[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10880-10948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03467]
[[Page 10879]]
Vol. 80
Friday,
No. 39
February 27, 2015
Part III
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and
Guidelines; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 10880]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194
[Docket No. ATBCB-2015-0002]
RIN 3014-AA37
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and
Guidelines
AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(Access Board or Board), is proposing to revise and update, in a single
document, both its standards for electronic and information technology
developed, procured, maintained, or used by federal agencies covered by
section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and its guidelines for
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment covered by
Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934. The proposed revisions
and updates to the section 508-based standards and section 255-based
guidelines are intended to ensure that information and communication
technology covered by the respective statutes is accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities.
DATES: Submit comments by May 28, 2015. Two hearings will be held on
the proposed rule on:
1. March 5, 2015, 9:30 to 11:30 a.m., San Diego, CA and
2. March 11, 2015, 9:30 to 11:30 a.m., Washington, DC.
To preregister to testify at either of the hearings, contact Kathy
Johnson at (202) 272-0041 (voice), (202) 272-0082 (TTY), or
board.gov">johnson@access-board.gov.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Regulations.gov ID
for this docket is ATBCB-2015-0002.
Email: board.gov">docket@access-board.gov. Include docket number
ATBCB-2015-0002 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: 202-272-0081.
Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Technical and
Information Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004-1111.
All comments, including any personal information provided, will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and be available
for public viewing.
The hearing locations are:
1. San Diego, CA: Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel (Mission Beach A &
B, 3rd floor), One Market Place, San Diego, CA 92101.
2. Washington, DC: Access Board conference room, 1331 F Street NW.,
Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.
Witnesses can testify in person at the hearing in San Diego.
Witnesses can testify in person or by telephone at the hearing in
Washington, DC. Copies of the rule will not be available at the
hearings. Call-in information and a communication access real-time
translation (CART) web streaming link for the Washington, DC hearing
will be posted on the Access Board's Web site at http://www.access-board.gov/ictrefresh. The hearings will be accessible to persons with
disabilities. An assistive listening system, communication access real-
time translation, and sign language interpreters will be provided.
Persons attending the meetings are requested to refrain from using
perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other
participants (see www.accessboard.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Creagan, Access Board, 1331 F
Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone: (202)
272-0016 (voice) or (202) 272-0074 (TTY). Email address: board.gov">508@access-board.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Executive Summary
III. Statutory Background
IV. Rulemaking History
V. Major Issues
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis
VII. Effective Date
VIII. Regulatory Process Matters
In this preamble, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board is referred to as ``Access Board,'' ``Board,'' ``we,''
or ``our.''
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
The Access Board encourages all persons interested in the
rulemaking to submit comments on this proposed rule, as well as the
preliminary assessment of its estimated benefits and costs. While the
Board invites comment on any aspect of our proposed rule and regulatory
assessment, we particularly seek information and data in response to
the questions posed throughout this preamble. Instructions for
submitting and viewing comments are provided under the Addresses
heading above. The Board will consider all timely comments and may
change the proposed rule based on such comments.
II. Executive Summary
Purpose and Legal Authority
We are proposing to update our existing Electronic and Information
Technology Accessibility Standards under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (``508 Standards''), as well as our
Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines under Section 255 of
the Communications Act of 1934 (``255 Guidelines''). Since the
guidelines and standards were issued in 2000 and 1998 respectively,
there has been a technological revolution, accompanied by an ever-
expanding use of technology and a proliferation of accessibility
standards globally. Technological advances have resulted in the
widespread use of multifunction devices that call into question the
ongoing utility of the product-by-product approach used in the Access
Board's existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. For example, since
the existing 508 Standards were issued in 2000, mobile phones moved
from devices with voice-only capability, to so-called ``smartphones''
offering voice, text, and video communications. Desktop computers are
no longer the only information processing hardware: Mobile devices and
tablets, which have very different input and output characteristics,
can typically process vast amounts of electronic information and
function like desktop computers or telephones. In recognition of these
converging technologies, one of the primary purposes of the proposed
rule is to replace the current product-based approach with requirements
based on functionality, and, thereby, ensure that accessibility for
people with disabilities keeps pace with advances in electronic and
information technology.
Additionally, a number of voluntary consensus standards have been
developed by standards organizations worldwide over the past decade.
Examples of these standards include: The Web Accessibility Initiative's
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, EN 301 549 V1.1.1
(2014-02), ``Accessibility requirements for public procurement of ICT
products and services in Europe,'' and the Human Factors Ergonomics
Society's ANSI/HFES 200.2 (2008) ergonomics specifications for the
design of accessible software. The harmonization with such
international standards and guidelines creates a larger marketplace
[[Page 10881]]
for accessibility solutions, thereby attracting more offerings and
increasing the likelihood of commercial availability of accessible
information and communication technology options.
These dramatic changes have led the Access Board to propose
revisions to the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. We are
proposing to update the two sets of regulatory provisions jointly to
ensure consistency in accessibility across the spectrum of
communication and electronic and information technologies and products.
The proposed standards and guidelines would support the access needs of
individuals with disabilities, while also taking into account the costs
to federal agencies and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment
of providing accessible electronic information and communication
technology.
The term ``information and communication technology'' (ICT) is used
widely throughout this preamble and the proposed rule. Unless otherwise
noted, it is intended to broadly encompass electronic and information
technology covered by Section 508, as well as telecommunications
products, interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) products,
and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) covered by Section 255. Examples
of ICT include computers, information kiosks and transaction machines,
telecommunications equipment, multifunction office machines, software,
Web sites, and electronic documents.
This proposed rule would eliminate 36 CFR part 1193 in its
entirety, revise 36 CFR 1194, and add three new appendices to Part 1194
containing the Application and Scoping Requirements for the 508
Standards (Appendix A), the Application and Scoping Requirements for
the 255 Guidelines (Appendix B), and new Technical Requirements that
apply to both Section 508-covered and Section 255-covered ICT. In this
preamble, the Board refers to specific provisions of the proposed new
508 Standards and 255 Guidelines by their proposed new section numbers:
E101-103 (508 Chapter 1: Application and Administration); E201-208 (508
Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements); C101-103 (255 Chapter 1: Application
and Administration); C201-206 (255 Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements);
301-302 (Chapter 3: Functional Performance Criteria); 401-413 (Chapter
4: Hardware); 501-504 (Chapter 5: Software); and 601-603 (Support
Documentation and Services).
Legal Authority for 508 Standards: Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (hereafter, ``Section 508''), as amended, 29
U.S.C. 794d, mandates that federal agencies ``develop, procure,
maintain, or use'' ICT in a manner that ensures federal employees with
disabilities have comparable access to and use of such information and
data relative to other federal employees, unless doing so would impose
an undue burden. The Rehabilitation Act also requires federal agencies
to ensure that members of the public with disabilities have comparable
access to publicly-available information and services unless doing so
would impose an undue burden on the agency. In accordance with section
508(a)(2)(A), the Access Board must publish standards that define
electronic and information technology along with the technical and
functional performance criteria necessary for accessibility, and
periodically review and amend the standards as appropriate. When the
Access Board revises its existing 508 Standards (whether to keep up
with technological changes or otherwise), the Rehabilitation Act
mandates that, within six months, both the Federal Acquisition
Regulatory Council (FAR Council) and federal agencies incorporate these
revised standards into their respective acquisition regulations and
procurement policies and directives. Thus, with respect to procurement-
related matters, the Access Board's 508 Standards are not self-
enforcing; rather, these standards become enforceable when adopted by
the FAR Council and federal agencies.
Legal Authority for 255 Guidelines: Section 255 of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 255 (hereafter, ``Section 255''),
requires telecommunications equipment and services to be accessible to
and usable by individuals with disabilities, where readily achievable.
``Readily achievable'' is defined in the statute as ``easily
accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or
expense.'' In determining whether an access feature is readily
achievable, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has
exclusive authority over enforcement under Section 255, has directed
telecommunications equipment manufacturers and service providers to
weigh the nature and cost of that feature against the individual
company's overall financial resources, taking into account such factors
as the type, size, and nature of its business operation. Under Section
255, the Access Board is required to develop guidelines for the
accessibility of telecommunications equipment and customer premises
equipment in conjunction with the FCC and to review and update the
guidelines periodically. The FCC is responsible for enforcing Section
255 and issuing implementing regulations; it is not bound to adopt the
Access Board's guidelines as its own or to use them as minimum
requirements.
Summary of Key Provisions
A. Proposed 508 Standards
The proposed standards replace the current product-based approach
with a functionality-based approach. The proposed technical
requirements, which are organized along the lines of ICT functionality,
provide standards to ensure that covered hardware, software, electronic
content, and support documentation and services are accessible to
people with disabilities. In addition, the proposed standards include
functional performance criteria, which are outcome-based provisions for
cases in which the proposed technical requirements do not address one
or more features of ICT. The four major changes in the proposed 508
Standards are:
Broad application of WCAG 2.0: The proposed rule would
incorporate by reference the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG) 2.0, a voluntary consensus standard developed by ICT industry
representatives and other experts. It would also make WCAG 2.0 Success
Criteria applicable not only to content on the ``World Wide Web''
(hereafter, Web), but also to non-Web electronic documents and software
(e.g., word processing documents, portable document format files, and
project management software). By applying a single set of requirements
to Web sites, electronic documents, and software, this proposed
provision would adapt the 508 Standards to reflect the newer
multifunction technologies (e.g., smartphones that have
telecommunications functions, video cameras, and computer-like data
processing capabilities) and address the accessibility challenges that
these technologies pose for individuals with disabilities.
Delineation of covered electronic ``content'': The
proposed rule would also specify that all types of public facing
content, as well as eight enumerated categories of non-public facing
content that communicate agency official business, would have to be
accessible, with ``content'' encompassing all forms of electronic
information and data. The existing standards require federal agencies
to make electronic information and data accessible, but do not
delineate clearly the scope of covered information and data; as a
result, document accessibility has been inconsistent across federal
[[Page 10882]]
agencies. By focusing on public facing content and certain types of
agency official communications that are not public facing, the proposed
rule would bring needed clarity to the scope of electronic content
covered by the 508 Standards and, thereby, help federal agencies make
electronic content accessible more consistently.
Expanded interoperability requirements: The existing
standards require ICT to be compatible with assistive technology--that
is, hardware or software that increases or maintains functional
capabilities of individuals with disabilities (e.g., screen magnifiers
or refreshable braille displays). But, because this requirement has
given rise to ambiguity in application, the proposed rule would provide
more specificity about how operating systems, software development
toolkits, and software applications should interact with assistive
technology. These proposed requirements would allow assistive
technology users to take full advantage of the functionalities that ICT
products provide.
Requirement for RTT functionality: The proposed standards
would require real-time text (RTT) functionality wherever an ICT
product provides real-time, two-way voice communication. RTT is defined
in the proposed rule as text that is transmitted character by character
as it is being typed. An RTT recipient can read a message while it is
being written, without waiting for the message to be completed; this is
different from other message technologies such as ``short messaging
service'', or SMS, which transmit the entire message only after typing
is complete. This proposed requirement would have an impact on federal
agencies as well as ICT providers, federal employees, and members of
the public.
B. Proposed 255 Guidelines
Given the trend toward convergence of technologies and ICT
networks, the Access Board is updating the 255 Guidelines at the same
time that it is updating the 508 Standards. The existing guidelines
include detailed requirements for the accessibility, usability, and
compatibility of telecommunications equipment and customer premises
equipment. For example, the guidelines require input, output, display,
control, and mechanical functions to be accessible to individuals with
disabilities. The compatibility requirements focus on the need for
standard connectors, compatibility of controls with prosthetics, and
TTY compatibility. The guidelines define ``usable'' as providing access
to information about how to use a product, and direct that
instructions, product information, documentation, and technical support
for users with disabilities be functionally equivalent to that provided
to individuals without disabilities. The proposed guidelines include
many non-substantive revisions to the existing requirements for clarity
along with a few important new provisions. Two notable proposed
additions to the proposed 255 Guidelines are:
Requirement for RTT functionality: Just as the proposed
508 Standards would require federal agencies to offer RTT functionality
in certain ICT, the proposed 255 Guidelines would require the
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment to provide RTT
functionality wherever a telecommunications product provides real-time,
two-way voice communication. This proposed requirement would allow
people who are deaf or hard of hearing to have faster and more natural
conversations than the current text-messaging functionality.
Application of WCAG 2.0 to electronic documents: The
proposed 255 Guidelines would preserve the current requirement that
when a document is provided in a non-electronic format, alternate
formats (such as large-print or braille) usable by individuals with
vision impairments need to be provided. The proposed guidelines also
would require documentation in electronic formats--including Web-based
self-service support and electronic documents--to conform to all Level
A and AA Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0 or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1). This
proposal for accessible electronic support documentation is derived
from the existing guidelines, but would newly require compliance with
WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1. This proposal is intended to address the problem
that many online product (or support) documents for telecommunications
equipment are inaccessible to individuals with visual impairments.
Summary of Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
Consistent with the obligation that federal agencies under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 propose and adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that benefits justify costs, the proposed
rule has been evaluated from a benefit-cost perspective in a
preliminary regulatory impact analysis (Preliminary RIA) prepared by
the Board's consulting economic firm. The focus of the Preliminary RIA
is to define and, where possible, quantify and monetize the potential
economic benefits and costs of the proposed 508 Standards and 255
Guidelines. We summarize its methodology and results below; a complete
copy of this regulatory assessment is available on the Access Board's
Web site (www.access-board.gov), as well as the federal government's
online rulemaking portal (www.regulations.gov).
To estimate likely incremental compliance costs attributable to the
proposed rule, the Preliminary RIA estimates, quantifies, and monetizes
costs in the following broad areas: (1) Costs to federal agencies and
contractors related to policy development, employee training,
development of accessible ICT, evaluation of ICT, and creation or
remediation electronic documents; and (2) costs to manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment of
ensuring that that their respective Web sites and electronic support
documentation conform to accessibility standards, including WCAG 2.0.
On the benefits side, the Preliminary RIA estimates likely
incremental benefits by monetizing the value of three categories of
benefits expected to accrue from the proposed 508 Standards: (a)
Increased productivity of federal employees with certain disabilities
who are expected to benefit from improved ICT accessibility; (b) time
saved by members of the public with certain disabilities when using
more accessible federal Web sites; and (c) reduced phone calls to
federal agencies as members of the public with certain disabilities
shift their inquiries and transactions online due to improved
accessibility of federal Web sites. The Preliminary RIA, for analytical
purposes, defines the beneficiary population as persons with vision,
hearing, and speech disabilities, as well as those with manipulation,
reach, or strength limitations. The Preliminary RIA does not formally
quantify or monetize benefits accruing from the proposed 255 Guidelines
due to insufficient data and methodological constraints.
Table 1 below summarizes the results from the Preliminary RIA with
respect to the likely monetized benefits and costs, on an annualized
basis, from the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. All
monetized benefits and costs are incremental to the applicable
baseline, and were estimated for a 10-year time horizon using discount
rates of 7 and 3 percent.
[[Page 10883]]
Table 1--Annualized Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs Under the Proposed Rule, 2015-2024
[In 2015 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate (in 3% discount rate (in
millions) millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized incremental benefits to federal agencies, members of $69.1 $67.5
the public with vision disabilities (under proposed 508
Standards)...................................................
Monetized incremental costs to federal agencies (under $155.0 $146.8
proposed 508 Standards)......................................
Monetized incremental costs to telecommunications equipment $10.6 $9.8
manufacturers (under proposed 255 Guidelines)................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Preliminary RIA monetizes likely incremental benefits and
costs attributable to the proposed rule, this represents only part of
the regulatory picture. Today, though ICT is now woven into the very
fabric of everyday life, millions of Americans with disabilities often
find themselves unable to use--or use effectively--computers, mobile
devices, federal agency Web sites, or electronic content. The Board's
existing standards and guidelines are greatly in need of a ``refresh''
to keep up with technological changes over the past fifteen years. The
Board expects this proposed rule to be a major step toward ensuring
that ICT is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities--
both in the federal workplace and society generally. Indeed, much--if
not most--of the significant benefits expected to accrue from the
proposed rule are difficult if not impossible to quantify, including:
Greater social equality, human dignity, and fairness. Each of these
values is explicitly recognized by Executive Order 13563 as important
qualitative considerations in regulatory analyses.
Moreover, American companies that manufacture telecommunications
equipment and ICT-related products would likely derive significant
benefits from the harmonized accessibility standards. Given the
relative lack of existing national and globally-recognized standards
for accessibility of mobile technologies, telecommunications equipment
manufacturers would greatly benefit from harmonization of the 255
guidelines with consensus standards. Similar benefits would likely
accrue more generally to all ICT-related products as a result of
harmonization.
It is also equally important to note that some potentially
substantial incremental costs arising from the proposed rule are not
evaluated in the Preliminary RIA, either because such costs could not
be quantified or monetized (due to lack of data or for other
methodological reasons) or are inherently qualitative. The impact of
the proposed 255 Guidelines on telecommunications equipment
manufacturers is, as the Preliminary RIA notes, particularly difficult
to quantify due to lack of cost data and a dynamic telecommunications
marketplace. As a consequence, for example, the Preliminary RIA thus
neither quantifies nor monetizes potential compliance costs related to
the proposed requirement that ICT providing real-time, two-way voice
communication support RTT functionality.
The Access Board welcomes comments on all aspects of the
Preliminary RIA to improve the assumptions, methodology, and estimates
of the incremental benefits and costs of the proposed rule. The full
Preliminary RIA posted on the Board's Web site poses numerous
regulatory assessment-related questions or areas for public comment,
and interested parties are encouraged to review that document and
provide responsive data and other information. In addition, the Board
sets forth below--in the section providing a more in-depth discussion
of the Preliminary RIA--several additional questions on which it seeks
input. See Section VIII.A.6 (Regulatory Process Matters--Preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis--Conclusion).
III. Statutory Background
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended
(hereafter, ``Section 508''), calls for the Access Board to issue and
publish standards setting forth the technical and functional
performance criteria necessary to implement the Act's accessibility
requirements for electronic and information technology. The statute
also provides that the Board shall periodically review and, as
appropriate, amend the standards to reflect technological advances or
changes in electronic and information technology. This proposed rule
uses the term ``508 Standards'' to refer to the standards called for by
the Rehabilitation Act.
Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(hereafter, ``Section 255''), tasks the Access Board with the
development of guidelines for accessibility of telecommunications
equipment and customer premises equipment, and provides that the Board
shall review and update the guidelines periodically. Note that
reference is made here to ``Section 255 of the Communications Act,''
rather than the commonly used reference to ``Section 255 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996'' because the Telecommunications Act
does not itself contain a section 255. Instead, the Telecommunications
Act amended the Communications Act by adding a new section 255 to it.
Therefore, for the sake of simplicity and accuracy, this proposed rule
uses the term ``255 Guidelines'' to refer to the guidelines called for
by the amended Communications Act.
As noted in the Summary above, this proposed rule seeks to revise
and update both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines in a single
rulemaking. The Access Board is taking this approach because we feel
that the two sets of requirements, by virtue of their subject matter,
are inextricably linked from a regulatory and policy perspective.
IV. Rulemaking History
A. Existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines (1998-2000)
We issued the 255 Guidelines in 1998, 63 FR 5608 (Feb. 3, 1998),
and these are available on our Web site at www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-telecommunications-act-guidelines/section-255-guidelines. The Board's
508 Standards, issued in 2000, 65 FR 80500 (Dec. 21, 2000), are
available at www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/section-508-standards. They were codified in 36 CFR part 1193 and 36 CFR part 1194,
respectively. In this preamble, all citations to 36 CFR part 1193 refer
to the existing 255 Guidelines in force since 1998, while all citations
to 36 CFR part 1194 refer to the existing 508 Standards in force since
2000.
The existing 508 Standards require federal agencies to ensure that
persons
[[Page 10884]]
with disabilities--namely, federal employees with disabilities and
members of the public with disabilities--have comparable access to, and
use of, electronic and information technology (regardless of the type
of medium) absent a showing of undue burden. See 36 CFR part 1194.
Among other things, these standards: Define key terms (such as
``electronic and information technology'' and ``undue burden'');
establish technical requirements and functional performance criteria
for covered information and technologies; require agencies to document
undue burden determinations when procuring covered products; and
mandate accessibility of support documentation and services. Generally
speaking, the existing 508 Standards take a product-based regulatory
approach in that technical requirements for electronic and information
technology are grouped by product type: Software applications and
operating systems; Web-based intranet and Internet information and
applications; telecommunications products; self-contained, closed
products; and desktop and portable computers.
The existing 255 Guidelines require manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment to ensure
that new and substantially upgraded existing equipment is accessible
to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities when readily
achievable. See 36 CFR part 1193. The existing guidelines, as with the
508 Standards, define key terms (such as ``telecommunications
equipment'' and ``readily achievable'') and establish technical
requirements for covered equipment, software, and support
documentation. These guidelines also require manufacturers of covered
equipment to consider inclusion of individuals with disabilities in
their respective processes for product design, testing, trials, or
market research.
B. Advisory Committee and Final Report (2006-2008)
In the years following our initial promulgation of the 508
Standards and 255 Guidelines, technology continued to evolve at a rapid
pace. Pursuant to our statutory mandate, the Board deemed it necessary
and appropriate to review and update the 508 Standards and 255
Guidelines in order to make them consistent with one another and
reflective of technological changes. The Board formed the
Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory
Committee (hereafter, ``Advisory Committee'') in 2006 to review the
existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines and recommend amendments. The
Advisory Committee's forty-one members comprised a broad cross-section
of stakeholders representing industry, disability groups, and
government agencies. The Advisory Committee also included
representatives from the European Commission, Canada, Australia, and
Japan. The Advisory Committee recognized the importance of
standardization across markets worldwide and coordinated its work with
standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and abroad, such as the World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C[supreg]), and with the European Commission. The
Advisory Committee addressed a range of issues, including new or
convergent technologies, market forces, and international
harmonization.
On April 3, 2008, the Advisory Committee presented us with its
report (hereafter, ``TEITAC Report'') recommending amendments to the
508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. The TEITAC Report is available at
www.access-board.gov/teitac-report.
C. First Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2010)
1. General
Based on the TEITAC Report, the Board developed an Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking in 2010 (2010 ANPRM) to update the 508 Standards
as well as the 255 Guidelines. On the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee, the Board used the phrase ``Information and Communication
Technology'' (ICT) to collectively refer to the products addressed by
the rules. A complete discussion of this proposed change is found in
Section VI.B (Section-by-Section Analysis--508 Standards: Application
and Scoping--E103), and Section VI.C (Section-by-Section Analysis--255
Guidelines: Application and Scoping--C103). The 2010 ANPRM was
published in the Federal Register, 75 FR 13457 (March 22, 2010), and is
available at www.access-board.gov/ict2010anprm.
2. Structure
The 2010 ANPRM began with two separate introductory chapters. ``508
Chapter 1: Application and Administration,'' contained provisions
preceded by the letter ``E,'' and included scoping, application, and
definition provisions particular to the 508 Standards. ``255 Chapter 1:
Application and Administration,'' contained provisions preceded by the
letter ``C,'' and included similar provisions particular to the 255
Guidelines. The 2010 ANPRM also included, in Chapter 2, a common set of
functional performance criteria for the 508 Standards and the 255
Guidelines that required ICT to provide access to all functionality in
at least one of each of ten specified modes. Chapter 3 contained
technical requirements applicable to features of ICT found across a
variety of platforms, formats, and media.
Chapters 4, 5, and 6 all contained technical requirements that were
closely adapted from the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
2.0 Success Criteria but rephrased as mandatory requirements. Chapter 4
addressed platforms, applications, interactive content, and
applications. Chapter 5 covered access to electronic documents and
common interactive elements found in content, and Chapter 6 addressed
access to audio and visual content, as well as players of such content.
Chapter 7 addressed hardware aspects of ICT, such as standard
connections and reach ranges. Chapter 8 addressed ICT with audio output
functionality when that output is necessary to inform, alert, or
transmit information or data. Chapter 9 addressed ICT supporting real-
time simultaneous conversation in audio, text, or video formats and
Chapter 10 covered product support documentation and services.
3. Hearings and General Comments
The Access Board held two public hearings on the 2010 ANPRM--March
2010 (San Diego, CA) and July 2010 (Washington, DC). We also received
384 written comments during the comment period. Comments came from
industry, federal and state governments, foreign and domestic companies
specializing in information technology, disability advocacy groups,
manufacturers of hardware and software, trade associations,
institutions of higher education, research and trade organizations,
accessibility consultants, assistive technology industry and related
organizations, and individuals.
In general, commenters agreed with our approach to addressing the
accessibility of ICT through functionality rather than discrete product
types. Commenters also expressed strong support for our efforts to
update the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, as well as our decision to
follow the Advisory Committee's recommendation to require harmonization
with WCAG 2.0. However, many commenters expressed concern that the 2010
ANPRM was not user-friendly, e.g., that it was too long (at close to
100 pages), organized in a
[[Page 10885]]
confusing manner, and suffered from some internal inconsistencies. For
example, commenters noted confusion by virtue of the fact that some
chapters focused on functional features of accessibility while others
addressed specific types of technology, or that the meaning of ``ICT''
seemed to vary depending on the context of the specific chapter.
D. Second Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2011 ANPRM)
1. General
Upon reviewing the extensive and detailed comments on the 2010
ANPRM, the Board realized the need to reorganize the structure of the
proposed rule. More importantly, we needed to obtain further public
comment on major issues and harmonize with the European Commission's
ICT standardization efforts that were already underway at that time.
Accordingly, the Board issued a second ANPRM (2011 ANPRM) that, as
discussed in detail below, differed significantly from the 2010 ANPRM
in terms of both structure and content. The 2011 ANPRM was published in
the Federal Register, 76 FR 76640 (Dec. 8, 2011), and is also available
at www.access-board.gov/ict2011anprm.
2. Structure
In response to public comments on the 2010 ANPRM that the length
and organization of the document made it unwieldy, the Board
consolidated and streamlined provisions into six chapters (from ten),
consolidated advisories, and reduced the page count from close to 100
to less than 50. The Board also removed scoping and application
language from the chapters containing technical provisions and
relocated them to new chapters applicable to Section 508 (508 Chapters
1 and 2) and Section 255 (255 Chapters 1 and 2) respectively. We
revised the overall structure of the functional performance criteria so
that the provisions had parallel structure, and grouped technical
requirements for similar functions together in the same chapter. To
address inconsistencies in the 2010 ANPRM, where some chapters focused
on features of products and others addressed specific types of
products, the Board standardized its approach by removing references to
types of products while focusing instead on specific features of
products. We also removed specific proposed requirements relating to
Web and non-Web content, documents and user applications, and
referenced WCAG 2.0 instead.
3. Hearings and General Comments
Hearings were held in January 2012 in Washington, DC and in March
2012 in San Diego, CA. Additionally, ninety-one written comments were
received in response to the 2011 ANPRM. Comments came from industry,
federal and state governments, foreign and domestic companies
specializing in information technology, disability advocacy groups,
manufacturers of hardware and software, trade associations and trade
organizations, institutions of higher education and research,
accessibility consultants, assistive technology industry and related
organizations, and individual stakeholders who did not identify with
any of these groups.
In general, commenters continued to agree with our approach to
address ICT accessibility by focusing on features, rather than discrete
product types. Commenters supported the conciseness of the proposed
provisions in the 2011 ANPRM, and asked for further streamlining where
possible. Comments addressed a variety of other topics, which are
discussed below in Section IV.E. (Rulemaking History--2010 and 2011
ANPRMs: Significant Issues), and Section V (Major Issues).
E. 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues
In this section, the Board collectively reviews the principle
issues from the 2010 ANPRM and 2011 ANPRM in consolidated fashion.
1. Evolving Approach to Covered Electronic Content
Nearly two decades have passed since promulgation of the existing
508 Standards. Since that time, the types of--and uses for--electronic
documents and other content have grown tremendously. This growth,
coupled with the fact that the existing standards do not clearly spell
out the scope of covered electronic content, led to inconsistencies in
accessibility of electronic data and information across federal
agencies. One of the goals of this rulemaking is thus to provide
updated standards for electronic content that clearly delineate the
accessibility requirements applicable to electronic content.
In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed that, when federal agencies
communicate using electronic content, that content would be required to
comply with the revised 508 Standards when ``(a) an official
communication by the agency or a representative of the agency to
federal employees which contains information necessary for them to
perform their job functions; or (b) an official communication by an
agency or a representative of the agency to a member of the public,
which is necessary for them to conduct official business with the
agency as defined by the agency's mission.'' Many commenters disagreed
with this approach because, in their view, all agency communications
would fall into one of the two categories, and therefore no content
would be exempt. In addition, commenters feared that our approach would
require each employee to be capable of creating accessible content for
all of his or her own individual communications. According to the
commenters, this, in turn, would require costly training without
necessarily resulting in greater accessibility.
We responded to these concerns in the 2011 ANPRM by proposing that
electronic content need be made accessible only if it both communicated
official agency business to a federal employee or a member of the
public and fell into one of nine specified categories: (1) Content that
is public facing; (2) content that is broadly disseminated throughout
an agency, including templates; (3) letters adjudicating any cause
within the agency's jurisdiction; (4) internal or external program and
policy announcements; (5) notices of benefits, program eligibility, and
employment opportunities and decisions; (6) forms, questionnaires, and
surveys; (7) emergency notifications; (8) formal acknowledgements and
receipts; and (9) educational and training materials. This included all
formats of official communications by agencies, including Web pages,
postings on social media, and email. Our intent was to clarify what
information and data would be required to be accessible without placing
an undue burden on government communications and operations.
Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM generally supported this approach.
However, one commenter expressed concern that limiting coverage of
electronic content to certain specific categories could lead to a non-
inclusive work environment for employees and that agencies would make
accessible only that content covered by the 508 Standards to the
exclusion of anything else. Some commenters recommended that the Board
associate templates with forms in one category and differentiate that
category from the category containing questionnaires and surveys.
Several commenters--including federal agencies--found the language in
the provision on content that was ``broadly disseminated'' to be vague
and
[[Page 10886]]
overbroad, and requested that this provision be either revised or
withdrawn.
Another key issue addressed in the Board's advance notices of
proposed rulemaking was the scope of exceptions to covered content. In
the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed an exception for content stored
solely for archival purposes or retained solely to preserve the exact
image of the original hard copy. We retained that exception in the 2011
ANPRM, but added a second exception for ``works in progress and drafts
that are not public facing and that are intended for limited internal
distribution.''
Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM raised many questions as to how those
exceptions would apply. For example, some commenters expressed
confusion about the exception for archival materials. Many commenters
viewed ``archival'' as referring to content preserved in agencies'
internal information technology content management systems, rather than
public records preservation generally, and asked us to clarify what the
Board meant by the term. Other commenters expressed concern that
otherwise accessible materials might be rendered inaccessible during
the archiving process.
In addition to making significant revisions in the 2011 ANPRM to
covered content under the proposed 508 Standards, the Board also
amended our approach to content subject to the 255 Guidelines. We
proposed that ``electronic content integral to the use of ICT'' covered
by the 255 Guidelines must conform to Level A and Level AA Success
Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages in WCAG
2.0, as incorporated by reference in C102 (Referenced Standards). The
Board received no comments on this provision in the 2011 ANPRM.
In this proposed rule, the Board clarifies areas of confusion and
makes various other changes to the scope of covered electronic content.
We discuss our approach in further detail in Section V.A (Major
Issues--Electronic Content), Section VI.B (Section-by-Section
Analysis--508 Standards: Application and Scoping--E205), and Section
VI.C (Section-by-Section Analysis--Technical Requirements--C203).
2. Treatment of WCAG 2.0
The Access Board and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)--the
leading international standards organization for the World Wide Web--
share a rich history of collaboration on guidelines for Web site
accessibility. The existing 508 Standards and WCAG 1.0 were under
development around the same time period in the late 1990s; WCAG 1.0 was
finalized in May 1999, and the existing 508 Standards shortly
thereafter in December 2000. The existing 508 Standards, Sec.
1194.22--which addresses ``Web-based Intranet and Internet Information
and Applications''--has two endnotes, the first of which notes the
Board's view that eleven out of our sixteen provisions of the standards
are consistent with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0
Priority 1 Checkpoints. The remaining five provisions in that section
do not have close analogs to WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 checkpoints, but they
strongly influenced the development of the next iteration of WCAG, WCAG
2.0.
As part of the 508 Standards refresh, the Advisory Committee
recommended--and the Access Board agreed--that closer harmonization
with WCAG 2.0 was necessary to promote greater accessibility.
Consequently, in the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed to include most
Level A and Level AA WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. However, rather than
using the text of relevant portions of WCAG 2.0 verbatim, the Board
restated those Success Criteria in mandatory language thought to be
better suited for a regulatory environment. Comments to the 2010 ANPRM
identified three major problems with that approach. First, many
expressed concern that rephrasing WCAG 2.0's Success Criteria would
introduce discrepancies in, and fragmentation of, the 508 Standards.
Second, other commenters feared that rephrasing of success criteria,
rather than incorporating WCAG 2.0 by reference, would make dynamic
linkages in the online version of WCAG 2.0 to important supplementary
information less available to the reader. These commenters emphasized
the usefulness of the online in-context hypertext links to robust
guidance materials as aids for understanding and applying the WCAG 2.0
Success Criteria. Lastly, commenters found our division of provisions
(including the many rephrased WCAG Success Criteria) into those
respectively oriented towards either documents or software to be
somewhat arbitrary and counterproductive.
In response to these comments, the Access Board substantially
revised the approach to WCAG 2.0 in the 2011 ANPRM. We proposed to
require all covered content to conform to WCAG 2.0, which would be
incorporated by reference in the proposed 508 Standards.
Commenters generally voiced strong support for the Board's decision
to incorporate by reference WCAG 2.0 and apply it to all types of
covered ICT, rather than simply seeking harmonization between WCAG 2.0
and the proposed rule. While commenters expressed concern as to how
closely WCAG 2.0 would apply to some types of content, they generally
supported the concept of expanding the application of WCAG 2.0 to all
types of Web and non-Web ICT. A few commenters, including
representatives of the software industry, also suggested that the rule
allow for compliance with any subsequent and, as yet unpublished,
revisions to WCAG 2.0 by the W3C.
Some commenters, on the other hand, requested that the Board return
to its previous approach in the 2010 ANPRM, rather than incorporate
WCAG 2.0 by reference. Most of these commenters believed that this
approach would make the Board's rule easier to use because the
necessary text would be contained in a single document. Some of these
commenters also asserted that the structure of WCAG 2.0 is confusing
and makes it difficult to separate the normative and non-normative
portions.
In this NPRM, the Board is retaining the Level A and Level AA
Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 for all ICT
subject to Sections 508 and 255, including documents and software. The
Board also proposes, as in the 2011 ANPRM, to incorporate WCAG 2.0 by
reference, rather than restating its requirements in the proposed rule.
Incorporating the WCAG Success Criteria verbatim in the rule would be
unhelpful because they are best understood within the context of the
original source materials. WCAG 2.0 incorporates context-sensitive
hypertext links to supporting advisory materials. The two core linked
resources are Understanding WCAG 2.0 and Techniques for WCAG 2.0. The
first provides background information, including discussion of the
intention behind each of the success criteria. The second provides
model sample code for conformance. The linked expository of documents,
which is publicly available online free of charge, comprise a rich and
informative source of detailed technical assistance and are updated
regularly by standing working committees. These linked resources are
not themselves requirements and agencies adopting WCAG 2.0 are not
bound by them.
The Board cannot accept the suggestion of software industry
representatives that the proposed rule permit compliance with any
follow-on versions of WCAG 2.0. Federal agencies cannot ``dynamically''
incorporate by reference future editions of consensus
[[Page 10887]]
standards.\1\ Such action is legally prohibited since it would, among
other things, unlawfully delegate the government's regulatory authority
to standards development organizations, as well as bypass rulemaking
requirements (which would typically include a public
notice[hyphen]and[hyphen]comment period). Federal agencies are required
to identify the particular version of consensus standards incorporated
by reference in a regulation. When an updated edition of a consensus
standard is published, the agency must revise its regulation if it
seeks to incorporate any of the new material. Nevertheless, the Access
Board plans to remain abreast of updates to voluntary consensus
standards bearing on ICT, and will consider incorporating them into
future rulemakings, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., 1 CFR 51.1(f) (2014) (``Incorporation by
reference of a publication is limited to the edition of the
publication that is approved [by the Office of Federal Register].
Future amendments or revisions of the publication are not
included.''); Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the
President, OMB Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the
Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities (1998); see also Nat'l Archives &
Records Admin., Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, Ch. 6
(April 2014 Revision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We discuss incorporation of WCAG 2.0 in further detail below in
Section V.B (Major Issues--WCAG 2.0 Incorporation by Reference),
Section VI.B (Section-by-Section Analysis--508 Standards: Application
and Scoping--E205 and E207.2), and Section VI.C (Section-by-Section
Analysis--255 Guidelines: Application and Scoping--C203 and C205.2).
3. Relationship Between Functional Performance Criteria and Technical
Provisions
Over the years, agencies and other stakeholders had expressed
confusion concerning the interaction between the technical requirements
and functional performance criteria in the existing 508 Standards. To
address this confusion, in the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed language
to clarify that ICT may be deemed accessible if satisfying all
applicable technical requirements, irrespective of whether the
functional performance criteria had been met. In other words, the Board
proposed that the technical requirements took precedence over the
functional performance criteria in the sense that agencies should look
first to applicable technical provisions, and only turn to the
functional performance criteria when such requirements did not fully
address the technology at issue. Commenters objected to this approach,
citing the concern that ICT procurements satisfying only the technical
requirements would not necessarily ensure sufficient access to
individuals with disabilities.
We responded to this concern by proposing in the 2011 ANPRM that
ICT be required to conform to the functional performance criteria in
every case, even when technical provisions were met. We also proposed
to use the functional performance criteria (as did the 2010 ANPRM) to
evaluate equivalent facilitation. That is, a covered entity would have
the option of applying the concept of equivalent facilitation in order
to achieve conformance with the intent of the technical requirements,
provided that the alternative afforded individuals with disabilities
substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and usability than
would result from compliance with the technical requirements.
Some commenters, such as those representing federal agencies, the
disability community, and other interested parties applauded this
approach. Other commenters representing industry objected, noting that
functional performance criteria are subjective and cannot be tested
objectively. Industry commenters stated that they could not guarantee
that the functional performance criteria had been met unless they
controlled all the components of the end-to-end solution.
In this NPRM, the Board is not proposing that the functional
performance criteria apply in every case. However, the Board does
propose application of the functional performance criteria (with some
modifications) to determine equivalent facilitation (E101.2 and
C101.2), and to assess accessibility when technical provisions do not
address one or more features of ICT. The Board discusses this issue in
further detail below in Section V.C (Major Issues--Functional
Performance Criteria), Section VI.B (Section-by-Section Analysis--508
Standards: Application and Scoping--E203 and E204), and Section VI.C
(Section-by-Section Analysis--255 Guidelines: Application and Scoping--
C202).
4. Coverage of Real-Time Text
As noted previously, the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines
were promulgated nearly fifteen years ago. At that time, TTYs were the
most commonly available text-based system for communicating within a
voice communication system. Since then, technology has greatly advanced
to the point where, in addition to TTYs, multiple text-based means of
communication are available in the marketplace. One such emerging means
of communication is real-time text technology. RTT technology provides
the ability to communicate using text messages that are transmitted in
near real-time as each character is typed, rather than as a block of
text after the entire message is completed. RTT is important as an
equivalent alternative to voice communications for persons who are
deaf, or who have limited hearing or speech impairments. It allows the
recipient to read the sender's text as soon as it is entered, thus
making RTT more conversational and interactive, in a manner similar to
a telephone conversation. This also makes RTT particularly useful in an
emergency situation when speed and accuracy of a message--or even a
partial message--are critical.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pursuant to the Twenty-First Century Communications and
Video Accessibility Act of 2010, the FCC formed an Emergency Access
Advisory Committee. In January 2012, the committee issued an
``Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC) Report and
Recommendations.'' In the report, the committee discussed a number
of policy and technical recommendations. These recommendations cover
both interim and future action in Emergency Communications (see
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312161A1.doc).
In Appendix C to the report, the committee recommended that
terminals offering real-time text conversation support ITU-T
Recommendation T.140 and that text conversation be provided
according to RFC 4103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Advisory Committee examined real-time text technology and
recommended that the Board update the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines
to include specifications for RTT. More specifically, the Advisory
Committee recommended that, when hardware or software provides real-
time voice conversation functionality, it must provide at least one
means of RTT communication. See TEITAC Report, Part 6, Subpt. C, Rec.
6-A. With respect to interoperability (i.e., operating outside a closed
network), the Committee had two recommendations. First, the Advisory
Committee recommended use of the TIA 825-A (Baudot) standard when ICT
interfaces with the publicly switched telephone network (PSTN). Second,
when ICT interoperated with VoIP products or systems using Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP), the Advisory Committee did not recommend a
specific standard, noting that there were several possible standards at
that time (April 2008), such as RFC 4103, TIA 1001, and MSRP (RFC
4975). Id.
In keeping with the Advisory Committee's recommendation, the Board
proposed in the 2010 ANPRM, to require ICT providing real-time voice
communication to support RTT
[[Page 10888]]
functionality. The Board also proposed prescriptive standards for RTT
(e.g., transmission delay, error rates), as well as interoperability
requirements. For interoperability with PSTN, the Board proposed (as
did the Advisory Committee) use of the TIA 825-A (Baudot) standard. For
ICT interoperating with VoIP products or systems using SIP, the Board
did not propose a specific standard; instead, the Board proposed that
such products or systems support transmission of RTT conforming to a
``commonly used cross-manufacturer, non-proprietary standard.'' The
Board considered referencing RFC 4103, but elected not to do so
because, at that time, it was not thought to be a referenceable
standard.
