot voting systems 

submitted for certification. 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. 

5.6.1. Basis and Explanation. The Decision of the Decision Authority shall accomplish the 

following: 

 

5.6.1.1. Clearly state the agency’s decision on certification. 

 

5.6.1.2. Explain the basis for the decision, including identifying the following: 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

30 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

5.6.1.2.1. The relevant facts. 

 

5.6.1.2.2. The applicable EAC voting system standards or requirements 

document. 

5.6.1.2.3. The relevant analysis in the Program Director’s recommendation. 

5.6.1.2.4. The reasoning behind the decision. 

5.6.1.3.State the actions the Manufacturer must take, if any, to cure all defects in the 

voting system and obtain a certification. 

5.6.2. Manufacturer’s Rights. The written Decision must also inform the Manufacturer of its 

procedural rights under the program, including the following:

5.6.2.1.Right to request a copy or otherwise have access to the information that 

served as the basis of the Decision (“the record”). 

5.6.2.2.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 Decision. 

5.7. No Manufacturer Action on Decision. If a Manufacturer takes no action (by either failing to 

request an opportunity to cure) within 10 calendar days of its receipt of the Decision, the 

Decision shall become the agency’s final Decision on Certification. In such cases, the 

Manufacturer is determined to have foregone its right to cure, and appeal. The certification 

application shall be considered finally denied.

5.8. Opportunity to Cure. Within 10 calendar days of receiving the EAC’s Decision on 

Certification, a Manufacturer may request an opportunity to cure the defects identified in the 

EAC’s Decision. If the request is approved, a compliance plan must be created, approved, and 

followed. If this cure process is successfully completed, a pilot voting system denied 

certification may receive a certification without resubmission.

5.8.1. Manufacturer’s Request to Cure. The Manufacturer must send a request to cure 

within 10 calendar days of receipt of a Decision. The request must be sent to the 

Program Director. 

5.8.2. 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 within a 

period of time sufficient to allow the pilot program to move forward. 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 an Appeal of the Agency Decision pursuant to Section 

6.9.
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

31 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

5.8.3. 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 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.

5.8.4. 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.

5.8.5. Compliance Plan Test Report. The VSTL shall submit the test report created pursuant 

to its EAC-approved compliance plan. The EAC shall review the test report, along with 

the original test report and other materials originally provided. The report will be 

technically reviewed by the EAC consistent with the procedures laid out in Chapter 4 of 

this Manual.

5.8.6. 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 a Decision on Certification.

5.9. Appeal of Agency Decision. A Manufacturer may, upon receipt of an Agency Decision denying 

certification, issue a request for appeal.

5.9.1. Requesting Appeal. A Manufacturer may appeal a decision of the agency by issuing a 

written request for appeal.

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

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

5.9.1.2.Timing of Appeal. The Manufacturer may request an appeal within 20 calendar 

days of receipt of the Agency Decision. Late requests will not be considered.

5.9.1.3.Contents of Request. 

5.9.1.3.1. The request must clearly state the specific conclusions of the Decision the 

Manufacturer wishes to appeal.

5.9.1.3.2. The request may include additional written argument.
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

32 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

5.9.1.3.3. The request may not reference or include any factual material not in 

the record. 

5.9.2. Consideration of Appeal. All timely appeals will be considered by the Appeal 

Authority.

5.9.2.1.The Appeal Authority shall be two or more EAC Commissioners or other 

individuals appointed by the Commissioners who have not previously served as 

the Decision Authority on the matter.

5.9.2.2.All decisions on appeal shall be based on the record.

5.9.2.3.The determination of the Decision Authority shall be given deference by the 

Appeal Authority. Although it is unlikely that the scientific certification 

process will produce factual disputes, in such cases, the burden of proof shall 

belong to the Manufacturer to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence 

that its pilot 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. 

5.10. Decision on Appeal. The Appeal Authority shall make a written, Decision on Appeal 

and shall provide it to the Manufacturer. 

5.10.1. Contents. The following actions are necessary to write the Decision on Appeal: 

5.10.1.1. State the determination of the agency. 

5.10.1.2. Address the matters raised by the Manufacturer on appeal.

5.10.1.3. Provide the reasoning behind the decisions.

5.10.1.4. State that the Decision on Appeal is final.

5.10.2. Determinations. The Appeal Authority may make one of two determinations:

5.10.2.1. 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 4.

