EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2007-05, 

2005 VVSG Vol. 1 Section 4.2.1 (Testing Focus and 

Applicability) 

Date: 

 November 6, 2007 

Question: 

Because Section 4.2.1 of the VVSG does not define what is meant by “equivalent of 

these Guidelines,” the VSTLs and manufacturers are not clear what COTS testing should 

encompass. The requestors note that while COTS hardware equipment is typically 

designed to rigorous standards, they are not identical to those required by the VVSG, but 

encompass the same technical areas such as EMI, temperature ranges, power 

fluctuations, etc. Interpretation is requested on whether COTS hardware used in a voting 

system, which has been tested to rigorous Information Technology Equipment (ITE) 

standards, must also meet all of the VVSG requirements. 

Facts: 

For purposes of this interpretation, requestor limits their discussion of COTS equipment 

to standalone products such as PCs, printers, scanners, and other such equipment. COTS 

components such as motherboards and disk drives that may be built into voting systems 

are not included in this request for clarification as the VVSG is sufficiently clear in this 

regard. 

Requestor notes that while Section 4.2.1 of the 2005 VVSG is generally amenable to the 

use of COTS equipment in voting systems with reduced testing, the last sentence of the 

section may lend itself to alternative interpretations. Requestor has interpreted the last 

sentence of this section to mean that COTS equipment was subject to all testing required 

by the VVSG. 

Section of Standards or Guidelines: 

Section 4.2.1 of the 2005 VVSG Vol. 1 reads: 

“All hardware components that are custom-designed for election use shall be tested in 

accordance with the applicable procedures contained in this section. Unmodified COTS 
hardware will not be subject to all tests. Generally, such equipment has already been 

designed to rigorous industrial standards and has been in wide use, permitting an 

evaluation of its performance history. To enable reduced testing of such equipment, 

vendors shall provide the manufacturer specifications and evidence that the equipment 

has been tested to the equivalent of these Guidelines.” 

Conclusion: 

The requestor proposed, in part, that the interpretation state that: 

“Any COTS hardware specified or used as part of a voting system shall have FCC 

Class B and CE marks affixed to the unit indicating that it has been certified to 

meet the emissions, immunity and safety requirements of the domestic and 

international ITE standards. Such equipment will not require additional VVSGspecified hardware testing.” 

To properly frame this interpretation, some background information on FCC (Federal 

Communications Commission) Class B (Class B is for areas where emissions must be 

low—near an airport, ATM equipment, hospitals or residential areas—and is more 

stringent on the level of radiated emissions allowed.) and CE Mark (The letters "CE" are 

the abbreviation of French phrase "Conformité Européene" which literally means 

"European Conformity".) requirements is necessary. The United States has NO legal 

requirements for RF (Radio Frequency) disruption. While manufacturers typically test 

their equipment in order to improve customer satisfaction, to assure this was done would 

require some affirmative statement from the manufacturer. 

Europe does require immunity to RF disruption and several other areas not mandatory in 

the United States. The CE Mark is a manufacturer’s self-declaration that a device meets 

the applicable standards. Note that the manufacturer is not required to do any testing, 

(although the majority of larger companies do perform rigorous testing) but is required to 

be prepared to defend their claim. The manufacturer is required to present at import a 

Declaration of Conformity listing the standards to which it is claiming to be compliant. If 

a European regulatory body requests it, the manufacturer has 10 days to deliver a 

Technical Construction File which contains the justification for the manufacturer’s 

claims. Typically this file will contain the test reports and other documentation. 

Given these facts, and the other information presented, the EAC interprets Section 4.2.1 

of Volume 1 of the 2005 VVSG to permit voting system manufacturers to use COTS 

hardware (as defined for this interpretation and noted above) in their system provided the 

following requirements are met: 

1. As required by the VVSG, any COTS products modified by the manufacturer in 

any way are tested to the full requirements of the 2005 VVSG. 

2. COTS products falling under this interpretation used as part of a voting system 

shall have FCC Class B and CE Marks affixed to the unit indicating that the 

product has been certified to meet these requirements. The VSTL shall receive, 

as part of the Technical Data Package, a copy of the COTS manufacturer’s 

Declaration of Conformity confirming that the manufacturer is claiming 

2
compliance with the standards stated. If the VSTL is at any time uncertain of a 

products status, or has reason to question this status, the VSTL shall request and 

be sent the Technical Construction File within 10 days of such request so that the 

VSTL may independently verify that the product has been tested to “the 

equivalent of these Guidelines.” The EAC, at its discretion, shall also have the 

authority to request the Technical Construction File from the product 

manufacturer, to verify claims of conformance, and to receive the file within 10 

days of such request. 

3. The VSTLs shall perform full independent functional integration and attachment 

testing of the COTS hardware product specified by the manufacturer. 

The EAC finds no merit in the interpretation that Section 4.2.1 requires full testing of 

unmodified COTS equipment to every applicable standard in the 2005 VVSG. 

3