Commenters responding to the RTT-related proposals in the 2010
ANPRM generally supported RTT, but offered mixed views on the Board's
proposed technical specifications. Commenters representing people with
disabilities strongly supported inclusion of RTT functionality
requirements in the proposed rule. They emphasized, among other things,
that RTT represented a major advance by allowing persons with hearing-
or speech-related disabilities to communicate through real-time text on
mainstream devices, rather than having to use special and expensive
devices (such as TTYs). They were critical, however, of the Board's
decision not to incorporate a specific VoIP-related interoperability
standard. Commenters representing people with disabilities (and also
academia) urged the Board to adopt RFC 4103 for RTT interoperating with
VoIP using SIP, and provided information to support its use as a
referenceable standard. Commenters from industry, on the other hand,
encouraged the Board to take a cautious approach to RTT. They believed
that, while RTT technology held promise as a major improvement in text
communication (particularly in emergency situations), it was not
sufficiently mature at that time to warrant adoption of a particular
interoperability standard--including RFC 4103--for Internet-based
calls. Commenters also objected to the proposed character and
transmission delay rates as being overly prescriptive, thus potentially
restricting the development of future technologies. (No commenters took
issue with the Board's proposal to incorporate TIA 825-A as the
standard for interoperability with PSTN.)
Based on these comments, in the 2011 ANPRM, the Board proposed to
retain the references to the TIA 825-A standard for TTY signals on the
PSTN, and to add a requirement for conformance with the RFC 4103
standard for VoIP products or systems using SIP. We did not retain the
provisions specifying character and transmission delay rates. Overall,
commenters largely supported the Board's revisions to RTT-related
requirements in the 2011 ANPRM. However, several commenters
representing industry and a local government agency asserted that RTT
was not sufficiently mature or deployed widely enough to be useful.
Some commenters also identified other standards aside from RFC 4103
that were currently in use (e.g., XMPP and XEP-0301) and could serve to
facilitate RTT for Internet-based calls.
In this NPRM, the Board proposes to require that, where ICT
provides real-time, two-way voice communication, such ICT must also
support RTT functionality. Proposed 410.6 would require features
capable of text generation to be compatible with real-time voice
communication used on a network. ICT would be required to interoperate
either within its own closed system or outside a network. For example,
a closed communication system, such as within a federal agency, would
be required to interoperate with either the publicly switched telephone
network (PSTN) or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) products or
systems to support the transmission of real-time text. The Board
believes that RTT is sufficiently mature as a technology (and has
sufficiently proliferated in the current ICT marketplace) to warrant
coverage in the proposed rule. For example, real-time instant messaging
programs--such as Yahoo![supreg]Messenger and AOL Instant Messenger's
``Real-Time IM'' --have, in the past, used proprietary protocols that
were very similar to SIP.
Where federal agencies provide their employees with smartphones or
similar technology, this NPRM would require such ICT to have the
potential to communicate using RTT. The Board does not, however,
thereby intend to require that all phone users (with or without
disabilities) communicate using RTT in all circumstances. Similar to
several other proposed accessibility features in the proposed rule, RTT
must only be enabled and used when needed to ensure comparable access
and use of ICT by persons with hearing disabilities. For example,
federal managers will need to make clear that, when deaf or hard-of-
hearing employees with agency-provided smartphones use RTT, coworkers
without disabilities using agency smartphones will also need the RTT
feature on their respective phones enabled. Such an approach ensures
that communications among deaf and hearing coworkers are equally
effective as voice conversations among employees who do not have
hearing impairments. Employees who do not need to communicate using RTT
would otherwise be able to disable or ignore this feature.
The Board does not suggest that other forms of electronic
communication--text or email, for example--would not be used by deaf
employees and their colleagues. However, RTT offers many of the same
benefits as voice communication. For example, a deaf attorney may need
to seek the advice of his supervisor or colleagues during a break in a
sensitive negotiation. Given the urgency and time-sensitive nature of
the communications between employees, the deaf employee may request
that his colleagues make themselves available during the negotiation by
enabling RTT on their phones.
The Board did not consider proposing that agencies be permitted to
provide RTT-enabled phones to employees only upon request. We did not
consider this approach for two significant reasons. First, making
accessible ICT available only upon request would run counter to Section
508's basic premise that information and data must be accessible to all
employees without special treatment or the necessity for individualized
treatment. Permitting issuance of RTT-enabled smartphones only when
requested or deemed needed would be no different than permitting
agencies to procure inaccessible ICT, such as a copy machine, where
they have not identified a need for the accessible features among
current staff. Second, while a proposal permitting agencies to issue
non-RTT smartphones absent a special request for RTT features might
modestly reduce an agency's ICT costs (to the extent, if any, that the
purchase cost of RTT-enabled smartphones exceeds the cost of
smartphones without this feature) and allow agencies to take user
preferences regarding RTT into account, such an alternative would erode
the proposed rule's benefits because employees with disabilities who
need RTT would not be able to communicate with coworkers who are using
government-issued, non-RTT smartphones.
Question 1. To realize the full potential benefits of the Section
508 proposal to require RTT functionality wherever an ICT product
provides real-time, two-way voice communication, federal managers would
need to direct their employees to keep the RTT features on their phones
enabled when needed to accommodate employees with
[[Page 10889]]
disabilities who use RTT, and federal employees would need to follow
such directives. How would keeping RTT enabled on an ``as needed''
basis affect federal employees' use of texting? For example, would it
cause them to substitute texting with other methods of communication?
How can the Board analyze and quantify such effects?
Question 2. The benefits of the RTT proposal under Section 255 are
dependent upon the extent RTT features would be enabled and used by the
public. The public would not be required to use or keep the RTT
features on their phones enabled. Is there available information
regarding the extent the public would use RTT features if they were
available on their phones? Would use of RTT be different for people
with and without disabilities?
In terms of RTT standards, the Board is proposing to require that
ICT interoperating with VoIP products using SIP must support the
transmission of RTT that conforms to RFC 4103 (RTP Payload for Text
Conversion (2005)). In the Major Issues section, the Board also seeks
comment on whether additional standards for real-time text, which are
in the process of being finalized (such as XEP-0301), should be
referenced. See Section V.D, Question 8. We discuss RTT-related issues
in further detail below in Section V.D (Major Issues--Real-Time Text),
and Section VI.D (Section-by-Section Analysis--Technical Requirements
and Functional Performance Criteria--section 410.6).
5. Interoperability Requirements for Assistive Technology
Assistive technology (AT) is hardware or software used to increase,
maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of individuals with
disabilities. Examples of assistive technology commonly used with
computers include: Screen readers, screen magnification software,
specialized keyboards, refreshable braille displays, and voice
recognition software. Assistive technology provides access beyond that
offered by so-called ``mainstream'' hardware or software.
Compatibility with assistive technology is a foundational concept
common to the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. ICT and
assistive technologies must generally work together to provide users
with necessary interface functions and features. The existing 508
Standards include general requirements for ICT to be compatible with
assistive technology. Section 1194.21(b) requires that applications not
disrupt or disable activated features of other products that are
identified as accessibility features where those features are developed
and documented according to industry standards. Additionally, this
section requires that applications not disrupt or disable activated
features of any operating systems that are identified as accessibility
features. Section 1194.21(b) is directed only to applications, and does
not require assistive technology to be compatible with other assistive
technology. Section 1194.21(d), moreover, obligates mainstream software
to provide ``sufficient information'' about its user interface elements
to assistive technology.
The existing 255 Guidelines, though taking a slightly different
tact, also require mainstream products to be compatible with assistive
technologies. Under these guidelines, telecommunications equipment must
be compatible with ``peripheral devices and specialized premises
equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve
accessibility.'' 36 CFR 1193.51. Compatibility is specified by
provisions requiring: External access to controls and information
needed for product operation, connection points for external audio
processing devices, compatibility of controls with prosthetic devices,
and TTY connectability and compatibility.
The existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines are, however, equally
silent concerning whether (or how) their requirements apply to
assistive technology. That is, while these standards and guidelines
require ICT to interoperate with assistive technology, they do not
directly regulate assistive technology. Over the years, this silence in
the 508 Standards has led to confusion. We have thus viewed coverage of
assistive technology as a key issue throughout the process of updating
the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines.
The Advisory Committee, when addressing assistive technology,
offered several perspectives. First, to improve ICT-AT compatibility,
the committee recommended updated--and more comprehensive--technical
standards that require mainstream computer operating systems and
software with user interfaces to ``expose'' (i.e., make available at
the underlying program level) accessibility information that
facilitates use of assistive technology. For example, screen reading
and voice recognition software may be used to emulate, respectively,
the physical click of a mouse button or the keystrokes from a hardware
keyboard. These ICT interoperability requirements were carefully
crafted among the various stakeholders on the committee, as well as
harmonized with an international consensus standard for software
accessibility (ISO 9241-171 Ergonomics of human-system interaction--
Part 171: Guidance on software accessibility (2008)). See TEITAC
Report, Part 6, Subpt. C, Recs. 3-V & 3-U. Second, the committee
debated--though could not reach consensus on--a recommendation
obligating assistive technology to use (as applicable) the standardized
set of accessibility information provided by mainstream operating
systems and software, rather than taking customized approaches. See
TEITAC Report, Part 7, Subpt. C, Rec. 3-VV.
In the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs, which drew heavily from the TEITAC
Report, the Board took similar approaches to assistive technology.
These ANPRMs largely adopted the committee's recommended set of updated
technical standards governing the program-level accessibility
information mainstream operating systems and software must make
available to assistive technology. The Board also proposed to require
assistive technology to use this accessibility information to achieve
interoperability. Commenters generally applauded the Board's proposed
refresh of the interoperability requirements for mainstream operating
systems and software, and viewed these requirements as a big step
forward. Assistive technology vendors and trade organizations, however,
uniformly objected to the imposition of requirements on assistive
technology. They expressed a need to be wholly unconstrained to best
serve consumers. They also expressed concern that accessibility
services varied widely from platform to platform, and were often
insufficient to support necessary features of their assistive
technology products. All other commenter groups--including individuals
with disabilities and the mainstream IT industry--advocated maintaining
the minimal requirements for assistive technology included in the
ANPRMs.
In this NPRM, the Board proposes to retain, with minimal changes,
the technical interoperability requirements for mainstream operating
systems and software from the prior ANPRMs. The Board also found
commenters' arguments for inclusion of minimal requirements for
assistive technology to be compelling. Accordingly, the Board has also
retained the proposal requiring assistive technology to use the basic
set of accessibility information provided by operating systems and
software to achieve interoperability. We discuss these issues in
further detail below in Section V.E (Major Issues--Assistive
Technology), and Section VI.D (Section-by-Section Analysis--Functional
[[Page 10890]]
Performance Criteria and Technical Requirements--502 and 401)
6. Modifications to the Functional Performance Criterion for Limited
Vision
In order to ensure that ICT meets the needs of a wider range of
users, the Board proposed in the 2010 ANPRM to revise the functional
performance criterion for limited vision. The existing criterion
specifies that ICT providing a visual mode of operation must furnish at
least one accessible mode that accommodates visual acuity up to 20/70.
The Board proposed to increase the covered acuity range to 20/200 (or a
field of vision less than 20 degrees)--which is a common legal
definition of blindness--to afford more individuals with disabilities
the option of a visual mode of operation. Organizations representing
persons with disabilities disagreed with the visual acuity proposed
requirement, stating that it did not sufficiently address the needs of
users with severe low vision. Industry groups suggested that the
proposed visual acuity criterion contradicted several technical
requirements. These commenters also indicated that our approach did not
address features that could improve accessibility for persons with low
vision, and were critical of the limitation that only one feature had
to be provided for each mode of operation.
In response to these comments, in the 2011 ANPRM, the Access Board
dispensed with specified measurements of visual acuity and relied
instead on a functional approach reflective of the needs of users with
low vision. We proposed that, when ICT provides a visual mode of
operation, it must also provide at least one mode of operation that
magnifies, one mode that reduces the field of vision, and one mode that
allows user control of contrast. These modes would need to be supplied
directly in the same ICT or through compatible assistive technology.
Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM strongly approved of our approach to
functional performance criteria for limited vision.
Accordingly, the Board proposes to retain this approach to
functional performance criteria for limited vision in this propose
rule. We discuss the issue in further detail in Section VI.B (Section-
by-Section Analysis--Section 508 Application and Scoping--E203),
Section VI.C (Section-by-Section Analysis--255 Guidelines Application
and Scoping--C201.3), and Section VI.D (Section-by-Section Analysis--
Functional Performance Criteria and Technical Requirements--302.2).
7. Definition and Coverage of Technology with ``Closed Functionality''
In its TEITAC Report, the Advisory Committee recommended that the
Board make a nomenclature change to ``closed functionality'' from the
existing term ``self-contained, closed products'' to better reflect a
regulatory approach to ICT based on functionality, rather than type of
product. The Advisory Committee observed that, due to technological
changes since the promulgation of the existing standards and
guidelines, some formerly ``closed'' product types were now open, while
some formerly open product types were now closed--frequently by policy,
rather than technological constraint. See TEITAC Report, Part 4,
section 4.2. It suggested that when the functionality of a technology
product is closed for any reason, including policy or technical
limitations, then such product should be treated as having closed
functionality.
In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board followed the Advisory Committee's
recommendation and proposed to substitute the term ``closed
functionality'' for ``self-contained, closed products,'' as used in the
existing 508 Standards. See 36 CFR 1194.4. While both terms refer to
ICT with characteristics that limit its functionality, the term
``closed functionality''--in the Board's view--better describes
situations where the ICT is locked down by policy, rather than design.
This may occur, for example, when an agency provides computers with
core configurations that cannot be changed or adjusted by a user. We
proposed permitting ICT to have closed functionality; however, such ICT
still would need to be accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities without assistive technology. Commenters did not object to
the new terminology of ``closed functionality'' but asked for more
detail and clarity in the applicable standards.
In the 2011 ANPRM, the Access Board proposed specific requirements
for ICT with closed functionality to ensure accessibility to
individuals with disabilities, which included a provision requiring ICT
with closed functionality to be speech-output enabled. The term
``speech-output enabled'' means that the ICT can transmit speech
output. These proposed requirements were derived from the Americans
with Disabilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility
Guidelines (ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines), 36 CFR Part 1191,
Appendix D, section 707.5 Speech Output.
Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM generally supported our proposed
requirement for ``closed functionality,'' and the Board proposes to
retain it in this proposed rule. We discuss the issue further in detail
below in Section VI.D (Section-by-Section Analysis--Functional
Performance Criteria and Technical Requirements--section 402).
8. Revisions to Exceptions Under 508 Standards
In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board reorganized the exceptions in the
existing 508 Standards and recommended deleting three others that were
unnecessary or had led to confusion. The three exceptions proposed for
deletion were: Sec. 1194.3(c) (assistive technology at federal
employees' workstations); Sec. 1194.3(d) (access to agency-owned ICT
in public locations); and Sec. 1194.3(f) (ICT equipment in maintenance
spaces or closets). By proposing deletion of these three exceptions,
the Board intended only administrative changes to clarify the 508
Standards; there was no intent to narrow their scope or application.
First, with respect to Sec. 1194.3(c), which provides that
assistive technology need not be supplied at all federal employees'
workstations, the Board proposed its deletion because, in essence, it
provided an exception where none was needed, and thus led to confusion.
There is no general rule in the existing 508 Standards that agencies
provide assistive technology at all employee workstations; rather,
these standards merely require compatibility with assistive technology
when ICT is not directly accessible.
Second, the Board proposed deletion of Sec. 1194.3(d) because it
conveys the impression that the 508 Standards govern the locations
where ICT must be made available to the public. The 508 Standards do
not, in any way, control where ICT is located. Therefore, the exception
was unnecessary.
Third, the Board proposed to delete the exception in 1194.3(f) for
ICT equipment located in maintenance spaces or closets frequented only
by service personnel for ``maintenance, repair, and occasional
monitoring of equipment.'' We reasoned that, since maintenance spaces
or closets are already exempted from accessibility requirements under
section F203.6 of the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Standards, there
was no need for a similar exception in the 508 Standards.
Commenters' views on the proposed deletion of these three
exceptions were mixed. On the one hand, most commenters supported
removal of the exceptions pertaining to employee
[[Page 10891]]
workstations and public availability of agency-owned ICT. On the other
hand, however, many commenters objected to our proposed removal of the
exception for ICT located in maintenance spaces since there are still
many functions--particularly with respect to maintenance, repair, and
monitoring--that, in the commenters' view, could only be performed in
maintenance spaces. In response to these comments, the Board has
retained the exception for maintenance spaces in this NPRM, but
proposes to limit its application to situations in which the controls
for ICT functions are located in spaces that are frequented only by
service personnel. This is consistent with the ADA and ABA
Accessibility Guidelines, which exempt such spaces from accessibility
requirements. However, where the functions of ICT located in
maintenance spaces can be controlled remotely, this exception would not
apply to such remote functions. These remote functions would still need
to comply with applicable 508 Standards.
Lastly, in the 2010 ANPRM, the Access Board proposed to revise and
relocate the exception in Sec. 1194.3(b), which exempts ICT acquired
by a contractor that is ``incidental to a contract'' from compliance
with 508 Standards. Specifically, the Board proposed deleting the
phrase ``incidental to a contract'' and relocating the exception to a
new section relating to federal contracts. We did so in an effort to
streamline and clarify the text of this exception. Commenters
criticized this approach as confusing, particularly since the phrase
``incidental to a contract'' is a well-established term within the
federal procurement community--a group that would likely be
significantly impacted by the provision. Consequently, in the 2011
ANPRM, the Board proposed to restore the exception in Sec. 1194.3(b)
to its original language. We retain this approach in this NRPM, and
thereby propose to exempt ICT acquired by a federal contractor that is
``incidental to a contract'' from compliance with the 508 Standards.
We discuss exception issues in further detail below in Section VI.B
(Section-by-Section--508 Standards: Application and Scoping--E202.3 and
E202.4).
9. Broadening of Documentation Requirement for Undue Burden Exception
Section 1194.2(a)(2) of the existing 508 Standards requires
agencies to provide supporting documentation when determining that
procurement of a compliant product would impose an undue burden. In the
2010 ANPRM, the Access Board proposed to broaden the undue burden
documentation requirement so that it applied not only to ICT
procurement, but also to other situations in which the 508 Standards
applied--namely, the development, maintenance, or use of ICT. We did
not receive any comments directly related to this approach, but did
receive a few comments requesting clarification of the factors to be
addressed in the determination of undue burden. In the 2011 ANPRM, the
Board retained the broadened scope of the undue burden documentation
requirement, but clarified the factors to be applied in the undue
burden calculus. We proposed that an agency would be required to
consider the extent to which conformance would impose significant
difficulty or expense in light of the resources available to the
program or component for which the ICT is being procured, developed,
maintained or used. Commenters generally supported this approach.
In this NPRM, in proposed E202.5.2, the Board retains the undue
burden documentation requirement as proposed in the 2011 ANPRM. This
proposed provision is discussed in detail below in Section VI.B
(Section-by-Section Analysis--508 Standards: Application and Scoping--
E202.5.2).
F. Harmonization With European Activities
1. History
In 2006, as noted above, the Access Board convened a
Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory
Committee to review and update the existing standards and guidelines.
The Advisory Committee met from 2006 to 2008. Four of the forty-one
members of the Advisory Committee were international stakeholders: the
European Commission, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Among other issues,
the Advisory Committee addressed harmonization of standards across
markets and worked closely with standard-setting bodies in the United
States and abroad. The Advisory Committee issued its final report in
2008.
While the Access Board was in the process of updating its existing
508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, a similar process began in Europe to
create the first European set of ICT accessibility standards. As a
result of the 2005 EU-US Economic Initiative, the Access Board and the
European Commission began to work closely on the issue of Information
and Communications Technology standards (See: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/june/tradoc_127643.pdf).
In 2005, the European Commission released Mandate 376,
``Standardisation Mandate to CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI in Support of
European Accessibility Requirements for Public Procurement of Products
and Services in the ICT Domain'' (http://www.ictsb.org/Working_Groups/DATSCG/Documents/M376.pdf). The Mandate required the three European
standards organizations--European Committee for Standardization (CEN),
European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) and
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)--to: inventory
European and international accessibility requirements; provide an
assessment of suitable testing and conformity schemes; and, develop a
European accessibility standard for ICT products and services along
with guidance and support material for public procurements including an
online toolkit.
In 2010, the Board released an ANPRM based on the 2008 TEITAC
Report. We then published a second ANPRM in 2011 and took notice of the
standardization work going on in Europe at the time, stating:
[T]he Board is interested in harmonizing with standards efforts
around the world in a timely way. Accordingly, the Board is now
releasing this second Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2011
ANPRM) to seek further public comment on specific questions and to
harmonize with contemporaneous standardization efforts underway by
the European Commission.
In February 2013, the European Commission published its draft
standard EN 301 549 V1.0.0 (2013-02), ``Accessibility requirements for
public procurement of ICT products and services in Europe'' (http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf). The vote on the standard was completed in
February 2014. The European Standard has been formally adopted by all
three European standards organizations--CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI. The
standards are now available to the target audience, government
officials, who may use the standards as technical specifications or
award criteria in public procurements of ICT products and services. The
standard harmonizes and facilitates the public procurement of
accessible ICT products and services within Europe. More information is
available at: http://www.mandate376.eu/
[[Page 10892]]
2. Comparison of Proposed Rule With EN 301 549 Standard
a. General Comparison: Approach, Terminology and Organization
In this NPRM, the Board makes several proposals that are similar to
those in the most recently published EN 301 549. Both the proposed rule
and EN 301 549 address the functions of technology, rather than
categories of technologies. Similarly, both offer technical
requirements and functional performance criteria for accessible ICT.
For example, our use of the phrase ``information and communication
technology'' (ICT) in this NRPM, as a replacement of the existing term
``electronic and information technology,'' originates in the common
usage of ICT throughout Europe and the rest of the world. Moreover,
both documents are organized in similar ways, in that they both have
initial scoping and definitions chapters, followed by separate chapters
containing technical requirements and functional performance criteria.
Organizationally, the documents differ in several respects. These
general differences are outlined in Table 2 below:
Table 2--Formatting Differences Between the NPRM and EN 301 549
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EN 301 549 V1.1.1
Differences ICT NPRM (2014) (2014-02)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of chapters. Note: EN 301 6................. 13.
549 breaks out several sections Chapter 1-- Chapter 2--
as separate chapters which are Application and References.
combined in the ICT NPRM. Administration. Chapter 3--
.................. Definitions and
Chapter 2--Scoping Abbreviations.
Requirements...... Chapter 1--Scope.
Chapter 3-- Chapter 10--
Functional Documents.
Performance Chapter 4--
Criteria. Functional
Performance
Criteria.
Chapter 4-- Chapter 5--Generic
Hardware. Requirements
(Biometrics,
volume control,
receipts and
tickets, closed
functionality,
assistive
technology).
Chapter 6--ICT
with two way
voice
communications.
Chapter 7--ICT
with video
capabilities.
Chapter 8--
Hardware.
Chapter 5-- Chapter 9--Web
Software. content.
.................. Chapter 11--Non-
Web software.
Chapter 6--Support Chapter 12--
Documentation and Documentation and
Services. support services.
Unique chapters................. No comparable 13--Relay and
chapter. Emergency
Services.
Annex A--Copy of
Incorporated by WCAG 2.0.
reference
(Sections E207.2
and C205.2).
Similar Annex B--Charts
comparisons are showing
found in the relationships
TEITAC Report. between
requirements and
functional
performance
criteria.
Not Annex C--
within the scope Determination of
of Section 508 or Compliance.
Section 255;
Section 508
compliance is
determined by
each federal
agency.
Not Section 8.3.2
within the scope Clear floor
of Section 508 or space.
Section 255. Section 8.3.2.1
.................. Change in level.
Most Section 8.3.2.2
similar to ``303 Operating area.
Changes in
Level'' from the
2010 ADA
Standards for
Accessible Design.
Differing treatment of similar Section 410.6 Real- Section 6.3 Real-
concepts. Time Text time text (RTT)
Functionality functionality
Discussed more Discussed more
fully. fully.
410.8 Video 6.6 Video
Communication Communication
Discussed more Discussed more
fully. fully.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Specific Examples: Differing Treatment of Similar Concepts
Real-Time Text Functionality
In this NPRM, the Board proposes that where ICT provides real-time
voice communication, it must also support real-time text (RTT)
functionality, as described in 410.6. Most significantly, the Board
proposes to require that where ICT interoperates with Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) products using Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP), it must support the transmission of RTT that conforms to RFC
4103 (RTP Payload for Text Conversion (2005)). In the Major Issues
section, the Board asks whether additional standards for real-time
text, which are in the process of being finalized (such as XEP-0301),
should also be referenced. See Section V.D, Question 8. The proposed
rule limits the approach to RTT by proposing to only incorporate by
reference a maximum of two standards for RTT interoperating with VoIP.
In contrast, EN 301 549 allows the use of multiple standards for
RTT. In addition to referencing RFC 4103 (section 6.3.3(b)), it permits
the use of four other standards and an unspecified ``common
specification'' for RTT exchange. The only criterion in the common
specification is that it must indicate a method for indicating loss or
corruption of characters. For a further discussion of RTT
functionality, see Section V.D (Major Issues--Real-Time Text) below.
We are not proposing to adopt the other four standards referenced
by EN 301 549 because they are not applicable to the type of technology
used in the United States. Just as mobile phones are not directly
compatible between the United States and Europe (i.e., CDMA phone
systems versus GSM (Global System Mobile)), portions of the four
standards referenced in EN 301 549 are simply not relevant in the U.S.
market, and there are no indications that they
[[Page 10893]]
will have domestic relevance in the near future.
The standards referenced by EN 301 549 address more than just real-
time text functionality. Some are quite broad and address several
communications features, such as video speed and accuracy. One example
of such a standard is ETSI TS 126 114 (Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System (UMTS)) which covers voice, video, and data
transmission rates and speeds. This standard supports an approach to
communication known as ``total communication.'' We are not proposing to
adopt this approach. In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed transmission
accuracy rates and speeds for video, text and voice data, based on
recommendations from the Advisory Committee. In response, we received
numerous comments questioning the accuracy of the proposed rates, the
sources for the proposals and the research underlying the proposed
rates. Consequently, the Board removed those proposals in the 2011
ANPRM.
Question 3. We are seeking further information on the benefits and
costs associated with adopting standards that address total
communications, including voice, video, and data transmission rates and
speeds. We seek recommendations for specific standards that the Board
might reference to address total communication.
Video Communication
In this NPRM, the Board proposes that where ICT provides two-way
voice communication that includes real-time video functionality, the
quality of the video must be sufficient to support communication using
sign language (section 410.8). The provision specifies a desired
outcome and does not provide specific technical requirements. This
approach resulted from public comments in response to our proposal in
the 2010 ANPRM. Public commenters noted there were no existing
standards supporting the technical requirements the Board had proposed
concerning resolution, frame rates, and processing speed. In the 2011
ANPRM, the Board elected to remove those proposed technical
requirements in favor of simply requiring the quality of the video to
be sufficient to support communications using sign language. We
received no comments on this approach, and retain it here in this NPRM.
EN 301 549, on the other hand, takes a different tact. In ``6.6
Video Communication,'' the standard specifies numeric measurements for
such features as resolution (6.6.2), frame rates (6.6.3) and
alternatives to video-based services (6.7). This approach is similar to
our proposal in the 2010 ANPRM, which, as noted, the Board dropped due
to significant negative comments.
In general, the approaches taken in EN 301 549 and this NPRM are
similar and complimentary. The Access Board's proposed rule contains
less detail in some proposed provisions, as discussed above. We elected
to pursue this course in response to public comments and our desire to
make use of a number of voluntary consensus standards by incorporating
them by reference. This approach will result in better harmonization of
accessibility standards worldwide.
V. Major Issues
The five major issues addressed in this NPRM are: (a) Scope of
covered electronic content; (b) incorporation by reference of WCAG 2.0;
(c) relationship between functional performance criteria and technical
requirements; (d) coverage of real-time text; and (e) interoperability
requirements for assistive technology. Each of these areas is discussed
below.
A. Electronic Content
In this NPRM, the Board aims to bring needed clarity to the scope
of electronic content subject to accessibility requirements in the 508
Standards. Based on the language of the Rehabilitation Act, Sec.
1194.1 of the existing standards speaks of federal agencies ensuring
that federal employees and members of the public with disabilities have
comparable ``access to and the use of [electronic] information and
data.'' Given its breadth, federal agencies have--not altogether
surprisingly--had difficulty applying this mandate. The existing
requirement does not adequately address what is meant by comparable
access to information and data. Consequently, there has been confusion
over whether and how such electronic content must be made accessible.
Agencies have been reluctant to apply the existing 508 Standards to
electronic information and data, except for Web pages.
The proposed rule would address these deficiencies in the existing
508 Standards by clearly delineating the scope of covered electronic
content, as well as specifying concrete, testable, technical
requirements to ensure the accessibility of such content. The Board
proposes that all covered electronic content would be required to
conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and
Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages or, where applicable,
ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1).
Covered electronic content would, under the proposed rule, include
two discrete groups of content. First, the Board proposes in E205.2
that all public-facing content--which encompasses electronic
information and data made available by agencies to members of the
general public--must satisfy applicable accessibility requirements in
the proposed rule (i.e., WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria
or PDF/UA-1). This would include, for example, agency Web sites (and
documents posted thereon), blog posts, and social media sites. Coverage
of this broad category of agency-sponsored content is important because
persons with disabilities should have equal access to electronic
information and data made available to the public generally. This is an
essential right established by the Rehabilitation Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ An analogous provision in proposed C203.1 would require
telecommunications equipment manufacturers to make content integral
to the use of ICT conform to WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The central principle underlying the accessibility requirement for
public-facing content is the notion that federal agencies must ensure
equal access to electronic information that they themselves directly
make available to the general public by posting on a public fora. So,
for example, if a federal agency posts a PDF version of a recent
settlement agreement on its Web site as part of a press release, that
document would need to comply with PDF/UA-1. Or, if an agency posts a
video created by an advocacy organization on the agency's Web site (or,
alternatively, on a social media site hosted by a third party), the
agency would also be required to ensure that that electronic
information complied with accessibility requirements in proposed E205.2
for public-facing content. On the other hand, if a federal agency is
the plaintiff in a lawsuit and serves an electronic version of a legal
brief on a corporate defendant, the agency's legal brief would not be
considered public-facing content even if the corporation subsequently
posts a copy of the agency's document on its own Web site.
Second, with respect to electronic content that is not public
facing, the Board aims to limit the scope of covered content to eight
discrete categories of agency official communications that are most
likely to affect a significant number of federal employees or the
general public. Proposed E205.3 would require an agency's non-public
facing electronic content to meet the accessibility requirements in the
proposed rule (i.e., WCAG 2.0 Level A
[[Page 10894]]
and Level AA Success Criteria or PDF/UA-1) when such content (a)
constitutes agency official business, and (b) falls within one or more
of eight categories of communication. Coverage would extend to all
forms of content constituting official communications by agencies,
including Web pages, postings on social media, emails, and electronic
documents. The Board believes that this approach strikes an appropriate
balance in ensuring the accessibility of essential electronic content
for persons with disabilities, while also tempering agency compliance
obligations. This approach also compliments the requirements of
sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which require agencies
to provide reasonable accommodations as necessary to address the
disability-related needs of employees and the public respectively.
Specifically, proposed E205.3 sets forth the following eight
categories of non-public facing agency official communications that
must satisfy the accessibility requirements in the proposed 508
Standards: (1) Emergency notifications (e.g., an evacuation
announcement in response to fires or other emergencies); (2) initial or
final decisions adjudicating administrative claims or proceedings; (3)
internal or external program or policy announcements (i.e., information
promulgated by an agency relating to programs it offers or policy areas
it deals with); (4) notices of benefits, program eligibility,
employment opportunities or personnel actions; (5) formal
acknowledgements or receipts (i.e., official replies by an agency that
recognize the receipt of a communication); (6) questionnaires or
surveys; (7) templates or forms; and (8) educational or training
materials.
By limiting the scope of covered electronic content to these
proposed eight categories of official communications, the Board intends
to encourage agencies to do more to ensure that individuals with
disabilities have comparable access to, and use of, electronic
information and data. The Board does not intend this proposed approach
to disturb or override the independent legal obligations of agencies--
whether arising under sections 501 or 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or
other statutes--to provide accessible communications as a reasonable
accommodation or other required accommodations. For example, draft
electronic documents exchanged by federal employees as part of an
agency working group would not be covered by proposed E205.3, but might
still be required to be accessible by Section 501 when needed by a
federal employee with a disability to perform his or her job.
Question 4. Are the eight proposed categories of non-public facing
content sufficiently clear? Do they ensure a sufficient level of
accessibility without imposing an unnecessary burden on agencies? If
not, the Board encourages commenters to suggest revisions to these
categories that would improve clarity or strike a more appropriate
balance.
Notably absent from the proposed eight categories of non-public
facing content is a type of content--namely, content ``broadly
disseminated throughout an agency''--that was included in the 2011
ANPRM. Several federal agencies and other commenters found this
language to be vague and overbroad, and called for its revision or
withdrawal. The Board acknowledges that the ``broadly disseminated''
category could, in practice, prove challenging to apply and lead to
inconsistent implementation across agencies that the proposed 508
Standards are designed to address. Accordingly, the Board has not
included ``broadly disseminated'' content as a category in the proposed
rule. The Board nonetheless welcomes comment on this issue, and may
include a ``widely disseminated''-style category in the final rule
should there prove to be a workable definition or metric to assess
compliance.
Question 5. Should a category for ``widely disseminated''
electronic content be included among the categories of non-public
facing official communications by agencies that must meet the
accessibility requirements in the 508 Standards? Why or why not? If
such a category were to be included in the final rule, what metrics
might be used to determine whether a communication is broadly
disseminated throughout an agency?
Lastly, with respect to exceptions, the Board proposes in this NPRM
an exception in E205.3 for non-public facing records maintained by the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for archival
purposes under federal recordkeeping requirements. As proposed, such
content--even if otherwise meeting the conditions in proposed E205.3
for electronic content that must be made accessible (i.e., non-public
facing agency official communications that fall within one or more of
the eight enumerated categories)--would not be required to comply with
the proposed 508 Standards so long as it remained non-public facing.
The Board anticipates that the only content covered by this exception
would be non-public facing archival materials administered or
maintained by NARA in compliance with federal recordkeeping
requirements, such as the Federal Records Act (codified at 44 U.S.C.
Chapters 21, 29 and 33). It bears noting that NARA is not generally
responsible for remediating inaccessible materials submitted to NARA by
other agencies unless such materials are made publicly available by,
for example, being posted on NARA's Web site.
Though the 2011 ANPRM included an express exception for draft
materials, no such exception is included in either proposed E205.2
(Public Facing) or E205.3 (Agency Official Communications) for two main
reasons. First, public-facing content--such as that covered by proposed
E205.2--should be equally accessible to all members of the public
regardless of whether it is in draft or final form. For example, a
draft policy published for comment on an agency Web site should be
accessible so that all affected individuals may provide feedback.
Secondly, drafts, by their very nature, would typically fall outside
the scope of the eight categories of content constituting agency
official communications subject to proposed E205.3. Only final
electronic documents that are ready for distribution would qualify as
the type of content identified in proposed categories 1 through 8 of
this provision. For example, a draft memorandum by an agency component
announcing a new telework policy would not constitute a ``policy
announcement'' (Category 3) subject to proposed E205.3 until it is
finalized and ready to be transmitted to its intended audience of
component employees.
B. WCAG 2.0 Incorporation by Reference
As noted above, the Board proposes in this NPRM to incorporate by
reference WCAG 2.0. In the following sections, the Board discusses the
rationale for, and certain issues related to, incorporation of this
consensus standard.
1. Rationale for Incorporation by Reference
We have four principal reasons for incorporation by reference of
WCAG 2.0. They are as follows:
First, our approach is consistent with that taken by other
international standards organizations dealing with this issue.
Standards developed in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada already
directly reference WCAG 2.0. Moreover, WCAG 2.0 serves as the basis for
Web accessibility standards in Germany (under ``BITV 2''), France
(under ``RGAA 2.2.1'') and Japan (under ``JIS X 83141'') and has so far
generated
[[Page 10895]]
eight formal authorized translations. In addition, the European
Commission references WCAG 2.0 in EN 301 549.
Second, incorporation by reference of WCAG 2.0 is consistent with
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), as well as Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development
and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment
Activities (1998), which direct agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in lieu of government-unique standards except where
inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ OMB is in the process of updating Circular A-119. See
Request for Comments on a Proposed Revision of OMB Circular No. A-
119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, 79 FR
8207 (proposed Feb. 11, 2014). In its request for comment, OMB
stated: ``The revised Circular would maintain a strong preference
for using voluntary consensus standards in Federal regulation and
procurement. It would also acknowledge, however, that there may be
some standards not developed using a consensus-driven process that
are in use in the market--particularly in the information technology
space--and that may be relevant (and necessary) in meeting agency
missions and priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, our approach is consistent with that being taken by another
federal agency addressing a similar topic, namely the Department of
Transportation's recent final rule addressing, among other things, the
accessibility of air carrier and ticket agent Web sites. See
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, 78 FR 67882
(Nov. 12, 2013).
Fourth, incorporation of WCAG 2.0 directly serves the best
interests of Americans with disabilities because it will help
accelerate the spread of Web accessibility. The accessibility of the
Web is essential to enable the participation of individuals with
disabilities in today's information society.
2. Justification for Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web ICT
The Access Board is proposing to require not only Web content to
conform to the Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance
Requirements in WCAG 2.0--an approach with which commenters to the 2010
and 2011 ANPRMs unanimously agreed--but also software and non-Web
documents. Several commenters to the 2011 ANRPM were critical of this
approach, and questioned the propriety of applying WCAG 2.0 to non-Web
ICT. For the reasons noted below, the Board believes that applying WCAG
2.0 outside the web browser environment not only ensures greater
accessibility for persons with disabilities, but also minimizes the
incremental burden on regulated entities by simplifying compliance
through incorporation of a technologically-neutral consensus standard.
Because WCAG 2.0 was written to be technology neutral, the language
and phrasing of the Success Criteria can be applied to any technology
found on the Web. Since most file types are found on the Web and much
software is now Web-enabled, it is reasonable to utilize WCAG 2.0 to
evaluate off-line documents and software interfaces with
straightforward substitution of terms to address this new application.
This approach has the potential to significantly simplify accessibility
conformance and assessment.
We find support for our approach from two other sources, namely the
European Commission's Standardization Mandate M 376 (M376) of March
2012 and the World Wide Web Consortium's WCAG2ICT Task Force (``Task
Force''). The W3C formed the Task Force in June 2012 in part to address
reservations, expressed by some of the commenters to our 2011 ANPRM,
about applying the criteria for accessible Web content to off-line
documents and software. W3C invited participation from subject-matter
experts from around the world, including representatives of federal
agencies and others who had concerns with our approach. The Task
Force's final consensus report provides guidance concerning application
of WCAG 2.0 to non-Web ICT, specifically non-Web documents and
software. See W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, WSC Working Group
Note--Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and
Communications Technologies (Sept. 5, 2013), available at http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/.
The Task Force analyzed each of the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria to
determine their suitability for application to non-Web content. There
are thirty-eight Level A and Level AA Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0. The
Task Force found that the majority of Success Criteria from WCAG 2.0
can be applied to non-Web documents and software with no, or only
minimal, changes. Specifically, twenty-six Success Criteria do not
include any Web-related terms and, therefore, can be applied directly
as written and as described in the ``Intent'' sections of the most
current version of ``Understanding WCAG 2.0.'' Thirteen of these
twenty-six can be applied without any additional notes. The other
thirteen also can be applied as written, but the Task Force provided
additional informative notes in its report for the sake of clarity.
Of the remaining twelve Success Criteria, the Task Force found that
eight of them can be applied as written when certain Web-specific terms
or phrases like ``Web page'' are replaced with non-Web terms or phrases
like ``non-Web documents and software.'' Additional notes are provided
in the Task Force report to assist in the application of these Success
Criteria to non-Web ICT. One example is Success Criterion 2.4.5
Multiple Ways. The Task Force noted that, when applied to the non-Web
environment, this criterion requires that there be more than one way to
locate a document (or software program) within a set of documents or
programs. For mobile devices, this criterion could be satisfied by an
operating system that makes files locatable by directory and search
functions--features that are nearly ubiquitous among mobile operating
systems in use today.
Another example is Success Criterion 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation.
For this criterion, the Task Force noted that application to the non-
Web environment would require consistency among navigational elements
when such elements were repeated within sets of documents or software
programs. To be conformant, navigational elements would be required to
occur in the same relative order each time they are presented. It is
unlikely that authors would provide navigation elements for a set of
related documents and then present them differently from document to
document, thereby defeating their purpose.