5.10.2.2. 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. 

5.10.3. Effect. All Decisions on Appeal shall be final and binding on the Manufacturer. 

No additional appeal shall be granted. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

33 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

6. Pilot Program Monitoring and Reporting 

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 and development process for both hardware and software. Both the Pilot 

Program and the larger EAC testing and certification process focus on voting system design by 

ensuring that systems meet the technical specifications of the applicable EAC voting system 

standards or other applicable testable requirements. This process, commonly called “type 

acceptance,” determines whether the representative sample submitted for testing meets the 

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. This level of compliance is 

accomplished by the Manufacturer’s configuration management and quality control processes. 

The EAC’s Pilot Program Monitoring and Reporting program, as outlined in this chapter, 

provides an additional layer of oversight and quality control by allowing the EAC to perform 

declaration of conformity audits, and to gather information on pilot system anomalies via 

mandatory reporting from pilot system manufacturers. These tools help ensure that pilot 

systems meet any and all requirements adopted by the EAC for pilot programs when the 

systems are manufactured, delivered, and used in Federal election pilot programs. 

6.1. Purpose. The purpose of Pilot Program Monitoring and Reporting is to ensure that pilot voting 

systems certified by the EAC are identical to those fielded in the pilot jurisdictions, to ensure 

that the voting system manufacturer maintains a rigorous quality management system and to 

verify that the manufacturer has conducted testing on their product as attested to in the 

Manufacturer Declaration of Conformity document. This level of monitoring is accomplished 

primarily by identifying (1) field performance issues with certified systems as reported by the 

manufacturer and by pilot jurisdictions, (2) manufacturer declaration of conformity audits, and 

(3) potential EAC observation of pilot programs in operation. 

6.2. Manufacturer’s Quality Control. EAC’s Pilot Program Monitoring functions are 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 check and balance that 

works in tandem with the Manufacturer’s efforts. 

6.3. Pilot Program Monitoring Methodology. This chapter provides the EAC with two primary 

and one secondary tool for assessing the level of compliance to requirements and performance 

to mission (pilot) objectives of pilot program voting systems. The primary tools are (1) 

manufacturer declaration of conformity audits and (2) mandatory post election reporting by 

manufacturers. The secondary tool for monitoring the effectiveness of the program and of the 

pilot system consists of voluntary pilot program monitoring and reporting by State and local 

election jurisdiction participating in pilot programs. 

6.4. Manufacturer Declaration of Conformity Audit: Manufacturers of pilot voting systems 

seeking EAC certification will be audited to verify that the system hardware and software 

being manufactured, shipped, and utilized in the pilot program is the same as the sample 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

34 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

submitted for certification testing. All registered Manufacturers must cooperate with such 

audits as a condition of program participation. 

6.4.1. Notice. The site review will be scheduled during the active testing phase of the pilot 

certification, at manufacturers’ headquarters or manufacturing facility. Scheduling and 

notice of these audits will be coordinated with and provided to both the manufacturing 

facility’s representative and the Manufacturer’s representative. 

6.4.2. Pilot Program Audit Objectives. Objectives shall be established for audit programs in 

order to direct the planning and conduct of all audits conducted under the program. 

EAC Declaration of Conformity audit objectives will include the following: 

6.4.2.1. Gather information and documentation to insure that the attestation in the 

declaration of conformance agrees with the actual documented testing done on 

the pilot voting system by the manufacturer. 

6.4.2.2. Review documentation (including but not limited to: test plans; test cases, test 

methods, test suites, test procedures; test data recorded, and test reports) to 

determine the adequacy of manufacturer conformance testing. 

6.4.2.3. Gather information and documentation to insure that the manufacturer adheres 

to their stated quality management system and configuration management 

system. 

6.4.3. Frequency and Duration. Each manufacturer shall be subject to a mandatory declaration 

of conformity audit during every pilot certification test engagement. Declaration of 

conformity audits shall be conducted for a period not to exceed 5 business days. 

6.4.4. Records Retention. All documents produced by the manufacturer related to the pilot 

voting system shall be retained by the manufacturer for a period of ten (10) years in 

.pdf, .doc, or in some other common format agreed upon by the manufacturer and the 

EAC. The EAC may at any time, request a copy of such records. 

