The replacement of certain obsolete or end-of-life COTS components in an EAC certified voting system with equivalent components is permitted. Using the process outlined above, the equivalence of the replacement components can be demonstrated and be considered for a de minimis classification provided the change meets the requirements of section 3.5 of the EAC's Program Manual and this clarification. The EAC will continue to monitor the use of COTS products in voting systems and make appropriate changes to its procedures in instances in which it sees minimal risk to voting system integrity and potential cost savings.

In order for a data change to be found de minimis, the change must not materially alter the system's reliability, functionality, capability, or operation (i.e. meeting the requirements of section 3.5 of the Certification Manual).

Under no circumstance shall a change to the system's data be considered de minimis if it has a reasonable and identifiable potential to impact the system's performance and compliance with applicable voting system standards.

Test Plans submitted for modifications to previously EAC certified voting systems should be brief and structured to minimize test plan development and review, while enabling the EAC to maintain solid control of the certification process. The test plan shall concisely document the strategy and plan for testing those sections of the VVVSG applicable to the modification or modifications submitted. The test plan shall be written with clarity that will allow all constituents to understand what testing will be conducted, to verify compliance to VVSG requirements, and to assure that the test plan will remain a living document throughout the life of the test campaign for the modification.

The goal of this NOC is to guide the production of test reports that are clearer and more comprehensive by documenting:

• All the components, and necessary information that comprise the version and configuration of hardware, software and COTS needed for the evaluation of the voting system;
• The completeness and comprehensiveness of the testing performed; 
• The adequacy of the testing performed; and
• The results of all the testing performed.

All such information needs to be provided with clarity, completeness and without ambiguity, so that a wide range of readers and users of the document will be able to understand the evaluation that supports a system's certification

A change to a voting system's TDP can be considered de minimis provided the change meets the requirements of section 3.5 of the EAC's Program Manual. Changes to the TDP that have the potential to effect the reliability, functionality, capability, and operability of a system will not be considered de minimis and must pass modification testing before being approved.

The EAC's Program Manual states in part, "Participation [in testing] includes but is not limited to the observation of testing by the Manufacturer." The purpose of this statement is to reiterate that under no circumstances can a voting system manufacturer be present in the testing room while certification testing is being conducted. This prohibition is in place to ensure that the conformance testing being conducted is an independent evaluation of the system to the standards without influence or interference by the manufacturer. 

The EAC does recognize that in some cases there is value in allowing manufacturers to witness a particular test or a re-creation of a test in order to allow them to comment on the proper system set up or operation. However, any such participation must be (1) at the discretion of the VSTL, (2) supervised by the VSTL and (3) clearly documented in order to maintain laboratory independence. Therefore, the EAC finds the following three situations to be allowable under section 2.11.1. of the Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual:

• halting an active certification test and bringing the manufacturer into the testing room for a re-creation of the test being performed
• creating for the manufacturer either a closed circuit video feed or a web cam feed to allow for real-time correspondence during testing
• supervised access prior to and during the testing to perform unscheduled and non-routine maintenance

Clarification appears necessary to further describe the expected depth and completeness of the test plan that is necessary to help ensure that a comprehensive test campaign is carried out and to help ensure that test campaigns are consistent among different VSTLs. The test plan shall document the strategy and plan for testing each section of the applicable voluntary voting system guidelines and is to be used as a key tool to manage the test campaign and to verify that a voting system or component meets all VVSG and program defined requirements. The test plan shall be written with completeness and clarity that will allow all constituents to understand what testing will be conducted, to assess each group of VVSG requirements, and to assure that the test plan will remain a living document throughout the life of the test campaign. The objective is to address each section (in both Volume I and Volume II of the 2005 VVSG) in detail, and to clearly and succinctly describe the strategy and/or approach for testing each section

Conformance testing must begin with confirmation that a system functions as documented. However, testing must also show that the system will recognize and respond appropriately to incorrect as well as correct data and procedures as currently specified in the 2002 VSS and 2005 VVSG. In addition, testing should ensure that the system is robust and resistant against common user and technical sources of error. All reports available should accurately report the results of all valid votes. Audit records will include information showing the appearance of invalid or questionable data that were rejected so that potential recount related issues may be resolved. Testing should also be responsive to requirements that may not be adequately defined in the current published standards, especially those that show up under State testing and/or during actual elections. The goal is to catch as many errors as possible in testing before they show up in an election environment.

This clarification is issued to allow a manufacturer to more easily change a Mark of Certification when a product has been recertified to a different version of EAC standards and to allow the removal of the Mark of Certification in instances where a machine has been decertified. In addition, this clarification will accommodate voting system manufacturers who do very small batch production runs and need additional flexibility in producing and affixing the Mark. This clarification amends the general requirements outlined in Section 5.15 of the Testing and Certification Program Manual. This clarification also provides further information on distribution of the Mark of Certification and options for compliance actions for misuse of the Mark.

The EAC concludes that to insure voting systems subject to certification are tested in the most thorough manner possible, the integrity of the program requires that prior testing is only presumed valid when conducted by a third party laboratory while under the direction of an EAC accredited VSTL. In order, however, to allow voting systems currently in the testing process to move forward during this critical time, the EAC will allow the use of non-core environmental and EMC testing undertaken and completed within one year prior to the implementation of our program (January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006) under the following conditions:

1. VSTLs must submit all such non-core environmental and EMC testing to the EAC for review.
2. The VSTL or its designated sub contractor laboratory shall re-run the electrostatic disruption test.
3. The results of this ESD test shall be submitted to the EAC for review and approval prior to the EAC accepting any prior environmental or EMC testing.