The Task Force's report also notes that applying the success
criteria in WCAG 2.0 to non-Web ICT with closed functionality proves
problematic when a success criterion assumes the presence of assistive
technologies, since closed functionality--by definition--does not allow
attachment or use of assistive technology. This might occur, for
example, when an eBook allows assistive technologies to access all of
the user interface controls of the eBook program (open functionality),
but does not allow such technologies to access the actual content of
books (closed functionality). The Task Force identified 14 success
criteria for which compliance might prove challenging for developers of
ICT products with closed functionality. We propose to resolve this
issue by exempting ICT with closed functionality from certain WCAG 2.0
Success Criteria, in conjunction with the addition of requirements
specific to such products in Chapter 402, Closed Functionality.
[[Page 10896]]
By incorporating WCAG 2.0 by reference, the proposed standards
would provide a single set of requirements for Web sites, documents,
and software. WCAG 2.0 addresses new technologies and is responsive to
the fact that the characteristics of products (e.g., native browser
behavior and plug-ins and applets) have converged over time. Today,
there are fewer distinctions among product categories, and some are
outdated. For example, modern smartphones include: Software
applications and operating systems, Web-based intranet and Internet
information and applications, and video and multimedia products.
Additionally, smartphones are portable computers, telecommunications
products, and self-contained closed products. New requirements in WCAG
2.0 also address gaps in the existing 508 Standards. Examples include:
A requirement for a logical reading order, the ability to resize text,
and the ability to turn off background audio that might interfere with
comprehension and screen reading software.
3. Comparison of WCAG 2.0 to Existing 508 Standards
While the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria build on the heritage of the
existing 508 Standards, they are generally more explicit than the
standards. Careful attention was given during their development to
ensure that the Success Criteria are written as objectively testable
requirements. In addition, unlike the existing 508 Standards, WCAG 2.0
is written in a technologically neutral fashion, which makes it
directly applicable to a wide range of content types and formats.
For example, operability of ICT through keyboards (or alternate
keyboard devices) is often critical to accessibility. Persons who are
blind or who have limited vision often use screen readers to navigate
Web pages using only the keyboard. Keyboard operability is also
essential for many individuals with motor impairments who use alternate
keyboards, or input devices that act as keyboard emulators when
accessing ICT because they find mouse pointing to be cumbersome or
impossible. Keyboard emulators include voice recognition software, sip-
and-puff software, and on-screen keyboards. The existing 508 Standards
envision keyboard operability from both software and Web-based
information or applications, but such requirements were not necessarily
explicit. Section 1194.21(a) expressly mandates that, when software is
designed to run on a keyboard, all product functions must generally be
executable through a keyboard. With respect to Web-based information
and applications, the 508 Standards are not so explicit. At the time
these standards were promulgated, Web pages created with HyperText
Markup Language (HTML[supreg]) were always keyboard operable.
Therefore, an express requirement for keyboard operability by Web pages
was unnecessary. The existing 508 Standards expressly require keyboard
operability for Web pages that require applets and plug-ins to
interpret page content since keyboard operation in these contexts was
not ubiquitous. See 36 CFR 1194.22(m). Collectively, the existing 508
Standards thus address keyboard operability both within and outside the
Web environment, but do so in a variety of ways.
Over the years, however, Web technologies have become more complex.
Use of keyboards is often secondary to mouse or touch-only interfaces.
Success Criterion 2.1.1 requires all functionality to be operable
through a keyboard interface. Section 1194.21(a) of the existing 508
Standards requires that ``[w]hen software is designed to run on a
system that has a keyboard, product functions shall be executable from
a keyboard where the function itself or the result of performing a
function can be discerned textually.'' This current wording is phrased
as an input requirement based on output, and it leaves ``discerned
textually'' as an undefined term. These are both flaws that may create
accessibility gaps in application. For example, an operating system
feature like ``mouse keys'' (where the keyboard cursor keys are used to
steer the mouse pointer) satisfies this provision on its face, even
though that feature is of no use to someone who cannot see the screen
and relies on screen reading software. Success Criterion 2.1.1, on the
other hand, while longer, only references input and uses no special
jargon. This success criterion reads: ``All functionality of the
content [must be] operable through a keyboard interface without
requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the
underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the
user's movement and not just the endpoints.''
The Access Board has created a comprehensive table comparing WCAG
2.0 Level A and AA Success Criteria to the corresponding requirements
in the existing 508 Standards. The table can be found on our Web site
at www.access-board.gov/wcag2-508. In this table, the Board has
identified WCAG 2.0 success criteria as either ``substantially
equivalent'' or ``new'' relative to the existing 508 Standards.
Identification of a WCAG 2.0 success criterion as ``new'' indicates
that it has no corresponding provision in the existing 508 Standards;
rather, it addresses a deficiency with the existing 508 Standards as
identified by the developers of WCAG. In most cases, agencies with
Section 508 compliance testing processes have adapted their procedures
to address these accessibility concerns.
In sum, there are 38 WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA Success Criteria.
After careful comparison of these success criteria to the existing 508
Standards, the Access Board deems 22 success criteria to be
substantially equivalent in substance to our existing standards. The
Board estimates that agencies with content that meets this group of
existing 508 Standards will incur no or minimal costs by virtue of
incorporation of WCAG 2.0 into our proposed rule. For the remaining 16
success criteria the Board deems to be new, it is anticipated that
agencies would, to a greater or lesser extent (depending on the content
and criteria at issue), incur some costs when implementing WCAG 2.0.
Question 6. The Board seeks comment on the extent that the proposed
incorporation of WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria would
result in new costs or benefits. We have characterized the majority of
success criteria as ``substantially equivalent'' to requirements under
the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines and request comment as to
the accuracy of this characterization.
4. Proposed Updates to Other Web-Specific Provisions in Existing 508
Standards
Along with the incorporation by reference of WCAG 2.0, the Board
also proposes to update six provisions in the existing 508 Standards
related to Web content to account for technological changes or their
respective obsolescence. These six provisions for which the Board
proposes deletion or replacement are as follows:
We propose to replace Sec. 1194.21(g) of the existing 508
Standards, which prohibits applications from overriding user-selected
contrast and color selections and other individual display attributes,
with a new section 503.2 User Preferences. As with Sec. 1194.21(g),
this proposed provision requires applications to permit user
preferences from platform settings for display settings. However,
proposed 503.2 also provides an exception for applications--such as Web
software--that are designed to be isolated from their operating
systems. By design, Web applications (such as, for example, software
used to create interactive
[[Page 10897]]
multimedia content) are isolated from the operating system (i.e.,
``sand boxed'') for security reasons. An expectation that certain
platform settings (e.g., font preferences) apply globally to all
documents found on the Web is not practical.
We propose to delete Sec. 1194.22(d) of the existing 508
Standards, which requires that Web documents be organized so they are
readable without requiring an associated style sheet. Cascading style
sheets (CSS) are now well supported by assistive technology and,
consequently, this provision is unnecessary. For example, contemporary
techniques using CSS to selectively hide irrelevant content from all
users also selectively hides irrelevant content from users of assistive
technology.
We propose to delete Sec. 1194.22(k) of the existing 508
Standards, which permits text-only Web pages under certain
circumstances, because incorporation of WCAG 2.0 success criteria
renders this provision obsolete. While WCAG 2.0 does permit
``conforming alternate versions,'' text-only pages could not provide
equivalent information or functionality for all but the most trivial
Web content. The WCAG requirement for a conforming alternate version
significantly exceeds the expectations for text only pages.
Question 7. A Web page can conform to WCAG 2.0 either by satisfying
all success criteria under one of the levels of conformance or by
providing a conforming alternate version. WCAG 2.0 always permits the
use of conforming alternate versions. Are there any concerns that
unrestricted use of conforming alternate versions of Web pages may lead
to the unnecessary development of separate Web sites or unequal
services for individuals with disabilities? Should the Board restrict
the use of conforming alternate versions beyond the explicit
requirements of WCAG 2.0? The Board requests that responses be provided
in the context of the WCAG definition for conforming alternate versions
(http://w3.org/TR/WCAG20/<#conforming-alternate-versiondef).
Commenters should review the guidance material as to why conforming
alternate versions are permitted (http://w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html<#uc-whypermit-head).
We propose to delete Sec. 1194.22(l) of the existing 508
Standards, which applies when pages utilize scripting languages to
display content or to create interface elements and requires the
scripted information to be identified with functional text that can be
read by assistive technology. Because WCAG 2.0 is technology neutral,
inclusion of a separate provision applicable to scripting languages
would be redundant; the same requirements that apply to HTML and other
Web technologies also apply to scripting languages.
We propose to delete Sec. 1194.22(m) of the existing 508
Standards, which applies when a Web page needs an applet, plug-in, or
other application present on the client system to interpret page
content and requires that such page provide a link to a plug-in or
applet that complies with other referenced standards (in Sec. 1194.21)
relating to software applications. Because WCAG 2.0 applies directly to
applets, plug-ins, and Web applications, Sec. 1194.22(m) is redundant.
Lastly, the Board proposes to delete Sec. 1194.24(e) of the
existing 508 Standards, which requires that the non-permanent display
or presentation of alternate text presentation or audio descriptions be
user-selectable. Section 1194.24(e) essentially duplicates requirements
for video and multimedia products already set forth in other provision
in the same section (i.e., subsections (c) and (d)). The provision for
user selectable closed captions and audio description restates existing
practice, so it is unnecessary.
C. Functional Performance Criteria
The functional performance criteria are outcome-based provisions
that address barriers to using ICT by individuals with certain
disabilities, such as those related to vision, hearing, color
blindness, speech, and manual dexterity. Both the existing 508
Standards and 255 Guidelines provide functional performance criteria.
However, the existing 508 Standards do not expressly define the
relationship between its functional performance criteria and technical
requirements. To address this gap, the Board proposes to clarify when
application of the functional performance criteria in the 508 Standards
is required. (We are not proposing to change the application of the
functional performance criteria in the 255 Guidelines.) The Board also
proposes, in this NPRM, to update several functional performance
criteria in Chapter 3 to refine some criteria and to make editorial
changes necessitated by revisions elsewhere in the proposed rule.
1. Application of Functional Performance Criteria: 508 Standards
Section 1194.31 of the existing 508 Standards, which sets forth six
specific functional performance criteria, does not specify when federal
agencies and other covered entities should or must apply these
criteria. As described in the preamble to the final rule for the
existing standards:
This section [1194.31] provides functional performance criteria
for overall product evaluation and for technologies or components
for which there is no specific requirement under other sections.
These criteria are also intended to ensure that the individual
accessible components work together to create an accessible product.
(65 FR 80519 (Dec. 21, 2000))
Over the ensuing years, some have raised questions about
application of the functional performance criteria in the existing 508
Standards. The General Services Administration's IT Accessibility and
Workforce (GSA/ITAW)--which is the federal government's principal
coordinator for Section 508 implementation--provides the following
information in a ``Q&A'' format concerning application of the
functional performance criteria:
How should an agency proceed in identifying ``applicable''
technical provisions in Subparts B [technical provisions], C
[functional performance criteria], and D [information,
documentation, and support] of the Access Board's standards to
ensure acquired products provide comparable access?
Agencies should first look to the provisions in Subpart B
[technical provisions] to determine if there are specific technical
provisions that apply to the [ICT] need they are seeking to satisfy.
If there are applicable provisions in Subpart B [technical
provisions] that fully address the product or service being
procured, then the agency need not look to Subpart C [functional
performance criteria]. Acquired products that meet the specific
technical provisions set forth in Subpart B [technical provisions]
will also meet the broader functional performance criteria in
Subpart C [functional performance criteria].
If an agency's procurement needs are not fully addressed by
Subpart B [technical provisions], then the agency must look to
Subpart C [functional performance criteria] for applicable
functional performance requirements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ General Services Admin., Section 508 Frequently Asked
Questions 11 (Jan. 2014) (response to Question B.2.ii), available at
http://section508.gov/Section508_FAQs..
The GSA/ITAW's Q&A document also suggests that the functional
performance criteria in the existing 508 Standards be used to evaluate
ICT products for equivalent facilitation. Id.
As recounted previously, the Board's approach to specifying
requirements for application of the functional performance criteria has
evolved over the course of this rulemaking. The Advisory Committee
recommended that the Board clarify the relationship
[[Page 10898]]
between the functional performance criteria and the technical
provisions in the 508 Standards, but did not reach consensus on how to
address this issue. In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed to use the
approach suggested in the GSA/ITAW's Q&A document--namely, that
agencies first look to the technical provisions in the 508 Standards to
determine whether there were specific provisions that applied to the
ICT being procured. If there were technical provisions that fully
addressed the ICT being procured, then the agency would not need to
apply the functional performance criteria. Application of the
functional performance criteria would thus only be required under the
following two circumstances: When the agency's procurement needs were
not fully addressed by technical provisions in the 508 Standards, or
when evaluating ICT for equivalent facilitation. This proposal was
intended to reflect current agency practice.
Concerns expressed by commenters led the Board to propose
redefining the relationship between the functional performance criteria
and the technical provisions in the 508 Standards. In the 2011 ANPRM,
the Board proposed that ICT would be required to conform to the
functional performance criteria, even when the technical provisions
were met. This proposal, too, received mixed reviews from commenters.
While some commenters supported this approach, industry groups objected
to it as unworkable. They viewed the functional performance criteria as
overly subjective and not subject to objective testing. As one
commenter from the IT industry noted: ``[A] supplier cannot guarantee
that the functional performance criteria have been met unless the
supplier controls all the components of the end-to-end solution.''
In this NPRM, the Board heeds the concerns of industry groups and
effectively returns to our original proposal whereby the functional
performance criteria in the 508 Standards apply only in two specific
circumstances--when there are ``gaps'' in the technical requirements
and when evaluating equivalent facilitation. Specifically, agencies
would be required to apply the functional criteria as follows. First,
where the proposed requirements in Chapter 4 for hardware and Chapter 5
for software do not address one or more of the features of ICT,
sections E204.1 and C202.1 would require the features that are not
addressed in those chapters to conform to the functional performance
criteria in Chapter 3. This is consistent with the GSA/ITAW's
recommended approach under the existing 508 Standards. It is also
consistent with Sec. Sec. 1193.21 and 1193.41 of the existing 255
Guidelines. Second, section E101.2 proposes to require the functional
performance criteria to be used when evaluating ICT for equivalent
facilitation. This is consistent with the GSA/ITAW's recommended
approach under the existing 508 Standards.
With respect to the 255 Guidelines, neither the Advisory Committee
(in its TEITAC Report) nor the Board (in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs)
previously proposed any changes to the manner in which
telecommunications equipment manufacturers must apply the functional
performance criteria. Likewise, the Board proposes no changes in this
NPRM. See Section VI.D (Section-by-Section Analysis--Functional
Performance Criteria and Technical Requirements--C201.3 and C202).
2. Updates to Functional Performance Criteria: 508 Standards and 255
Guidelines
As noted above, the Board is also proposing in this NPRM to update
several functional performance criteria in Chapter 3 (located in
Appendix C--Technical Requirements)--which applies to both the 508
Standards and the 255 Guidelines--by refining some criteria and making
editorial changes necessitated by revisions elsewhere in the proposed
rule. We highlight below several of the principle revisions to the
functional performance criteria proposed in this NPRM. In addition,
Table 3, which follows at the end of this section, provides a detailed
comparison of the functional performance criteria in the existing 508
Standards (Sec. 1194.31), 255 Guidelines (1193.41), and the proposed
rule (section 302).
First, while the functional performance criteria in proposed 302 no
longer reference assistive technology, this amounts to an editorial
change only. The existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines allow
certain functional performance criteria to be satisfied either directly
or indirectly through support for assistive technology. (See, e.g.,
existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec. 1194.31(a)-(e)). The functional
performance criteria in the proposed rule do not provide for compliance
through support for assistive technology because other proposed
revisions to the 508 Standards (E203.1) and 255 Guidelines (C201.3)
would impose a general requirement that agencies and telecommunications
equipment manufacturers respectively ensure that all functionality of
ICT is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,
either directly or by supporting the use of assistive technology.
Second, as discussed in Section IV.E.6, the Board proposes to
revise the criteria for users with limited vision in section 302.2. The
existing 508 Standards require at least one mode of operation and
information retrieval that does not require visual acuity greater than
20/70 to be provided in audio and enlarged print output working
together or independently. The existing 255 Guidelines are similar,
except that they define users with limited vision as users possessing
visual acuity that ranges between 20/70 and 20/200. The proposed rule
would require at least one mode of operation that magnifies, one mode
that reduces the field of vision required, and one mode that allows
user control of contrast where a visual mode of operation is provided.
The proposed rule does not refer to visual acuity since comments in
response to proposals in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs recommended that the
criteria should address features that would improve accessibility for
users with limited vision instead of using visual acuity as a measure
of limited vision.
Third, there are two functional performance provisions in the
existing 255 Guidelines that are not found in the functional
performance criteria for existing 508 Standards: operations without
time-dependent controls (255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.41(g)) and
operations with limited cognitive skills (255 Guidelines Sec.
1193.41(i)). There is a technical provision in the existing 508
Standards that corresponds to 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.41(g) requiring
the operation of ICT without time-dependent controls (508 Standards
Sec. 1194.22(p)). This is addressed in the proposed rule in WCAG 2.0
Success Criteria 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable and 2.2.2 Pause, Stop and
Hide. We propose to incorporate by reference WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria
in proposed E207.2 and C205.2.
Fourth, the Board proposes not to include a functional performance
criteria relating to limited cognitive skills. The existing 255
Guidelines provide a criterion for at least one mode of operation that
minimizes cognitive skills required of the user (Sec. 1193.41(i)),
while the existing 508 Standards have no parallel provision. Such a
criterion has not been included in the proposed rule on the advice of
the Advisory Committee, which recommended deletion of this criteria
pending future research. (See Section VI.C (Section-by-Section
Analysis--Application and Scoping).
[[Page 10899]]
Table 3 below provides a provision-by-provision summary of how the
proposed rule would revise the existing functional performance criteria
by comparing the criteria in proposed 302 (in the left-hand column of
the table) to its counterparts in existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.31
(in the middle column of the table) and existing 255 Guidelines Sec.
1193.41 (in the right-hand column of the table).
Table 3--Comparison of the Functional Performance Criteria in the NPRM
and Existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sections E207.2 and
C205.2 (incorporating WCAG 2.0 Existing 508 Existing 255
by reference) and 302 Standards Guidelines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
302.1 Without Vision. Where a Sec. 1194.31 (a) Sec. 1193.41(a)
visual mode of operation is At least one mode Operable without
provided, ICT shall provide at of operation and vision. Provide
least one mode of operation information at least one mode
that does not require user retrieval that that does not
vision. does not require require user
user vision shall vision.
be provided, or
support for
assistive
technology used
by people who or
blind or visually
impaired shall be
provided.
302.2 With Limited Vision. Where Sec. 1194.31 (b) Sec. 1193.41 (b)
a visual mode of operation is At least one mode Operable with low
provided, ICT shall provide at of operation and vision and
least one mode of operation information limited or no
that magnifies, one mode that retrieval that hearing. Provide
that reduces the field of does not require at least one mode
vision required, and one mode visual acuity that permits
that allows user control of greater than 20/ operation by
contrast. 70 shall be users with visual
provided in audio acuity between 20/
and enlarged 70 and 20/200,
print output without relying
working together on audio output.
or independently,
or support for
assistive
technology used
by people who or
visually impaired
shall be provided.
302.3 Without Perception of No criteria for Sec. 1193.41 (c)
Color. Where a visual mode of users without Operable with
operation is provided, ICT perception of little or no
shall provide at least one mode color. color perception.
of operation that does not Provide at least
require user perception of one mode that
color.. does not require
user color
perception.
302.4 Without Hearing. Where an Sec. 1194.31 (c) Sec. 1193.41 (d)
auditory mode of operation is At least one mode Operable without
provided, ICT shall provide at of operation and hearing. Provide
least one mode of operation information at least one mode
that does not require user retrieval that that does not
hearing. does not require require user
user hearing auditory
shall be perception.
provided, or
support for
assistive
technology used
by people who are
deaf or hard of
hearing shall be
provided.
302.5 With Limited Hearing. Sec. 1194.31 (d) Operable with low
Where an auditory mode of Where audio vision and
operation is provided, ICT information is limited or no
shall provide at least one mode important for the hearing. Provide
of operation that improves use of a product, at least one mode
clarity, one mode that reduces at least one mode that permits
background noise, and one mode of operation and operation by
that allows user control of information users with visual
volume. retrieval shall acuity between 20/
be provided in an 70 and 20/200,
enhanced auditory without relying
fashion, or on audio output.
support for
assistive hearing
devices shall be
provided.
302.6 Without Speech. Where a Sec. 1194.31 (e) Sec. 1193.41(h)
spoken mode of operation is At least one mode Operable without
provided, ICT shall provide at of operation and speech. Provide
least one mode of operation information at least one mode
that does not require user retrieval that that does not
speech. does not require require user
user speech shall speech.
be provided, or
support for
assistive
technology used
by people with
disabilities
shall be provided.
302.7 With Limited Manipulation. Sec. 1194.31 (f) Sec. 1193.41 (e)
Where a manual mode of At least one mode Operable with
operation is provided, ICT of operation and limited manual
shall provide at least one mode information dexterity.
of operation that does not retrieval that Provide at least
require fine motor control or does not require one mode that
operation of more than one fine motor does not require
control at the same time. control or user fine motor
simultaneous control or
actions and that simultaneous
is operable with actions.
limited reach and
strength shall be
provided.
302.8 With Limited Reach or .................. Sec. 1193.41 (f)
Strength. Where a manual mode Operable with
of operation is provided, ICT limited reach and
shall provide at least one mode strength. Provide
of operation that is operable at least one mode
with limited reach and limited that is operable
strength. with user limited
reach and
strength.
WCAG 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable:
For each time limit that is set
by the content, at least one of
the following is true: (Level
A).
Turn off: The user
is allowed to turn off the
time limit before
encountering it; or
Adjust: The user is Sec. 1194.22 (p) Sec. 1193.41 (g)
allowed to adjust the time When a timed Operable without
limit before encountering response is time-dependent
it over a wide range that required, the controls. Provide
is at least ten times the user shall be at least one mode
length of the default alerted and given that does not
setting; or sufficient time require a
to indicate more response time.
time is required. Alternatively, a
response time may
be required if it
can be by-passed
or adjusted by
the user over a
wide range.
[[Page 10900]]
Extend: The user is
warned before time expires
and given at least 20
seconds to extend the time
limit with a simple action
(for example, ``press the
space bar''), and the user
is allowed to extend the
time limit at least ten
times; or
Real-time
Exception: The time limit
is a required part of a
real-time event (for
example, an auction), and
no alternative to the time
limit is possible; or
Essential
Exception: The time limit
is essential and extending
it would invalidate the
activity; or
20 Hour Exception:
The time limit is longer
than 20 hours.
WCAG 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide:
For moving, blinking,
scrolling, or auto-updating
information, all of the
following are true: (Level A).
Moving, blinking, Sec. 1194.22 (h) Sec. 1193.43 (c)
scrolling: For any moving, When animation is Access to moving
blinking or scrolling displayed, the text. Provide
information that (1) starts information shall moving text in at
automatically, (2) lasts be displayable in least one static
more than five seconds, and at least one non- presentation mode
(3) is presented in animated at the option of
parallel with other presentation mode the user.
content, there is a at the option of
mechanism for the user to the user.
pause, stop, or hide it
unless the movement,
blinking, or scrolling is
part of an activity where
it is essential; and
Auto-updating: For
any auto-updating
information that (1) starts
automatically and (2) is
presented in parallel with
other content, there is a
mechanism for the user to
pause, stop, or hide it or
to control the frequency of
the update unless the auto-
updating is part of an
activity where it is
essential.
No corresponding provisions..... No corresponding Sec. 1193.41 (i)
provisions. Operable with
limited cognitive
skills. Provide
at least one mode
that minimizes
the cognitive,
memory, language,
and learning
skills required
of the user.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Real-Time Text
In this NPRM, the Board proposes to require that ICT support RTT
functionality whenever such ICT also provides real-time, two-way voice
communication. This proposal represents a significant shift in approach
for both the 508 Standards and the 255 Guidelines to better align with
current technology. The existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines were
published over a decade ago. At the time, TTYs were the most commonly
available text-based system for communicating within a voice
communication system. Since then, technology has greatly advanced.
There are now, in addition to TTYs, multiple text-based means of
communication available in the marketplace. This proposed revision will
update the standards to reflect changes in telecommunications
technology.
Section 410.6 of the proposed rule would require ICT with real-time
voice communication features to also support communication through
real-time text. Such ICT would be required to support RTT either within
its own closed system or outside a network. For example, a closed
communication system, such as within a federal agency, would be
required to interoperate with either the publicly switched telephone
network (PSTN) or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) products or
systems to support the transmission of real-time text. When ICT
interoperates with VoIP products or systems using Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP), the Board proposes to require the transmission of real-
time text to conform to the Internet Engineering Task Force's RFC 4103
standard for RTP Payload for Text Conversation. Where ICT interoperates
with the PSTN, real-time text would be required to conform to the
Telecommunications Industry Association's TIA 825-A standard for TTY
signals at the PSTN interface (also known as Baudot). RFC 4103 and TIA
825-A are final standards proposed for incorporation by reference in
508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1 (see sections E102 and C102,
respectively).
Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM noted that other standards aside from
RFC 4103--such as XMPP and XEP-0301--were currently in use and could be
referenced as specifications for ICT interoperability with VoIP using
SIP. XEP-0301 is one of several pending standards developed for use in
the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). XMPP is a set of
open technologies for instant messaging, multi-party chat, voice and
video calls, collaboration, and generalized routing of XML data. XMPP
was originally developed in the Jabber open-source community to provide
an open, secure,
[[Page 10901]]
spam-free, decentralized alternative to closed instant messaging
services. XMPP differs from SIP, which is an application layer protocol
used to establish, modify, and terminate multimedia sessions such as
VoIP calls. Currently, both the XMPP and the SIP protocol are used in
the marketplace. At this time, however, only the standard supporting
the transmission of RTT over SIP (RFC 4103) is final. The standard
supporting RTT over XMPP (XEP-0301) is not yet finalized.
XEP-0301, In-Band Real-time Text, is a specification for real-time
text transmitted in-band over an XMPP network. It is used for text
messaging. As of the date of this publication, according to the XMPP
Standards Foundation, the XEP-0301 standard is under review and not yet
final. XEP-0301 has many advantages: It allows transmission of real-
time text with minimal delays; it supports message editing in real-
time; and, it has reliable real-time text delivery. It can be used for
multiple users and allows alternate optional presentations of real-time
text, including split screen or other layouts. The standard also allows
use within gateways to interoperate with other real-time text
protocols, including RFC 4103. It allows immediate conversational text
through mobile phone text messaging and mainstream instant messaging.
For more information on the benefits of XEP-0301, see http://www.realjabber.org/xep/xep-0301.html.
Yet despite its potential benefits, the Board cannot incorporate
XEP-0301 until it becomes a final standard. However, should the XEP-
0301 standard be finalized before publication of the final rule, the
Board plans to incorporate it by reference as an alternative technology
to support transmission of RTT when interoperating with VoIP products
or systems using XMPP. RFC 4103 would, in any event, be retained for
ICT interoperating with VoIP products or systems using SIP technology.
Question 8. If the XEP-0301 standard is finalized, the Board is
considering incorporating it by reference as an alternative standard
for XMPP networks. We seek comment on the benefits, costs, and possible
drawbacks associated with referencing this standard in addition to the
RFC 4103 standard.
The European standard, EN 301 549 would allow the use of multiple
standards for RTT. As discussed in 4.6, Harmonization with European
Activities above, EN 301 549 lists several standards for RTT, as well
as an unspecified ``common specification'' for RTT. The common
specification must indicate a method for indicating loss of corruption
of characters. The Board seeks comment on whether other standards
should be incorporated by reference. The other standards are:
ITU-T v.18, Recommendation ITU-T V.18 (2000) ``Operational
and interworking requirements for DCEs operating in the text telephone
mode'' (see EN 301 549 6.3.3(a)). This Recommendation specifies
features to be incorporated in data carrier equipment intended for use
in, or communicating with, text telephones primarily used by people who
are deaf or hard of hearing.
IP Multimedia Sub-System (IMS) protocols specified in TS
126 114, TS 122 173, and TS 134 229 (see EN 301 549 6.3.3(c)). ETSI TS
126 114, Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (which was
referenced in the EAAC Report and Recommendation noted previously in
Section IV.F.2) supports a ``total communication'' approach by
establishing a minimum set of codecs and transport protocols that must
be supported by all elements in the IMS system for video, real-time
text, audio, and high definition (HD) audio. As noted previously, the
Board decided not to require standards for video, audio, or HD audio in
this proposed rule beyond the technical requirements set forth in
proposed 410 (ICT with Two-Way Voice Communication). Both the ETSI TS
122 173 and ETSI TS 134 229 standards are still under development, and,
therefore, cannot be referenced at this time.
Question 9. Are there sufficient net benefits to be derived from
requiring ITU-T v.18 that the Board should reference it in addition to
TIA 825-A (2003)? We are requesting that telecommunication equipment
manufacturers, in particular, provide any data regarding potential
costs related to complying with this standard. Are there suggestions
for other standards which would result in the same level of
accessibility?
Question 10. Are there net benefits to be derived from requiring
more standards addressing multimedia than what we propose? The Board is
requesting that telecommunication equipment manufacturers, in
particular, provide any data regarding potential costs related to
complying with the standards in EN 301 549 6.3.3(c). Are there
suggestions for other standards which would result in the same level of
accessibility?
Question 11. Is ETSI TS 122 173 or ETSI TS 134 229 sufficiently
significant that the Board should consider referencing either standard
when it becomes final?
E. Assistive Technology
Based on the work of the Advisory Committee and feedback from
commenters, the Board proposes in this NPRM to directly cover some, but
not all, aspects of assistive technology (AT). All stakeholders agreed
that improving ICT-AT interoperability was critically important, but
offered differing perspectives on how to make this happen. There was
general consensus on some proposals (e.g., requirements for mainstream
ICT), but not for others (e.g., requirements for, and status of, AT).
In this NPRM, the Board proposes to revise its existing 508 Standards
and 255 Guidelines by: (a) Updating the existing requirements for
mainstream ICT software products--namely, platforms, operating systems,
and applications--to interoperate with assistive technology based on
consensus standards; (b) adding a new requirement for AT with a user
interface to interoperate with mainstream platforms and industry
standard accessibility services; and (c) clarifying that assistive
technology is generally exempted from compliance with otherwise
applicable technical requirements for hardware (Chapter 4) and software
(Chapter 5). Each of these areas are discussed briefly below.
With respect to the ICT side of the ICT-AT interoperability
equation, the Board proposes a set of updated technical requirements
for platforms and applications that will result in improved
interoperation. This proposal received strong support from industry
stakeholders who lauded it as an important improvement from the
existing requirements because it was comprehensive, testable, and
harmonized with international consensus standards for software
accessibility. Proposed 502 contains three main subsections. Proposed
502.2 Documented Accessibility Features largely tracks Sec. 1194.21(b)
of the existing 508 Standards, and was strongly recommended by the
Advisory Committee. Proposed 502.3 (Platform) Accessibility Services
incorporates much of existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec. 1194.21(b), (c),
(d), and (f), but proposed 502.3.1 through 502.3.9 provide
significantly greater detail. Lastly, in 502.4 Platform Accessibility
Features, the Board proposes to require that platforms provide specific
accessibility features common to most platforms. This provision is
being proposed in response to concerns raised by consumers and the
assistive technology industry that the Board was not being sufficiently
proactive in spelling out the accessibility features
[[Page 10902]]
that are well-established best practices. This proposal is based on
requirements in the ANSI/HFES 200.2 Human Factors Engineering of
Software User Interfaces standard, and represents current industry
practice.
Second, to address the role of the AT in ICT-AT interoperability,
the Board proposes modest requirements for assistive technology.
Proposed 503.3 Alternate User Interfaces would require assistive
technology to use the basic set of platform accessibility information
provided by operating systems and software (i.e., platform
accessibility information provided under proposed 502.2) to aid
interoperability, and, thereby, decrease the need for customized
approaches. In other words, software providing an alternative user
interface would need to support the platform for which it is designed.
Commenters outside the AT industry voiced strong support for this
proposal; these views convinced the Board that this modest shift in
approach from the existing requirements would better ensure ICT-AT
interoperability. Because it is sometimes ambiguous whether a software
product is serving as assistive technology, this proposed provision
speaks in terms of ``alternate user interface[s] that function[] as
assistive technology.'' Proposed 503.3 is the only manner in which the
Board is proposing to directly impose requirements on assistive
technology; in all other respects, provisions aiding interoperability
are directed at platforms, operating systems, and other types of
applications.
Third, to provide clarification sought by a number of commenters,
the Board proposes to expressly exempt assistive technology from
compliance with technical requirements generally applicable to hardware
(Chapter 4) and software (Chapter 5). Commenters had expressed concern
that, if assistive technology was treated as ICT for all purposes, some
assistive technology would not be able to fulfill its intended
function. For example, an individual with low muscle tone may find that
a specialized, flat membrane keyboard best serves his or her needs;
however, such a keyboard would not satisfy the requirements of Chapter
4 because, among other things, it does not have tactilely discernable
separation between keys (proposed 407.3). Accordingly, proposed 401.1
provides an exception for hardware that is assistive technology, and a
similar exception is proposed for assistive technology software
(501.1--Exception 2).
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Introduction
As noted above, the Board is proposing to revise and update both
the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. The existing standards and
guidelines are set forth in two separate regulatory parts--36 CFR parts
1194 and 1193--and apply to different types of covered entities (e.g.,
federal entities and telecommunications equipment manufacturers).
Nonetheless, these two sets of provisions contain many similar
provisions and are, in our view, inextricably linked from a regulatory
perspective. Both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines contain
technical requirements for the design of accessible ICT. Both contain
functional performance criteria, which apply when there are gaps in one
or more of their respective technical provisions. Both address hardware
and software features of ICT. Finally, both require that support
documentation and services, when offered, are provided in a manner that
meets the communication needs of individuals with disabilities and
conveys information on the accessibility features of ICT.
We are proposing to combine the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines
into a single comprehensive set of requirements with three parts that
will appear as Appendices A, B, and C to 36 CFR part 1194. Appendix A
covers the proposed application and scoping requirements for ICT
subject to Section 508 (``508 Chapter 1'' and ``508 Chapter 2'').
Appendix B addresses the proposed application and scoping requirements
for ICT covered by Section 255 (``255 Chapter 1'' and ``255 Chapter
2''). Appendix C includes the proposed functional performance criteria
(Chapter 3) and the proposed technical requirements (Chapters 4 through
6) that are referenced by the Section 508 and Section 255 scoping
provisions in Appendices A and B.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Advisory sections and figures that illustrate the technical
requirements are available on the Internet at: www.access-board.gov.
The advisory sections provide guidance only and do not contain
mandatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application and scoping includes instructions on when and how the
provisions in proposed chapters 3 through 6 would apply under Sections
508 and 255. With this proposed format, it is critical for covered
entities to review scoping and application in either Appendix A (508
Chapters 1 and 2) or Appendix B (255 Chapters 1 and 2) before
consulting the functional performance and technical criteria in
Appendix C (Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6). For example, under Section 508,
federal agencies that wish to procure, use, maintain or develop ICT,
must first understand what ICT is covered by the proposed technical
requirements and functional performance criteria. This information
exists only in Appendix A. Agencies would not consult Appendix B
because it applies only to telecommunications equipment manufacturers
subject to Section 255. Similarly, telecommunications equipment
manufacturers would consult Appendix B to ascertain what ICT is subject
to the proposed technical requirements and functional performance
criteria under Section 255; they would not be required to comply with
Appendix A. Nonetheless, it bears noting that, while a Section 255-
covered manufacturer is not obligated to comply with the 508 Standards,
such manufacturers may still elect at their discretion to consult the
standards if they wish. For example, if a telecommunications equipment
manufacturer wished to make certain products (or features of products)
more marketable to federal agencies, this manufacturer might choose to
consult the 508 Standards to be familiar with standards governing
federal agencies' procurement obligations.
Naming conventions used in the Appendices for requirements also
help indicate whether a particular provision applies under Section 508,
Section 255, or both. In Appendix A, all proposed provisions are
preceded by the letter ``E'' to indicate the provision would be
applicable under Section 508 only. In Appendix B, all proposed
provisions are preceded by the letter ``C'' to indicate the provision
would be applicable under Section 255 only.\7\ The proposed technical
requirements in Appendix C do not include an alphabetic prefix because,
as discussed above, they would be applied in accordance with the
application and scoping requirements in either Appendix A or Appendix
B, depending on whether the covered entity is subject to Section 508
(federal entities) or Section 255 (telecommunications equipment
manufacturers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The ``C'' prefix for Section 255-specific requirements is a
shorthand reference to ``communications'' in ICT, while the ``E''
prefix for requirements exclusive to the 508 Standards derives from
``electronic'' in the former regulatory term, E&IT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed formatting and organizational structure is based on
recommendations made by the Advisory Committee and public comments
submitted in response to the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs. Section VI.B (508
Standards: Application and Scoping) and Section VI.C (255 Guidelines:
[[Page 10903]]
Application and Scoping), below, summarize the proposed rule and
explain any differences between the existing requirements for Section
508 and Section 255 and the proposed rule. Due to the overlapping
nature of the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, some of the
following section-by-section discussions of particular standards also
address a ``sister'' guideline. In addition, in a number of these
sections, the Board poses questions soliciting comments, information,
or data from the public.
B. 508 Standards: Application and Scoping
508 Chapter 1: Application and Administration
This chapter proposes general requirements reflecting the purpose
of the 508 Standards (E101.1). It also proposes criteria for equivalent
facilitation (E101.2), lists referenced standards and where they may be
obtained (E102), and provides definitions of terms used in the
standards (E103). 508 Chapter 1 proposes, in large part, to simplify
and reorganize similar provisions contained in existing 508 Standards
Sec. Sec. 1194.1 Purpose, 1194.4 Definitions, and 1194.5 Equivalent
Facilitation.
E101 General
This is an introductory section.
E101.1 Purpose
This section states that the purpose of the 508 Standards is to
provide scoping and technical requirements for ICT that is accessible
to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Compliance with these
requirements is mandatory for federal agencies subject to Section 508.
E101.2 Equivalent Facilitation
This section is based on existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.5. It
would permit the use of an alternative design or technology in lieu of
conformance to the proposed technical requirements in Chapters 4 and 5,
but only if the alternative design or technology provides substantially
equivalent or greater accessibility and usability by persons with
disabilities than would be provided by conforming to the proposed
technical provisions. This section also would require the proposed
functional performance criteria in Chapter 3 to be used to determine
whether the alternative design or technology provides individuals with
disabilities with substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and
usability. The application of the functional performance criteria for
this purpose would fill in a gap in the existing 508 Standards, which
do not explain how the functional performance criteria are to be used
in relation to the technical provisions. We explain our approach in
greater detail above in Section V.C (Major Issues--Functional
Performance Criteria).
E101.3 Conventional Industry Tolerances
This section would provide that dimensions are subject to
conventional industry tolerances except where dimensions are stated as
a range. This proposed provision would be new to the 508 Standards and
would clarify how dimensions are to be interpreted when specified in
the text or a referenced standard.
E101.4 Units of Measurement
This section would note measurements are stated in U.S. customary
and metric units and that the values stated in each system (U.S.
customary and metric units) may not be exact equivalents. This section
would also provide that each system be used independently of the other.
This proposed section is new to the 508 Standards and would clarify
dimensions stated in the text of the proposed rule.
E102 Referenced Standards
This is an introductory section.
E102.1 Incorporation by Reference
This section lists the technical standards developed by voluntary
consensus standard-setting bodies that the Board proposes to
incorporate by reference in the proposed 508 Standards. It would
require that where there is a difference between a provision of the
proposed 508 Standards and the referenced standards, the 508 Standards
would apply.
Incorporating these standards complies with the federal mandate--as
set forth in the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 and OMB Circular A119--that agencies use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless doing so would be
legally impermissible or impractical. The standards proposed for
incorporation would improve clarity because they are built on consensus
standards developed by stakeholders. Most of these standards are widely
used and, therefore, should be familiar to many regulated entities.
Incorporation by reference of these standards would be a distinct
change and improvement from the existing 508 Standards, which contain
no referenced standards. The Advisory Committee strongly recommended
the adoption of specific accessibility consensus standards in order to
promote harmonization. The adoption of consensus standards results in a
more unified regulatory environment in which all participants benefit
from clarity and simplicity. As noted in the TEITAC Report:
Industry supports harmonization in principle because it allows
the ICT market to address accessibility through a global process--
one product developed to be sold world-wide--rather than by trying
to meet unique, potentially conflicting standards required by
different countries. Harmonization should result in more accessible
products, delivered through a more economically efficient market.
Consumers thus benefit directly from harmonization; they also
benefit indirectly because harmonization allows advocates to focus
their efforts on fewer standards development activities. It is this
economy of focused effort that may offer the greatest net benefit to
people with disabilities. (TEITAC Report, Part 4, section 4.3).
Once incorporated by reference, the referenced standards become
part of the 508 Standards. We are unaware of any duplication or overlap
among the parts of the proposed standards, including the standards
incorporated by reference. However, in order to address any potential
conflicts, proposed E102.1 (as well as C102.1) provide that, when a
conflict occurs between the 508 Standards (or 255 Guidelines) and a
standard incorporated by reference, the 508 Standards (or 255
Guidelines) apply.