6.4.5. The Audit. Declaration of Conformity audits will generally be conducted in four 

phases; audit preparation, document review, on site activities and written audit report. 

6.4.5.1. Audit Preparation. Prior to the audit, the EAC will develop an audit plan to 

provide a basis for the conduct of the audit. The plan should also facilitate 

scheduling and coordination of all audit activities between the manufacturer 

and the EAC audit team. The audit plan should include: 

6.4.5.1.1. The dates and places where the onsite audit activities will be 

conducted. 

6.4.5.1.2. The audit objectives and criteria. 

6.4.5.1.3. The expected time and duration of audit activities, including 

meetings with the manufacturer’s representatives. 

6.4.5.1.4. Matters related to confidential and proprietary of trade secret 

information. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

35 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

6.4.5.2. Document Review. Prior to the audit, documentation shall be collected from 

the manufacturer for initial review to determine the conformity of the system 

to the audit criteria. Documentation obtained shall include: 

6.4.5.2.1. All technical data package information, system description 

documentation and users manuals. 

6.4.5.2.2. All VSTL testing documentation evidencing system compliance 

with the appropriate technical requirements and/or standards. 

6.4.5.2.3. All internal or external QA audit data from the two most recent 

audits. 

6.4.5.3. On Site Activities. On site audit activities will generally include an opening 

meeting, collection and verification of information, generating audit findings 

and exit briefing. 

6.4.5.3.1. Opening meeting. An opening meeting will be held between the 

EAC audit team and senior management and other manufacturer 

employees as needed. The purpose of the opening meeting is to 

confirm the audit plan, to provide a summary of how the audit will 

be conducted, confirm the formal communication channels 

between the audit team and the manufacturer during the audit and 

to provide the manufacturer an opportunity to ask questions of the 

audit team. 

6.4.5.3.2. Collect and Verify Information. During the audit, information 

relevant to the audit scope and objectives should be collected, 

recorded and verified. Only verifiable evidence may be used to 

generate audit findings. As time is of the essence in any pilot 

program test campaign, evidence collected during the audit that 

suggests an immediate and significant risk of the voting system or 

manufacturer processes shall be reported to the manufacturer 

without delay. In instances where the available evidence indicates 

that the audit objectives are unattainable, the audit team leader 

shall immediately inform the manufacturer for appropriate action. 

Such actions may include termination of the audit, or in extreme 

cases, termination of the pilot testing program pending the 

manufacturer’s appeal as outlined in Chapter 5 of this manual. 

Sources of information may include the following: 

6.4.5.3.2.1.Interviews with manufacturer personnel. 

6.4.5.3.2.2.Documents such as policies, procedures, instructions, 

specifications, drawings, contracts and orders. 

6.4.5.3.2.3.Records such as inspection records, audit reports, and 

results of measurements, data summaries, 

computerized databases and web sites. 

6.4.5.3.2.4.Reports from other sources including customer 

feedback. 

6.4.5.3.2.5.Generate Audit Findings. Evidence collected by the 

audit team should be evaluated against the audit criteria 

to generate audit findings. Audit findings can indicate 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

36 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

either conformity or nonconformity with audit criteria. 

Nonconformities and their supporting evidence should 

be recorded and reviewed with the manufacturer to 

verify that the evidence is accurate and that the 

nonconformities are understood. Every attempt will be 

made to resolve the accuracy of evidence when the 

manufacturers’ opinion differs from that of the audit 

team. Any unresolved issues related to the 

nonconformities should be recorded. 

6.4.5.3.3. Exit Briefing. Auditors will present the audit findings and 

conclusions to the manufacturers’ representative or representatives at 

an exit briefing to be held on the last day of the audit. Audit findings 

and conclusions will be presented in a manner that is easily 

understood and acknowledged by the manufacturers’ representative. 

Any differences of opinion regarding the audit findings and 

conclusions between the audit team and the manufacturers’ 

representative should be discussed and all opinions recorded. 