While a discussion of the estimated economic impact of the proposed
rule--including the proposed incorporation by reference of the
consensus technical standards listed in E102.1 and C102.1--follows
below in Section VIII, two points bear noting here. First, the cost of
implementing this proposed rule can be mitigated, in part, through use
of an updated product accessibility template that includes WCAG 2.0 and
the other referenced standards. The product accessibility template,
available through the GSA Section508.gov site is intended to help
agencies understand which provisions apply to particular products. We
expect GSA will update this tool so that it will be available for use
by agencies on or before the effective date of revised 508 Standards.
Second, the W3C WCAG Web site provides readily available technical
assistance--free of charge--that is linked to each technical
requirement in WCAG 2.0. A great deal of third-party information is
also available. Collectively, these resources should also greatly aid
federal agencies and other regulated entities become conversant with
the provisions in this
[[Page 10904]]
standard, to the extent they are not already familiar with them.
The Office of the Federal Register recently promulgated a final
rule requiring federal agencies to provide information to the public in
regulatory preambles relating to the availability of materials to be
incorporated by reference. In Section VII.G (Regulatory Process
Matters--Availability of Materials Incorporated by Reference) below,
the Board provides information on the availability of ten consensus
standards proposed for incorporation by reference in the 508 Standards
and 255 Guidelines.
The proposed 508 Standards would incorporate by reference the
following standards:
E102.2 ANSI/HFES
ANSI/HFES 200.2, Human Factors Engineering of Software User
Interfaces--Part 2: Accessibility (2008), would be incorporated by
reference at 502.4. This standard provides ergonomic guidance and
specifications for the design of accessible software for use at work,
in the home, in educational settings, and in public places. It covers
issues associated with designing accessible software for people with a
wide range of physical, sensory and cognitive abilities, including
those who are temporarily disabled and the elderly.
This proposed standard would be new to both the 508 Standards and
255 Guidelines. Referencing this standard will ensure that ICT
operating systems provide accessibility features (e.g., keyboard entry
with a single finger, visual alerts paired with audible prompts) that
users with disabilities expect and have come to rely upon. These
features are commonly available in platform operating systems; the
standard, therefore, serves mainly to codify current industry
practices.
E102.3 ANSI/IEEE
ANSI/IEEE C63.19-2011, American National Standard for Methods of
Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices
and Hearing Aids, would be incorporated by reference at 410.4.1. This
standard is consistent with current telecommunications industry
practices.
Products conforming to this standard minimize interference to
hearing aids by wireless telephones. When telephone interference is not
minimized, it can create noise in hearing aids that masks the sound of
conversation. An added value of this standard is that it provides a
uniform method of measurement for compatibility between hearing aids
and wireless communications devices.
E102.4 ATSC
A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5: AC-3 Audio System
Characteristics (2010) would be incorporated by reference at 412.1.1.
This standard provides technical requirements for digital television
tuners when they process audio description. This standard is consistent
with current telecommunications industry practice.
E102.5 IETF
RFC 4103, RTP Payload for Text Conversation (2005), would be
incorporated by reference at 410.6.3.2. This standard describes how to
carry real-time text conversation session contents in RTP packets.
Real-time text conversation is used alone, or in connection with other
conversational modalities, to form multimedia conversation services.
Examples of other conversational modalities are video and voice. When
using RTT, text is received at the same time it is generated. For
people who communicate without voice, RTT offers a way to interact that
more closely resembles a live two-way call. This proposed standard
would be new to the 508 Standards (as well as the 255 Guidelines), and
represents a significant shift to better align with current technology.
IP-based RTT is the only modern technology that offers the same
functionality that TTYs have historically provided. Contemporary TTYs
do not work with modern IP desk phones because the acoustic signal
(Baudot) is garbled due to incompatible compression algorithms. When
communication in real time is important, as in emergency situations,
RTT allows users to communicate in a manner similar to a live two-way
voice call. Parties exchange information in real time and can interrupt
each other during the conversation. This technology most closely
approximates the useful features of TTYs. Real-time text is also
discussed in detail in Section V.D (Major Issues--Real-Time Text)
above.
E102.6 ISO
ISO 14289-1 (2012), Document management applications -- Electronic
document file format enhancement for accessibility -- Part 1: Use of
ISO 32000-1 (PDF/UA-1), would be incorporated by reference at E205.1
and 602.3.1. This is an international standard for accessible portable
document format (PDF) files. PDF/UA-1 provides a technical,
interoperable standard for the authoring, remediation, and validation
of PDF content to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities who
use assistive technology such as screen readers, screen magnifiers,
joysticks and other assistive technologies to navigate and read
content. This proposed standard is new to both the 508 Standards and
the 255 Guidelines. It is offered as an option to WCAG 2.0 for
accessible PDFs.
E102.7 ITU-T
ITU-T Recommendation G.722, General Aspects of Digital Transmission
Systems, Terminal Components, 7 kHz Audio-Coding within 64 kbits/s
(Sept. 2012), would be incorporated by reference at 410.5. This
standard is an ITU-T standard coder-decoder program that provides 7 kHz
wideband audio at data rates from 48, 56, and 64 kbits/s. This standard
provides a significant improvement in speech quality over earlier
standards. It was previously proposed in the 2011 ANPRM and received no
objections.
ITU-T Recommendation E.161: Arrangement of digits, letters and
symbols on telephones and other devices that can be used for gaining
access to a telephone network (Feb. 2001), would be incorporated by
reference at section 407.3.2. This standard is an ITU-T standard that
defines the assignment of the basic 26 Latin letters (A to Z) to the
12-key telephone keypad. It provides guidance for arranging alphabetic
keys in a predictable, consistent manner. This proposed standard is new
to the 508 Standards (as well as the 255 Guidelines), though it
reflects current industry practice.
E102.8 TIA
TIA 825-A (2003), A Frequency Shift Keyed Modem for Use on the
Public Switched Telephone Network, would be incorporated by reference
at 410.6.3.1. This is the standard for TTY signals on the public
switched telephone network interface (PSTN). This standard is
consistent with current industry practice in the telecommunications
industry.
TIA 1083 (2007), Telephone Terminal Equipment Handset Magnetic
Measurement Procedures and Performance Requirements, would be
incorporated by reference at 410.4.2. This standard defines measurement
procedures and performance requirements for the handset generated audio
band magnetic noise of wire line telephones, including digital cordless
telephones. This standard is consistent with current telecommunications
industry practice.
E102.9 W3C
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, W3C
Recommendation,
[[Page 10905]]
December 11, 2008, would be incorporated by reference in sections
E205.1, E207.2, 405.1 Exception, 501.1 Exception 1, 504.2, 504.3,
504.4, and 602.3.1. WCAG 2.0 offers a series of recommendations to make
Web content more accessible to all users, including persons with
disabilities. We discuss our proposal to incorporate WCAG 2.0 by
reference in greater detail above in Section V.B (Major Issues--WCAG
2.0 Incorporation by Reference).
E103 Definitions
This is an introductory section.
E103.1 Terms Defined in Referenced Standards
This section proposes that terms defined in referenced standards,
which are not otherwise defined in section E103.4, would have the
meaning given them in their respective referenced standards.
E103.2 Undefined Terms
This section proposes that the meaning of terms not defined in
section E103.4 or in referenced standards shall be given their
ordinarily accepted meanings in the sense that the particular context
implies.
E103.3 Interchangeability
This section proposes that words, terms, and phrases used in the
singular shall include the plural and those used in the plural shall
include the singular.
E103.4 Defined Terms
This section includes definitions for terms used in, or integral
to, the proposed 508 Standards. Some of the definitions have been
carried over in whole or in part from the existing 508 Standards, while
others represent terms that are new to these standards. We also propose
to delete several definitions from the existing 508 Standards that are
either obsolete or no longer needed. A summary of the proposed
definitions in E103.4 follows below. Terms that are not discussed
remain unchanged from the existing 508 Standards.
For four terms in the existing 508 Standards, the Board proposes to
retain the term, but make slight changes to their respective
definitions to improve clarity or to account for technological
advances. The definition of the term ``agency'' would be revised to
expressly include agencies and departments of the United States as
defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502 and the U.S. Postal Service. The term
``assistive technology'' would include minor editorial changes from the
text in the existing 508 Standards. The term ``operable controls''
would be revised to ``operable part,'' which would be defined as ``a
component of ICT used to activate, deactivate, or adjust the ICT.'' The
proposed definition would not include the requirement for physical
contact found in the definition in the existing 508 Standards and would
not include examples of controls. The term ``TTY'' would be updated to
reflect modern technologies currently in use, and would specifically
mention such examples as devices for real-time text communications,
voice and text intermixed communications (e.g. voice carry over and
hearing carry over), and computers with TTY-emulating software and a
modem.
Two other terms are new to the proposed 508 Standards, but have
close analogs in the existing standards. First, the term ``closed
functionality'' would replace ``self-contained closed products.'' The
proposed new definition would provide a more accurate description of
the characteristics of the ICT that is addressed in the proposed
provision in section 402 ``Closed Functionality.'' In addition, this
term would address both those features of ICT that are closed by design
and other features that are closed because of policies that may
restrict specific functions of ICT, where the ICT might normally be
capable of being made accessible to an individual with a disability.
For example, a policy not allowing the attachment of data storage
devices to ICT would, in the case of an individual with low vision,
essentially block that person from being able to attach a device
containing magnification software. The new definition would include
examples of ICT with closed functionality, such as self-service
machines and fax machines.
Second, the term ``information and communication technology'' (ICT)
would replace ``electronic and information technology'' (E&IT), and
revise the definition significantly. The proposed definition for ICT
would be broader than the existing definition of E&IT in that it
encompasses both electronic and information technology covered by
Section 508, and telecommunications products, interconnected Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) products, and Customer Premises Equipment
(CPE) covered by Section 255. Using a common term that is applicable to
both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines supports one of the central
goals of this rulemaking--namely, development of a single set of
comprehensive requirements for two substantive areas that are
inseparable from regulatory and policy perspectives. Additionally, to
address confusion regarding application of the existing 508 Standards
to electronic documents, the proposed ICT definition expressly
clarifies that electronic content--such as Web pages and PDFs--falls
within the definition of ICT. Lastly, this newly defined term provides
an updated set of illustrative examples that better reflect today's
technologies.
We developed the definition for ICT by using the concepts from the
existing definitions of ``electronic and information technology,''
``information technology,'' and ``telecommunications equipment,''
albeit with significantly revised language. Defining a common term that
covers both Section 508-covered E&IT and Section 255-covered
telecommunications products and services is consistent with the overall
approach in the proposed rule of presenting a unitary set of regulatory
requirements under these two statutes. The proposed definition of ICT
is also consistent with the terminology used by the Advisory Committee
in its TEITAC report. That report noted:
Section 255 covers telecommunications products and services.
Section 508 covers electronic and information technologies (E&IT).
For convenience and clarity, wherever these two categories are taken
together, we are using the common term ``information and
communication technologies, or ICT. (TEITAC Report, Part 1 & fn. 1.)
The TEITAC Report further noted that the 255 Guidelines developed
by the Access Board ``cover customer premises equipment and
telecommunications equipment, but do not address services.'' (See
TEITAC Report, Part 1 & fn. 2.)
We proposed in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs that the term ``information
and communication technology (ICT)'' be used to refer to electronic and
information technology covered by Section 508 as well as to
telecommunications products, interconnected Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) products, and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) covered
by Section 255. Commenters to the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs supported this
approach. In the proposed rule, the Board retains this approach.
The remaining 18 terms defined in proposed E103.4 have no
counterparts in the existing 508 Standards. We propose adding these
terms to the 508 Standards to provide definitions for key terms used in
the proposed standards, reflect technological advances since
promulgation of the existing 508 Standards, and aid stakeholder
understanding. These new terms are described below.
The term ``508 Standards'' is defined in order to provide
consistent cross-reference within the standards to all
[[Page 10906]]
chapters that apply to Section 508-covered federal entities, namely:
508 Chapters 1 and 2 (36 CFR part 1194, Appendix A), and Chapters 3
through 6 (36 CFR part 1194, Appendix C). This definition is consistent
with proposed Sec. 1194.1, as well as usage of the term throughout
this NPRM.
The term ``audio description'' is used in existing 508 Standards
Sec. 1194.24(d) but not defined. We would add a definition derived
from WCAG 2.0, which would in part explain that ``audio description''
is ``narration added to the soundtrack to describe important visual
details that cannot be understood from the main soundtrack alone.''
The term ``authoring tool'' would be defined to mean ``any
software, or collection of software components, that can be used by
authors, alone or collaboratively, to create or modify content for use
by others, including other authors,'' and would be included to explain
the proposed provision in section 504, ``Authoring Tools.''
The term ``content'' would be defined as ``Electronic information
and data, as well as the encoding that defines its structure,
presentation, and interactions.'' The definition is based on WCAG 2.0,
and is proposed to promote harmonization and greater clarity in the
proposed Standards and Guidelines.
The term ``keyboard'' would be defined as ``a set of systematically
arranged alphanumeric keys or a control that generates alphanumeric
input by which a machine or device is operated.'' This proposed
definition would also clarify that a ``keyboard'' includes ``tactilely
discernible keys used in conjunction with the alphanumeric keys if
their function maps to keys on the keyboard interfaces.'' This proposed
new definition would clarify the use of the term ``keyboard'' in
Chapter 4 (Hardware).
The term ``Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)'' is new and is
defined consistent with current FCC regulations.
The remaining twelve proposed new terms would be added to aid
stakeholder understanding of particular requirements or criteria in the
508 Standards. Definitions for the terms ``label,'' ``name,''
``programmatically determinable,'' and ``text'' are taken from WCAG
2.0. Additionally, the terms ``application,'' ``hardware,'' and
``software'' are based on definitions provided in the FCC's regulations
implementing Section 255 of the Communications Act. See 47 CFR part 14.
Definitions for the terms ``menu,'' ``platform accessibility
services,'' ``platform software,'' ``real-time text,'' and ``terminal''
were drawn from the work of the Advisory Committee and other sources.
``Menu,'' ``platform accessibility services,'' and ``real-time text''
were proposed in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs. We received no public
comments in response to these definitions in the two ANPRMs.
Lastly, proposed E103.4 would not include several terms that are
defined in the existing 508 Standards. There terms are not included in
this proposed rule because either the proposed technical requirement
associated with the term sufficiently conveys its meaning (i.e.,
``alternate formats'' and ``undue burden''), or because the term is not
used in the proposed rule (i.e., ``alternate methods,'' ``product,''
and ``self-contained, closed products'').
508 Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements
This chapter proposes scoping for ICT that is procured, developed,
maintained or used by federal agencies--that is, the types of ICT that
would be required to conform to the proposed functional performance
criteria and technical requirements in the 508 Standards, as well as
the conditions under which these provisions would apply. Chapter 2
would contain provisions currently addressed in existing 508 Standards
Sec. Sec. 1194.2 ``Application'' and 1194.3 ``General Exceptions,''
thereby locating all scoping provisions in a single chapter.
E201 Application
This is an introductory section.
E201.1 Scope
This section proposes that ICT procured, developed, maintained, or
used by agencies must conform to the proposed requirements set forth
(or referenced) in 508 Chapter 2. This provision is consistent with
existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.2.
E202 General Exceptions
This section contains proposed exceptions to the general scoping
provisions in proposed 201. The structure of the proposed standards
reinforces the principle that, under the general scoping provision, all
ICT procured, developed, maintained or used by agencies would be
required to conform to the proposed requirements, unless otherwise
exempted. General exceptions apply broadly and, where applicable,
exempt ICT from conformance with the proposed 508 Standards. Most of
the proposed general exemptions are the same as those in existing 508
Standards Sec. 1194.3, with only minor editorial changes. A brief
discussion of the proposed changes to the General Exceptions follows
below.
The Board is proposing to exclude from this rule two exceptions
that are contained in the existing 508 Standards: Sec. Sec. 1194.3(c)
and 1194.3(d). Section 1194.3(c) provides that assistive technology
need not be provided at the workstations of all federal employees.
However, there is no general rule in either the existing or proposed
508 Standards that requires agencies to provide assistive technology at
all workstations. Instead, these standards require compatibility with
assistive technology when ICT is not directly accessible. The exception
in Sec. 1194.3(c) is thus unnecessary and potentially confusing.
Consequently, the Board is not retaining it in the proposed rule.
We are also proposing to exclude the exception in Sec. 1194.3(d)
of the existing 508 Standards, which provides that when agencies
provide the public access to ICT, they are not required to make agency-
owned ICT available to individuals with disabilities who are members of
the public at non-public locations. We are proposing to remove this
exception because there is nothing in the proposed 508 Standards that
would require an agency to provide accessible ICT at a specific
location, or that would require public access to locations not open to
the public. Consequently, this exception is not needed, and its removal
from the 508 Standards would have no practical impact. The Board
intends to address the continuing obligation of agencies to provide
accommodations under Sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in
forthcoming guidance material to be posted on our Web site following
publication of the final rule.
E202.1 General
This section proposes that ICT is exempt from these requirements to
the extent specified by section E202.
E202.2 National Security Systems
This section proposes that ICT operated by agencies as part of a
national security system, as defined by 40 U.S.C. 11103(a), is exempt
from the requirements of this document. This is unchanged from existing
508 Standards Sec. 1194.3(a).
E202.3 Federal Contracts
This section proposes that ICT acquired by a contractor that is
incidental to a contract would not be required to conform to this
document. This proposed exception is unchanged from existing 508
Standards Sec. 1194.3(b), and the Board's approach is discussed in
greater detail above in Section IV.E.8 (Rulemaking History--2010 and
2011
[[Page 10907]]
ANPRMs: Significant Issues--Revisions to Exceptions under 508
Standards).
E202.4 Functions Located in Maintenance or Monitoring Spaces
This section proposes to revise Sec. 1194.3(f) of the existing 508
Standards to clarify that, where status indicators and operable parts
for ICT functions are located in spaces that are only frequented by
service personnel for maintenance, such items need not conform to the
requirements of 508 Chapter 2. Functions of ICT located in maintenance
spaces that can be controlled remotely, however, would still be
required to comply with applicable standards. For example, if a server
is located on a tall rack in a maintenance closet accessed only by
service personnel, the controls on the server need not be accessible.
However, any network or other server functions that could be accessed
remotely would be required to comply with the proposed 508 Standards.
We discuss our approach with respect to this exception in greater
detail above in Section IV.E.8 (Rulemaking History--Major Issues
Addressed in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs--Revisions to Exceptions under
508 Standards).
E202.5 Undue Burden or Fundamental Alteration
This section proposes to retain the provisions in existing 508
Standards Sec. Sec. 1194.3(e) and 1194.2(a)(1), but would combine them
in a single provision. This section would require that agencies comply
with the requirements of the 508 Standards up to the point where
conformance would impose an undue burden on the agency or would result
in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the ICT. Proposed
subsections E202.5.1 and E202.5.2 respectively set forth criteria for
undue burden determinations and establish requirements for written
documentation of undue burden and fundamental alteration findings.
E202.5.1 Basis for a Determination of Undue Burden
This section proposes to incorporate language from the definition
of ``undue burden'' in the existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.4 into a
separate scoping provision. It would require that, when determining
whether conformance to the proposed 508 Standards would impose an undue
burden on the agency, the agency must consider the extent to which
conformance would impose significant difficulty or expense taking into
consideration the agency resources available to the program or
component for which the ICT is to be procured, developed, maintained,
or used. The proposed organizational restructuring of the undue burden
provision represents an editorial revision only that is not intended to
have substantive impact.
E202.5.2 Required Documentation
This section proposes to require responsible agency officials to
document in writing the basis for determining that compliance with the
proposed 508 Standards would either impose an undue burden or result in
a fundamental alteration in the nature of the ICT. This proposed
documentation requirement is derived from existing 508 Standards Sec.
1194.2(a)(2) applicable to a determination of undue burden in the
procurement context. Proposed 202.5.2 would, however, broaden this
existing requirement by requiring written determinations in two new
settings: (a) When an agency determines that conformance would result
in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the ICT; and (b) when an
agency determines that conforming to one or more provisions applicable
to the development, maintenance, or use of ICT would impose an undue
burden. This change is intended to ensure accountability and
transparency in agencies' Section 508 implementation efforts by
treating documentation obligations equally as between procurement and
non-procurement contexts.
Under Section 508, it is the responsibility of each agency to
establish policies and procedures describing how they will comply with
the standards, including those for making undue burden and fundamental
alteration determinations. The Department of Justice's 2012 Biennial
Report on Section 508 notes that ``[n]early forty percent of agency
components reported establishing a formal, written policy to document
Section 508 exceptions claimed on [ICT] procurements. Many of these
agency components reported that their [ICT] procurements met the
Section 508 requirements and that reliance on an exception was
unnecessary.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Department of Justice, Section 508 Report to the President
and Congress: Accessibility of Federal Electronic and Information
Technology (Sept. 2012), available at: http://www.ada.gov/508/508_Report.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Access Board anticipates that the burdens associated with
broadening the scope of the documentation requirement will be minimal.
First, proposed 202.5.3 deliberately does not prescribe criteria for
needed documentation to ensure a deliberative and documented decisional
process without being overly prescriptive. In this way, each agency is
free to develop documentation policies and practices that best suit its
respective needs and resources. Such an approach is consistent with,
and respectful of, Section 508's grant of independent responsibility
for Section 508 enforcement to each agency.
Second, the Board expects that invocation of the undue burden and
fundamental alteration exceptions will be infrequent, which would also
mean an infrequent need for written determinations. For example, in the
procurement context, the DOJ 2012 Biennial Report notes that many
responding agency components reported having never relied on any
exception. Agency components that did make occasional use of available
exceptions, assertions of undue burden or fundamental alteration were,
in turn, relatively uncommon. Use of these exceptions in procurements
was limited to ``large'' and ``very large'' agencies; small and mid-
size agencies (i.e., agencies with 10,000 employees or less) did not
report using these exceptions. For larger agencies, only about 20
percent of agency components reported using the undue burden or
fundamental alteration exceptions respectively. Thus, because proposed
202.5.2 broadens only agencies' respective obligation to document undue
burden or fundamental alteration determinations, and does not change
the underlying substantive criteria for these exceptions, it is
expected that occasions in which agencies must document use of these
exceptions will be infrequent in both procurement and non-procurement
contexts.
E202.5.3 Alternative Means
This section proposes that, when an agency determines that an undue
burden or fundamental alteration exists, it must provide individuals
with disabilities access to and use of information and data by an
alternative means that meets identified needs. The proposed provision
is taken from existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.2(a)(1) addressing
undue burden, but adds the reference to fundamental alteration to
clarify that agencies must still provide people with disabilities
access to and use of information and data when either of these
exceptions applies.
E202.6 Best Meets
This section proposes that, where ICT conforming to one or more
provisions of the 508 Standards is not commercially available, the
agency must procure the product that best meets these standards
consistent with its business needs. This section would editorially
revise existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.2(b).
[[Page 10908]]
Question 12. We are requesting information on how many times a
year, on average, federal agencies respectively procure ICT that ``best
meets'' the 508 Standards.
E202.6.1 Required Documentation
This section proposes to require that agencies document in writing
the basis for determining that ICT fully conforming to applicable 508
Standards is not commercially available. Documenting the exception for
commercial non-availability is not a requirement in the existing 508
Standards, though such documentation is mandated under the current
federal acquisition regulations. See 48 CFR 39.203. A number of
commenters to the 2010 ANPRM requested this change and supported its
inclusion in the 2011 ANPRM. A documentation requirement was proposed
in the 2011 ANPRM, and the Board did not receive any negative comments.
Question 13. The Board seeks information from federal agencies on
the estimated number of hours, on average, they anticipate needing to
prepare each written documentation of commercial unavailability
determination under proposed E202.6.1.
E202.6.2 Alternative Means
This section proposes to require agencies to provide individuals
with disabilities the information and data that would have been
provided by fully conforming ICT when such ICT is commercially
unavailable. Proposed E202.6.2 is similar in intent to proposed
E202.5.3 (Undue Burden--Alternative Means), and would reinforce the
statutory requirement for agencies to ensure that individuals with
disabilities have comparable access to information and data.
E203 Access to Functionality
This is an introductory section.
E203.1 General
This section proposes to require agencies to ensure that all
functionality of ICT is accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, either directly or by supporting the use of assistive
technology. While this provision would be new to the 508 Standards, it
is consistent with current agency practice. The Board interprets the
statutory requirement to provide comparable access to information and
data to be consistent with granting access to all functionality of ICT.
This proposed requirement was strongly supported by the Advisory
Committee, as well as commenters to the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs.
E203.2 Agency Business Needs
This section proposes that, when agencies procure, develop,
maintain or use ICT, they must identify the business needs of
individuals with disabilities affecting vision, hearing, color
perception, speech, dexterity, strength, or reach, in order to
determine how such users will perform the functions supported by such
ICT. The provision would also require agencies to assess how the ICT
will be installed, configured, and maintained to support users with
disabilities. The list of disabilities in this provision parallels the
functional performance criteria proposed in Chapter 3.
The Board intends, through this provision, to reinforce the
fundamental principle that agencies have an affirmative, continuing
obligation under Section 508 to maintain the accessibility of ICT.
While this is not a new requirement under Section 508, it is not
expressly addressed in the existing 508 Standards. The Board proposes
to include this section in response to many concerns raised over the
years about the requirements under Section 508 to maintain ICT
accessibility over time. Proposed 203.2 would make clear, for example,
that agencies have an affirmative duty to ensure that when an
accessible operating system is updated, the current or an updated
version of screen reading software is compatible with the updated
operating system.
E204 Functional Performance Criteria
This is an introductory section.
E204.1 General
This section proposes that, when the technical provisions of
Chapter 4 and 5 do not address one or more features of ICT, any
unaddressed features must conform to the Functional Performance
Criteria specified in Chapter 3. This proposed section is consistent
with current agency practice. The Functional Performance Criteria, and
the manner in which they are to be used in evaluating equivalent
facilitation under proposed E101.2, is discussed in Section IV.E.3
(Rulemaking History--2010 and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues--
Relationship between Functional Performance Criteria and Technical
Provisions), and Section V.C (Major Issues--Functional Performance
Criteria).
E205 Content
This is an introductory section.
E205.1 General
This section proposes that public-facing content, along with eight
specific categories of non-public facing content, must conform to
proposed E205. In turn, proposed E205 requires conformance to the Level
A and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified
for Web pages in WCAG 2.0 or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1), both of which are
incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1. An
exception is provided for non-public facing records maintained by the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) under federal
recordkeeping statutes. These proposed requirements and related
exception are also discussed in Section IV.E.1 (Rulemaking History--
2010 and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues--Evolving Approaches to
Covered Electronic Content), and Section V.A (Major Issues--Electronic
Content).
Some file formats, it should be noted, do not directly support
accessibility. For example, the JPEG compression standard for digital
images does not facilitate embedded text description (commonly referred
to as ``alt tags''), and the MPEG-4 compression standard for audio and
video digital data does not support closed captioning. Conformance may
nonetheless be achieved through a variety of techniques, including
providing requisite accessibility through the manner in which the
inaccessible file is delivered or publicly posted. For example, JPEG
photos posted to a Web site can be associated with descriptive
identification using HTML. Photos attached to an email could have the
text alternative provided in the body of the email. Similarly, there
are commonly available methods for displaying caption text so that it
is synchronized with MPEG-4 multimedia.
E205.2 Public Facing
This section proposes that all public-facing content must meet the
accessibility requirements in E205.4, which, in turn, requires
conformance to WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and
Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages or, where applicable,
ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1). Public-facing content subject to this provision
would include, for example: agency Web sites; electronic documents,
images or video posted on agency Web sites; and agency social media
sites or postings. Content regardless of form or format--including
draft electronic documents--would be covered under this proposed
section when public facing. Central to the analysis of whether an
electronic document should be considered public facing is the identity
of the party making the electronic content available to the public. If
a federal agency posts an electronic document on its own Web
[[Page 10909]]
site, third-party social media site, or other electronic public forum,
that document--whether authored by the agency or a third party--is
public facing and must comply with E205.2. Coverage of this broad
category of agency-sponsored content is important because the
Rehabilitation Act mandates that persons with disabilities--both those
employed by the federal government and members of the public--have
comparable access to, and use of, electronic information and data
relative to persons without disabilities.
Question 14. Is the scope of public facing content covered by
proposed E205.2 sufficiently clear? Are there other issues the Board
should consider in defining the scope of the term ``public facing''?
E205.3 Agency Official Communication
This section proposes that an agency's non-public facing content be
required to meet the accessibility requirements in E205.4 (i.e., WCAG
2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria or PDF/UA-1) when such
content (a) constitutes agency official business, and (b) falls within
one or more of eight categories of communication. The eight proposed
categories are: (1) Emergency notifications; (2) initial or final
decisions adjudicating administrative claims or proceedings; (3)
internal or external program or policy announcements; (4) notices of
benefits, program eligibility, employment opportunities or personnel
actions; (5) formal acknowledgements or receipts; (6) questionnaires or
surveys; (7) templates or forms; and (8) educational or training
materials.
While there is no express exception for draft content in E205.3,
the Board expects that drafts, by their very nature, would typically
fall outside the scope of agency official communications covered by
this section. Generally speaking, only final documents and other
electronic materials that are ready for dissemination to their intended
audience would qualify as the type of content covered by categories 1
through 8. Draft content would, however, fall within the ambit of
proposed E205.3 (and, therefore, be required to conform to WCAG 2.0 or
PDF/UA-1) when an agency intends a draft to be ``final'' in the sense
that it is being formally disseminated or published for input or
comment by its intended audience. For example, if any agency task force
is seeking to improve agency-wide telecommuting policies and circulates
a draft policy memorandum by email to the office of human resources for
review, neither the email nor draft memorandum would be covered under
proposed E205.3. However, if instead, the agency task force had
completed its draft policy on telecommuting and circulated the draft
policy as an email attachment sent to all agency employees soliciting
their input and comments, then both the email and attached draft policy
memorandum--regardless of format (e.g., word processing document,
PDF)--would be covered by this section and, accordingly, need to
satisfy the accessibility requirements in E205.4.
Proposed E205.3 also provides an exception for non-public facing
content maintained by NARA for archival purposes even if such content
otherwise falls into one of the foregoing eight categories. Such
electronic records would not need to conform to the accessibility
requirements in proposed E205.4 so long as they remained non-public
facing. The Board intends the scope of this exception to be limited,
and anticipates that it will extend only to non-public facing
electronic materials administered or maintained by NARA in compliance
with federal recordkeeping statutes and implementing regulations.
E206 Hardware
This is an introductory section.
E206.1 General
This section proposes that components of ICT that are hardware, and
transmit information or have a user interface, must conform to the
applicable provisions of Chapter 4.
One hardware provision in the existing 508 Standards that has not
been retained in the proposed rule is Sec. 1194.23(a). This section
has two parts. First, it requires telecommunications products that
provide voice communication to provide a standard non-acoustic
connection for a TTY unless the product includes a TTY. Second, it
requires microphones to be capable of being turned on and off to allow
a user to intermix speech with TTY use. Newer technologies for texting
have made the requirement for a standard non-acoustic connection for a
TTY obsolete. To address the use of TTYs by individuals also using
speech or hearing, the Board is proposing to add section 410.6.5 (HCO
and VCO Support). Proposed 410.6.5 would support real-time text
functionality and address the capacity for users to intermix speech
with text. See Section VI.D. (Section-by-Section Analysis--Technical
Requirements--410.6). Comments received in response the 2011 ANPRM did
not object to these proposed changes.
E207 Software
This is an introductory section.
E207.1 Software
This section proposes that components of ICT that transmit
information or have a user interface--such as are firmware, platforms,
or software applications--must conform to the applicable provisions in
Chapter 5.
E207.2 WCAG Conformance
This section would require that user interface components, along
with the content of platforms and applications, conform to Level A and
AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified for Web
pages in WCAG 2.0. For a more complete discussion of WCAG conformance
requirements in the proposed rule, see the discussion in Section IV.E.2
(Rulemaking History--2010 and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues--
Treatment of WCAG 2.0), and Section V.B (Major Issues--WCAG 2.0
Incorporation by Reference).
E208 Support Documentation and Services
This is an introductory section.
E208.1 General
This section proposes to require agencies, when providing support
services or documentation for ICT, to do so in conformance to the
provisions of Chapter 6.
C. 255 Guidelines: Application and Scoping
These two proposed chapters contain information on the application
and administration of the 255 Guidelines. As discussed above, whereas
the 508 Standards relate to the accessibility and usability of
electronic and information technology, the 255 Guidelines relate to the
accessibility and usability of telecommunications equipment and
customer premises equipment, as defined by the Communications Act.
Because the technologies covered by the 508 Standards and 255
Guidelines often have similar features and functional and technical
aspects, the standards and guidelines share common requirements. For
ease of reference, the Board discusses here only those requirements in
the 255 Guidelines that differ from those in the 508 Standards.
Requirements not discussed in the section below (or mentioned only in
brief detail) should be deemed to be the same for both the 255
Guidelines and 508 Standards.
Of note, there are two provisions in the existing 255 Guidelines
which the Board proposes to not include in the proposed rule:
Sec. Sec. 1193.41(i) and
[[Page 10910]]
1193.51(d). Section 1193.41(i) requires input controls on
telecommunications equipment to provide at least one mode of operation
that minimizes the cognitive skills needed by the user. The Advisory
Committee was unable to reach consensus on recommendations for
requirements to make ICT accessible for individuals with cognitive
disabilities, citing a lack of common standards or testable metrics to
verify conformance. Consequently, the Advisory Committee recommended
deletion of the existing requirement pending future research.
In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board followed this recommendation and
proposed removal of the existing functional performance criterion
specifically directed to cognitive disabilities. The Board did,
however, seek public input on whether other proposed functional
performance criteria adequately addressed cognitive impairments, and
solicited input on how updated ICT rules might best address such
impairments. Commenters responded with a variety of views. Some
commenters believed that cognitive disabilities were already
sufficiently addressed through other criteria and requirements, while
others preferred inclusion of a functional performance criterion for
cognitive disabilities but offered no substantive proposals. Still
other commenters--particularly those representing the IT community--
thought more research was needed before meaningful requirements could
be crafted. Given the variety of commenters' views and the inherent
difficulty in creating a single functional performance criterion that
adequately covers the wide spectrum of cognitive and intellectual
disabilities, the Board elected not to reinstate this functional
performance criterion in either the 2011 ANPRM or this NPRM.
We also propose to exclude existing Sec. 1193.51(d) of the 255
Guidelines relating to TTY connectability from the proposed rule for
the reasons outlined above in the discussion regarding proposed E206.1
(which, in turn, addresses proposed deletion of a ``sister'' existing
provision in the 508 Standards). See Section VI.B. (Section-by-Section
Analysis--508 Standards: Application and Scoping--E206.1).
255 Chapter 1: Application and Administration
This chapter proposes general requirements reflecting the purpose
of the 255 Guidelines (C101.1). It lists referenced standards and where
they may be obtained (C102), and provides definitions of terms used in
the proposed 255 Guidelines (C103). 255 Chapter 1 proposes to simplify
and reorganize similar provisions contained in existing Sec. Sec.
1193.1 ``Purpose'' and 1193.3 ``Definitions'' of the 255 Guidelines.
C101 General
This is an introductory section.
C101.1 Purpose
In keeping with the Board's statutory charge under the
Communications Act, this section states that the purpose of the
proposed 255 Guidelines is the provision of scoping and technical
requirements for telecommunications equipment and customer premises
equipment to ensure that such equipment is accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities. This section also emphasizes, moreover,
that the proposed guidelines are to be applied to the extent required
by regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission under
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 255). As noted
previously, the FCC has exclusive authority to enforce Section 255 and
issue implementing regulations; the FCC may--but is not required to--
adopt the proposed guidelines when finalized as enforceable
accessibility standards for manufacturers of telecommunications
equipment and customer premises equipment.
C101.2 Equivalent Facilitation
This proposed section addresses when telecommunications equipment
manufacturers may use equivalent facilitation, and mirrors a
corresponding provision in the proposed 508 Standards (E101.2). While
the existing 255 Guidelines do not expressly address equivalent
facilitation, the concept of allowing alternative technological
solutions for accessibility beyond those specified in the guidelines
derives from the Appendix to 36 CFR part 1193--Advisory Guidance,
Introduction, paragraph 1, which notes that ``Manufacturers are free to
use these [suggested strategies in the Appendix] or other strategies in
addressing the guidelines.'' We proposed inclusion of this equivalent
facilitation provision in the 2011 ANPRM and received no comments.
C101.3 Conventional Industry Tolerances
This proposed section, which has a parallel provision in the
proposed 508 Standards (E101.3), would provide that dimensions are
subject to conventional industry tolerances except where dimensions are
stated as a range. This proposed provision would be new to the 255
Guidelines. It is intended to clarify how dimensions should be
interpreted when specified in the text of a guideline or referenced
standard.
C101.4 Units of Measurement
This proposed section, which also has a counterpart in the proposed
508 Standards (E101.4), provides that measurements are stated in metric
and U.S. customary units and that the values stated in each system
(metric and U.S. customary units) may not be exact equivalents. This
section would also provide that each system be used independently of
the other. This proposed section is new to the 255 Guidelines, and
would clarify dimensions stated in the text of the guidelines or
referenced standards.
C102 Referenced Standards
This section identifies the consensus standards that would be
incorporated by reference in the proposed 255 Guidelines. The section
also proposes that, where there is a difference between a provision of
the proposed 255 Guidelines and a referenced standard, the provision of
the 255 Guidelines would take precedence.
Incorporation by reference of these standards would be an
improvement from the existing 255 Guidelines, which contain no
referenced standards. The Advisory Committee strongly recommended the
adoption of specific accessibility consensus standards in order to
promote harmonization. The adoption of consensus standards results in a
more unified regulatory environment in which all participants benefit
from clarity and simplicity.
The standards listed in proposed C102 would apply to ICT subject to
the 255 Guidelines to the extent that it is readily achievable to do
so. The Board is proposing to incorporate by reference the same
standards as those incorporated in the proposed 508 Standards. For a
discussion of these standards, see Section VI.B (Section-by-Section
Analysis--508 Standards: Application and Scoping--E102).
As noted above, one of the standards proposed for incorporation is
WCAG 2.0. As applied telecommunications equipment, this would require
manufacturers to conform to WCAG 2.0 when providing electronic content
integral to the use of their equipment (under proposed C203.1), a user
interface (under proposed C205.2), or support documentation (under
proposed C206.1 and 602.3). This would include, for example, consumer
manuals for telecommunications equipment posted on manufacturer Web
sites, online registration forms, and interactive
[[Page 10911]]
consumer support interfaces. A similar provision was proposed in the
2011 ANPRM. Commenters strongly supported incorporation of WCAG 2.0 to
web content, but some telecommunications industry groups objected to
application of this standard outside the web environment. The Board's
bases for applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT is detailed above in the
Major Issues section. See Section V.B.2 (Major Issues--WCAG 2.0
Incorporation by Reference--Justification for Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-
Web ICT).
Question 15. The Access Board requests data or other information
from telecommunications equipment manufacturers regarding the potential
costs and benefits of incorporating WCAG 2.0 by reference and applying
its success criteria to both web and non-web environments. What
difficulties, if any, do telecommunications equipment manufacturers
foresee in applying WCAG 2.0 outside the web environment? Does the
WCAG2ICT Task Force's final report provide sufficient guidance
concerning application of WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT? If not, what
additional guidance would telecommunications equipment manufacturers
find helpful?
C103 Defined Terms
This section sets forth definitions of terms used in, or integral
to, the proposed 255 Guidelines. Some of the definitions have been
carried over in whole or in part from the existing 255 Guidelines,
while others represent terms that are new to these guidelines. Proposed
C103 would include nearly all of the same defined terms in the proposed
508 Standards, with the exception of one term (i.e., ``agency'') that
has no application in the guidelines. We also propose to revise or
delete several definitions from the existing 255 Guidelines.
Highlighted below are notable changes to, or deletion of, defined terms
in the existing 255 Guidelines. For a complete discussion of all
defined terms, see Section VI.B. (Section-by-Section Analysis--508
Standards: Application and Scoping--E103.4).
As with the proposed 508 Standards, the Board proposes to replace
the term ``electronic and information technology (E&IT)''--which
appears in both the existing 255 Guidelines and the 508 Standards--with
``information and communication technology (ICT).'' The scope and
application of the term ``ICT'' are discussed in detail in the Section-
by-Section Analysis of the proposed 508 Standards. See Section VI.B
(Section-by-Section Analysis--508 Standards: Application and Scoping).
We note here that ICT is a broad term that encompasses not only
information technology and other electronic systems and processes
covered by the 508 Standards, but also telecommunications equipment and
customer premises equipment subject to the 255 Guidelines. The term
``ICT,'' moreover, embraces not only telecommunications equipment, but
also its related software and electronic content.
We also propose to revise definitions for ``customer premises
equipment'' (CPE) and ``specialized customer premises equipment'' found
in the existing 255 Guidelines to be consistent with current FCC
regulations implementing Section 255 of the Communications Act. (See 47
CFR part 14 (2013)).
Additionally, the Board proposes to add several terms that would be
new to the 255 Guidelines. As with the proposed 255 Guidelines, these
newly defined terms are being proposed to reflect, among other things,
new terminology used in the proposed guidelines or technological
changes. One proposed new term is ``255 Guidelines.'' This term is
newly defined in order to provide consistent cross-reference within the
guidelines to all chapters that apply to Section 255-covered
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer premises
equipment, namely: 255 Chapters 1 and 2 (36 CFR part 1194, Appendix B),
and Chapters 3 through 6 (36 CFR part 1194, Appendix C). This
definition is consistent with proposed Sec. 1194.2, as well as usage
of the term throughout this NPRM.
Other newly defined terms in the proposed 255 Guidelines are:
``application,'' ``assistive technologies,'' ``audio description,''
``authoring tool,'' ``closed functionality,'' ``content,''
``hardware,'' ``keyboard,'' ``label,'' ``name,'' ``operable part,''
``programmatically determinable,'' ``text,'' ``menu,'' ``platform
accessibility services,'' ``platform software,'' ``real-time text,''
``software,'' ``terminal,'' and ``Voice over Internet Protocol
(VOIP).'' Each of these new terms is discussed above in the context of
the proposed 508 Standards. See Section VI.B. (Section-by-Section
Analysis--508 Standards: Application and Scoping--E103.4).
Lastly, proposed C103.4 would exclude several terms that are
defined in the existing 255 Guidelines. These terms are not included in
this proposed rule because either the proposed technical requirement
associated with the term sufficiently conveys its meaning (i.e.,
``accessible,'' ``readily achievable,'' ``alternate formats,''
``manufacturer,'' and ``telecommunications equipment''), or the term is
not used in the proposed 255 Guidelines (i.e., ``agency,'' ``alternate
methods,'' ``peripheral devices,'' and ``product'').
255 Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements
This chapter proposes scoping for requirements applicable to
telecommunications equipment manufacturers in the design, development,
or fabrication of covered ICT that is newly released, upgraded, or
substantially changed from an earlier version or model--that is, the
types of ICT that would be required to conform to the proposed
functional performance criteria and technical requirements in the 255
Guidelines, as well as the conditions under which these provisions
would apply.
Proposed 255 Chapter 2 would differ substantially from its
counterpart chapter in the proposed 508 Standards due to the exclusion
of several provisions that are inapplicable in the context of Section
255. 255 Chapter 2 also simplifies and reorganizes provisions in
existing 255 Guidelines Sec. Sec. 1193.21, 1193.23, 1193.31, 1193.33,
1193.39 and 1193.41. All scoping provisions would now be located in
this chapter.
C201 Application
This is an introductory section.
C201.1 Scope
This section proposes that telecommunications equipment and
customer premises equipment, as well as related software, would be
required to comply with applicable 255 Guidelines when newly released,
upgraded, or substantially modified from an earlier version or model.
C201.2 Readily Achievable
The section proposes that, when a telecommunications equipment
manufacturer determines that conformance to one or more requirements in
Chapter 4 (Hardware) or Chapter 5 (Software) would not be readily
achievable, it shall ensure that the equipment or service is compatible
with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises
equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to the extent
readily achievable. This section mirrors Sec. 1193.21 of the existing
255 Guidelines.
C201.3 Access to Functionality
This section proposes that telecommunications equipment
manufacturers ensure that ICT is accessible to, and usable by,
individuals with disabilities by providing direct
[[Page 10912]]
access to all functionality of ICT where readily achievable. This
provision is consistent with existing 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.31.
C201.4 Prohibited Reduction of Accessibility, Usability and
Compatibility
This section proposes to prohibit changes in covered ICT that
decreases, or has the effect of decreasing, its net accessibility,
usability, or compatibility. This provision largely mirrors existing
255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.39. Proposed C201.4 is intended to ensure
that accessibility features in existing technology would not be
compromised by later alterations in product design. An exception allows
for the discontinuation of a product. This provision was proposed in
the 2010 ANPRM, but inadvertently omitted from the 2011 ANPRM.
C201.5 Design, Development and Fabrication
This section proposes a general requirement that telecommunications
equipment manufacturers evaluate the accessibility, usability, and
interoperability of covered ICT during its design, development, and
fabrication. This provision is largely based on Sec. 1193.23(a) of the
existing 255 Guidelines. We have not, however, retained Sec.
1193.23(b) of the existing 255 Guidelines, which requires
telecommunications equipment manufacturers to consider involving people
with disabilities in various aspects of product design and development.
We do not include this provision in the proposed 255 Guidelines because
it is non-mandatory, advisory material only.
C202 Functional Performance Criteria
This is an introductory section.
C202.1 General
This section proposes that when the technical provisions of Chapter
4 and 5 do not address one or more features of covered ICT, the
features not addressed must conform to the Functional Performance
Criteria specified in Chapter 3. This proposed section is consistent
with 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.41. For a more complete discussion of
this section, see Section V.C (Major Issues--Relationship between
Functional Performance Criteria and Technical Provisions).
C203 Electronic Content
This is an introductory section.
C203.1 General
The section proposes to require content integral to the use of
covered ICT to conform to Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and
Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages in WCAG 2.0 or ISO
14289-1(PDF/UA-1), both of which are incorporated by reference in 255
Chapter 1. The meaning and application of this provision is discussed
in greater detail in Sections V.A (Major Issues--Covered Electronic
Content). A similar provision was proposed in the 2011 ANPRM. We
received no adverse comments.
C204 Hardware
This is an introductory section.
C204.1 General
This section proposes that, where covered ICT hardware transmits
information or has a user interface, such hardware must conform to the
applicable provisions in Chapter 4 (Hardware). Two of the main covered
hardware components--real-time text and assistive technology--are
discussed above in the Major Issues section. See Section V.D (Major
Issues--Real-Time Text), and Section V.E (Major Issues--Assistive
Technology).
While the requirements applicable to Section 255-covered hardware
are generally the same as those applied in the 508 Standards, proposed
C204.1 provides one exception, which in turn, excepts Section 255-
covered ICT from conforming to five specific requirements. These
exceptions are proposed due to considerations unique to
telecommunications equipment. Features associated with these proposed
exceptions are not typically found on hand-held portable devices
subject to the 255 Guidelines, such as mobile phones. The five excepted
requirements for which we are proposing relief, along with the
underlying rationale, are listed below:
402 Closed Functionality. If applied to ICT covered by the 255
Guidelines, proposed 402 would require all products with displays to be
speech enabled. It would be unreasonable to apply this requirement to
consumer products that are less technologically advanced, and,
moreover, doing so would likely eliminate less expensive telephony from
the marketplace.
407.11 Keys, Tickets and Fare Cards and 409 Transactional Outputs.
Keys, tickets, and fare cards are not typically used to operate ICT
subject only to the 255 Guidelines. Similarly, these types of products
do not typically provide transactional outputs covered by proposed 409.
407.12 Reach Height and 408 Display Screens. The technical
requirements specified for reach ranges (proposed 407.12) and display
screens (408) are only intended to apply to stationary ICT. It would
thus be inappropriate to apply these requirements to mobile
telecommunications equipment subject to the 255 Guidelines (e.g.,
mobile phones, cable modems).
When these five provisions are applicable in the proposed 508
Standards, the exception for commercial non-availability would apply
(under proposed E202.6.2), thereby requiring a federal agency to
provide a user with disabilities access to, and use of, information by
an alternative means that meets his or her identified needs.
Question 16. Is telecommunications equipment covered by Section 255
sufficiently unique to warrant exemption from the five hardware-related
accessibility requirements listed in proposed C204.1? Should exceptions
from other hardware requirements be added, or, conversely, should any
of these five proposed exceptions be removed?
C205 Software
This is an introductory section.
C205.1 General
This section proposes that, where components of ICT transmit
information or have a user interface, they must conform to the
applicable provisions in Chapter 5 (Software).
C205.2 WCAG Conformance
This section proposes that specified components of covered ICT--
namely, user interface components, platform content, and application
content--must conform to Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and
Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages in WCAG 2.0, which is
incorporated by reference in Chapter 1. This requirement is new to the
255 Guidelines. In the Major Issues section above, the Board discusses
the benefits of, and issues attendant to, incorporation of WCAG 2.0
into the 255 Guidelines and 508 Standards. See Section V.B (Major
Issues--WCAG 2.0 Incorporation by Reference).
C206 Support Documentation and Services
This is an introductory section.
C206.1 General
This section proposes to require that where support documentation
or services are provided, they must conform to the proposed provisions
of
[[Page 10913]]
Chapter 6. This proposed requirement is from the existing 255
Guidelines Sec. 1193.33.
D. Functional Performance Criteria and Technical Requirements
Appendix C sets forth proposed functional performance criteria
(Chapter 3) and technical requirements (Chapters 4 through 6) that are
referenced by, and applied in, the Application and Scoping provisions
in the 508 Standards (Appendix A) and 255 Guidelines (Appendix B). The
proposed requirements in Appendix C are based on recommendations from
the Advisory Committee unless otherwise noted.
Chapter 3: Functional Performance Criteria
Chapter 3 contains proposed functional performance criteria, which
are outcome-based provisions that apply when applicable technical
requirements (i.e., Chapters 4 and 5) do not address one or more
features of ICT. All sections of this chapter are referenced by scoping
provisions in 508 Chapter 2 and in 255 Chapter 2. These functional
performance criteria would also be used to determine equivalent
facilitation under both the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines.
Accordingly, they are referenced by the equivalent facilitation
provisions in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1.
301 General
This is an introductory section.
301.1 Scope
This section proposes that the functional performance criteria in
Chapter 3 be applied where either (a) required by 508 Chapter 2 or 255
Chapter 2, or (b) where referenced by other requirements.
302.1 Without Vision
This section proposes to revise the criterion for users who are
blind. This provision would clarify the requirements in existing 508
Standards Sec. 1194.31(a) and 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.41(a) by
specifying that provision of a mode of operation without vision is
required when the ICT otherwise provides a visual mode of operation.
302.2 With Limited Vision
This section proposes to revise the functional performance
criterion for users with limited vision so that, where a visual mode of
operation is provided, one mode of operation that magnifies, one mode
that reduces the field of vision, and one mode that allows user control
of contrast would be required. This provision contains significant
changes from the functional performance criteria in the existing 508
Standards Sec. 1194.31(b) and existing 255 Guidelines Sec.
1193.41(b). Existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.31(b) requires at least
one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not require
visual acuity greater than 20/70 to be provided in both audio and
enlarged print output working together or independently. Existing 255
Guidelines Sec. 1193.41(b) is similar, except that it defines users
with limited vision as users possessing visual acuity that ranges
between 20/70 and 20/200. For a further discussion of the history of
these proposed changes, see Section IV.E.6 (Rulemaking History--2010
and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues--Modifications to the Functional
Performance Criteria for Limited Vision).
Question 17. Some commenters raised concerns with proposed 302.2
With Limited Vision. They recommended that the Board establish
thresholds for how much magnification, reduction, or contrast is
sufficient to meet the provision. Should proposed 302.2 be more
specific, and if so, what should the thresholds be? Please cite a
scientific basis for threshold recommendations.
302.3 Without Perception of Color
This section proposes to add a new functional performance criterion
for users with color blindness to better map to technical
specifications in the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. Section 302.3
would require at least one mode of operation that does not require user
perception of color where a visual mode of operation is provided. The
technical provisions in existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec. 1194.25(g)
and 1194.21(i), existing 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.41(c), as well as
proposed 407.7, prohibit color coding from being the only means of
conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or
distinguishing a visual element.
302.4 Without Hearing
This section proposes to revise the criterion for users who are
deaf. This provision would clarify the requirements in existing 508
Standards Sec. 1194.31(c) and existing 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.41(d)
by specifying that provision of a mode of operation without hearing is
required when the ICT otherwise provides an auditory mode of operation.
302.5 With Limited Hearing
This section proposes to revise the criterion for users with
limited hearing. The existing 508 Standards require at least one mode
of operation and information retrieval to be provided in an enhanced
auditory fashion. The existing 255 Guidelines require that input,
control, and mechanical functions be operable with limited or no
hearing. Proposed 302.5 is more specific, and would require at least
one mode of operation that improves clarity, one mode that reduces
background noise, and one mode that allows user control of volume, when
an auditory mode of speech is provided.
302.6 Without Speech
This proposed section would clarify the requirements in existing
508 Standards Sec. 1194.31(e) and existing 255 Guidelines Sec.
1193.41(h) by specifying that provision of a mode of operation without
speech is only required when the ICT provides a spoken mode of
operation. This section is primarily intended to address the needs of
users who are unable to speak.
302.7 With Limited Manipulation
In this section, the Board proposes to address the functional
performance criterion for users with limited manipulation. The
provision would require that, when ICT provides a manual mode of
operation, it must also provide at least one mode of operation that
does not require fine motor control or operation of more than one
control at the same time. The existing 508 Standards address the needs
of users with limited manipulation and users with limited reach or
strength in the same criterion (see Sec. 1194.31(f)). By contrast, the
existing 255 Guidelines address the needs of users with limited manual
dexterity and users with limited reach or strength in different
provisions (see Sec. Sec. 1193.41(e) and (f)). Because these
conditions do not necessarily exist together, their respective
accessibility solutions are best presented separately. The criterion
for users with limited reach or strength is set forth in proposed
302.8.
302.8 With Limited Reach and Strength
In this section, the Board proposes to address the functional
performance criterion for users with limited reach or strength. The
existing 508 Standards address the needs of users with limited
manipulation and users with limited reach or strength in the same
criterion (see Sec. 1194.31(f)). By contrast, the existing 255
Guidelines address the needs of users with limited manual dexterity and
users with limited reach or strength in different criteria (see
Sec. Sec. 1193.41(e) and (f)). Because these conditions do not
necessarily exist together, their respective accessibility solutions
are best presented separately.
[[Page 10914]]
The criterion for users with limited manipulation is set forth in
proposed 302.7.
Chapter 4: Hardware
Chapter 4 contains proposed requirements for hardware that
transmits information or has a user interface. Examples of such
hardware include computers, information kiosks, and multi-function copy
machines. This chapter draws substantively from existing 508 Standards,
as well as the technical requirements for automatic teller machines and
fare machines in the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. See 36 CFR
part 1191, Appendix D, section 707. The requirements in this chapter
apply under both the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines absent
an express exception.
Most of the proposed hardware requirements are new to the 255
Guidelines. This is because the existing 255 Guidelines parallel only
existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec. 1194.23 Telecommunications products,
1194.31 Functional performance criteria, and 1194.41 Information,
documentation, and support. The existing 255 Guidelines do not
currently address the other 508 requirements in Subpart B Technical
Standards, namely 508 Standards Sec. Sec. 1194.21 Software
applications and operating systems, 1194.22 Web-based intranet and
Internet information and applications, 1194.24 Video and multimedia
products, 1194.25 Self-contained, closed products, and 1194.26 Desktop
and portable computers. A major objective of this rulemaking is to
harmonize the 255 Guidelines and 508 Standards.
Yet, while new to the 255 Guidelines, these proposed hardware rules
are generally not expected to have a significant cost impact. Due to
convergent technologies, a telecommunications product that previously
stood alone may now be part of a more complex system. For example VoIP
telephone systems may include a web interface used to operate the
telephone. While these products have long been required under existing
guidelines to be accessible, see, e.g., 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.41(a)
(requiring telecommunications products be operable without vision), the
product-by-product based structure of the guidelines results in a
multiplicity of accessibility requirements. This proposed rule aims to
address this problem by taking a functional approach across
technologies, as well as by adding clarity and detail as to what
accessible means. For these reasons, the proposed rule is not expected
to impose material new costs on manufacturers of telecommunications
equipment and customer premises equipment.
With respect to an increasingly ubiquitous type of ICT hardware--
self-service transaction machines--the Board has worked collaboratively
with the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Transportation (DOT) to
develop a common set of technical requirements that could be referenced
and scoped by these agencies in their respective rulemaking
initiatives. While each agency has different regulatory authority,
self-service transaction machines can be found in a variety of
settings, and the accessibility barriers are generally common across
these settings. In late 2013, DOT published a final rule implementing
the Air Carrier Access Act that addresses accessibility standards for
airline Web sites and automated kiosks located at domestic airports.
See 78 FR 67882 (Nov. 12, 2013). The DOT requirements for automated
kiosks are consistent with existing 508 Standards for self-contained,
closed products. In 2010, DOJ published an ANPRM to solicit public
comment on accessibility requirements under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for furniture and equipment. See 75 FR 43452 (July 26,
2010). Such requirements would cover, among other things, kiosks,
interactive transaction machines, and point-of-sale devices. In a
future rulemaking, the Board may update the ADA and ABA Accessibility
Guidelines to harmonize those guidelines with the proposed 508
Standards and the 255 Guidelines, once finalized.
401 General
This is an introductory section.
401.1 Scope
This section proposes that the technical requirements for hardware
in Chapter 4 be applied where (a) required by 508 Chapter 2 or 255
Chapter 2, or (b) where referenced by other requirements. Assistive
technology hardware would be excepted from conformance with this
chapter. This exception is proposed in response to public comments to
the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs that sought clarification on this point.
Commenters expressed the concern that, should this scoping section be
read as obligating assistive technology hardware to meet the
requirements of this chapter, some assistive technology would not be
able to serve its function. For example, people with very low muscle
tone might use a specialized membrane keyboard that is completely flat,
with no tactilely discernible separation between the keys, because it
is the most optimal input device for them. This type of specialized
keyboard, however, would not be permitted under proposed 407.3, which
addresses tactilely discernible input controls. In light of the
specialized nature of assistive technology, the Board proposes it be
excepted from the technical requirements in this chapter.
402 Closed Functionality
This is an introductory section.
402.1 General
This section proposes to require ICT with closed functionality to
be operable without requiring the user to attach or install assistive
technology, with the exception of personal headsets or other audio
couplers. This provision is needed because, when ICT has closed
functionality, the end user typically does not have the option of
installing or attaching assistive technology. Closed functionality can
also apply to the platform user interface. This is sometimes referred
to as ``firmware'' because it has a software aspect, but is not
alterable by the end-user and the user interface is necessarily tied to
the hardware platform. The proposed technical requirements for software
(Chapter 5) do not specifically address closed functionality, except
for the interoperability of software and assistive technology.
Components of ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines would be excepted
from the requirements of this section (see C204.1 Exception) because
such telecommunications equipment typically has closed functionality.
For example, it is often impossible to attach or install assistive
technology, such as a specialized keyboard.
Variable message signs (VMS) frequently are installed in federal
buildings and facilities to provide information about ongoing events.
Some VMS also convey information relevant to emergencies. VMS with
closed functionality would be covered by this section. The Board is
currently unaware of any VMS technology that provides audible output.
However, there is one voluntary consensus standard addressing
accessibility of VMS with respect to the needs of persons with low
vision. The most recent edition of the International Code Council
(ICC)'s ``Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities'' (ICC A117.1-
2009) contains specifications for making high-resolution and low-
resolution VMS more accessible to people with low vision. For low-
resolution signs, these requirements address signage characters (e.g.,
case, style, height, width, stroke width, and spacing), as well as
other characteristics relating to height above
[[Page 10915]]
the floor, finish, contrast, protective coverings, brightness, and rate
of change. High-resolution VMS need only comply with the provisions for
character case (uppercase), protective coverings, brightness, and rate
of change since they typically meet or exceed the other specifications.
In addition, section 1110.4 of the 2012 edition of the International
Building Code requires VMS in transportation facilities and in
emergency shelters to comply with ICC A117.1 unless equivalent
information is provided audibly. The IBC, however, does not require the
VMS, itself, to provide the audible message. For example, in a
transportation facility, information equivalent to the VMS display can
be provided through a public address system.
Question 18. In the final rule, the Board is considering
incorporating by reference the requirements for VMS in ICC A117.1-
2009--or its successor ICC A117.1-2015, if the standard has been
finalized by that time--in order to make such signs more accessible to
individuals who are blind or have low vision. The Board seeks comment
on the advisability of incorporating by reference the requirements in
ICC A117.1-2009 (or its successor) for variable message signs. Are
there technologies that would allow a user to receive an audible
message generated by the VMS sign? If so, the Board requests that
commenters provide information regarding this technology. Until VMS can
be made directly accessible to persons who are blind, we recognize that
VMS would have to be paired with audible public address announcements.
If VMS cannot be speech enabled, should the Board require VMS to, at
least, be accessible to people with low vision?
402.2 Speech-Output Enabled
This section proposes to require ICT with closed functionality that
has a display screen to be speech-output enabled. This means that
operating instructions and orientation, visible transaction prompts,
user input verification, error messages, and all displayed information
necessary for full use, would have to be accessible to and usable by
individuals with vision impairments. In actual practice, for all but
the simplest ICT (e.g., hardware without display screens), this means
ensuring that the ICT has built-in speech output. This explicit
requirement would be new to the 508 Standards. That is, while the
requirement in existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.25(a) has been
interpreted as requiring ICT with closed functionality to provide
speech output since that is the only means of making such products
``usable by people with disabilities without requiring an end-user to
attach assistive technology,'' there is currently no express mandate
for speech output. This proposed section contains two exceptions, which
exempt specific types of information from speech output requirements,
as discussed below.
Exception 1 to 402.2 Speech-Output Enabled
This section proposes to exclude from the requirement for speech
output any user inputted content that is not displayed as entered for
security purposes, such as when asterisks are shown on-screen instead
of personal identification numbers. Excluded material may be delivered
as audible tones, rather than as speech.
Exception 2 to 402.2 Speech-Output Enabled
This section proposes to permit visible output that is not
necessary for the transaction being conducted--such as advertisements
and similar material--from the requirement for audible output.
402.2.1 User Control
This section proposes requirements for user control of speech-
enabled output concerning interruption upon selection of a transaction,
as well as repeat and pause capabilities. This section is similar to
Sec. 1194.25(e) of the existing 508 Standards.
402.2.2 Braille Instructions
This section proposes that, where displays for ICT with closed
functionality are required to have speech output, instructions for
initiating the speech mode be provided in braille. Braille instructions
would be required to conform to specifications for braille in the ADA
and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. See ADA and ABA Accessibility
Guidelines, 36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, section 703.3. This
requirement would be new to the 508 Standards. For telecommunications
equipment and customer premises equipment subject to Section 255, this
requirement is inapplicable; an exception to proposed C204.1 expressly
exempts such ICT from this hardware requirement. This proposal was
included in the 2011 ANPRM, and the Board received no comments.
402.3 Volume
This section proposes to require two alternate standards for volume
control and output amplification on ICT with closed functionality that
delivers sound, depending on whether such sound is being conveyed for
private or non-private listening. An exception also provides that ICT
conforming to 410.2, which addresses volume gain for ICT with two-way
voice communication, would be exempted from complying with this
section.
402.3.1 Private Listening
This section proposes to require that, where ICT subject to 402.3
provides a mechanism for private listening--such as a handset or
headphone jack--it must have a mode of operation for controlling the
volume, and provide a means for effective magnetic wireless coupling to
hearing technologies. This proposed requirement would be new to the 508
Standards.
402.3.2 Non-private Listening
This section proposes to require that, where ICT subject to 402.3
provides non-private listening, incremental volume control must be
provided with output amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB. In
addition, where the ambient noise level of the environment is above 45
dB, a volume gain of at least 20 dB above the ambient level would be
required and must be user selectable. This provision would require a
function to be provided to automatically reset the volume to the
default level after every use. This section closely corresponds to
Sec. 1194.25(f) in the existing 508 Standards.
402.4 Characters
This section proposes to require that at least one mode of
characters displayed on a screen be in sans serif font. In addition,
where ICT does not provide a screen enlargement feature, characters
would be required to have a minimum height requirement of 3/16 inch
based on the uppercase letter ``I.'' This section would also require
that characters contrast with their background with either light
characters on a dark background or dark characters on a light
background. This section would be new to the 508 Standards.
403 Biometrics
This is an introductory section.
403.1 General
This section proposes to prohibit biometrics from being the only
means for user identification or control unless at least two different
biometric options using different biological characteristics are
provided. This new exception was recommended by the Advisory Committee.
Without the added exception, the language in this section is
substantially unchanged from
[[Page 10916]]
Sec. 1194.25(d) of the 508 Standards, but would be new to the 255
Guidelines.
404 Preservation of Information Provided for Accessibility
This is an introductory section.
404.1 General
This section proposes to prohibit ICT that transmits or converts
information or communication from removing non-proprietary information
provided for accessibility or, if the non-proprietary information or
communication is removed, this section would require that it be
restored upon delivery. For example, a video or multimedia presentation
with closed captioning would be required to retain the caption
encoding, or, if removed in transmission, then restore such encoding
upon delivery. This provision closely models Sec. Sec. 1194.23(j) and
1193.37 of the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, respectively.
405 Flashing
This is an introductory section.
405.1 General
This section proposes that, where ICT emits lights in flashes,
there can be no more than three flashes in any one-second period. An
exception would allow small flashes not exceeding the general flash and
red flash thresholds defined in Success Criterion 2.3.1 of WCAG 2.0
because such flashes do not pose seizure risks to users. This
requirement is based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee.
This proposed section closely corresponds to existing 508 Standards
Sec. Sec. 1194.21(k), 1194.22(j), and 1194.25(i), and is similar to
Sec. 1193.43(f) of the existing 255 Guidelines. The flash rate
specification in this section is supported by scientific studies on
seizures and photosensitivity.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., Graham Harding, et al., Photic- and Pattern-
Induced Seizures: Expert Consensus of the Epilepsy Foundation of
America Working Group, 46 Epilepsia 1426 (2005); Arnold Wilkins, et
al., Characterizing the Patterned Images That Precipitate Seizures
and Optimizing Guidelines to Prevent Them, 46 Epilepsia 1212 (2005);
see also Ofcom, Guidance Notes Section 2: Harm & Offence for
Licensees on Flashing Images and Regular Patterns in Television
(Issue Ten: July 2012), available at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/guidance/831193/section2.pdf; Information about Photosensitive Seizure Disorders,
Trace Research & Development Center (June 2009), http://trace. wisc.
edu/peat/photosensitive.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
406 Standard Connections
This is an introductory section.
406.1 General
This section proposes that, where ICT provides data connections
used for input and output, at least one of each type of data connection
conform to industry standard non-proprietary formats, e.g., jacks and
plugs. This proposed section closely corresponds to Sec. 1194.26(d) of
the existing 508 Standards and Sec. 1193.51(a) of the existing 255
Guidelines. The intent of this provision is to support compatibility
with assistive technology hardware.
407 Operable Parts
This is an introductory section.
407.1 General
This section addresses accessibility features of operable parts--
such as keys and controls--when part of the user interface is hardware.
This section proposes to require operable parts of ICT to conform to
the technical requirements in proposed 407.2, 407.3, and 407.4. This
section is consistent with requirements in existing 508 Standards
Sec. Sec. 1194.21 and 1194.25, along with Sec. 1193.41(f) of the
existing 255 Guidelines.
407.2 Contrast
This section proposes that keys and controls, where provided,
contrast visually from background surfaces. Characters and symbols
would have to provide this contrast with either light characters or
symbols on a dark background or dark characters or symbols on a light
background. The goal of this section is to make operable parts of
hardware on ICT more usable for persons with low vision. A contrast
requirement for hardware was recommended by the Advisory Committee. It
would be new to the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines.
407.3 Tactilely Discernible
This section proposes to require that at least one tactilely
discernible input control conforming to the requirements of this
section be provided for each function. ICT containing touchscreens is
widely used in the marketplace. Touchscreens currently are not
generally tactilely discernible. This requirement would not prohibit
use of touchscreens, membrane keys, or gesture input, provided there is
at least one alternative method of input that is tactilely discernible.
The intent of this proposed section is to address the difficulty
certain people with visual and dexterity impairments often have when
using touchscreens. This section, which contains subsections for three
types of functions (i.e., identification, alphabetic keys, and numeric
keys) is new to the 255 Guidelines, but is consistent with existing 508
Standards Sec. Sec. 1194.23(k)(1)-(k)(4), with some changes as
discussed below.
The Board is also proposing an exception to the requirement for
tactile discernibility for touchscreen-based devices in today's
marketplace that have proven to be accessible to--and popular with--
people with visual disabilities. Specifically, the proposed exception
would exempt devices for personal use offering input controls that (a)
are audibly discernible without activation, and (b) operable by touch.
Examples of currently available devices without tactilely discernible
keyboards that are still navigable and usable by individuals with
visual disabilities include devices offered by Apple with the iOS-based
VoiceOver feature, such as the iPhone[supreg] and iPad[supreg].
Technology has evolved to the point where touch screens can be made
navigable by blind users. Keyboards are an optional design feature.
This proposed exception would be a significant departure from the 508
Standards and 255 Guidelines, but more accurately reflects the state of
current technology. We welcome comment on this proposed approach.
In addition, the Board is considering adding to the final rule a
requirement that at least one type of input technology on ICT with
touch screens be compatible with a prosthetic, similar to the
requirement in existing 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.51(c).
Question 19. Does the proposed exception to the requirement for
tactilely discernible input controls strike the appropriate balance so
that it permits innovative accessibility approaches for individuals
with visual impairments without being overbroad? Should there be
additional requirements for touchscreens? For example, should the Board
require touchscreens to be compatible with prosthetic devices?
407.3.1 Identification
This section proposes to require input controls to be tactilely
discernible without activation, as well as operable by touch. It also
would require key surfaces outside active areas of display screens to
be raised above their surrounding surfaces. The Board notes that, by
requiring raised key surfaces, it does not thereby intend to prohibit
contouring of keys. Users with limited manual dexterity may prefer
concave keys. Contoured keys would be permitted under proposed 407.3.1,
for example, by providing keys with raised edges and concave centers,
as is often used on computer keyboards and landline telephone keypads.
This section is new to the 255 Guidelines, but is similar to existing
508 Standards Sec. Sec. 1194.23(k)(1), 1194.25(c), and
[[Page 10917]]
1194.26(b). It is also consistent with the requirements for input
controls in the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. See 36 CFR part
1191, Appendix D, section 707. This is not a material change from the
existing standards, and therefore, imposes no new costs.
Question 20. Some industry commenters to the 2011 ANPRM suggested
that the Board permit concave--as well as raised--key surfaces. What
would be the impact on accessibility if proposed 407.3.1 instead
prohibited key surfaces outside the active area of the display screen
from being flush with surrounding surfaces?
407.3.2 Alphabetic Keys
This section proposes to require alphabetic keys, where provided,
to be arranged in a traditional QWERTY layout, with tactilely distinct
letter ``F'' and ``J'' keys. The requirement for tactilely discernible
home row keys derives from existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.23(k)(1),
but would be a new requirement for the 508 Standards and 255
Guidelines. The intent of this section is to address identification and
orientation when alphabetic key entry is used. This section was added
to the proposed rule at the request of commenters to the 2011 ANPRM,
who suggested that a requirement for alphabetic keys was needed to
complement the proposed requirement for numeric key layout (proposed
407.3.3). Where a numeric keypad with an alphabetic overlay is provided
(such as on a telephone keypad), the relationships between letters and
digits would be required to conform to ITU-T Recommendation E.161, as
incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1.
This requirement for a QWERTY layout in keyboards and conformance
to ITU-T Recommendation E.161, while new to the 508 Standards and 255
Guidelines, represents current design practice. Accordingly, there
should be no additional cost associated with this provision.
407.3.3 Numeric Keys
This section proposes to require numeric keys, where provided, to
be arranged in a 12-key ascending or descending keyboard layout, with a
tactilely distinct number ``5'' key. The requirement for a tactilely
discernible ``5'' key derives from existing 508 Standards Sec.
1194.23(k)(1), but would be a new requirement for the 508 Standards and
255 Guidelines. The intent of this section is to address identification
and orientation when numeric data entry is used.
407.4 Key Repeat
This section proposes to require that, where a keyboard with a key
repeat feature is provided, the delay before activation of the key
repeat feature must be fixed at, or adjustable to, 2 seconds minimum.
The intent of this section is to address the unintentional activation
of keys by people with dexterity impairments. The proposed requirement
closely corresponds to existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec. 1194.23(k)(3),
1194.25(c), and 1194.26(b), but is new to the 255 Guidelines. Because
telecommunications products generally do not have a key repeat feature,
the Board expects the impact of this provision on telecommunications
equipment manufacturers to be negligible.
407.5 Timed Response
This section proposes to require that where a timed response is
required, ICT would have to alert the user visually, as well as by
touch or sound. It would also have to provide the user an opportunity
to indicate that more time is needed. The intent of this section is to
afford people with certain disabilities--namely, those relating to
manual dexterity, cognitive disabilities, or otherwise affecting
response time--additional time to complete a task, if needed. The
proposed requirement is consistent with existing 255 Guidelines Sec.
1193.41(g), and closely corresponds to existing 508 Standards
Sec. Sec. 1194.25(b) and 1194.22(p).
407.6 Status Indicators
This section would require status indicators, including all locking
or toggle controls or keys, such as ``Caps Lock'' and ``Num Lock,'' to
be discernible visually and by either touch or sound. The intent is to
ensure that users who are blind can determine the status of locking or
toggle keys audibly or by touch, and that users who are deaf can make
this determination visually. This proposed provision closely
corresponds to existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec. 1194.23(k)(4),
1194.25(c), and 1194.26(b), but would be new to the 255 Guidelines.
While new to the 255 Guidelines, status indicators for Caps Lock and
Num Lock controls represent current design practice. Accordingly, there
should be no additional cost associated with this provision.
407.7 Color
This section proposes to prohibit color-coding from being the only
means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a
response, or distinguishing a visual element. The proposed section is
the same as existing 508 Standards Sec. 1195.25(g), and is consistent
with 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.41(c). The use of color is also
addressed in existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.22(c), which requires
that Web pages ``be designed so that all information conveyed with
color is also available without color, for example from context or mark
up.'' The intent of the proposed section is to address the needs of
people who are color blind or have low vision. The proposed prohibition
on color-coding represents current practice in the design of electronic
content and, therefore, should not result in any additional cost.
407.8 Audio Signaling
This section proposes to prohibit audio signaling from being the
only means of conveying information, indicating an action, or prompting
a response. For example, when a landline telephones provides a stutter
tone to indicate a voice mail message, such a tone is typically
accompanied by an activated light on the phone. This proposal closely
parallels the prohibition in existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.25(g)
against use of color as the only means of conveying information. The
section is intended to address the needs of individuals with hearing
impairments in the same way that proposed 407.7 addresses the needs of
persons who have color blindness. Although an express prohibition on
audio signaling would be new to the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines,
such a prohibition is implied by the existing functional performance
criteria (508 Standards Sec. 1194.31(c)), and represents current
industry practice. This proposed provision should not, therefore,
result in any significant cost increase.
407.9 Operation
This section would require ICT with operable parts to provide at
least one mode of operation that is operable with one hand, and
prohibits operable parts requiring tight grasping, pinching, or
twisting of the wrist. The force required to activate operable parts
would be limited to 5 lbs. (22.2 N) maximum. The proposed requirement
closely corresponds to existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec. 1194.23(k)(2),
1194.25(c), and 1194.26(b), and is consistent with existing 255
Guidelines Sec. Sec. 1193.41(e) and (f). This section is aimed at
addressing the needs of people with manual dexterity impairments when
using operable parts.
407.10 Privacy
This proposed section would require the same degree of privacy of
input and output for all individuals. For example,
[[Page 10918]]
individuals using a speech output mode must be afforded the same degree
of privacy as those using a display screen. The proposed requirement
would be new to both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. ATMs and
Fare Vending Machines, as addressed in the ADA and ABA Accessibility
Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, section 707.4), typically
support compliance with this requirement by providing a handset or
audio jack. Additionally, this proposed section would prohibit screens
from automatically going blank when the speech function is engaged.
Many people with low vision use speech output to supplement or
reinforce on-screen prompts. Consequently, automatically blanking the
screen would render the ICT less accessible to these users. Provision
of an option for users to blank the screen, however, may be helpful to
individuals who desire greater privacy.
407.11 Keys, Tickets, and Fare Cards
This section would require that, when kiosks or other ICT provide a
key, ticket, or fare card, those objects have a tactilely discernible
orientation, if orientation is important to the object's further use.
This requirement would be new to the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines,
and is intended to address the needs of individuals with visual
impairments. This section is identical to the recently issued final
rule by the Department of Transportation concerning the accessibility
of tickets and boarding passes issued by shared-use automated kiosks at
airport facilities. See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in
Air Travel: Accessibility of Web sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S.
Airports, 78 FR 67882 (Nov. 12, 2013) (to be codified at 49 CFR part
27). ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines would be expressly exempted from
the requirements of this section (by proposed C204.1 Exception) because
telecommunications equipment does not typically issue keys, tickets, or
fare cards.
407.12 Reach Height
This section proposes requirements for the height of side and
forward reaches that would enable persons using wheelchairs or other
mobility aids to reach and operate at least one of each type of
operable part. This proposed section would apply only to ICT that is
stationary. By ``stationary,'' the Board means that the ICT, once put
in place, is not intended to be relocated for routine use. Proposed
407.12 parallels existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.25(j), which applies
side reach requirements to ICT that is ``freestanding, non-portable,
and intended to be used in one location.'' We are proposing to use the
term ``stationary'' to address concerns that the word ``freestanding''
implies an independent supporting structure that may not always be in
place, such as with a multifunction printer specifically designed for
table-top or desk-top use.
Specifically, this section would establish requirements for
position (i.e., vertical reference plane), forward reach, and side
reach. This section proposes maximum and minimum reach heights for
either forward (over the lap) or side reaches to stationary ICT.
Existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.25(j) only provides specifications
for side reaches to operable parts of ICT. This section would provide
greater design flexibility by permitting controls to be configured for
either forward reach (407.12.3) or side reach (407.12.2). This
flexibility would allow manufacturers to assess conformance prior to
sale and independent of factors outside their control. For example, a
manufacturer cannot control the installation location once ICT is
purchased. However, because controls are designed to be within reach,
the purchaser can then ensure that the ICT is located so that at least
one of each type of control is accessible to individuals with
disabilities. ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines would be expressly
exempted from the requirements of this section (by proposed C204.1
Exception) because it is not typically stationary.
Question 21. Should the requirements for reach height in proposed
407.12 apply to ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines, such as, for
example, routers attached to racks? The Board asks that
telecommunications equipment manufacturers provide information on the
costs of such a requirement. Are there alternative ways of making these
components accessible? We welcome comments on suggested approaches.
407.12.1 Vertical Reference Plane
This section proposes that the positioning of operable parts for
side reaches and forward reaches be determined with respect to a
vertical reference plane, with the location and length of the plane
dependent on the type of reach. The provisions for a side reach in
existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.25(j)(1) contain references to this
same vertical reference plane.
407.12.1.1 Vertical Plane for Side Reach
This section proposes that, where a side approach is provided, the
vertical reference plane must have a minimum length of 48 inches. The
48-inch dimension is based on the length of a stationary occupied
wheelchair. This side reach requirement mirrors existing 508 Standards
Sec. 1194.25(j)(1) and Figure 1.
407.12.1.2 Vertical Plane for Forward Reach
This section proposes that, where a forward reach is provided, the
vertical reference plane must be, at a minimum, 30 inches long. The 30-
inch dimension is based on the width of a stationary occupied
wheelchair. This dimension is consistent with the ADA and ABA
Accessibility Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, section 305.5).
407.12.2 Side Reach
This section specifies proposed requirements for operable parts
providing unobstructed or obstructed side reaches. It proposes to limit
the height of the portion of the ICT over which a person must reach to
access controls to 34 inches maximum in height. Although the existing
508 Standards do not include a maximum height for the portion of the
ICT over which a person must reach, the proposed 34 inches maximum
height is consistent with ICC A117.1-2009, as well as the ADA and ABA
Accessibility Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, section 308).
Without such a height limitation, controls at 48 inches could be out of
reach if an obstruction blocked a user's arm and impeded his or her
reach to the controls.
407.12.2.1 Unobstructed Side Reach
This section proposes that, where the operable part is located 10
inches or less behind the vertical reference plane, the operable part
must be 48 inches high maximum and 15 inches high minimum above the
floor. Although existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.25(j)(2) permits a
maximum reach height of 54 inches, it contains the same minimum height
(15 inches) and 10-inch reach depth. The proposed lowering of the
maximum height for unobstructed side reach (i.e., from 54 inches in the
existing 508 Standards to 48 inches in this proposed rule) reflects a
similar change in 2004 to the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. See
36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, section 308.3. This proposed maximum
height is also consistent with accessible reaches specified in the 1998
edition, as well as two subsequent editions, of the ICC A117.1.
407.12.2.2 Obstructed Side Reach
This section proposes that, where the operable part is located more
than 10 inches, but not more than 24 inches,
[[Page 10919]]
behind the vertical reference plane, the height of the operable part
must be 46 inches maximum and 15 inches minimum above the floor. In
addition, the operable part would not be permitted to be located more
than 24 inches behind the vertical reference plane. Although it is
editorially revised, this section is the same as existing 508 Standards
Sec. Sec. 1194.25(j)(3) and 1194.25(j)(4).
407.12.3 Forward Reach
This section contains proposed requirements for operable parts
providing either an unobstructed or obstructed forward reach. This
section proposes to limit the height of an obstruction that must be
reached over to operate the control to 34 inches in height. The 34-inch
height restriction is consistent with the ADA and ABA Accessibility
Guidelines. See 36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, section 308. The proposed
provision would also require the vertical reference plane to be
centered on, and intersect with, the operable part.
As noted previously, the existing 508 Standards do not provide
specifications for forward reaches. While this requirement (and its
subsections) would thus be new to the existing 508 Standards, it
nonetheless would provide greater design flexibility by permitting
controls to be configured for forward reach (or, alternatively, side
reach), at the manufacturer's discretion.
407.12.3.1 Unobstructed Forward Reach
This section proposes that, where an unobstructed forward reach is
provided, the operable part must be located 48 inches high maximum and
15 inches high minimum above the floor. An unobstructed forward reach,
for purposes of this section, occurs when the operable part is located
at the leading edge of the maximum protrusion within the length of the
vertical reference plane of the ICT. These dimensions and their
resulting geometry are consistent with the ADA and ABA Accessibility
Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, sections 306 and 308).