6.4.6. Written Audit Report. A written report documenting the audit findings and conclusions 

will be drafted by the EAC and provided to the Manufacturer within 10 business days 

of completion of the audit. The report will detail the findings of the audit, identify 

actions that are required to correct any nonconformities found during the course of the 

audit and make a recommendation on whether the manufacturers quality process and 

the testing performed by the manufacturer appear to meet the requirements outlined in 

the EAC Standards, Guidelines or Testable Requirements document under which the 

pilot system is tested. Manufacturers that pass these audits may continue in the pilot 

certification program. If the audit report finds the manufacturers quality program, 

and/or product testing was deficient, or if the audit finds that required records were 

missing, inadequate or otherwise falsified or fabricated in order to circumvent the EAC 

process, the auditors will recommend that the pilot voting system be dismissed from the 

pilot program pending adequate resolution of the nonconformities found during the 

audit. 

6.5. Mandatory Post Election Anomaly Reporting. The EAC will require registered 

manufacturers of voting systems used in pilot programs to collect and submit information 

related to the performance of the system in any election in which it is used. Information on 

actual pilot system performance in the field is a basic means for assessing the effectiveness of 

the pilot product a swell as manufacturing quality control. The EAC will provide a mechanism 

for election officials to provide real-world input on pilot voting system anomalies. 

6.5.1. Post Election Anomaly Report. Manufacturers must record each anomaly that affects 

the pilot voting system during an election. In addition, the manufacturer shall identify 

all root causes for each anomaly, and report to the EAC all corrective actions identified 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

37 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

and taken for each anomaly. Reporting of these anomalies will allow the EAC to better 

evaluate the performance of pilot systems under real election conditions in order to 

make recommendations for future use of the system. The Report may be filed with the 

EAC by electronic mail,, by regular mail or by facsimile. 

6.5.2. Reported Information. Pilot system manufacturers shall report all voting system 

anomalies occurring during the election, verify the anomalies to assure that the problem 

has been properly identified, and evaluate and analyze the anomaly to determine root 

cause and corrective action. The report must include all of the following information: 

6.5.2.1. The manufacturer’s name, voting system make and model, and the jurisdiction 

or jurisdiction in which the anomalies occurred. 

6.5.2.2. A narrative description of the anomaly. 

6.5.2.3. The affected voting system component, subsystem or software. 

6.5.2.4. The action being performed when the anomaly occurred. 

6.5.2.5. The number of times the anomalies occurred. 

6.5.2.6. Whether the anomaly could be verified. 

6.5.2.7. The root cause of the anomaly. 

6.5.2.8. The method used to determine the root cause. 

6.5.2.9. The corrective and preventative actions taken in response to the anomalies. 

6.5.2.10. Any steps taken to validate and verify the effectiveness of the corrective and 

preventative actions. 

6.5.3. Root Cause Analysis. The anomaly report should describe the root cause of the 

problem or problems identified and the approach taken by the system manufacturer to 

determine those root causes. Before implementing any corrective actions, the 

manufacturer should determine the root cause of any anomaly to ensure that the 

problem is understood. A root cause is the fundamental reason that an anomaly 

occurred. The root cause, or underlying source of the problem differs from the 

proximate or direct cause, which is the immediate cause of the problem. 

Many problems have multiple root causes leading to the anomaly. In addition, multiple 

contributing causes can contribute to an anomaly. Causes may include, but are not 

limited to component or subsystem failures and faults, software errors, human error, 

design inadequacies and inadequate or non-existent procedures and documentation. 

Root cause analysis is necessary to properly identify the circumstances and factors 

leading to an anomaly or anomalies. Without root cause analysis, the likelihood that 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

38 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

only the proximate causes of the anomaly will be fixed increases, so the potential for 

the anomaly reoccurring remains significant. 

6.5.4. Corrective and Preventative Actions. The anomaly report should describe the 

corrective and preventative actions and the steps taken to validate and verify those 

actions. A corrective action is a reactive process addressing anomalies that have 

already occurred. A preventative action is a proactive process taken to stop a potential 

anomaly from occurring. Verification approaches may include analysis, testing, 

demonstration and inspection. 

6.5.5. Distribution of Post Election Anomaly Reports. All anomaly reports will be posted on 

the EAC web site in full except where such posting may conflict with the Trade Secrets 

Act or the release of proprietary and confidential information as discussed in Chapter 9 

of this manual. 

6.6. Voluntary Anomaly Reporting by States. As another means of gathering field data, the EAC 

will collect information from election officials who field EAC-certified pilot 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 provide a mechanism for State election officials to provide input on their field 

experiences with the pilot voting system in real-world elections. 