407.12.3.2 Obstructed Forward Reach
This section proposes that, where an obstructed forward reach is
provided, the maximum allowable forward reach to an operable part would
be 25 inches. An obstructed forward reach, for purposes of this
section, occurs when the operable part is located behind the leading
edge of the maximum protrusion within the length of the vertical
reference plane of the ICT. In addition, this proposed section also
contains subsections, as discussed below, establishing maximum heights
for operable parts with obstructed forward reaches, as well as
dimensions for knee and toe spaces. These dimensions and their
resulting geometry are consistent with the ADA and ABA Accessibility
Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, sections 306 and 308).
407.12.3.2.1 Height
This section, presented in tabular form (Table 407.12.3.2.1),
proposes alternative maximum heights for operable parts with obstructed
forward reaches depending on reach depth. As specified in this table,
if the reach depth of the operable part is less than 20 inches, then
the operable part must be no higher than 48 inches. If the reach depth
of the operable part is 20 inches to 25 inches, then the operable part
must be no higher than 44 inches. These dimensions and their resulting
geometry are consistent with the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines
(36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, sections 306 and 308).
407.12.3.2.2 Knee and Toe Space
This section proposes dimensions for knee and toe space under ICT
when an obstructed forward reach is provided. The dimensions necessary
to accommodate the full knee and toe space under ICT would be 27 inches
high minimum, 25 inches deep maximum, and 30 inches wide minimum. This
knee and toe space would also have to be clear of obstructions. These
dimensions and their resulting geometry are consistent with the ADA and
ABA Accessibility Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, sections
306 and 308).
There are two proposed exceptions to this knee and toe space
requirement. First, toe space with a reduced clear height of 9 inches
(rather than 27 inches) would be permitted for a depth of no more than
6 inches. Building on this exception, the second exception would allow
further reduction in the height of the space along the profile of the
knee to the toe sloping at 6:1 toward the maximum protrusion of the
ICT. This means that, for every 6 inches of height, the line can move
toward the maximum protrusion of the ICT up to 1 inch or, put another
way, 6 inches of rise to 1 inch of run. These two exceptions allow ICT
to provide space beneath operable controls for ICT for knees and toes,
or a portion of knees and toes, depending on the location of the
controls.
408 Display Screens
This is an introductory section.
408.1 General
This section proposes to require that, where stationary ICT
provides one or more display screens, at least one of each type of
screen must be visible from a point located 40 inches above the floor
space where the display screen is to be viewed. The word ``stationary''
in this proposed section would have the same meaning as in proposed
407.12. The intent of this provision is to ensure that display screens
are viewable by individuals who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids.
This would be a new requirement for the 508 Standards. ICT subject to
the 255 Guidelines would be expressly exempted from the requirements of
this section (by proposed C204.1 Exception) because such equipment is
not typically stationary.
Question 22. The visibility requirements for display screens in
section 408.1 apply only to stationary ICT (i.e., ICT that is not
intended to be moved once put in place), and, consequently, would not
generally apply to telecommunications equipment subject to the 255
Guidelines--such as cable modems and routers. Should the requirements
for display screens apply to ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines?
In addition to the proposed requirements above, the Board is
considering establishing a requirement for the angle of the display
screen to be adjustable, so that a person using a wheelchair or other
mobility aid could see the entire viewable area of the display screen
and minimize the effect of glare.
Question 23. Should the Board add a requirement that the viewing
angle of display screens be adjustable to permit wheelchair users or
persons of small stature to see the entire viewable area of such
screens and minimize glare? Are there other characteristics of display
screens that would make them more viewable to persons who use
wheelchairs or other mobility aids?
409 Transactional Outputs
This is an introductory section.
409.1 General
This section proposes that, where transactional outputs--such as
tickets and receipts--are provided by ICT with speech output, the
speech output must contain all information necessary to complete or
verify a transaction. As applied to ICT with closed functionality and
display screens required to be speech-output enabled under proposed
402.2, this section would require all
[[Page 10920]]
information necessary to complete or verify a transaction, including
information printed on receipts or tickets, to be provided audibly.
This proposed requirement in 409.1 would be new to the 508
Standards. ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines would be expressly
exempted from the requirements of this section (by proposed C204.1
Exception) because telecommunications equipment generally does not
provide transactional outputs. For ICT covered by the 508 Standards,
there would be exceptions for three specific types of transactional
outputs: Information unrelated to the substance of particular
transactions (e.g., machine location and identifier, time of
transaction); information already presented audibly during the same
transaction; and, lastly, itineraries, maps, and other visual images.
Each of these exceptions is discussed below.
Question 24. Do the three proposed exceptions to 409.1 adequately
cover the types of information that should be exempted from the
requirement for audible presentation of transactional outputs? Are
there other types of information typically provided on transaction
outputs that should be exempted? Should the Board limit the types of
transactional outputs required to be presented audibly to certain types
of outputs, e.g., tickets or sales receipts?
Exception 1 to 409.1
Proposed Exception 1 would exempt information regarding the machine
location, date and time of transaction, customer account number, and
the machine identifier from the proposed requirement for audible
transaction output. Although this information may be on printed
receipts and other transactional outputs, it is not typically consulted
by the user during, or immediately following, a transaction. This
proposed exception is based on an exception to the requirements for
speech output at Automated Teller Machines and Fare Vending Machines in
the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. See 36 CFR part 1191,
Appendix D, section 707.5.2 Exception 1.
Exception 2 to 409.1
Proposed Exception 2 would exempt all information that is part of a
transactional output from the proposed requirement if it has already
been presented audibly at another point during the same transaction.
For example, if a user purchasing stamps on a self-service U.S. Post
Office machine selected a particular commemorative stamp and the
selected stamp name was presented in an audible format previously in
that same transaction, it need not be repeated when the machine issues
the stamp.
Exception 3 to 409.1
Proposed Exception 3 would exempt itineraries, maps, or other
visual images that are provided on ticketing machines from being
required to be presented in an audible format. This exception is
proposed in recognition of the technical challenges posed by audible
presentation of visual images.
Question 25. Are there requirements in proposed Exception 3 to
409.1 sufficiently clear?
410 ICT With Two-Way Voice Communication
This is an introductory section.
410.1 General
This section addresses the accessibility of telecommunications
equipment that offers two- way voice communication (i.e., an
interactive, multi-party voice communication occurring in real time),
including both older technologies (such as landline telephones and two-
way pagers) and more modern ICT (such as mobile wireless devices). It
would also apply to two-way video communication when the video also
transmits voice communication. Proposed 410.1 would require ICT with
two-way voice communication functionality to conform to the technical
requirements in proposed 410.2 through 410.8, which cover, among other
things: Volume gain magnetic coupling, minimization of interference,
real-time text functionality, and video communication.
410.2 Volume Gain
This section proposes to require ICT with two-way communication to
provide volume gain conforming to the FCC's current regulation at 47
CFR 68.317, which establishes technical standards for volume control on
analog and digital telephones to facilitate hearing aid compatibility.
The proposed section would replace existing 508 Standards Sec.
1194.23(f) and existing 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.43(e). The Advisory
Committee recommended that the Board adopt the FCC's volume gain
requirements for landline ICT with two-way voice communication.
In July 2013, the FCC issued a request for comment on a petition
for rulemaking filed by a telecommunications industry group requesting
that the agency revise its hearing aid compatibility volume control
gain requirements for analog and digital telephones.\10\ The
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) petition urged the
Commission to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to, among other
things, update its Part 68 rule to incorporate the most recent TIA
standard for hearing aid compatibility volume control on telephones:
ANSI/TIA-4965, Receive Volume Control Requirements for Digital and
Analog Wireline Handset Terminals (2012). 28 FCC Rcd. at 10338-39. At
present, the Commission's regulation at Sec. 68.317 sets forth
separate requirements for analog and digital telephones based on speech
amplification metrics known as ``Receive Objective Loudness Rating''
(ROLR). ANSI/TIA-4965, on the other hand, uses a new amplification
metric--referred to as ``conversational gain''--to establish
requirements for both analog and digital telephones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Request for Comment on Petition for Rulemaking filed by
the Telecommunications Industry Association Regarding Hearing Aid
Compatibility Volume Control Requirements, 28 FCC Rcd. 10338 (July
19, 2013) (TIA Petition). The comment period on this petition closed
in September 2013. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the ``conversational gain'' method of measuring amplification
for wireline phones in ANSI/TIA-4965 may hold promise, it would be
premature for the Board to reference this standard unless and until it
is adopted by the FCC. As the lead regulatory agency on hearing aid
compatibility standards for wireline telephones, the FCC is in the best
position to assess the technical merits, as well as costs and benefits,
of referencing this new TIA standard in any subsequent revisions to its
existing regulation in Part 68.
Question 26. The Board proposes to adopt 47 CFR 68.317, which is
the FCC's current regulatory standard addressing volume control for
analog and digital telephones. In the future, should the FCC revise its
regulation and incorporate by reference ANSI/TIA-4965 (or any other
consensus standard) for wireline phones, the Board plans to update its
regulations--as needed--to reflect revisions by the Commission. We seek
comment on this proposed course of action.
410.3 Magnetic Coupling
This section proposes to require that, where ICT with two-way voice
communication delivers output by an audio transducer that is typically
held up to the ear, it provide a means for effective magnetic wireless
coupling to hearing technologies, such as hearing aids, cochlear
implants, and assistive listening devices. This section is equivalent
to Sec. Sec. 1194.23(h) and
[[Page 10921]]
1193.43(i) of the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines,
respectively.
410.4 Minimize Interference
This proposed section would require wireless handsets and digital
wireless devices to reduce interference with hearing technologies to
the lowest possible level, with interference specifications set forth
in proposed subsections 410.4.1 (wireless handsets) and 410.4.2
(digital wireline). This section closely corresponds to existing 508
Standards Sec. 1194.23(i) and 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.43(h), but
also incorporates by references consensus standards developed since the
508 Standards and 255 Guidelines were published.
The proposed subsections 410.4.1 and 410.4.2 refer to industry-
accepted standards for performance requirements for mobile and landline
telephones.
410.4.1 Wireless Handsets
This section proposes that ICT in the form of wireless handsets--
that is, cellular telephones--would be required to conform to ANSI/IEEE
C63.19-2011, as incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255
Chapter 1.
410.4.2 Digital Wireline
This section proposes that ICT in the form of digital wireline
devices (such as VoIP-based office desk telephones) would be required
to conform to TIA 1083, as incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1
and 255 Chapter 1.
410.5 Digital Encoding of Speech
This section proposes to require ICT with two-way voice
communication to transmit and receive digitally encoded speech in the
manner specified by ITU-T Recommendation G.722, a consensus standard
for encoding and storing digital audio information that is incorporated
by reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1. An exception for
closed systems would exempt such systems from conformance to ITU-T
Recommendation G.722 provided that they conform to another standard
that ensures equivalent or better acoustic performance and support
conversion to ITU-T Recommendation G.722 at their borders. This
provision was recommended by the Advisory Committee to help improve
auditory clarity for persons with hearing impairments. It is new to
both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines.
410.6 Real-Time Text Functionality
This proposed section establishes requirements for RTT
functionality for ICT that provides real-time voice communication. As
noted previously, both the Advisory Committee and the Board believe
that RTT represents an important technological advance that provides an
equivalent alternative to voice communications for persons who are
deaf, as well as those with limited hearing or speech impairments. RTT
delivers a more interactive, conversational communication experience
compared to standard text messaging. It also provides superior speed
and reliability in emergency situations. Furthermore, RTT permits the
user to communicate using mainstream devices--such as mobile phones--
rather than having to use specialized and expensive devices (such as
TTYs). See discussion above in Section IV.E.4 (Rulemaking History--2010
and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues--Coverage of Real-Time Text), and
Section V.D (Major Issues--Real-Time Text).
Proposed 410.6 would require that, where ICT supports real-time
voice communication, it must also support RTT functionality.
Subsections of this proposed provision would, in turn, establish
technical requirements for display, text generation, and
interoperability. Importantly, proposed 410.6 would not mandate that
all ICT provide RTT functionality. Rather, only those ICT that already
have real-time voice communication capabilities would be required to
support RTT functions. In this way, the Board's approach to
requirements for RTT in the proposed rule mirrors the approach taken in
the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines toward TTY compatibility.
Neither the existing standards and guidelines nor the proposed rule
establish an across-the-board command that telecommunications equipment
or devices ``build in'' text capability. Instead, both sets of rules
simply require that, when such equipment or devices offer voice
communication functions, they must also ensure compatibility with
certain types of text communication (i.e., TTY and RTT) by supporting
use of specified cross-manufacturer, non-proprietary signals. See 36
CFR 1193.51((e), 1194.23(b).
410.6.1 Display of Real-Time Text
This proposed section is new to the 508 Standards and 255
Guidelines and would require that, wherever ICT provides real-time
voice communication and includes a multi-line screen, the ICT must also
support the display of real-time text. This provision would not apply
to telecommunications devices that either do not have display screens,
or only have display screens capable of showing one line of text at a
time.
410.6.2 Text Generation
This proposed section is new to the 508 Standards and 255
Guidelines and would require that, wherever ICT provides real-time
voice communication and includes a keyboard, the ICT must also support
the generation of real-time text.
410.6.3 Interoperability
This section proposes that, where ICT with real-time two-way voice
communication operates outside of a closed network or connects to
another system, such ICT must ensure real-time text interoperability by
using one of two cross-manufacturer, non-proprietary consensus
standards depending on the nature of the system with which it is
exchanging information--namely, a traditional telephone network or
Internet-based telephony.
410.6.3.1 PSTN
This section proposes that, where ICT with real-time two-way voice
communication interoperates with the publicly switched telephone
network (PSTN), real-time text conform to TIA 825-A (incorporated by
reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1). This is the current
industry standard for TTY signals (also known as Baudot) at the PSTN
interface.
410.6.3.2 VoIP Using SIP
This section proposes that, where ICT with real-time two-way voice
communication interoperates with ``Voice over Internet Protocol''
(VoIP) products or systems that use Session Initiated Protocol (SIP),
real-time text conform to RFC 4103 (incorporated by reference in 508
Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1). In Question 8 above, see Section V.D.,
the Board seeks comment regarding the potential benefits, costs, and
drawbacks associated with referencing other standards in addition to
RFC 4103.
410.6.4 Voice Mail, Auto-Attendant, and IVR Compatibility
This section proposes that, where ICT provides real-time two-way
voice communication, any associated voice mail, auto-attendant, and
interactive voice response systems must be compatible with real-time
text functionality. This section derives from existing 508 Standards
Sec. Sec. 1194.23(c)-(e), as well as existing 255 Guidelines
Sec. Sec. 1193.51(d)-(e).
410.6.5 HCO and VCO Support
This section proposes that, where ICT provides real-time two-way
voice communication, it must permit users to intermix speech with the
use of real-
[[Page 10922]]
time text. Such ICT would also be required to support modes that are
compatible with Hearing Carry Over (HCO) and Voice Carry Over (VCO).
This provision is collectively derived from existing 508 Standards
Sec. 1194.23(a) and 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.51(d), and is consistent
with changes in technology over time from TTYs to real-time text
functionality. It is particularly significant in preserving the use of
HCO/VCO with evolving technology.
410.7 Caller ID
This section proposes that, where ICT provides two-way voice
communication, any associated caller identification or similar
telecommunications functions must be presented in both visual (e.g.,
text) and auditory formats. This requirement would be new to the 255
Guidelines, but corresponds to a similar requirement in Sec.
1194.23(e) of the existing 508 Standards. This proposed requirement
could be met, for example, by having the system provide Caller ID in an
auditory format, or by ensuring that Caller ID is available to
assistive technology. Presentation of Caller ID in both visible and
auditory forms ensures that individuals with visual impairments,
hearing loss, or both, could use Caller ID and similar services, when
provided.
410.8 Video Communication
This section proposes that ICT with real-time video functionality
must ensure that the quality of the video is sufficient to support
communication through sign language. This proposed section would be new
to both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. The Advisory Committee
recommended that the Board include a provision requiring ICT used to
transmit video communications in real-time to meet certain
specifications for video quality and fluidity (i.e., speed, data
stream, and latency). See TEITAC Report, Part 6. Subpt. C, Rec. 6-E.
The Board's proposals relating to the requisite quality of real-
time video communications have received mixed reviews from commenters.
In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed specifications for the quality of
real-time video communication that largely mirrored the Advisory
Committee's recommendation. Many commenters expressed support for the
general concept of a video quality requirement as important for
ensuring the accessibility of a means of communication, which, for
persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, is the functional equivalent
of voice communication. Some commenters, on the other hand, were
critical of the Board's proposed technical specifications as overly
prescriptive or unsupported by research. In light of such concerns, in
the 2011 ANPRM, the Board simply proposed--as here in this proposed
rule--that the quality of video must be sufficient to support sign
language communication. Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM, while again
generally supportive of the effort to ensure real-time video
communications were usable by persons with hearing impairments, largely
took issue with the proposal's lack of testable measures.
While the Board is mindful of commenters' criticisms to the 2011
ANPRM's performance-based standard for video quality of real-time video
functionality, the Board has nonetheless retained this standard in this
proposed rule. This provision would cover video communication via the
web on dedicated videophones, as well as commonly used ICT such as
smartphones. We are not aware of standards or specifications for video
quality that would provide testable and achievable metrics to assess
the quality and transmission of real-time video communications.
However, technologies--as well as standards development--have
progressed greatly in recent years. We welcome public comment on
technological improvements or useful metrics relating to real-time
video communication developed since the 2011 ANPRM.
Question 27. Does the performance-based standard in proposed 410.8
ensure that video quality would be sufficient to support a real-time
video conversation in which one or more parties use sign language? If
not, are there standards for video quality or transmission that would
better implement the accessibility goal of this proposed requirement?
Would it be readily achievable for manufacturers of telecommunications
equipment to comply with section 410.8?
411 Closed Caption Processing Technologies
This is an introductory section.
411.1 General
This section addresses the accessibility of audio-visual
technologies--including analog and digital televisions, tuners,
personal video display devices, converter boxes, and computer
equipment--by requiring such technologies to support closed and open
captions. Captioning is critical for persons with hearing impairments
to use and understand information presented in a video format.
Specifically, proposed 411.1 provides that, where audio-visual players
and displays process video with synchronized audio, they must either
decode closed caption data and display open captions, or pass-through
the closed captioning data stream in an accessible format. This
proposal largely corresponds to existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec.
1194.23(j) and 1194.24(a), and existing 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.37,
though it differs in a few notable respects. Due to advances in
technology, this proposed section neither distinguishes between analog
and digital televisions, nor conditions the requirement for closed
caption decoder circuitry on screen size. Additionally, the proposal
substitutes the term ``synchronized audio information'' for
``multimedia'' because it is more precise and consistent with current
terminology.
Question 28. Would compliance with section 411 be readily
achievable for manufacturers of mobile telecommunications equipment?
411.1.1 Decoding of Closed Captions
This section proposes that, where audio-visual players and displays
process video with synchronized audio, they must decode closed caption
data and support display of open captions.
411.1.2 Pass-Through of Closed Caption Data
This section proposes that, where audio-visual players and displays
process video with synchronized audio, cabling and ancillary equipment
would be required to pass through caption data. High-definition
multimedia cables (HDMI) carry audio and video signals, and are
technically capable of passing through caption data; typically,
however, caption data is not included with the audio-visual stream.
412 Audio Description Processing Technology
This is an introductory section.
412.1 General
This proposed section would require that, where ICT displays or
processes video with synchronized audio, ICT must provide a mode of
operation that plays associated audio description. This requirement
draws from the audio description requirement in existing 508 Standards
Sec. 1194.24(b), but would include a specification for digital
television tuners. This would be a new requirement to the 255
Guidelines.
Question 29. Would compliance with section 412 be readily
achievable for manufacturers of mobile telecommunications equipment?
[[Page 10923]]
412.1.1 Digital Television Tuners
This section proposes that, where audio description is played
through a digital television tuner, that such tuner conform to Part 5
of the ATSC A/53 Digital Television Standard (incorporated by reference
in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1). The provision then goes on to
require that tuners provide processing for audio description when
encoded as a Visually Impaired (VI) associated audio service. This is
the industry-wide accepted method for delivery of audio description
content and the means to identify audio as a VI associated audio
service.
413 User Controls for Captions and Audio Description
This is an introductory section.
413.1 General
This proposed section addresses the accessibility of controls for
captioning and audio description on devices used to watch video
programming, including analog and digital televisions, tuners, personal
video display devices, converter boxes, and computer equipment.
Specifically, this provision would require hardware displaying video
with synchronized audio to locate user controls for closed captions and
audio description in specified locations of equal prominence to common
user controls (i.e., volume and program selection), as set forth in two
accompanying subsections (proposed 413.1.1 and 413.1.2). An exception
would be provided for devices for personal use when closed captions and
audio description can be enabled through system-wide platform settings.
This exception is proposed in recognition of the fact that the small
size of most mobile devices would make compliance particularly
challenging.
The requirements in proposed 413.1 would be new to the 508
Standards and the 255 Guidelines. The Advisory Committee recommended
inclusion of this provision to ensure that persons with hearing- and
vision-related disabilities can find--and use--captioning and audio
description controls. See TEITAC Report, Part 6, Subpt. C, Rec. 4-C.
(Complimentary provisions governing software-based on-screen controls
for captions and audio description are addressed in proposed 503.4.)
This proposed requirement, albeit with slightly different wording,
was included in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs. Comments from organizations
representing persons with disabilities lauded this proposed requirement
as a significant step toward improving the accessibility of captioning
and audio description controls. These organizations characterized
consumers with disabilities as having long struggled with varying
methods among manufacturers for accessing such controls, describing
them as typically more complex and less ``user friendly'' compared to
the control of other core functions. They also noted that difficulties
locating and using caption and audio description controls is of
particular concern for persons with disabilities when in unfamiliar
locations (e.g., television in hotel room), or an emergency situation
when accessing captioned or audio described information could be life-
saving.
Commenters with connections to the ICT industry, on the other hand,
expressed concern with the broad scope of the proposed provision. These
commenters noted that the proposed requirement governing location of
controls for captions and audio description would apply not only to
televisions and remote controls, but also a wide range of ``general
purpose'' devices--such as desktop computers, laptops, and other mobile
devices--for which multimedia output is an incidental function. They
suggested that either the scoping of the requirement be modified, or
``general purpose'' devices be exempted from providing physical buttons
for closed captions and audio description. Others simply noted more
generally that providing caption controls with equal prominence to
volume controls could be problematic for some types of hardware-based
ICT.
In late 2013, the FCC issued a final rule addressing, among other
things, the accessibility of user interfaces on digital devices and
software used to view video programming, including closed captioning
and audio description (which, in the Commission's rule, is referred to
as ``video description'').\11\ To implement the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), Public Law
111-260 (2010) (codified in scattered sections of 47 U.S.C.), the FCC,
in pertinent part, promulgated rules requiring ``digital apparatus''
designed to receive or play back video programming to provide access to
closed captioning and video description through a mechanism that is
reasonably comparable to a button, key or icon.\12\ ``Navigation
devices''--which include digital cable ready televisions, set-top
boxes, computers with CableCARD slots, and cable modems--are required
to provide similar access to closed captioning (but not, at this
juncture, video description) for on-screen menus and guides. The
Commission declined, however, to adopt technical standards, performance
objectives, or other specific metrics to evaluate accessibility.
Establishment of such standards, the Commission determined, was beyond
its statutory authority, and would, in any event, potentially stifle
innovative approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Programming
Guides, 78 FR 77210 (Dec. 20, 2013); Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 12-108, 28 FCC Rcd.
17330 (Oct. 31, 2013) (to be codified at 47 CFR pt. 79) (hereafter,
FCC User Interface Accessibility Order).
\12\ ``Digital apparatus,'' as defined by the FCC, encompasses
devices or software designed to receive or play back video
programming that does not have built-in capacity to access cable
programming or services. This term includes: Televisions and
computers that are not designed to be cable ready; removable media
players; mobile devices (such as tablets and smartphones) without
pre-installed applications to access cable; and, ``video players and
user interfaces of video applications, such as Netflix, Hulu, and
Amazon, when such applications are pre-installed . . . by the
manufacturer.'' FCC User Interface Accessibility Order at ]] 2, 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed 413.1, in the Board's view, complements the approach taken
by the FCC in its final rule on accessibility of user interfaces. As
with the FCC's rule, the Board proposes to require that ICT with the
capability of displaying video with synchronized audio ensure that
controls for closed captions and audio description are accessible to
persons with disabilities. Unlike the FCC, however, the Board does
propose technical standards--namely, placement of caption and audio
description controls--that govern how accessibility must be achieved.
This is consistent with the Board's statutory mandate under both the
Rehabilitation Act and Communications Act. See 29 U.S.C.
794d(2)(A)(ii), 794d(B); 47 U.S.C. 255(e). Thus, while the FCC may have
been statutorily constrained by the CVAA with respect to technical
standards for user interfaces, the Board is not. Indeed, one of Board's
core missions is the establishment of technical standards. In this way,
proposed 413.1 may be seen as complimenting the FCC's recent final
rule. Both agencies establish an accessibility mandate for user
interfaces on certain ICT that displays video with synchronized audio,
but the Board, in this proposed rule, goes one step further by
establishing a metric to assess accessibility--namely, placement of
user controls for closed captions and audio description in locations of
equal prominence to other core functions (i.e., volume control and
program selection).
[[Page 10924]]
Question 30. Does proposed 413.1 strike an appropriate balance
between ensuring users with hearing or vision impairments can readily
find and use controls for closed captioning and audio description,
while also affording device manufacturers sufficient design
flexibility? Should the requirement for a captioning button be limited
to devices that have both up/down volume controls and a mute button?
Or, more generally, should the provision of caption controls be limited
to certain types of hardware?
413.1.1 Caption Controls
This proposed section would require that, where video-capable
hardware provides physical volume adjustment controls, such ICT must
also have a control for closed captioning in at least one location of
comparable prominence to the volume adjustment controls. So, for
example, if a television had physical volume controls on the display
panel, as well as its accompanying remote control, this proposed
requirement would be satisfied so long as a user control for captions
was located either, at the manufacturer's discretion, on the display or
remote control in an equally prominent location to the volume control.
(If this television also had a feature to adjust volume by way of an
on-screen tool or menu, caption control requirements for this on-screen
control would be governed by the software-based requirements in
proposed 503.4.)
Question 31. While the Board believes that proposed 413.1.1 would
greatly benefit persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, we did not
monetize the benefits or costs of providing caption controls on covered
hardware. The Board seeks data and other information from the public in
order to estimate the monetized costs and benefits of this proposal.
For commenters who do not view this proposed requirement as beneficial,
how should the accessibility barriers faced by individuals with hearing
impairments who seek to locate and operate closed caption features be
addressed? Commenters should provide concrete suggestions for improving
proposed 413.1.1.
413.1.2 Audio Description Controls
This proposed section would require that, where video-capable
hardware provides controls for program selection, such ICT must have
user controls for audio description in at least one location of
comparable prominence to the program selection controls. This
requirement would be new to the 508 Standards. Locating audio
description controls in a prominent location is not currently a common
design practice, though the Board does not anticipate that it will add
substantial cost. In practice, this would require one extra button on a
remote control. While not as common as products featuring controls for
captioning, there are already products commercially available that
feature user controls for audio description.
Question 32. While the Board believes that proposed 413.1.2 would
greatly benefit consumers who are blind or have low vision, we did not
monetize the benefits or costs of providing audio description controls
on covered hardware. The Board seeks data and other information in
order to estimate the monetized costs and benefits of this proposal.
For commenters who do not view this proposed requirement as beneficial,
how should the accessibility barriers faced by individuals with vision
impairments who seek to locate and operate audio description features
be addressed? Commenters should provide concrete suggestions for
improving proposed 413.1.2.
Chapter 5: Software
Chapter 5 contains proposed technical requirements for software,
applications, platforms, and software tools. The requirements in this
chapter, along with the scoping provisions in proposed E207 and C205,
collectively form the ``suite'' of accessibility requirements for these
types of ICT. This chapter is largely drawn from existing 508 Standards
Sec. 1194.21, but with updating to harmonize with WCAG 2.0.
501 General
This is an introductory section.
501.1 Scope
This section proposes that the technical requirements for software
in this chapter be applied where either (a) required by 508 Chapter 2
or 255 Chapter 2, or (b) where otherwise referenced in any other
chapters. There are two exceptions. Exception 1, as proposed, provides
that Web applications conforming to all Level A and AA Success Criteria
and all Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 need not conform to
proposed 502 (Interoperability with Assistive Technology) or 503
(Applications). This exception is provided because software that
conforms to WCAG 2.0 AA is already accessible. The value of promoting a
single harmonized standard outweighs any small benefit that might be
achieved by conforming to overlapping, but separate, standards.
Exception 2 proposes that software that (1) is assistive technology
and (2) supports the accessibility services of the platform for which
it is designed need not conform with the provisions of this chapter.
This exception is included because assistive technology frequently
needs flexibility in order to perform well for end-users with
disabilities. For example, a switch-activated on-screen keyboard might
not have a mode that makes it usable by someone who is blind. This
exception is also deliberately limited to software that follows
platform specifications because it is important that assistive
technology be compatible with other assistive technology.
502 Interoperability With Assistive Technology
This is an introductory section.
502.1 General
This section proposes that platforms, software tools provided by
platform developers, and applications must conform to the requirements
in the accompanying subsections related to documented accessibility
features (502.2), accessibility services (502.3), and platform
accessibility services (502.4). An exception is provided for platforms
and applications that have closed functionality.
This section has implications for both platform developers and
federal procurement officials. Agencies would have to ensure that all
operating systems they purchase have an associated set of documented
accessibility services. Software developers would have to provide
accessibility services when creating platforms and their software
tools.
502.2 Documented Accessibility Features
This section addresses the compatibility of software and assistive
technology. Specifically, under proposed 502.2, platform features that
are defined in the platform documentation as accessibility features
would be required to conform to requirements in accompanying
subsections related to user control (502.2.1) and non-disruption
(502.2.2) of accessibility features.
502.2.1 User Control of Accessibility Features
This section proposes that platforms must provide user control over
platform features when such features are defined in platform
documentation as serving an accessibility purpose. This provision would
be new to the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, though it draws on the
prohibition in Sec. 1194.21(b) of the existing 508 Standards against
disrupting or disabling accessibility
[[Page 10925]]
features. The Advisory Committee recommended that the Board include an
express provision ensuring that persons with disabilities are able to
activate and use features or settings--such as font size, or color--
that preclude network or system-wide configurations from ``locking
down'' needed accessibility features. See TEITAC Report, Part 6, Subpt.
C, Rec. 2-C. This proposal was included in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs,
and the only comments received related to minor editorial changes.
502.2.2 No Disruption of Accessibility Features
This section proposes that, where accessibility features are
defined in platform documentation, applications must not disrupt them.
This provision mirrors existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.21(b). The
Advisory Committee strongly recommended that the Board include this
requirement in the proposed rule not only to ensure accessibility, but
also to avoid platform developers from being responsible for
incompatibilities that derived from undocumented platform services or
hidden requirements of assistive technology. See TEITAC Report, Part 6,
Subpt. C, Rec. 3-Q. This proposal was included in the 2010 and 2011
ANPRMs and received no adverse comments.
502.3 Accessibility Services
This section proposes that platforms (such as operating systems)
and software tools provided by the platform developer furnish a
documented set of accessibility services--usually referred to as
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)--in order to enable
applications running on the platform to interoperate with assistive
technology. Additionally, applications that are themselves platforms
would be required to expose underlying platform accessibility services
or implement other document accessibility services.
This proposal does not have an analog in the existing 508 Standards
because, at the time the standards were issued in 2000, mainstream
operating systems had a well-established track record of providing
APIs. Since then, some platforms, particularly those used by first
generation mobile devices, stopped providing these requisite components
of baseline accessibility. This proposed provision would not represent
a significant change from widespread industry practice, since all major
platforms have well-developed APIs that incorporate accessibility.
Consequently, it is important to expressly require APIs. A documented
set of accessibility services is important to end-users because,
without them, developers are likely to provide inconsistent access to
assistive technology, thereby leaving end-users with disabilities
without access to needed features. Well-documented accessibility
services are especially important for developers new to accessibility,
and can serve to alert all developers to the importance of the
accessibility features of platforms.
502.3.1 Object Information
This section proposes that particular programming elements--namely
object role, state, boundary, name, and description--must be
programmatically determinable. Moreover, user-adjustable states would
be required to be set programmatically, including through assistive
technology. This proposal, along with proposed 502.3.3, corresponds to
WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 4.1.2 Name, Role, and Value. It is also
consistent with existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.21(d), but more
explicitly provides for the user to be able to change data values, not
just read them. Making the specified states programmatically
determinable is already a widespread industry practice and is a
standard feature provided in software designed to be accessible.
Nonetheless, it is important to address this issue in the proposed rule
because, on occasion, users of assistive technology find that they can
read data in fields, but cannot make changes.
502.3.2 Row, Column, and Headers
This section proposes that, where a programming object is in a
table, occupied rows and columns (i.e., those populated with data), as
well as any headers associated with such rows or columns, must be
programmatically determinable. This provision corresponds to Sec. Sec.
1194.22(g) and 1194.22(h) of the existing 508 Standards. A similar
requirement is set forth in WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 1.3.1 Info and
Relationships. See W3C, Understanding SC 1.3.1, Understanding WCAG 2.0
(Sept. 16, 2014), http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html.
502.3.3 Values
This section proposes that current values, as well as any set or
range of allowable values associated with a programming object, must be
programmatically determinable. This proposal would also require values
that can be set by the user to be capable of being set
programmatically, including through assistive technology. This
proposal, along with proposed 502.3.1, corresponds to WCAG 2.0 Success
Criteria 4.1.2 Name, Role, and Value. An express requirement for values
to be set programmatically would be new to the 508 Standards. However,
existing industry practice in response to existing standards (i.e., 508
Standards Sec. 1194.21(d)) is to permit values to be set
programmatically.
502.3.4 Label Relationships
This section proposes that relationships between components must be
programmatically exposed to assistive technology where a component
labels, or is labeled by, another component. This provision corresponds
to Sec. Sec. 1194.21(l) and 1194.22(n) in the existing 508 Standards,
though it is broader in scope since, unlike these current requirements,
its coverage extends beyond forms. A similar requirement is set forth
in WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 1.3.1 Info and Relationships. See W3C,
Understanding SC 1.3.1, Understanding WCAG 2.0 (Sept. 16, 2014), http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html.
502.3.5 Hierarchical Relationships
This section proposes that any hierarchical (parent-child)
relationship between components be programmatically exposed to
assistive technology. This is important for individuals who use
assistive technology so they can understand the relationships or
interdependencies between menu options, database entries, or other
software elements that have parent-child relationships. For example,
word processing and email software commonly use one or more sub-menus
that cascade from a ``main'' menu item, which permit the user to
perform desired actions such as saving a file in a specific format or
altering font styles. Requiring components to expose (i.e., provide)
hierarchical relationships to assistive technology ensures that an
individual using a screen reader, for example, could understand these
relationships and, thereby, perform the desired function or action.
This provision corresponds to existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec.
1194.21(l) and 1194.22(n). In addition, in response to existing 508
Standards Sec. 1194.21(d), current industry practice is to ensure that
any parent-child relationship that components have to other components
is programmatically exposed to assistive technology. This requirement
closely parallels Success Criterion 1.3.1 in WCAG 2.0, but has greater
specificity because software is more structured than Web content.
[[Page 10926]]
502.3.6 Text
This section proposes that the content of text objects, text
attributes, and on-screen text boundaries be programmatically
determinable. Additionally, text that can be set by the user would have
to be capable of being set programmatically, including through
assistive technology. This provision would be useful for a screen-
reader user, for example, when filling in a field on a form. It would
be quite frustrating to be able to navigate to a form field, and
perhaps even read placeholder text in that field, but then not be able
to enter text as needed. This provision corresponds to Sec. 1194.21(f)
in the existing 508 Standards.
502.3.7 Actions
This section proposes that a list of all actions that can be
executed on an object must be programmatically determinable. An example
of an ``object'' is a drop-down menu of states and U.S. territories in
an online form. Applications would also be required to allow assistive
technology to programmatically execute available actions on objects.
While this requirement is new to the 508 Standards, it represents
widespread industry practice. It is also already a feature provided by
software designed to be accessible. This proposed requirement is
important because, on occasion, developers new to accessibility
overlook this need.
502.3.8 Focus Cursor
This section proposes that software be required to expose
information and mechanisms necessary to programmatically track and
modify keyboard focus, text insertion point, and selection attributes
of user interface components. An example of ``focus cursor'' is a
database, which, as the user hits the tab key, displays a visible box
outlining the various fields. This provision corresponds to Sec.
1194.21(c) in the existing 508 Standards.
502.3.9 Event Notification
This section proposes that programmatic notification of events
relevant to user interactions--including changes in a component's
state, value, name, description, or boundary--must be available to
assistive technologies. This proposal complements existing 508
Standards Sec. 1194.21(d), but more explicitly requires that changes
to on-screen user interfaces be done in a way that such changes,
otherwise known as events, are exposed to assistive technology. Such
event notification is already a widespread industry practice, and,
moreover, a feature provided by software designed to be accessible.
This proposed requirement is important to address this issue in these
proposed requirements because, on occasion, developers new to
accessibility overlook this need.
502.4 Platform Accessibility Features
This section addresses specifications for capabilities that users
with disabilities have come to expect as core accessibility features
when using today's platforms and operating systems, such as allowing
adjustment of delay before key acceptance and displaying provided
captions. These features include: sticky keys; bounce keys; delay keys;
show sounds; the ability to produce synthesized speech; and, the
capability to display captions included in content. Specifically, this
proposal would require platforms and platform software to conform to
seven specific sections in ANSI/HFES 200.2, Human Factors Engineering
of Software User Interfaces (incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1
and 255 Chapter 1). While this proposed requirement (and accompanying
incorporation by reference of ANSI/HFES 200.2) is new to the 508
Standards and 255 Guidelines, it does not represent a material change
from current industry practice. The seven enumerated features were
first available as an add-on for the IBM DOS 3.3 operating system
(which was publicly released in the mid-1980s), and have been
incorporated into every release of the Microsoft Windows[supreg]
operating system since then.
Question 33. The Board is requesting information from covered
entities and other stakeholders on the potential costs or benefits from
incorporation of ANSI/HFES 200.2, Human Factors Engineering of Software
User Interfaces--Part 2: Accessibility (2008). Are there suggestions
for other standards that would result in the same level of
accessibility?
503 Applications
This is an introductory section.
503.1 General
This section addresses specifications for non-Web software--that
is, programs with a user interface that are executed on a computing
platform--related to certain user preferences, interfaces, and
controls. The proposed requirements in this section are separate from,
and in addition to, any required conformance to WCAG 2.0 success
criteria that may be otherwise required under the proposed 508
Standards (under E207) or the 255 Guidelines (under C205).
503.2 User Preferences
This section proposes that applications must permit user
preferences to carry over from platform settings for text color,
contrast, font type, font size, and focus cursor. This closely
corresponds to Sec. 1194.21(g) in the existing 508 Standards.
An exception is provided that would exempt software designed to be
isolated from the underlying operating system. Lightweight applications
(often called ``applets'') using the Adobe[supreg] Flash[supreg]
Platform, Oracle[supreg] Java Platform, W3C HTML 5 platform, and
similar technologies, are commonly isolated in this way for security
reasons. Accordingly, it would be a fundamental alteration to require
such applications to carry over platform settings.
503.3 Alternative User Interfaces
This section proposes to require that, when applications provide
alternative user interfaces that function as assistive technology, such
applications must use platform accessibility services (i.e., APIs).
Examples of alternative user interfaces include on-screen keyboards for
a single switch user, and screen reading software for a person who is
blind. This proposed requirement would be new to the 508 Standards and
255 Guidelines. It is included in this proposed rule to address the
accessibility gap that would occur should developers of novel
interfaces not consider their products to be assistive technology and,
consequently, conclude they may ignore the requirements for
interoperability with assistive technology (proposed 502). By
clarifying that alternative user interfaces functioning as assistive
technology need to satisfy interoperability requirements, the section
aims to forestall the rare, but problematic, situation where there is a
question about whether a product should be treated as assistive
technology or another type of software.
503.4 User Controls for Captions and Audio Description
This proposed section addresses the accessibility of on-screen
controls for captioning and audio description. Specifically, this
provision would require software displaying video with synchronized
audio to locate user controls for closed captions and audio description
at the same menu level as common user controls (i.e., volume, program
selection), as set forth in two accompanying subsections (proposed
503.4.1 and 503.4.2).
These proposed requirements for accessibility of software-based on-
screen controls for captions and audio
[[Page 10927]]
description serve as a complement to the near-identical requirements
for hardware-related controls in Chapter 4. See discussion above in
Section VI.C (Section-by-Section Analysis--section 413 User Controls
for Captions and Audio Description). These proposed requirements would
be new to the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. The Advisory Committee
recommended inclusion of these provisions to ensure that persons with
hearing- and vision-related disabilities can find--and use--captioning
and audio description controls. See TEITAC Report, Rec. 4-C.
503.4.1 Caption Controls
This proposed section would require that, where video-capable
software provides on-screen volume adjustment controls, such ICT must
also have a control for closed captioning at the same menu level as the
volume adjustment controls.
503.4.2 Audio Description Controls
This proposed section would require that, where video-capable
software provides on-screen controls for program selection, such
software must have user controls for audio description at the same menu
level as the volume or program selection controls.
504 Authoring Tools
This is an introductory section.
504.1 General
This section proposes requirements for software used to create or
edit electronic content--which is generally referred to as authoring
tools--to ensure the accessibility of this content. Specifically,
authoring tools would be required to conform to accessibility
requirements related to content creation and editing (504.2), prompts
(504.3), and templates (504.4) to the extent supported by the
destination format. Authoring tools include applications that allow
users to develop new Web pages, edit video, or create electronic
documents. Authoring tools can also be used to create and publish
content for use with telecommunications products or services. One
example of a telecommunications equipment-based authoring tool is an
interactive voice response system (IVR) that uses software capable of
creating content used to populate menu choices.
These proposed requirements for authoring tools are new to the 508
Standards and 255 Guidelines. The Advisory Committee discussed
authoring tools and offered recommendations on certain provisions, but
did not achieve consensus on others. See TEITAC Report, Part 7, Subpt.
C, Rec. 7. Industry is already trending toward providing mainstream
document creation tools that facilitate accessible output. For example,
two mainstream authoring tools that support accessible document
creation and accessibility checking tools are Adobe Acrobat[supreg] XI
Pro and Microsoft[supreg] Office software products. Any cost increases
for this requirement should be quite modest for products that already
support accessibility. It is not uncommon for developers of niche
products to first learn about Section 508 because their product exports
reports to PDF, and government customers are likely to encounter end-
user complaints when such reports are inaccessible. In this way, while
a particular authoring tool may be used only by a small number of
people, its outputs--such as government reports--may be widely
distributed to the public.
Benefits of accessible content created or edited with authoring
tools conforming to proposed 504.1 would accrue to a wide range of
disabilities, and the costs associated with making such tools capable
of producing accessible output are likely to be minimal. Developers
already understand how to make electronic documents accessible in
commonly used formats (i.e., HTML, PDF, MS-Word), and it is typically
much less expensive to ``build in'' accessibility when an authoring
tool is first developed as opposed to remediating after a product has
been developed.
504.2 Content Creation or Editing
This section proposes to require authoring tools to include at
least one mode of operation for creating or editing content that
conforms to WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria for all features and formats
supported by the authoring tool. Additionally, authoring tools must
provide users with the option of overriding information required for
accessibility to provide flexibility during the authoring process. A
proposed exception would exempt authoring tools from compliance when
authoring tools are used to directly edit plain text source code (e.g.,
Emacs and Windows Notepad). This exception is needed because plain text
is fundamentally limited in its ability to encode accessibility
features.
504.2.1 Preservation of Accessibility Information in Format Conversion
This section proposes that authoring tools, when converting content
or saving content in multiple formats, must preserve information
required for accessibility to the extent supported by the destination
format. This proposed requirement is similar to Sec. 1194.23(j) in the
existing 508 Standards. Because not all authoring tools support
different file formats, this provision would only apply when such a
tool provides a file conversion feature.
504.3 Prompts
This proposed section would require authoring tools to proactively
support the creation of accessible content by providing a mode of
operation that prompts users--either during initial content creation or
when content is saved--to create accessible content that conforms to
all applicable Level A and AA Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0. This
requirement is intended to ensure that users have access to
accessibility features supported by their authoring tools.
504.4 Templates
This proposed section would require that, where authoring tools
provide templates, templates that facilitate the creation of accessible
content conforming to all applicable WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA
Success Criteria must be provided for a range of template uses. It is
much easier to start with an accessible template as compared to adding
accessibility features to otherwise finished content. Remediating
accessibility problems after content development increases the cost and
time necessary to produce accessible content.
Chapter 6: Support Documentation and Services
Chapter 6 covers accessibility requirements for ICT support
documentation and services. This section also would require support
services such as help desks, call centers, training services, and
automated self-service technical support systems that provide
documentation to make available (in accessible formats) the
documentation regarding accessibility and compatibility features.
Support services would also be required to accommodate the
communication needs of individuals with disabilities.
The proposed requirements in this chapter are largely consistent
with existing 508 Standards Sec. 1194.41 and existing 255 Guidelines
Sec. 1193.33, but would enhance specifications, as discussed below,
for certain types of support documentation and services. The Advisory
Committee recommended inclusion of provisions on support documentation
and services in the proposed rule. See TEITAC Report, Part 6, Subpt. D,
Rec. 1.
601 General
This is an introductory section.
[[Page 10928]]
601.1 Scope
This section proposes that the technical requirements for support
documentation and services in this chapter be applied where either (a)
required by 508 Chapter 2 or 255 Chapter 2, or (b) where otherwise
referenced in any other chapters.
602 Support Documentation
This is an introductory section.
602.1 General
This section proposes to require documentation supporting the use
of ICT to conform to the requirements in the accompanying subsections
concerning identification of accessibility and compatibility features
(602.2), electronic support documentation (602.3), and alternate
formats for non-electronic support documentation (602.4). These
proposals for accessible support documentation are derived from
Sec. Sec. 1194.41 and 1193.33 of the existing 508 Standards and 255
Guidelines respectively, but the requirement that electronic
documentation comply with WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1 would be new to both the
standards and the guidelines. Requiring that comprehensive product
information be available to users with disabilities is important
because product installation and configuration can often impact its
accessibility.
602.2 Accessibility and Compatibility Features
This section provides specifications for ICT documentation in terms
of accessibility and compatibility features that assist users with
disabilities. Such documentation includes installation guides, user
guides, online support, and manuals that describe features of a product
and how it is used. All formats of documentation are covered, including
printed and electronic documents, and Web-based product support pages.
Proposed 602.2 would require documentation to identify, as well as
explain how to use, accessibility features that are required by the 508
Standards or 255 Guidelines. The requirements of this section derive
from Sec. Sec. 1194.41(b) and 1193.33 of the existing 508 Standards
and 255 Guidelines, respectively, and are essentially unchanged.
This provision is proposed because some users with disabilities
have complained about a lack of information available to help them
understand the accessibility and compatibility features of some ICT.
Documentation of accessibility features may include, for example,
instructions on use of the voice guidance system of a multifunction
office machine, or guidance on using software designed for
compatibility with commonly used assistive technologies (such as screen
readers, refreshable braille displays, and voice recognition software).
602.3 Electronic Support Documentation
This section proposes to require documentation in electronic
formats--including Web-based self-service support and electronic
documents--to conform to all Level A and AA Success Criteria and
Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1), which
are each incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1.
This proposal for accessible electronic support documentation is
derived from Sec. Sec. 1194.41 and 1193.33 of the existing 508
Standards and 255 Guidelines respectively, but the requirement that
electronic documentation comply with WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1 would be new
to both the standards and the guidelines. The purpose of this
requirement is to ensure that support documentation is held to the same
accessibility requirements as other types of covered content. The Board
included similar provisions in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs, and received
no adverse comments objecting to this approach.
Question 34. The Board requests that telecommunications equipment
manufacturers provide information on the costs associated with
producing documentation on the accessible features of products in a
format consistent with the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. Is it readily
achievable to provide this information in an accessible format? If not,
how would it be provided?
602.4 Alternate Formats for Non-Electronic Support Documentation
This section proposes that, where documentation is provided in
written (i.e., hard copy) format, such documentation must also be made
available, upon request, in alternate formats usable by individuals who
are blind or have low vision. This proposed requirement is taken from
Sec. Sec. 1194.41(a) and 1193.33(a)(2) of the existing 508 Standards
and 255 Guidelines, respectively, with minor editorial changes.
603 Support Services
This is an introductory section.
603.1 General
This section addresses the accessibility of ICT support services,
such as help desks, call centers, training centers, and automated self-
service technical support. Such support services would be required to
conform to the requirements concerning information on accessibility and
compatibility features (603.2), as well as accommodation for the
communication needs of persons with disabilities (603.3). These
proposed requirements for accessible support services are drawn from
Sec. Sec. 1194.41 and 1193.93 of the existing 508 Standards and 255
Guidelines respectively, but have been revised--as supported by the
Advisory Committee--to specify methods of delivery for support
services. See TEITAC Report, Pt. 6, Subpt. D, Recs. 1.1-A & 1.2-A.
603.2 Information on Accessibility and Compatibility Features
This proposed section complements the product documentation
requirements in section 602 by proposing that ICT support services
include information on the accessibility and compatibility features for
which documentation is required under proposed 602.2.
603.3 Accommodation of Communication Needs
This proposed section would permit compliant support services to be
delivered through either of two methods: Directly to the user or
through referral to a point of contact. This section also would require
ICT support services to accommodate the communication needs of
individuals with disabilities. The portion of this proposal relating to
two specific methods for delivery of support services is based on
existing 255 Guidelines Sec. Sec. 1193.33(a)(3) and 1193.33(b), and
would be new to the 508 Standards. The portion of the proposal relating
to accommodation of communication needs derives from Sec. Sec.
1194.41(c) and 1193.33 of the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines,
respectively.
VII. Effective Date
The Board is considering making the 508 Standards effective six
months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register,
with one exception: Federal procurement of ICT products or services. A
six-month delay in the effective date of the Access Board's final rule
will provide federal agencies with an opportunity to more fully
understand the updated 508 Standards. This action is consistent with
the legislative intent underlying section 508 which provides a six-
month period between publication of the Board's standard and the
incorporation of such standard in the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
By
[[Page 10929]]
making the revised 508 Standards effective six months after publication
in the Federal Register, they would go into effect at the same time as
the FAR Council revisions to the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
With respect to federal ICT contracts, the Board proposes deferring
to the FAR Council for establishment of the date on which the revised
508 Standards apply to new ICT-related contracts awarded after
publication of the Council's final rule, as well as existing ICT
contracts with award dates that precede that final rule.
Question 35. The Board seeks comment on its proposed approach to
making its revised 508 Standards effective six months after publication
in the Federal Register, with the exception of federal ICT-related
procurements. The Board also seeks comment on deferring to the FAR
Council to establish the effective date for application of the revised
508 Standards to ``new'' ICT contracts (i.e., contracts awarded after
publication the FAR Council's final rule), as well as existing ICT
contracts.
With respect to Section 255, application of the Board's final
revised 255 Guidelines to new telecommunications products and customer
premises equipment designed, developed, and fabricated after their
publication is a matter for the FCC to determine since the FCC has
exclusive responsibility for enforcement of Section 255 and issuance of
implementing regulations. Nonetheless, in keeping with the Board's past
practice in promulgating the existing 255 Guidelines, see 63 FR 5608
(Feb. 3, 1998), the Board proposes making the final revised 255
Guidelines effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Manufacturers of Section 255-covered telecommunications equipment and
customer premises equipment need not comply with the Board's revised
255 Guidelines until incorporated into revised FCC regulations.
VIII. Regulatory Process Matters
A. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (Executive Order 12866)
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs; tailor the regulation to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; and in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits. Important goals of regulatory
analysis are to (1) establish whether federal regulation is necessary
and justified to achieve a market failure or other social goal and (2)
demonstrate that a range of reasonably feasible regulatory alternatives
have been considered and that the most efficient and effective
alternative has been selected. Executive Order 13563 also recognizes
that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where
appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss
qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify,
including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
The Board contracted with an economic consulting firm,
Econometrica, Inc. (Econometrica), to assess, among other things,
whether the impact of the proposed rule would likely be economically
``significant.'' Economic significance is defined as any regulatory
action that is likely to result in ``an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy,
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safely, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities.''
Econometrica prepared a preliminary regulatory impact analysis
(Preliminary RIA). This Preliminary RIA determined, among other things,
that the proposed rule is economically significant within the meaning
of Executive Order 12866. Below we provide a summary of the preliminary
RIA's methodology and results. A complete copy of this regulatory
assessment is available on the Access Board's Web site (www.access-
board.gov), as well the federal government's online rulemaking portal
(www.regulations.gov). Interested parties are encouraged to review the
full Preliminary RIA, and to provide data and other information
responsive to requests for comment posed separately in that document.
Moreover, while the Board welcomes comments on any aspect of the
Preliminary RIA, several areas on which the Board particularly seeks
input are identified at the end of this section.
1. Summary of Results
The focus of the Preliminary RIA is to define and, where possible,
quantify and monetize the potential economic benefits and costs of the
proposed Section 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. On the benefits
side, the Preliminary RIA monetizes incremental benefits under the
proposed 508 Standards attributable to: (a) Increased productivity of
federal employees with certain disabilities who are expected to benefit
from improved ICT accessibility; (b) time saved by members of the
public with vision disabilities when using more accessible federal Web
sites; and (c) reduced phone calls to federal agencies as members of
the public with certain disabilities shift their inquiries and
transactions online due to improved accessibility of federal Web sites.
The Preliminary RIA, for analytical purposes, defines the beneficiary
population as persons with vision, hearing, and speech disabilities, as
well as those with manipulation, reach, or strength limitations. The
Preliminary RIA does not formally quantify or monetize benefits
accruing from the proposed 255 Guidelines due to insufficient data and
methodological constraints.
From the cost perspective, the Preliminary RIA monetizes likely
incremental compliance costs under both the proposed 508 Standards and
255 Guidelines. Monetizable costs under the 508 Standards are expected
to be incurred by federal agencies, contractors, and vendors in five
broad areas: policy development; employee training; development of
accessible ICT; evaluation of ICT; and, development of accessible
electronic content. With respect to the 255 Guidelines, the Preliminary
RIA monetizes the likely costs to telecommunications equipment
manufacturers of ensuring that their respective Web sites and
electronic support documentation conform to accessibility requirements.
Insufficient data were available to assess incremental costs related to
other new requirements in the proposed 255 Guidelines, including
support for real-time text (RTT) functionality.
Table 4 below summarizes the results from the Preliminary RIA with
respect to the likely monetized benefits and costs, on an annualized
basis, from the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. All
monetized benefits and costs are incremental to the applicable
baseline, and were estimated for a 10-year time horizon using discount
rates of 7 and 3 percent.
[[Page 10930]]
Table 4--Annualized Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs Under the
Proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, 2015-2024
[In 2015 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Percent 3-Percent
discount rate discount rate
(in millions) (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Incremental Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits to federal agencies from $46.6 $45.3
increased productivity by federal
employees with addressable disabilities
Benefits to individuals with vision 2.4 2.3
disabilities from improved federal
website accessibility..................
Benefits to federal agencies from 20.1 19.8
reduced call volumes...................
-------------------------------
TOTAL Monetized Incremental Benefits 69.1 67.5
*..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Incremental Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to federal agencies, contractors, 155.0 146.8
and vendors:
(a) In-house........................ 80.6 76.3
(b) Procured ICT.................... 74.4 70.5
Costs to telecommunications equipment 10.6 9.8
manufacturers for accessible support...
-------------------------------
TOTAL Incremental Costs *........... 165.6 156.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(* Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.)
It is also important to note that some potentially significant
benefits and costs from the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines
are not evaluated in the Preliminary RIA, either because they could not
be quantified or monetized (due to lack of data or for other
methodological reasons) or are inherently qualitative. These
unquantified benefits and costs are described qualitatively below.
Evaluation of the economic impact of the proposed Section 508 and
255 requirements is, moreover, complicated by the rapid evolution of
ICT devices, platforms, applications, and consensus standards. The
benefits and costs of the proposed standards and guidelines ultimately
depend not only on technologies that are currently available to achieve
compliance, but also on emerging technologies that may provide more
cost-effective ways in the future to ensure equal access to ICT for
people with disabilities.
2. General Framework of Assessment
Some of the main components of the Preliminary RIA's methodology
are as follows:
Estimating the beneficiary population: To estimate the number of
federal employees and members of the public with disabilities who could
potentially benefit from updated and improved ICT accessibility
standards, the Preliminary RIA primarily draws from two data sources.
Public data on federal workers with disabilities was obtained from the
Office of Personnel Management. Data on the prevalence of various
disabilities within the U.S population were obtained from the U.S.
Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data
set, which provides statistics on the non-institutionalized U.S.
population.
Identifying incremental changes in the proposed rule: To assess the
potential incremental impact of the proposed rule, the Preliminary RIA
identifies provisions in the proposed standards and guidelines that
would likely increase compliance costs for covered entities (e.g.,
federal agencies, federal contractors, and manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment), as well as provisions that could be
expected to reduce the amount of time and effort required for
compliance relative to existing requirements.
Developing baseline compliance costs: Estimates of ``baseline''
compliance costs to covered entities under the existing 508 Standards
and 255 Guidelines are drawn from current spending levels for relevant
ICT-related products, services, and personnel. For federal agencies,
baseline compliance costs under Section 508 include both in-house ICT
(e.g., policy development, employee training, development and
remediation of Web sites and electronic documents to ensure
accessibility under current standards), and procured ICT (e.g.,
procurement of Section 508-compliant hardware, software, services from
federal contractors and vendors). For telecommunications equipment
manufacturers, baseline costs under the existing 255 Guidelines are
based on the monetized value of the estimated time manufacturers
currently spend making support documentation accessible using estimates
developed by the Access Board for the Paperwork Reduction Act. See
Section VIII.F (Regulatory Process Matters--Paperwork Reduction Act).
Monetizing expected incremental benefits and costs of the proposed
508 Standards: The Preliminary RIA quantifies and monetizes the
expected incremental benefits to federal agencies and members of the
public with vision disabilities likely to benefit from the proposed
standards. For persons with vision disabilities, benefit calculations
are based on the value of time saved due to improved accessibility of
federal Web sites. Benefits to federal agencies are assessed based on
the monetized value of reduced call volumes and increased productivity
of employees with disabilities owing to ICT accessibility improvements.
Compliance costs for federal agencies are classified as either one-time
or annual, and are assessed based on various fixed percentages of
baseline costs depending on the nature of the cost component at issue
(e.g., Web site remediation, employee training, development of
accessible electronic content). Incremental costs and benefits are
calculated relative to the applicable baseline over a 10-year analysis
period from 2015 through 2024.
Monetizing expected incremental costs of the proposed 255
Guidelines: The Preliminary RIA quantifies and monetizes the expected
incremental costs to manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and
customer premises equipment (CPE) of complying with new requirements in
the proposed guidelines related to accessible electronic support
documentation. Benefits attributable to new or updated requirements in
the proposed 255 Guidelines--such as the
[[Page 10931]]
value of improved accessibility for persons with disabilities or cost
savings to telecommunications equipment manufacturers-- were not
evaluated due to insufficient data and the methodological complexity of
``mapping'' proposed new requirements to particular cost elements in a
dynamic and evolving telecommunications marketplace. Compliance costs
to telecommunications equipment manufacturers and CPE are classified as
either one-time or annual, and are assessed based on various fixed
percentages of baseline costs for development of accessible support
documentation depending on firm size. Incremental costs are calculated
relative to the baseline over a 10-year analysis period from 2015
through 2024.
Describing unquantifiable costs and benefits: For benefits and
costs that could be neither quantified nor monetized, the Preliminary
RIA qualitatively describes, and assesses the significance of, such
costs and benefits.
3. Baseline Compliance Costs
The total costs that federal agencies, vendors, and contractors
incur to comply with the current 508 Standards are estimated at $2.0
billion annually. This amount represents about 2 percent of annual ICT
spending, which is estimated at $80 billion to $120 billion, depending
on which products and services are included in the total. Baseline
costs for telecommunications equipment manufacturers to conform to the
current 255 Guidelines related to product documentation and user
support are estimated at $114 million annually. Taken all together, the
overall baseline compliance costs are therefore estimated at $2.1
billion annually.
4. Benefits of the Proposed Rule
Overall, results from the Preliminary RIA demonstrate that the
proposed 508 Standards will likely have substantial monetizable
benefits to federal agencies and persons with disabilities. As shown in
Table 4 above, the annualized value of monetized benefits from these
proposed standards is estimated to be $69.1 million over the 10-year
analysis period (assuming a 7 percent discount rate). In calculating
these monetized benefits, the Preliminary RIA makes the following
assumptions: (a) One-half of the recurring annual benefits derived from
accessible ICT would be realized in the first year of implementation;
and (b) the number of individuals with disabilities who visit federal
agency Web sites will increase every year, but a constant proportion of
those individuals will visit such Web sites every year.
It is also important to note that the proposed rule is expected to
generate significant benefits that were not evaluated in the
Preliminary RIA, either because they could not be quantified or
monetized (due to lack of data or for other methodological reasons) or
are inherently qualitative. Estimating the economic impact of a civil
rights-based regulatory initiative in an area--and marketplace--as
dynamic as ICT is a complex and difficult task. Some of these
unquantified (or inherently unquantifiable) benefits of the proposed
508 Standards are listed in Table 5 below. The fact that these benefits
could not be formally assessed in this Preliminary RIA should not
diminish their importance or value.
Table 5--Unquantified Benefits of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time savings by people with hearing, cognitive, speech, and manual
dexterity or motor impairments from improved federal Web sites.
Improved accessibility of electronic documents on federal Web sites for
persons with addressable disabilities, particularly PDFs and videos.
Increased employment of individuals with disabilities.
Increased ability of individuals with disabilities to obtain information
on federal agency Web sites and conduct transactions electronically.
Greater independence for individuals with disabilities to access
information and services on federal agency Web sites without
assistance.
More civic engagement by individuals with disabilities due to improved
access to information and services on federal agency Web sites.
Increased ability of persons with hearing impairments to have faster and
more natural conversation with real-time text than is possible with
current text-messaging systems.
Increased ability of individuals with disabilities to evaluate,
purchase, and make full use of telecommunications products due to
increased accessibility of support documentation and services.
Increased ability of individuals without disabilities to access
information and conduct their business electronically when they face
situational limitations (in a noisy place, in a low-bandwidth
environment, or in bright sunlight).
Potential cost savings to federal agencies due to reduced levels of in-
person visits and mail correspondence.
Larger pool of ICT developers and content creators with accessibility
knowledge and skills, providing more choice to federal agencies due to
use of internationally recognized, industry-driven standards.
Potential cost savings to manufacturers of telecommunications and CPE,
state and local governments, and non-profit entities, as
internationally harmonized standards reduce costs for ICT manufacturers
and allow them to sell a single line of accessible products and
services across all types of markets.
Intrinsic existence value that individuals both with and without
disabilities derive from the non-discrimination and equity values
served by Sections 508 and 255.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Costs of the Proposed Rule
The Preliminary RIA shows that the proposed standards and
guidelines will likely increase compliance costs substantially when
first implemented, but will thereafter result in only a small
percentage increase in recurring annual costs in later years. Overall,
the Preliminary RIA estimates that the total incremental cost of the
proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines is expected to be $165.6
million on an annualized basis over the 10-year analysis period, based
on a 7 percent discount rate (see Table 4 above).
The Preliminary RIA does not, however, quantify and monetize all
potential compliance costs arising from the proposed rule--due
primarily to insufficient data or for other methodological limitations.
The impact of the proposed 255 Guidelines on telecommunications
equipment manufacturers is, as the Preliminary RIA notes, particularly
difficult to quantify. (Information on the impact of the proposed
guidelines was solicited unsuccessfully in both the 2010 and 2011
ANPRMs.) Some of these unquantified costs of the proposed 508 Standards
and 255 Guidelines are listed in Table 6 below.
[[Page 10932]]
Table 6--Unquantified Costs of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible increase in federal government expenditures to provide
accommodations if the government hires more people with addressable
disabilities.
Possible decrease in the amount or variety of electronic content
produced, as government seeks to reduce Section 508 compliance costs.
Potential costs to state and local governments and non-profit
organizations that may be required to make electronic content
accessible in order to do businesses with federal agencies.
Costs to ICT manufacturers of developing and producing hardware and
telecommunications products that comply with proposed requirements.
Costs to telecommunications firms to implement and support real-time
text on telecommunications devices with text display capabilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, incremental cost estimates in the Preliminary RIA do
not reflect other potentially influential factors that may occur over
time--such as future changes in the fiscal environment and its effect
on ICT budgets, the impact of recent government-wide initiatives to
manage ICT more strategically, efforts to harmonize standards for a
global ICT market, and trends in technological innovation.
6. Conclusion
While the Preliminary RIA estimates that incremental costs, as
assessed and monetized in the assessment, exceed the monetized benefits
of the proposed rule, this finding represents only a piece of the
regulatory story. Today, though ICT is now woven into the very fabric
of everyday life, millions of Americans with disabilities often find
themselves unable to use--or use effectively--computers, mobile
devices, federal agency Web sites, or electronic content. The Board's
existing standards and guidelines are greatly in need of a ``refresh''
to keep up with technological changes over the past fifteen years. The
Board expects this proposed rule to be a major step toward ensuring
that ICT is more accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities--both in the federal workplace and society generally.
Indeed, much--if not most--of the benefits expected to accrue from the
proposed rule are difficult if not impossible to quantify or monetize,
including: greater social equality, human dignity, and fairness. These
are all values that, under Executive Order 13563,\13\ may properly be
considered in the benefit-cost calculus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See also Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4
(2003); Office of Management and Budget, Regulatory Impact Analysis:
A Primer 3 (2011), available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/regpol/circular-a-4_regulatory-impact-analysis-a-primer.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, American companies that manufacture telecommunications
equipment and ICT-related products would likely derive significant
benefits from the harmonized accessibility standards. Given the
relative lack of existing national and globally-recognized standards
for accessibility of mobile technologies, telecommunications equipment
manufacturers would greatly benefit from harmonization of the 255
Guidelines with consensus standards. Similar benefits would likely
accrue more generally to all ICT-related products as a result of
harmonization. These manufacturers would earn return on investments in
accessibility technology, remain competitive in the global marketplace,
and achieve economies of scale created by wider use of nationally and
internationally recognized technical standards.
Accordingly, when considering all unquantified benefits and costs,
the Access Board, along with its consulting economic firm
(Econometrica), jointly conclude that the benefits of the proposed
update of the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines justify its costs.
The Access Board welcomes comments on any aspect of the Preliminary
RIA to improve the assumptions, methodology, and estimates of the
incremental benefits and costs (baseline and incremental) of the
proposed rule. The full Preliminary RIA sets forth numerous regulatory
assessment-related questions or areas for public comment. In addition,
the Board provides below several additional questions on which it seeks
input:
Question 36. The Board requests information from telecommunications
equipment manufacturers concerning expected one-time and ongoing costs
associated with implementation of the proposed technical requirements
related to support for real-time text (RTT) functionality. Please be as
specific as possible. The Board is also interested in hearing from
other stakeholders--particularly persons with disabilities--about the
nature and scope of benefits provided by RTT in emergency and non-
emergency settings. How might the Board quantify or monetize such
benefits?
Question 37. The Board requests information from telecommunications
equipment manufacturers concerning potential benefits that would accrue
from harmonization of technical requirements in the proposed rule with
national and international consensus standards? Both cost savings data
and qualitative information are requested.
Question 38. The proposed rule would, among other things, require
federal agency Web sites and electronic content to conform to WCAG 2.0
or PDF/UA-1. Do federal agencies believe that the Preliminary RIA
adequately captures their potential costs to comply with these
requirements? If not, how might the analysis be improved? Are there
significant cost elements missing from the Preliminary RIA? Please be
as specific as possible.
Question 39. The Preliminary RIA does not monetize benefits for
persons with non-vision disabilities due to a lack of data on which to
base estimated time savings. The Board requests data and other
information on the likely time savings for persons with hearing, motor
or dexterity, speech, or cognitive disabilities from using accessible
Web sites as compared to Web sites with low accessibility. Are there
empirical research studies from which time savings estimates may be
derived?
Question 40. The Board also seeks information from persons with
disabilities who would benefit from improved accessibility of federal
agency Web sites. How frequently do they visit federal agency Web
sites, and for what duration and purposes? Are there other suggested
methods of quantifying benefits accruing from accessible agency Web
sites other than (or in addition to) monetizing time savings? To the
extent that benefits from accessible agency Web sites cannot be
quantified, the Board welcomes examples of personal or anecdotal
experience that illustrate the value of improved accessibility of
federal Web sites.
Question 41. In addition to the questions for public comment posed
in the Preliminary RIA and elsewhere in this NPRM, the Board is
interested in hearing from the public more generally with information
that would aid analysis of the costs and benefits of individual
requirements in the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines at the final rule
stage. Is there a better way than the methodology used in the
Preliminary RIA to ``map'' the incremental costs and benefits of
particular technical and functional
[[Page 10933]]
requirements to various stakeholders? If so, how might the analysis be
improved? Are there other suggested sources for unit cost data other
than those cited in the Preliminary RIA?
7. Alternatives
We considered two alternative approaches to updating the existing
508 Standards and 255 Guidelines:
In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed a set of
requirements that were based on, but not identical to, the WCAG 2.0
standards and other voluntary consensus standards. Comments received
from the public indicated that this approach was potentially confusing,
as federal agencies, contractors, and vendors would have to make
specific compliance determinations in cases where the language used in
the proposed 508 Standards differed from that in the referenced
standard.
The Board also considered requiring ICT to comply with the
full set of functional performance criteria, which state in general
terms the features of ICT that ensure its accessibility to people with
one or more of different types of disabilities. Comments indicated that
this approach would make it difficult for ICT producers to be able to
determine whether or not their products and services were compliant
with the proposed 508 Standards.
Based on the public feedback on the two policy alternatives, we
determined that the clearest and most cost-effective way to set out the
proposed accessibility requirements was to identify and reference
existing, voluntary consensus standards directly, wherever possible.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended (5 U.S.C.
601-612) requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their
rulemakings on small entities.\14\ Section 603 of the RFA requires
agencies to prepare and make available for public comment an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of proposed rules
on small entities. Because the proposed 255 Guidelines regulate non-
federal entities (e.g., telecommunications equipment manufacturers),
these guidelines fall within the purview of the RFA. The proposed 508
Standards, on the other hand, directly regulate only federal entities
that are not covered by the RFA. Accordingly, the Access Board
evaluates here only the impact of the proposed 255 Guidelines on small
entities. The Board provides below an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (Initial RFA) for these proposed guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See also Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.); E.O. 13272, 67 FR 53,461 (Aug. 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of the reasons why the Access Board is considering
regulatory action. Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 255), as amended, requires telecommunication equipment to be
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, where
readily achievable. The Access Board is statutorily responsible for
developing accessibility guidelines for telecommunications equipment
and customer premises equipment (CPE). The Access Board is also
required to review and update the guidelines periodically. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), however, is solely responsible for
issuing implementing regulations and enforcing Section 255. The FCC is
not bound to adopt the Access Board's guidelines as its own or to use
them as minimum standards.
In 1998, the Board issued the existing 255 Guidelines (36 CFR part
1193). Since then, telecommunications technology and commercial markets
have changed dramatically, along with the usage of telecommunications
equipment. Given these tremendous changes, the Board is proposing to
update the 255 Guidelines.
Objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule. The Board's
proposed 255 Guidelines would provide a much-needed ``refresh'' of the
existing 255 Guidelines, and, thereby, better support the access needs
of individuals with disabilities, while also taking into account
incremental compliance costs to covered manufacturers of CPE and
telecommunications equipment. The proposed guidelines would be
applicable only to new products to the extent that compliance is
readily achievable; they would not require retrofitting of existing
equipment or retooling. Manufacturers may consider costs and available
resources when determining whether, and the extent to which, compliance
is required.
Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which
the proposed rule will apply. The proposed 255 Guidelines cover
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and CPE, as well as the
manufacturers of equipment that functions as telecommunications and
CPE.\15\ The Board used publicly available data from the Office of
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) to estimate the
number of small businesses that may be affected by the proposed
guidelines. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
is the standard used by federal statistical agencies in classifying
business establishments.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Examples of CPE include wireline and wireless telephones or
computers when employed on the premises of a person to originate,
route, or terminate telecommunications (e.g., Internet telephony,
interconnected VoIP). Only a computer with a modem can function as
telecommunications equipment and only the modem functions are
associated with telecommunications. Therefore, the requirements of
the proposed rule apply only to the modem functions and incidental
functions required for turning the computer on and launching the
telecommunications programs. All other functions of the computer not
related to telecommunications would not be covered, such as word
processing or file searching or video conferencing.
\16\ The U.S. Census Bureau provides detailed information on the
National Industry Classification System on the agency's Web site.
See U.S. Census Bureau, Introduction to NAICS, http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the number of small businesses potentially subject to
the proposed 255 Guidelines, the Board reviewed NAICS industry
classifications and SBA small business size standards. The Board
determined that three NAICS-based industry classifications may be
subject to the proposed 255 Guidelines. These industry categories and
their accompanying six-digit NAICS codes are: (a) NAICS Code 334210--
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing; (b) NACIS Code 334220--Radio and
Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing; and (c) NACIS Code 334111--Electronic and Computer
Manufacturing. The Board then matched these three NAICS classifications
with SBA small business size standards (based on number of employees)
to determine the number of small business within each of the respective
classifications.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ SBA provides, on its Web site, small business size
standards for each NAICS code, as well as firm size information
based on census data. See, e.g., U.S. Small Business Administration,
Table of Small Business Size Standards, https://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards (last accessed Dec. 15, 2014); Office
of Advocacy, SBA, Firm Size Data, https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/firm-size-data (last accessed Dec. 15, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 below provides the potential number of small businesses,
based on SBA size standards, for each of the three types of equipment
manufacturers (by NACIS code) that may be affected by the proposed 255
Guidelines.
[[Page 10934]]
Table 7--Small Businesses Potentially Affected by the Proposed 255 Guidelines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
NAICS code Industry title SBA size standard firms small firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334210............................ Telephone Apparatus 1,000 or fewer 263 242
Manufacturing. employees.
334220............................ Radio and Television 750 or fewer 730 675
Broadcasting and employees.
Wireless
Communications
Equipment
Manufacturing.
334111............................ Electronic Computer 1,000 or fewer 391 374
Manufacturing. employees.
-------------------------------
TOTAL......................... ..................... ..................... 1,384 1,291
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few notes are in order about the foregoing estimates of the
number of small firms potentially affected by the 255 Guidelines.
First, because all telephone equipment is covered by Section 255, all
entities included in the telephone apparatus manufacturing category
(334210) are necessarily subject to the guidelines. However, not all
entities in the remaining two industry categories (334220 and 334111)
are covered by the proposed guidelines because many of these entities
may manufacture only equipment that falls outside the scope of Section
255. For example, only radio and broadcasting equipment that meets the
statutory definition of telecommunications (that is, ``the
transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of
information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or
content of the information as sent and received''), is covered by the
proposed guidelines. Also, computers lacking modems or Internet
telephony software are not covered by the proposed guidelines. However,
the Board lacks quantitative information to differentiate regulated
from non-regulated manufacturing firms within these two NAICS
categories, as well as to determine how many of the ``small
businesses'' in each NAICS category are subject to the proposed
guidelines. The number of small entities listed in Table 7 that may be
affected by the proposed 255 Guidelines should, therefore, be
considered an upper-bound estimate.
Second, given that manufacturers of telecommunications equipment
and CPE must comply with Section 255 only to the extent such compliance
is ``readily achievable'' (i.e., easily accomplishable and able to be
carried out without much difficulty or expense), there will likely be
some small firms for which compliance with the proposed guidelines will
prove too difficult or expensive. This is not a new proposition. Under
both the existing guidelines and current FCC regulations, compliance
for manufacturing firms of all sizes is limited by the readily
achievable exception, though such exception necessarily applies with
greater frequency to smaller entities. (See 36 CFR 1193.21; 47 CFR
6.3(g)). The Board also understands that many small firms in the three
NAICS categories listed above serve as partners or suppliers to larger
firms that provide a full range of products and services. For these
reasons, the Board assumes that many small firms identified in Table
7--particularly those with fewer than 20 employees--likely would not
incur new costs under the proposed 255 Guidelines. Accordingly, the
mid-point estimate for the number of small businesses that may be
affected by the proposed 255 Guidelines is assumed to be small firms
that meet the SBA size standards and employ twenty or more workers.
Description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements for small entities. As discussed above, the
proposed 255 Guidelines contain many requirements that are similar to
the existing guidelines. There are, however, two new proposed
requirements that would apply to manufacturers of telecommunications
equipment and CPE: 410.6 (real-time text functionality) and 602.3
(electronic support documentation). These two new requirements would
potentially impose new costs on small manufacturing firms.
Regarding real time text (RTT) requirements under proposed 410.6,
the Board lacks quantitative cost information. We requested information
on RTT costs in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs, but did not receive specific
cost data. Accordingly, we cannot, at this time, quantify or monetize
the potential cost impact of the proposed RTT requirements in the 255
Guidelines. The Board does, however, seek comment on how to estimate
the cost impact of the RTT requirements on small businesses subject to
the 255 Guidelines so that we may use such information to prepare, as
needed, a final regulatory flexibility analysis.
With respect to the new obligation in proposed 602.3 for Section
255-covered manufacturers to ensure the accessibility of electronic
support documentation (such as web-based self-service support and
electronic manuals), the Preliminary RIA develops estimated incremental
costs, heavily relying on the cost methodology used by the Department
of Transportation (DOT) in the regulatory assessment of its recent
final rule requiring, among other things, airlines to make their Web
sites accessible to persons with disabilities.\18\ (See Section
VIII.A--Regulatory Process Matters--Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Dept. of Transportation, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of Web sites and Automated
Kiosks at U.S. Airports, 78 FR 67882 (Nov. 12, 2013); Econometrica,
Inc., Final Regulatory Analysis on the Final Rule on Accessible
Kiosks and Web sites (Oct. 23, 2013), available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2011-0177-0108; see
also Preliminary RIA, Sections 6.3, 8.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the methodology and estimates used in the Preliminary RIA,
the Board's Initial RFA assesses potential compliance costs for small
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and CPE based on
estimated (a) one-time costs to create accessible electronic support
documentation and Web sites, and (2) recurring, annual maintenance
costs. One-time costs are assumed to be spread equally over the first
two years (i.e., half of covered firms realizing costs in the first
year, and the other half in year two), with annual maintenance costs
incurred thereafter for the remainder of the 10-year regulatory
horizon. Estimated compliance costs are based on firm size. For small
businesses with 100 or more employees, average one-time costs are
assumed to be $125,000 for bringing their respective support
documentation and Web sites into compliance with the proposed 255
Guidelines. For firms with fewer than 100 employees, average per-firm
one-time costs under the proposed guidelines are assumed to be $25,000.
Annual recurring maintenance costs are
[[Page 10935]]
estimated as twenty percent of one-time costs regardless of firm size.
Using these cost assumptions, the Initial RFA evaluates the
monetary impact of the proposed 255 Guidelines from three perspectives.
The first scenario uses the upper-bound estimate for small businesses
that may be affected by the proposed guidelines (i.e., all small firms
meeting SBA size standards) to assess total one-time and annual
maintenance costs across all affected industry categories. These costs,
which should be considered an upper-bound estimate, are reflected
below:
Table 8--Estimated Incremental Costs for Small Manufacturing Firms Subject to the Proposed 255 Guidelines
[Scenario 1--all firms]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Firms meeting Average one- Total one-time annual Total annual
Firm size SBA size time cost per costs maintenance maintenance
standards firm cost per firm costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 or more employees........... 124 $125,000 $15,500,000 $25,000 $3,100,000
99 or fewer employees........... 1,167 25,000 29,175,000 5,000 5,835,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 1,291 .............. 44,675,000 .............. 8,935,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, to reflect the reality that compliance may not be readily
achievable for the smallest firms (and, as well, the fact that such
firms often serve as suppliers to larger firms and thus may not be
covered by Section 255), the second scenario uses the mid-point
estimate for small businesses that may be affected by the proposed
guidelines (i.e., small firms that meet the SBA size standards and have
twenty or more employees) to assess total one-time and annual
maintenance costs across all industry categories. These costs, which
should be considered a mid-point estimate, are reflected below:
Table 9--Estimated Incremental Costs for Small Manufacturing Firms Subject to the Proposed 255 Guidelines
[Scenario 2--firms with 20 or more employees]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms meeting Average one- Average annual Total annual
Firm size SBA size time cost per Total one-time maintenance maintenance
standards firm costs cost per firm costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 or more employees........... 124 $125,000 $15,500,000 $25,000 $3,100,000
20-99 employees................. 278 25,000 6,950,000 5,000 1,390,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 402 .............. 22,450,000 .............. 4,490,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, to assess the magnitude of potential compliance costs for
small businesses under the proposed 255 Guidelines relative to annual
receipts, the third scenario evaluates the ratio of average annualized
costs per-firm to average receipts per firm for each of the three NAICS
codes. Average annualized costs represent the per-firm stream of
estimated one-time and recurring annual costs over the 10-year
regulatory horizon at a 7 percent discount rate. Annualized costs are
assumed to be consistent across the three NAICS codes for each of the
two studied small firm sizes (i.e., more or less than 100 employees)
because the Board does not have NAICS code-based data differentiating
receipts by firm size. Annual estimated average per-firm receipts for
each NAICS code, in turn, are derived from publicly-available SBA data.
The ratio of average per-firm annualized costs and annual per-firm
receipts is then calculated for each NACIS code and firm size, with the
resulting percentage serving as a metric to evaluate the relative
economic significance of compliance costs to small businesses under the
proposed 255 Guidelines.
The results are presented below in two separate tables by the size
(in terms of number of employees) of small firms covered by Section
255.
Table 10--Ratio of Annualized Per-Firm Costs to Receipts for Small Firms With 100 or More Employees
[By NAICS code]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of
Average average
annualized Average annualized per-
NAICS code Industry title costs per estimated per- firm costs/
small firm (7% firm annual per-firm
discount rate) receipts eceipts
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334210....................... Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing $28,782 $58,969,940 .049
334220....................... Radio and Television Broadcasting 28,782 46,860,776 .060
and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing.