6.6.1. Anomaly Report. Election officials may use the Voting System Anomaly Reporting 

Form to also report pilot 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. 

6.6.2. Reported Information. 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: 

6.6.2.1. The official’s name, title, contact information, and jurisdiction. 

6.6.2.2. A description of the pilot voting system at issue. 

6.6.2.3. The date and location of the reported occurrence. 

6.6.2.4. The type of election. 

6.6.2.5. A description of the anomaly. 

6.6.3. Distribution of Reports. State anomaly reports will be posted to the EAC web site and 

distributed to State and local election jurisdictions, the Manufacturer of the pilot voting 

system at issue, and the VSTLs. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

39 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

7. Requests for Interpretations 

7.1. Overview. A Request for Interpretation is a means by which a registered Manufacturer or 

VSTL may seek clarification on a specific EAC pilot voting system standard or requirements 

document. An Interpretation is a clarification of the pilot voting system standards and guidance 

on how to properly evaluate conformance to it. This chapter outlines the policy, requirements, 

and procedures for submitting a Request for Interpretation. 

7.2. Policy. Registered Manufacturers or VSTLs may request that the EAC provide a definitive 

Interpretation of EAC-accepted pilot voting system standards or requirements document 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 pilot voting system standards, but 

serves only to clarify existing standards.

7.3. 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 pilot voting system standard in light of a specific 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. 

7.3.1. 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. 

7.3.2. Applicable Standard. A Request for Interpretation is limited to queries on EAC pilot 

voting system standards or requirements document. Moreover, a Manufacturer or 

VSTL may submit a Request for Interpretation only on a version of EAC pilot voting 

system standards to which the EAC currently offers certification. 

7.3.3. 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 pilot 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 

Standards or requirements document to a specific system or piece of technology creates 

ambiguity. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

40 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

7.3.4. 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. 

7.3.4.1. Actual Ambiguity. A proper Request for Interpretation must contain an actual 

ambiguity. The interpretation process is not a means for challenging a clear 

EAC pilot voting system standard or requirement. Recommended changes to 

pilot 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 pilot 

voting system standard to a specific technology) when one of the following 

occurs: 

7.3.4.1.1. The language of the standard is unclear on its face. 

7.3.4.1.2. One section of the standard seems to contradict another, relevant 

section. 

7.3.4.1.3. The language of the standard, though clear on its face, lacks 

sufficient detail or breadth to determine its proper application to a 

particular technology. 

7.3.4.1.4. The language of a particular standard, when applied to a specific 

technology, clearly conflicts with the established purpose or intent 

of the standard. 

7.3.4.1.5. The language of the standard is clear, but the proper means to 

assess compliance is unclear. 

7.3.4.2. Not Previously Clarified. The EAC will not accept a Request for 

Interpretation when the issue has previously been clarified. 

7.4. 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:

7.4.1. Establish Standing To Make the Request. To make a request, one must meet the 

requirements identified in Section 7.3 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 pilot voting system 

standard, (3) presenting an actual factual controversy, and (4) seeking clarification on a 

matter of unsettled ambiguity. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

41 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

7.4.2. Identify the EAC Standard or Requirement to be Clarified. The request must identify 

the specific standard or standards to which the requestor seeks clarification. The request 

must state the version of the pilot voting system standards at issue (if applicable) and 

quote and correctly cite the applicable standards. 

7.4.3. 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 document. 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. 

7.4.4. 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: 

7.4.4.1. Shall be clearly stated. 

7.4.4.2. Shall be related to and reference the pilot voting system standard and voting 

system technology information provided. 

7.4.4.3. Shall be limited to a single issue. Each question or issue arising from an 

ambiguous standard must be stated separately. Compound questions are 

unacceptable. If multiple issues exist, they should be presented as individual, 

numbered questions. 

7.4.4.4. Shall be stated in a way that can ultimately be answered yes or no. 

7.4.5. Provide a Proposed Interpretation. A Request for Interpretation should propose an 

answer to the question posed. The answer should interpret the voting system standard in 

the context of the facts presented. It should also provide the basis and reasoning behind 

the proposal. 

7.5. EAC Action on a Request for Interpretation. Upon receipt of a Request for Interpretation, 

the EAC shall take the following action:

7.5.1. Review the Request. The Program Director shall review the request to ensure it is 

complete, is clear, and meets the requirements of Section 7.4. Upon review, the 

Program Director may take the following action: 

7.5.1.1. 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. 

7.5.1.2. Reject the Request for Interpretation. If the Request for Interpretation does not 

meet the requirements of Section 7.4, the Program Director may reject it. Such 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

42 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

rejection must be provided in writing to the Manufacturer or VSTL and must 

state the basis for the rejection. 

7.5.1.3. 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. 

7.5.2. 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. 

7.5.3. 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: 

7.5.3.1. State the question or questions investigated. 

7.5.3.2. Outline the relevant facts that served as the basis of the Interpretation. 

7.5.3.3. Identify the pilot voting system standards interpreted. 

7.5.3.4. State the conclusion reached. 

7.5.3.5. Inform the Manufacturer or VSTL of the effect of an Interpretation (see 

Section 9.6). 

7.6. 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 pilot voting system standards and requirements.

7.7. Library of Interpretations. To better serve Manufacturers, VSTLs, and those interested in the 

EAC pilot certification program, the Program Director shall publish EAC Interpretations. All 

proprietary information contained in an Interpretation will be redacted before publication 

consistent with Chapter 8 of this Manual. The library of published opinions is posted on the 

EAC web site: www.eac.gov.
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

43 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

8. Release of Certification Program Information 

8.1. Overview. Manufacturers participating in a Pilot Certification Program will be required to 

provide the EAC with 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. 

8.2. EAC Policy on the Release of Pilot Certification Program Information. The EAC seeks to 

make its Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification 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). 

8.2.1. 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. 

8.2.2. Publication of documents. Beyond the requirements of FOIA, the EAC intends to 

affirmatively publish program documents (or portions of documents) it believes will be 

of interest to the public. This publication will be accomplished through the use of the 

EAC Web site (www.eac.gov). The published documents will cover the full spectrum 

of the program, including information pertaining to: 

8.2.2.1. Registered Manufacturers; 

8.2.2.2. VSTL test plans; 

8.2.2.3. VSTL test reports; 

8.2.2.4. Agency decisions; 

8.2.2.5. Denials of Certification; 

8.2.2.6. Issuance of Certifications; 

8.2.2.7. Information on a certified voting system’s operation, components, features or 

capabilities; 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

44 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

8.2.2.8. Appeals; 

8.2.2.9. Declaration of Conformance Audits and Reporting; 

8.2.2.10. Official Interpretations; and 

8.2.2.11. Other topics as determined by the EAC. 

8.2.3. 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). 

8.3. Trade Secrets. A trade secret is a secret, commercially valuable plan, process, or device that is 

used for the making or processing of a product and that is the end result of either innovation or 

substantial effort. It relates to the productive process itself, describing how a product is made. 

It does not relate to information describing end product capabilities, features, or performance. 

8.3.1. The following examples illustrate productive processes that may be trade secrets: 

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

8.3.1.2. Specifications of materials used in production. 

8.3.1.3. Voting system source code used to develop or manufacture software where 

release would reveal actual programming. 

8.3.1.4. Technical descriptions of manufacturing processes and other secret 

information relating directly to the production process. 

8.3.2. The following examples are likely not trade secrets: 

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

8.3.2.2. Information pertaining to a finished product’s performance. 

8.3.2.3. Information regarding product components that would not reveal any 

commercially valuable information regarding production. 

8.4. 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. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

45 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

8.4.1. 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.

8.4.2. 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. 

8.5. 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: 

8.5.1. Managing Documentation and Information. The EAC will control the documentation it 

receives by ensuring that documents are secure and released to third parties only after 

the appropriate review and determination. 

8.5.2. Contacting Manufacturer on Proposed Release of Potentially Protected Documents. In 

the event a member of the public submits a FOIA request for documents provided by a 

Manufacturer or the EAC otherwise proposes the release of such documents, the EAC 

will take the following actions: 

8.5.2.1. 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. 

8.5.2.2. 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 8.6.1 below. 

8.5.3. 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. 

8.6. 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 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

46 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

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. 

8.6.1. 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: 

8.6.1.1. 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. 

8.6.1.1.1. Cite the applicable law that exempts the information from release. 

8.6.1.1.2. Clearly discuss why that legal authority applies and why the 

document must be protected from release. 

8.6.1.1.3. 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. 

8.6.1.2. 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. 

8.6.2. Notification of Potential Release. In the event a Manufacturer is notified that the EAC 

is considering the release of Pilot Program information that may be protected, the 

Manufacturer shall take the following action: 

8.6.2.1. Respond to the notice within 7 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 7-day deadline. Manufacturers that do not respond in a timely manner will 

be viewed as not objecting to release. 

8.6.2.2. Clearly state one of the following in the response: 

8.6.2.2.1. There is no objection to release, or 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

47 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

8.6.2.2.2. 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 

8.6.1 above. 

8.7. Personal Information. Certain personal information is protected from release under FOIA and 

the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. §552a). This information includes private information about a person 

that, if released, would cause the individual embarrassment or constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. Generally, the EAC will not require the submission of private 

information about individuals. The incidental submission of such information should be 

avoided. If a 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: 

8.7.1. Social Security Number. 

8.7.2. Bank account numbers. 

8.7.3. Home address. 

8.7.4. Home phone number. 
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

48 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

Appendix A 

Manufacturer Registration Application Form 

Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Manufacturer Registration Application

Manufacturer Information

Legal Name of Business:

First Name:

Last Name:

Title:

Management Representative

Technical Representative

Middle Initial:

Address:

City: State

ZIP Code: Email:

Phone Number: FAX Number:

First Name: Title:

Last Name: Middle Initial:

Address:

City: State

ZIP Code: Email:

Phone Number: FAX Number:

Page 1 of 4

1.

2.

3.

Form EAC 001C

Address of Business:

City: State ZIP Code:

Organization Type: Corporation Partnership Other

Names of Officers and/or Board of Directors

and/or any and all Partners :

Name of Individual or Entity with Controlling

Ownership in the Manufacturer:

Sole Proprietorship

OMB Control # 3265-0004

Print Form Submit by Email

Alabama

Alabama

Alabama
Briefly describe your internal requirements for managing change control/version control for both

hardware/firmware and software . Provide your written policies supporting this description as part

of this application :

Page 2 of 4

Briefly describe your document retention requirements . Provide your written policies supporting

this description as part of this application :

5.

6.

Form EAC 001C

Briefly describe your quality system (e.g. ISO 9001). Provide your written policies supporting this

description as a part of this application :

4.

Please, list the Name, Street Address, City, State/Province, Country, Postal Code, and Telephone

Number for all facilities used by your company to manufacture your voting system product :

7.
Page 3 of 4

Notes:

Manufacturer's

Designation:

EAC Use Only

Manufacturer Certification Agreement:

To maintain a voting system certification under the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) program, the

manufacturer must agree to:

1. Represent a voting system as certified only when it is authorized by the EAC and consistent with the

procedures and requirements of the Testing and Certification Program Manual (the Manual).

2. Produce and permanently affix an EAC certification label to all production units of the certified system.

3. Notify the EAC of changes to any system previously certified by the EAC pursuant to the requirements of

the Manual.

4. Permit an EAC representative to verify manufacturer quality control by coordinating with EAC efforts to test

and review fielded voting systems consistent with Section 8.6 of the Manual.

5. Permit an EAC representative to verify manufacturer quality control by conducting periodic inspections of

manufacturing facilities consistent with Chapter 8 of the Manual.

6. Cooperate with any EAC inquiries and investigations into a certified system's compliance with voting system

standards or the procedural requirements of the Manual.

7. Report to the Program Director any known malfunction of a voting system holding a current EAC

Certification. A malfunction is defined as a failure of the voting system, not caused by operator or

administrative error, which causes the system to fail or otherwise not operate as designed.

8. Certify that the manufacturer is not barred or otherwise prohibited by statute regulation or ruling from

doing business in the United States.

9. Adhere to all procedural requirements of the Manual.

Title:

Date:

Form EAC 001C

Signature:

8.
Instructions:

Form EAC 001C Page 4 of 4

This form provides for the registration of voting system manufacturers. Registration is the initial required step in the EAC

Voting System Certification Program . This form is prescribed by Section 2.4 of the Manual. For more information on

registration requirements please see Section 2.4 of the Manual.

This form is generally self-explanatory however the numbers and the instructions below correspond to the numbered sections

of the form.

1. Manufacturer Information.

Names of Officers and/or Board of Directors and/or any and all Partners: Ensure that all individuals are identified by

name, and title .

Name of Individual or Entity with Controlling Ownership in the Manufacturer: Ensure that the controlling individual is

properly named and an address is provided.

2. Management Representative.

Please provide the name and information requested for the designated Manufacturer Representative pursuant to Section 2.3 of

the Manual.

3. Technical Representative.

Please provide the name and information requested for the designated Technical Representative pursuant to Section 2.3 of the

Manual.

4, 5 and 6

Provide the information listed and attach to your submission the wriiten documentation required by Section 2.3.1 of the

Manual.

7. Manufacurer Certification Agreement

Manufacturers are required to take or abstain from certain actions consistent with the certification program. Your concurrence

to these requirements is signified by affixing the signature of the manufacturer representative.

 This information is required for the EAC to provide for the certification of voting systems as required by 42 U.S.C. Section

15371. This information will be used solely to administer the EAC Testing and Certification Program. This program is voluntary,

however, individuals who wish to participate must meet the requirements of the Program. This information will be made public

consistent with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, the Trade Secrets Act, and any other applicable Federal

law or regulation. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average about 9.75 hours for

completion of this form. This estimate includes the time for reviewing the instructions, gathering information and completing

the form. Send comments regarding this burden estimate to the Testing and Certification Program Director, Election

Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005. Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to respond to, or

comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of

information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

49 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

Appendix B 

Manufacturer Declaration of Conformity Form 

Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov 
Manufacturer Declaration of Conformity

Manufacturer

Name

Address

City State Zip Code

Country

Product Identification

Model/Type

See Attached List of components submitted for Conformance Testing for this system

Means of Conformity

The manufacturer hereby declares under his sole responsibility that the products identified with this 

submission comply with the EAC Pilot Program Testing Standards (listed below by Section or 

requirement) and with all requirements of the EAC Pilot Program Certification Manual. The technical 

documentation required to demonstrate that the products meet the requirements noted have been 

compiled and are available for inspection by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

United States Election Assistance Commission

Page 1 of 2

Applicable Standards

Print Form

For EAC Pilot Program Certifications
Page 2 of 2

Use Statement

Subject to the correct installation, maintenance and use, and to the manufacturers applicable 

instructions and directions contained in the system Technical Data Package, this system meets all of 

the EAC requirements for pilot program voting systems.

Authorized Signatory

Signed By Date

Name

Address

City State Zip Code

Country

Title

I, by signing my name below, certify, affirm and acknowledge, under penalty of Federal law, that the claims of 

conformity attested to in this document are true and accurate.
Voting System Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual, Version 1.0 

50 OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx 

Appendix C 

Voting System Anomaly Reporting Form 

Available in electronic format at www.eac.gov
U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Voting System Anomaly Reporting Form

For VOLUNTARY reporting of Voting System Anomalies

A. Election Official: C. Description of Anomaly or Event:

Name, Title, Jurisdiction

Phone Number

Reported to Manufacturer?

YES NO

B. Product Description:

Manufacturer Name

Type of Voting System

Hardware & Software Versions

System Model

Unit Serial Number

Form EAC 003C

Date of Occurrence

Description of Anomaly

DRE Ballot Marking Device

Optical Scan Other

Email

Election Type

Primary General Special

Was this your first election using this system?

YES NO

EAC Certification Number

Polling Place Name or Location

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Page 1 of 2

OMB Control # 3265-0004

Print Form Submit by Email
Instructions

Form EAC 003C

This form provides for the reporting of voting system anomalies by election officials. This form is part of the EAC Quality

Monitoring Program. The use of this form is voluntary. Information regarding its use can be found in Section 8.7 of the

Manual.

This form is self-explanatory.

This information is required for the EAC to provide for the certification of voting systems as required by 42 U.S.C. Section

15371. This information will be used solely to administer the EAC Testing and Certification Program. This program is

voluntary, however, individuals who wish to participate must meet the requirements of the Program. This information will

be made public consistent with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, the Trade Secrets Act, and any other

applicable Federal law or regulation. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average

about 82 hours for completion of this form. This estimate includes the time for reviewing the instructions, gathering

information and completing the form. Send comments regarding this burden estimate to the Testing and Certification

Program Director, Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a

penalty for failure to respond to, or comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Page 2 of 2