[[Page 10936]]
334111....................... Electronic Computer Manufacturing 28,782 75,919,848 .038
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annual receipts based on data from the Small Business Administration, U.S. Small Business Administration, Firm
Size Data--Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB), https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/firm-size-data (last accessed
Dec. 15, 2014). SUSB employer data is collected and produced by the U.S Census and contains, for each NAICS
code such information as the number of firms, employment figures, estimated annual receipts, and annual
payroll.
Table 11--Ratio of Annualized Per-Firm Costs to Receipts for Small Firms with Less Than 100 Employees
[By NAICS code]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of
Average average
annualized Average annualized per-
NAICS code Industry title costs per estimated per- firm costs/
small firm (7% firm annual per-firm
discount rate) receipts receipts
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334210....................... Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing $5,756 $58,969,940 .010
334220....................... Radio and Television Broadcasting 5,756 46,860,776 .010
and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing.
334111....................... Electronic Computer Manufacturing 5,756 75,919,848 .008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annual receipts based on data from the Small Business Administration, U.S. Small Business Administration, Firm
Size Data--Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB), https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/firm-size-data (last accessed
Dec. 15, 2014). SUSB employer data is collected and produced by the U.S Census and contains, for each NAICS
code such information as the number of firms, employment figures, estimated annual receipts, and annual
payroll.
The results of these average cost/receipt analyses demonstrate that
incremental costs of the proposed 255 Guidelines for small businesses--
whether larger or smaller than 100 employees--are expected to be
minimal relative to firm receipts. In no case would this ratio exceed
about one-half of a percent, with ratios ranging from a low of 0.008 to
a high of 0.049. Accordingly, based on the foregoing analysis, the
Board does not believe that the proposed 255 Guidelines are likely to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Question 42. The Board requests input from manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, as well
as other interested parties, on the small business cost estimation
methodology and assumptions used in this Initial RFA. The Board will
use relevant information provided in public comments to determine
whether or how to revise our estimates for the final regulatory
flexibility analysis.
Duplication with other federal rules. To the Board's knowledge,
there are no relevant federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed 255 Guidelines.
Description of significant alternatives to the proposed 255
Guidelines. In the Board's view, there are no alternatives to the
proposed guidelines that would accomplish the goal of meeting the
access needs of individuals with disabilities, while taking into
account compliance costs of manufacturers of telecommunications
equipment and CPE.
C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The proposed rule adheres to the fundamental federalism principles
and policy making criteria in Executive Order 13132. The proposed 508
Standards apply to the development, procurement, maintenance, or use of
ICT by federal agencies. The proposed 255 Guidelines apply to
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer premises
equipment and require that equipment is designed, developed, and
fabricated to be accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, if it is readily achievable to do so. As such, the Board
has determined that the proposed rule does not have federalism
implications within the meaning of Executive Order 13132.
D. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
Executive Order 13609 serves to promote international regulatory
cooperation and harmonization. The Access Board has tried to promote
the principles of the executive order by making concerted efforts with
a number of foreign governments throughout the development of the
proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. For example, the Board and
the European Commission have made every effort to coordinate
development of their respective ICT standards. This cooperation began
with the 2005 EU-US Economic Initiative (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/june/tradoc_127643.pdf) and continued through the work
of the Access Board with representatives from the European Commission,
Canada, Australia, and Japan serving on the Telecommunications and
Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee which informed
the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. In our view, the
proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines are the product of the
Board's coordination with international regulatory partners,
[[Page 10937]]
which will ultimately help American companies better compete globally.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply to proposed or
final rules that enforce constitutional rights of individuals or
enforce statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of
race, color, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability. The
proposed 508 Standards are issued pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act.
When federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and
information technology, they are required to ensure that the electronic
and information technology allows federal employees with disabilities
to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to
the access enjoyed by federal employees without disabilities, unless
doing so would impose an undue burden on the agency. The statute also
requires that members of the public with disabilities seeking
information or services from a federal agency have access to and use of
information and data that is comparable to that provided to other
members of the public unless doing so would impose an undue burden on
the agency. We have issued the proposed 255 Guidelines pursuant to
Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934 which requires
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer premises
equipment to ensure that the equipment is designed, developed, and
fabricated to be accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, if it is readily achievable to do so. Accordingly, an
assessment of the effect of the proposed 508 Standards and 255
Guidelines on state, local, and tribal governments is not required by
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521)
requires federal agencies to obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) before requesting or requiring a
``collection of information'' from the public. As part of the PRA
process, agencies are generally required to provide a 60-day notice in
the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information
to solicit, among other things, comment on the necessity of the
information collection and its estimated burden. 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A). To comply with this requirement, the Board publishes
here a notice of proposed collection of information in the proposed 255
Guidelines.
Proposed C206, along with several provisions in Chapter 6 (Support
Documentation and Services), collectively obligate manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment to provide
accessible support documentation and services, which constitute
``collection of information'' under the PRA. More specifically, the
proposed rule requires covered manufacturers, when providing support
documentation and services, to ensure accessibility for individuals
with disabilities with respect to four categories of information as
follows: (1) Support documentation must list and explain how to use
accessibility and compatibility features of telecommunications products
(602.2); (2) electronic support documentation must conform to WCAG 2.0
or PDF/UA-1 (602.3); (3) non-electronic support documentation in
alternate formats (e.g., braille, large print), which is available upon
request, must be usable by users with vision impairments (602.4); and
(4) support services (e.g., help desks, call centers) must offer
information on accessibility and compatibility features, as well as
ensure a contact method that accommodates the communication needs of
individuals with disabilities (603.2 and 603.3).
These four proposed information collection requirements are
generally similar to those under existing 255 Guidelines Sec. 1193.33,
which were previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the PRA (OMB Control Number 3014-
0010), though compliance with WCAG 2.0 (or PDF/UA-1) is new. The newly
proposed information collection is the requirement that
telecommunications equipment manufacturers ensure that any electronic
documentation (such as web-based self-service support or PDF user
guides) provided to end users must meet specified accessibility
standards (602.3).
The Board estimates the annual burden on manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment for the
four categories of information collection under the proposed rule as
follows:
Table 12--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping and Documentation Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Estimated
Section of proposed rule Number of Annual number of response time annual burden
respondents responses per respondent (hours) (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 602.2........................ 1,384 6....................... 1.5 12,456
Section 602.3........................ 1,384 95% of 6................ 300 2,366,640
Section 602.4........................ 1,384 5% of 6................. 25 10,375
Section 603.......................... 1,384 6....................... .5 4,152
---------------- --------------------------------
Total............................ .............. ........................ ............... 2,393,623
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These estimates are based on the Board's experience with the
current information collection requirements under the existing 255
Guidelines, as well as public comment received in response to the 2010
and 2011 ANPRMs. Highlighted below are the key assumptions used in the
burden estimation calculus.
Number of respondents. The number of manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment (1,384) is
based on the number of firms assumed to be affected by the proposed
rule using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
See Section IV.B (Regulatory Process Matters--Regulatory Flexibility
Act).
Number of responses annually per manufacturer. The number of annual
responses for each manufacturer (6) is based on the estimated number of
new products released in 2013 according to the Consumer Electronic
Association.
Average response time.
Section 602.2: The estimated response time assumes that
documenting the accessibility and compatibility features will take 1.5
hours for each new product.
Section 602.3: The estimated response time assumes that
development of accessible electronic support documentation will take
300
[[Page 10938]]
hours for each new product. This estimate, in turn, is based on the
assumption that each product will have, on average, 200 pages of
electronic documentation, and that each page will require 1.5 hours of
formatting and editing to comply with WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1, as
applicable. With respect to the annual number of responses for each
manufacturer, it is assumed that support documentation for nearly all
new products will be provided in an electronic format given current
trends in the telecommunications industry. Specifically, it is
estimated that 95 percent of the six new products introduced annually
by each manufacturer (7,889 products) will have electronic support
documentation that must conform to proposed 602.3.
Section 602.4: The estimated response time assumes that
development of accessible non-electronic support documentation in
alternate formats (e.g., braille, large print) will take 25 hours for
each new product. With respect to the annual number of responses for
each manufacturer, it is assumed that support documentation for only a
few new products will have support documentation in a non-electronic
format in recognition of the fact that most support documentation is
now posted online or otherwise provided in electronic formats. Thus, it
is assumed that only 5 percent of the six new products introduced
annually by each manufacturer (415 products) will have non-electronic
support documentation that must conform to proposed 602.4.
Section 603: The estimated response time assumes that, for
each new product in a given year, manufacturers will receive three 10-
minute telephone calls to support centers (or emails or chat-based
interactions) from individuals with disabilities seeking information on
the accessibility and compatibility features of these products.
The Board seeks comment on the methods and assumptions used in
estimating the annual burden associated with the information collection
requirements in the proposed 255 Guidelines. Organizations and
individual desiring to submit comments on this information collection
requirements should direct them to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for the Access Board.
The Board requests comments on these proposed collections of
information in:
Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper implementation of Section 255, including
whether the information will have a practical use;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Board's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of collection of information of
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses).
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed guidelines between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment to the Board on the NPRM.
G. Availability of Materials Incorporated by Reference
As noted previously in the Section-by-Section Analysis for proposed
E102 and C102, the Access Board is proposing to incorporate by
reference ten consensus standards in the 508 Standards and 255
Guidelines. See Section VI.B (Section-by-Section Analysis--508
Standards: Application and Scoping--E102) and Section VI.C (Section-by-
Section Analysis--255 Guidelines: Application and Scoping--C102). The
Office of the Federal Register recently promulgated a final rule
requiring federal agencies to provide additional information to the
public in regulatory preambles for materials to be incorporated by
reference.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Office of the Federal Register, Incorporation by Reference,
79 FR 66267 (Nov. 7, 2014) (to be codified at 1 CFR part 51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In keeping with these new obligations for materials proposed for
incorporation by reference, the Access Board provides below: (a)
Information on the public availability of these ten standards (or,
alternatively, how Access Board staff attempted to secure the
availability of these materials to the public at no cost or reduced
cost, if not already publicly available free of charge by the standards
development organization); and (b) summaries of the materials to be
incorporated by reference. In addition to the information provided
below relating to public availability, a copy of each referenced
standard is available for inspection at our agency's office, 1331 F
Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004.
ANSI/HFES 200.2 (2008) Human Factors Engineering of Software User
Interfaces--Part 2: Accessibility (referenced in: E102.2, C102.2,
502.4). This standard provides design specifications for human-system
software interfaces to increase accessibility for persons with
disabilities. It covers the design of accessible software for people
with a wide range of physical, sensory and cognitive abilities,
including those with temporary disabilities and older adults.
Availability: Copies of this standard may be obtained from Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES), P.O. Box 1369, Santa Monica, CA
90406-1369. This standard is also available for purchase on the HFES
Web site (http://www.hfes.org). Additionally, HFES has agreed to make a
read-only copy of this standard available during the comment period
upon request.
ANSI/IEEE C63.19-2011 American National Standard for Methods of
Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices
and Hearing Aids (see E102.3, C102.3, 410.4.1). This standard provides
a uniform method of measurement for compatibility between hearing aids
and wireless communications devices. Availability: Copies of this
standard may be obtained from the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, P.O. Box 3014,
Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1264. This standard is also available for
purchase on the IEEE Web site (http://www.ieee.org). IEEE has also
agreed to make a read-only version of this standard available on the
organization's Web site during the comment period.
A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5: 2010 AC-3 Audio System
Characteristics (2010) (see E102.4, C102.4, 412.1.1). The standard for
digital television provides the system characteristics for advanced
television systems. The document and its normative parts provide
detailed specification of system parameters. Part 5 provides the audio
system characteristics and normative specifications. It includes the
Visually Impaired (VI) associated service, which is a complete program
mix containing music, effects, dialogue and a narrative description of
the picture content. ATSC also publishes a companion technical
assistance guide for its television standard. Availability: Copies of
this standard may be obtained from the
[[Page 10939]]
Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), 1776 K Street NW., Suite
200, Washington, DC 20006-2304. Free copies of A/53 Digital Television
Standard are available online at the organization's Web site: (http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a53/a_53-Part-5-2010.pdf).
Request for Comment (RFC) 4103, Real-Time Transport Protocol
Payload for Text Conversation (2005) (see E102.5, C102.5, 410.6.3.2).
This standard establishes specifications for how to carry real-time
text (RTT) conversation session contents in Real-time Transport
Protocol (RTP) packets. RTT is used alone or in connection with other
conversational modalities to form multimedia conversation services. RTT
in multimedia conversation sessions is sent character-by-character as
soon as it is available, or with a small delay for buffering.
Availability: Free copies of this standard are available online at the
Internet Engineering Task Force's Web site (http://www.rfc-base.org/txt/rfc-4103.txt).
ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1) Document management applications--Electronic
document file format enhancement for accessibility--Part 1: Use of ISO
32000-1 (2014) (see E102.6, C102.6, E205.1, 602.3.1). This standard is
the consensus international specification for accessible PDF. PDF/UA-1
provides a technical, interoperable standard for the authoring,
remediation and validation of PDF content to ensure accessibility for
people with disabilities who use assistive technology, such as screen
readers, screen magnifiers, joysticks and other technologies used to
navigate and read electronic content. Availability: Copies of this
standard may be obtained from the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-
Creuse, CP 56--CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. This standard is also
available for purchase on the ISO Web site (http://www.iso.org). Access
Board staff is in discussion with ISO about making a read-only version
of this standard available on the organization's Web site during the
comment period. Please consult the Access Board Web site for updates on
the availability of this standard during the comment period.
ITU-T Recommendation G.722: Series G: Transmission Systems and
Media, Digital Systems and Networks Digital Terminal Equipments [sic]--
Coding of voice and audio signals, 7 kHz Audio-Coding within 64 Kbits/s
(September 2012) (see E102.7.1, C102.7.1, 410.5). This standard
specifies a coder-decoder program that provides 7 kHz wideband audio at
data rates from 48, 56, and 64 kbits/s. Availability: This standard may
be obtained from the International Telecommunication Union,
Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T), Place des Nations
CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland. Free copies of ITU-T Recommendation
G.72 are available online at the organization's Web site (http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.722-201209-I/en).
ITU-T Recommendation E.161: Arrangement of digits, letters and
symbols on telephones and other devices that can be used for gaining
access to a telephone network (February 2001) (see E102.7.2, C107.2,
407.3.2). This standard defines the assignment of the basic 26 Latin
letters (A to Z) to the 12-key telephone keypad. Availability: This
standard may be obtained from ITU-T, Place des Nations CH-1211, Geneva
20, Switzerland. Free copies of ITU-T Recommendation E.161 are
available online at the organization's Web site (https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.161-200102-I/en).
TIA 825-A, A Frequency Shift Keyed Modem for Use on the Public
Switched Telephone Network (2003) (see E102.8.1, C102.8.1, 410.6.3.1).
This standard is a specification for TTY signals on the public switched
telephone network interface. Availability: Copies of this standard,
which is published by the Telecommunications Industry Association
(TIA), may be obtained from the IHS Standard Store (IHS), 15 Inverness
Way East, Englewood, CO 80112. This standard is also available for
purchase on the IHS Web site (https://www.global.ihs.com).
Additionally, TIA has agreed to make a read-only version of this
standard available, upon request, through TIA's Web site
(www.tiaonline.org) during the comment period.
TIA 1083 Telephone Terminal Equipment Handset Magnetic Measurement
Procedures and Performance Requirements (2007) (see E102.8.2, C102.8.2,
410.4.2). This standard defines measurement procedures and performance
requirements for the handset generated audio band magnetic noise of
wire line telephones, including digital cordless telephones.
Availability: Copies of this standard, which is published by the
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), may be obtained from the
IHS Standard Store (IHS), 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112.
This standard is also available for purchase on the IHS Web site
(https://www.global.ihs.com). Additionally, TIA has also agreed to make
a read-only version of this standard available, upon request, through
TIA's Web site (www.tiaonline.org) during the comment period.
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, W3C Recommendation
(December 2008) (see E102.9, C102.9, E205.1, E207.2, 405.1 Exception,
501.1 Exception 1, 504.2, 504.3, 504.4, 602.3.1). WCAG 2.0, published
by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C), specifies success
criteria and requirements to make Web content more accessible to all
users, including persons with disabilities. The W3C Web site also
provides online technical assistance materials linked to each success
criteria and technical requirement. Availability: Copies of this
standard may be obtained from the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 32 Vassar Street, Room 32-G515,
Cambridge, MA 02139. Free copies of WCAG 2.0, and its related technical
assistance materials, are available online at W3C's Web site (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20).
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 1193
Communications, Communications equipment, Individuals with
disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Telecommunications.
36 CFR Part 1194
Civil rights, Communications, Communications equipment, Computer
technology, Electronic products, Government employees, Government
procurement, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications.
David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 47
U.S.C. 255(e), the Board proposes to amend 36 CFR chapter XI, as
follows:
PART 1193 [REMOVED]
0
1. Remove part 1193.
0
2. Revise part 1194 to read as follows:
PART 1194--INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) STANDARDS
AND GUIDELINES
Sec.
1194.1 Standards for Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
1194.2 Guidelines for Section 255 of the Communications Act.
Appendix A to Part 1194--Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act:
Application and Scoping Requirements
[[Page 10940]]
Appendix B to Part 1194--Section 255 of the Communications Act:
Application and Scoping Requirements
Appendix C to Part 1194--Technical Requirements
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 794d, 47 U.S.C. 255.
Sec. 1194.1 Standards for Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The standards for information and communication technology
developed, procured, maintained, or used by federal agencies covered by
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act are set forth in Appendices A and
C to this part.
Sec. 1194.2 Guidelines for Section 255 of the Communications Act.
The guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer
premises equipment covered by Section 255 of the Communications Act are
set forth in Appendices B and C to this part.
Appendix A to Part 1194--Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act:
Application and Scoping Requirements
508 CHAPTER 1: APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION
E101 General
E101.1 Purpose. These 508 Standards, which consist of 508
Chapters 1 and 2 (Appendix A), along with Chapters 3 through 6
(Appendix C), contain scoping and technical requirements for
information and communication technology (ICT) that is accessible to
and usable by individuals with disabilities. Compliance with these
standards is mandatory for federal agencies subject to Section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d).
E101.2 Equivalent Facilitation. The use of an alternative design
or technology that results in substantially equivalent or greater
accessibility and usability by individuals with disabilities than
would be provided by conformance to one or more of the requirements
in Chapters 4 and 5 of the 508 Standards is permitted. The
functional performance criteria in Chapter 3 shall be used to
determine whether substantially equivalent or greater accessibility
and usability is provided to individuals with disabilities.
E101.3 Conventional Industry Tolerances. Dimensions are subject
to conventional industry tolerances except where dimensions are
stated as a range.
E101.4 Units of Measurement. Measurements are stated in metric
and U.S. customary units. The values stated in each system (metric
and U.S. customary units) may not be exact equivalents, and each
system shall be used independently of the other.
E102 Referenced Standards
E102.1 Incorporation by Reference. The specific editions of the
standards and guidelines listed in E102 are incorporated by
reference in the 508 Standards and are part of the requirements to
the prescribed extent of each such reference. Where conflicts occur
between the 508 Standards and the referenced standards, these
standards apply. The Director of the Office of the Federal Register
has approved the standards for incorporation by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the
referenced standards may be inspected at the Access Board's office,
1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004.
E102.2 American National Standards Institute/Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society (ANSI/HFES). Copies of the referenced standard
may be obtained from Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, P.O. Box
1369, Santa Monica, CA 90406-1369 (http://www.hfes.org/Publications/ProductDetail.aspx?Id=76).
ANSI/HFES 200.2 Human Factors Engineering of Software User
Interfaces -- Part 2: Accessibility, (2008), IBR proposed for
Section 502.4.
E102.3 American National Standards Institute/Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (ANSI/IEEE). Copies of the
referenced standard may be obtained from the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers, 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, P.O. Box 3014,
Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1264 (http://www.ieee.org).
ANSI/IEEE C63.19-2011 American National Standard for Methods of
Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices
and Hearing Aids, Committee C63--Electromagnetic Compatibility, May
27, 2011, IBR proposed for Section 410.4.1.
E102.4 Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC). Copies of
the referenced standard may be obtained from the Advanced Television
Systems Committee, 1776 K Street NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC
20006-2304 (http://www.atsc.org).
A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5: AC-3 Audio System
Characteristics, (2010), IBR proposed for Section 412.1.1.
E102.5 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Copies of the
referenced standard may be obtained from the Internet Engineering
Task Force (http://www.ietf.org).
Request for Comments (RFC) 4103, Real-time Transport Protocol
(RTP) Payload for Text Conversation (2005), G. Hellstrom, Omnitor
AB, and P. Jones, Cisco Systems, IBR proposed for Section 410.6.3.2.
E102.6 International Standards Organization (ISO). Copies of the
referenced standards may be obtained from International Organization
for Standardization, ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-
Creuse, CP 56--CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=54564).
ISO 14289-1 Document management applications--Electronic
document file format enhancement for accessibility--Part 1: Use of
ISO 32000-1 (PDF/UA-1), Technical Committee ISO/TC 171, Document
Management Applications, Subcommittee SC 2, Application Issues,
(2014), IBR proposed for Sections E205.1 and 602.3.1.
E102.7 International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications
Standardization Sector (ITU-T). Copies of the referenced standards
may be obtained from the International Telecommunication Union,
Telecommunications Standardization Sector, Place des Nations CH-
1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T).
E102.7.1 ITU-T Recommendation G.722: General Aspects of Digital
Transmission Systems, Terminal Components, 7 kHz Audio-Coding within
64 Kbits/s, (September 2012), IBR proposed for Section 410.5.
E102.7.2 ITU-T Recommendation E.161: Arrangement of digits,
letters and symbols on telephones and other devices that can be used
for gaining access to a telephone network, ITU-T Study Group 2,
(February 2001), IBR proposed for Section 407.3.2.
E102.8 Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). Copies of
the referenced standards, published by the Telecommunications
Industry Association, may be obtained from IHS, 15 Inverness Way
East, Englewood, CO 80112 (http://global.ihs.com).
E102.8.1 TIA 825-A A Frequency Shift Keyed Modem for Use on the
Public Switched Telephone Network, (2003), IBR proposed for Section
410.6.3.1.
E102.8.2 TIA 1083 Telephone Terminal Equipment Handset Magnetic
Measurement Procedures and Performance Requirements, (March 2007),
IBR proposed for Section 410.4.2.
E102.9 Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C). Copies of the referenced
guidelines may be obtained from the W3C Web Accessibility
Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 32 Vassar Street,
Room 32-G515, Cambridge, MA 02139 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20).
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, W3C
Recommendation, December 2008, IBR proposed for Sections E205.1,
E207.2, 405.1 Exception, 501.1 Exception 1, 504.2, 504.3, 504.4, and
602.3.1.
E103 Definitions
E103.1 Terms Defined in Referenced Standards. Terms defined in
referenced standards and not defined in E103.4 shall have the
meaning as defined in the referenced standards.
E103.2 Undefined Terms. Any term not defined in E103.4 or in
referenced standards shall be given its ordinarily accepted meaning
in the sense that the context implies.
E103.3 Interchangeability. Words, terms, and phrases used in the
singular include the plural and those used in the plural include the
singular.
E103.4 Defined Terms. For the purpose of the 508 Standards, the
terms defined in E103.4 have the indicated meaning.
508 Standards. The standards for ICT developed, procured,
maintained, or used by agencies subject to Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act as set forth in 508 Chapters 1 and 2 (36 CFR part
1194, Appendix A), and Chapters 3 through 6 (36 CFR part 1194,
Appendix C).
Agency. Any agency or department of the United States as defined
in 44 U.S.C. 3502, and the United States Postal Service.
Application. Software designed to perform, or to help the user
to perform, a specific task or tasks.
Assistive Technology (AT). Any item, piece of equipment, or
product system, whether
[[Page 10941]]
acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is used to
increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
individuals with disabilities.
Audio Description. Narration added to the soundtrack to describe
important visual details that cannot be understood from the main
soundtrack alone. Audio description is a means to inform individuals
who are blind or who have low vision about visual content essential
for comprehension. Audio description of video provides information
about actions, characters, scene changes, on-screen text, and other
visual content. Audio description supplements the regular audio
track of a program. Audio description is usually added during
existing pauses in dialogue. Audio description is also called
``video description'' and ``descriptive narration''.
Authoring Tool. Any software, or collection of software
components, that can be used by authors, alone or collaboratively,
to create or modify content for use by others, including other
authors.
Closed Functionality. Characteristics that limit functionality
or prevent a user from attaching or installing assistive technology.
Examples of ICT with closed functionality are self-service machines,
information kiosks, set-top boxes, fax machines, calculators, and
computers that are locked down so that users may not adjust settings
due to a policy such as Desktop Core Configuration.
Content. Electronic information and data, as well as the
encoding that defines its structure, presentation, and interactions.
Hardware. A tangible device, equipment, or physical component of
ICT, such as telephones, computers, multifunction copy machines, and
keyboards.
Information technology. Shall have the same meaning as the term
``information technology'' set forth in 40 U.S.C. 11101(6).
Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Information
technology and other equipment, systems, technologies, or processes,
for which the principal function is the creation, manipulation,
storage, display, receipt, or transmission of electronic data and
information, as well as any associated content. Examples of ICT
include, but are not limited to: Computers and peripheral equipment;
information kiosks and transaction machines; telecommunications
equipment; customer premises equipment; multifunction office
machines; software; applications; Web sites; videos; and, electronic
documents.
Keyboard. A set of systematically arranged alphanumeric keys or
a control that generates alphanumeric input by which a machine or
device is operated. A keyboard includes tactilely discernible keys
used in conjunction with the alphanumeric keys if their function
maps to keys on the keyboard interfaces.
Label. Text, or a component with a text alternative, that is
presented to a user to identify content. A label is presented to all
users, whereas a name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive
technology. In many cases, the name and the label are the same.
Menu. A set of selectable options.
Name. Text by which software can identify a component to the
user. A name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology,
whereas a label is presented to all users. In many cases, the label
and the name are the same. Name is unrelated to the name attribute
in HTML.
Operable Part. A component of ICT used to activate, deactivate,
or adjust the ICT.
Platform Accessibility Services. Services provided by a platform
enabling interoperability with assistive technology. Examples are
Application Programming Interfaces (API) and the Document Object
Model (DOM).
Platform Software. Software that interacts with hardware, or
provides services for other software. Platform software may run or
host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software
or hardware layers. A single software component may have both
platform and non-platform aspects. Examples of platforms are:
Desktop operating systems; embedded operating systems, including
mobile systems; Web browsers; plug-ins to Web browsers that render a
particular media or format; and sets of components that allow other
applications to execute, such as applications which support macros
or scripting.
Programmatically Determinable. Ability to be determined by
software from author-supplied data that is provided in a way that
different user agents, including assistive technologies, can extract
and present the information to users in different modalities.
Public Facing. Content made available by an agency to members of
the general public. Examples include, but are not limited to, an
agency Web site, blog post, or social media pages.
Real-Time Text (RTT). Communications using the transmission of
text by which characters are transmitted by a terminal as they are
typed. Real-time text is used for conversational purposes. Real-time
text also may be used in voicemail, interactive voice response
systems, and other similar applications.
Software. Programs, procedures, rules and related data and
documentation that direct the use and operation of ICT and instruct
it to perform a given task or function.
Telecommunications. The signal transmission, between or among
points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing,
without change in the form or content of the information as sent and
received.
Terminal. Device or software with which the end user directly
interacts and that provides the user interface. For some systems,
the software that provides the user interface may reside on more
than one device such as a telephone and a server.
Text. A sequence of characters that can be programmatically
determined and that expresses something in human language.
TTY. Equipment that enables interactive text based
communications through the transmission of frequency-shift-keying
audio tones across the public switched telephone network. TTYs
include devices for real-time text communications and voice and text
intermixed communications. Examples of intermixed communications are
voice carry over and hearing carry over. One example of a TTY is a
computer with TTY emulating software and modem.
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). A technology that provides
real-time voice communications. VoIP requires a broadband connection
from the user's location and customer premises equipment compatible
with Internet protocol.
508 Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements
E201 Application
E201.1 Scope. ICT that is procured, developed, maintained, or
used by agencies shall conform to the 508 Standards.
E202 General Exceptions
E202.1 General. ICT shall be exempt from compliance with the 508
Standards to the extent specified by E202.
E202.2 National Security Systems. The 508 standards do not apply
to ICT operated by agencies as part of a national security system,
as defined by 40 U.S.C. 11103(a).
E202.3 Federal Contracts. ICT acquired by a contractor
incidental to a contract shall not be required to conform to the 508
Standards.
E202.4 ICT Functions Located in Maintenance or Monitoring
Spaces. Where status indicators and operable parts for ICT functions
are located in spaces that are frequented only by service personnel
for maintenance, repair, or occasional monitoring of equipment, such
status indicators and operable parts shall not be required to
conform to the 508 Standards.
E202.5 Undue Burden or Fundamental Alteration. Where an agency
determines in accordance with E202.5 that conformance to
requirements in the 508 Standards would impose an undue burden or
would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the ICT,
conformance shall be required only to the extent that it does not
impose an undue burden or result in a fundamental alteration in the
nature of the ICT.
E202.5.1 Basis for a Determination of Undue Burden. In
determining whether conformance to requirements in the 508 Standards
would impose an undue burden on the agency, the agency shall
consider the extent to which conformance would impose significant
difficulty or expense considering the agency resources available to
the program or component for which the ICT is to be procured,
developed, maintained, or used.
E202.5.2 Required Documentation. The responsible agency official
shall document in writing the basis for determining that conformance
to requirements in the 508 Standards constitute an undue burden on
the agency, or would result in a fundamental alteration in the
nature of the ICT. The documentation shall include an explanation of
why and to what extent compliance with applicable requirements would
create an undue burden or result in a fundamental alteration in the
nature of the ICT.
E202.5.3 Alternative Means. Where conformance to one or more
requirements in the 508 Standards imposes an undue burden or a
fundamental alteration in the nature of the ICT, the agency shall
provide individuals with disabilities access to and use of
information and data by an alternative means that meets identified
needs.
E202.6 Best Meets. Where ICT conforming to one or more
requirements in
[[Page 10942]]
the 508 Standards is not commercially available, the agency shall
procure the product that best meets the 508 Standards consistent
with the agency's business needs.
E202.6.1 Required Documentation. The responsible agency official
shall document in writing: (a) The nonavailability of conforming
ICT, including a description of market research performed and which
provisions cannot be met, and (b) the basis for determining that the
ICT to be procured best meets the requirements in the 508 Standards
consistent with the agency's business needs.
E202.6.2 Alternative Means. Where ICT that fully conforms to the
508 Standards is not commercially available, the agency shall
provide individuals with disabilities access to and use of
information and data by an alternative means that meets identified
needs.
E203 Access to Functionality
E203.1 General. Agencies shall ensure that all functionality of
ICT is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,
either directly or by supporting the use of assistive technology,
and shall comply with E203. In providing access to all functionality
of ICT, agencies shall ensure the following:
a. That federal employees with disabilities have access to and
use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use
by federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities; and
b. That members of the public with disabilities who are seeking
information or data from a federal agency have access to and use of
information and data that is comparable to that provided to members
of the public who are not individuals with disabilities.
E203.2 Agency Business Needs. When agencies procure, develop,
maintain or use ICT they shall identify the business needs of users
with disabilities affecting vision, hearing, color perception,
speech, dexterity, strength, or reach to determine:
a. How users with disabilities will perform the functions
supported by the ICT; and
b. How the ICT will be installed, configured, and maintained to
support users with disabilities.
E204 Functional Performance Criteria
E204.1 General. Where the requirements in Chapters 4 and 5 do
not address one or more features of ICT, the features not addressed
shall conform to the Functional Performance Criteria specified in
Chapter 3.
E205 Content
E205.1 General. Content shall comply with E205.
E205.2 Public Facing. Content that is public facing shall
conform to the accessibility requirements specified in E205.4.
E205.3 Agency Official Communication. Content that is not public
facing shall conform to the accessibility requirements specified in
E205.4 when such content constitutes official business, and is
communicated by an agency through one or more of the following:
1. An emergency notification;
2. An initial or final decision adjudicating an administrative
claim or proceeding;
3. An internal or external program or policy announcement;
4. A notice of benefits, program eligibility, employment
opportunity, or personnel action;
5. A formal acknowledgement or receipt;
6. A questionnaire or survey;
7. A template or form; or
8. Educational or training materials.
EXCEPTION: Records maintained by the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to federal recordkeeping
statutes shall not be required to conform to the 508 Standards
unless public facing.
E205.4 Accessibility Standards. Content shall conform to Level A
and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified
for Web pages in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1)
or, where applicable, ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1) (incorporated by
reference in Chapter 1).
E206 Hardware
E206.1 General. Where components of ICT are hardware and
transmit information or have a user interface, such components shall
conform to applicable requirements in Chapter 4.
E207 Software
E207.1 General. Where components of ICT are software and
transmit information or have a user interface, such components shall
conform to E207 and applicable requirements in Chapter 5.
E207.2 WCAG Conformance. User interface components, as well as
the content of platforms and applications, shall conform to Level A
and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified
for Web pages in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1).
E208 Support Documentation and Services
E208.1 General. Where an agency provides support documentation
or services for ICT, such documentation and services shall conform
to the requirements in Chapter 6.
Appendix B to Part 1194--Section 255 of the Communications Act:
Application and Scoping Requirements
255 Chapter 1: Application and Administration
C101 General
C101.1 Purpose. These 255 Guidelines, which consist of 255
Chapters 1 and 2 (Appendix B), along with Chapters 3 through 6
(Appendix C), contain scoping and technical requirements for the
design, development, and fabrication of telecommunications equipment
and customer premises equipment, and related software, content, and
support documentation and services, to ensure their accessibility to
and usability by individuals with disabilities. These 255 Guidelines
are to be applied to the extent required by regulations issued by
the Federal Communications Commission under Section 255 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 255).
C101.2 Equivalent Facilitation. The use of an alternative design
or technology that results in substantially equivalent or greater
accessibility and usability by individuals with disabilities than
would be provided by conformance to one or more of the requirements
in Chapters 4 and 5 of the 255 Guidelines is permitted. The
functional performance criteria in Chapter 3 shall be used to
determine whether substantially equivalent or greater accessibility
and usability is provided to individuals with disabilities.
C101.3 Conventional Industry Tolerances. Dimensions are subject
to conventional industry tolerances except where dimensions are
stated as a range.
C101.4 Units of Measurement. Measurements are stated in metric
and U.S. customary units. The values stated in each system (metric
and U.S. customary units) may not be exact equivalents, and each
system shall be used independently of the other.
C102 Referenced Standards
C102.1 Incorporation by Reference. The specific editions of the
standards and guidelines listed in C102 are incorporated by
reference in the 255 Guidelines and are part of the requirements to
the prescribed extent of each such reference. Where conflicts occur
between the 255 Guidelines and the referenced standards, these
guidelines apply. The Director of the Office of Federal Register has
approved the standards for incorporation by reference in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the referenced
standards may be inspected at the Access Board's office, 1331 F
Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004.
C102.2 American National Standards Institute/Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society (ANSI/HFES). Copies of the referenced standard
may be obtained from Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, P.O. Box
1369, Santa Monica, CA 90406-1369 (http://www.hfes.org/Publications/ProductDetail.aspx?Id=76).
ANSI/HFES 200.2 Human Factors Engineering of Software User
Interfaces--Part 2: Accessibility, (2008), IBR proposed for Section
502.4.
C102.3 American National Standards Institute/Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (ANSI/IEEE). Copies of the
referenced standard may be obtained from the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers, 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, P.O. Box 3014,
Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1264 (http://www.ieee.org).
ANSI/IEEE C63.19-2011 American National Standard for Methods of
Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices
and Hearing Aids, Committee C63--Electromagnetic Compatibility, May
27, 2011, IBR proposed for Section 410.4.1.
C102.4 Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC). Copies of
the referenced standard may be obtained from the Advanced Television
Systems Committee, 1776 K Street NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC
20006-2304 (http://www.atsc.org).
[[Page 10943]]
A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5: AC-3 Audio System
Characteristics, (2010), IBR proposed for Section 412.1.1.
C102.5 IETF.--Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Copies of
the referenced standard may be obtained from the Internet
Engineering Task Force (http://www.ietf.org).
Request for Comments (RFC) 4103, Real-time Transport Protocol
(RTP) Payload for Text Conversation (2005), G. Hellstrom, Omnitor
AB, and P. Jones, Cisco Systems, IBR proposed for Section 410.6.3.2.
C102.6 International Standards Organization (ISO). Copies of the
referenced standards, may be obtained from International
Organization for Standardization, ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de
la Voie-Creuse, CP 56--CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=54564).
ISO 14289-1 Document management applications--Electronic
document file format enhancement for accessibility--Part 1: Use of
ISO 32000-1 (PDF/UA-1), Technical Committee ISO/TC 171, Document
Management Applications, Subcommittee SC 2, Application Issues,
(2014), IBR proposed for Sections E205.1 and 602.3.1.
C102.7 International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications
Standardization Sector (ITU-T). Copies of the referenced standards
may be obtained from the International Telecommunication Union,
Telecommunications Standardization Sector, Place des Nations CH-
1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T).
C102.7.1 ITU-T--Recommendation G.722: General Aspects of Digital
Transmission Systems, Terminal Components, 7 kHz Audio-Coding within
64 Kbits/s, (September 2012), IBR proposed for Section 410.5.
C102.7.2 ITU-T--Recommendation E.161: Arrangement of digits,
letters and symbols on telephones and other devices that can be used
for gaining access to a telephone network, ITU-T Study Group 2,
(February 2001), IBR proposed for Section 407.3.2.
C102.8 Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). Copies of
the referenced standards, published by the Telecommunications
Industry Association, may be obtained from IHS, 15 Inverness Way
East, Englewood, CO 80112 (http://global.ihs.com).
C102.8.1 TIA 825-A--A Frequency Shift Keyed Modem for Use on the
Public Switched Telephone Network, (2003), IBR proposed for Section
410.6.3.1.
C102.8.2 TIA 1083--Telephone Terminal Equipment Handset Magnetic
Measurement Procedures and Performance Requirements, (March 2007),
IBR proposed for Section 410.4.2.
C102.9 Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C). Copies of the referenced
guidelines may be obtained from the W3C Web Accessibility
Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 32 Vassar Street,
Room 32-G515, Cambridge, MA 02139 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20).
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, W3C
Recommendation, December 2008, IBR proposed for Sections E205.1,
E207.2, 405.1 Exception, 501.1 Exception 1, 504.2, 504.3, 504.4, and
602.3.1.
C103 Definitions
C103.1 Terms Defined in Referenced Standards. Terms defined in
referenced standards and not defined in C103.4 shall have the
meaning as defined in the referenced standards.
C103.2 Undefined Terms. Any term not defined in C103.4 or in
referenced standards shall be given its ordinarily accepted meaning
in the sense that the context implies.
C103.3 Interchangeability. Words, terms, and phrases used in the
singular include the plural and those used in the plural include the
singular.
C103.4 Defined Terms. For the purpose of the 255 Guidelines, the
terms defined in C103.4 have the indicated meaning.
255 Guidelines. The guidelines for telecommunications equipment
and customer premises equipment covered by Section 255 of the
Communications Act as set forth in 255 Chapters 1 and 2 (36 CFR part
1194, Appendix B), and Chapters 3 through 6 (36 CFR part 1193,
Appendix C).
Application. Software designed to perform, or to help the user
perform, a specific task or tasks.
Assistive Technology (AT). Any item, piece of equipment, or
product system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or
customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve
functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.
Audio Description. Narration added to the soundtrack to describe
important visual details that cannot be understood from the main
soundtrack alone. Audio description is a means to inform individuals
who are blind or who have low vision about visual content essential
for comprehension. Audio description of video provides information
about actions, characters, scene changes, on-screen text, and other
visual content. Audio description supplements the regular audio
track of a program. Audio description is usually added during
existing pauses in dialogue. Audio description is also called
``video description'' and ``descriptive narration.''
Authoring Tool. Any software, or collection of software
components, that can be used by authors, alone or collaboratively,
to create or modify content for use by others, including other
authors.
Closed Functionality. Characteristics that limit functionality
or prevent a user from attaching or installing assistive technology.
Examples of ICT with closed functionality are self-service machines,
information kiosks, set-top boxes, fax machines, calculators, and
computers that are locked down so that users may not adjust settings
due to a policy such as Desktop Core Configuration.
Content. Electronic information and data, as well as the
encoding that defines its structure, presentation, and interactions.
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). Equipment used on the
premises of a person (other than a carrier) to originate, route, or
terminate telecommunications or interconnected VoIP service.
Examples of CPE are telephones, routers, switches, residential
gateways, set-top boxes, fixed mobile convergence products, home
networking adaptors and Internet access gateways which enable
consumers to access communications service providers' services and
distribute them around their house via a Local Access Network (LAN).
Hardware. A tangible device, equipment, or physical component of
ICT, such as telephones, computers, multifunction copy machines, and
keyboards.
Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Information
technology and other equipment, systems, technologies, or processes,
for which the principal function is the creation, manipulation,
storage, display, receipt, or transmission of electronic data and
information, as well as any associated content. Examples of ICT
include, but are not limited to: Computers and peripheral equipment;
information kiosks and transaction machines; telecommunications
equipment; customer premises equipment; multifunction office
machines; software; applications; Web sites; videos; and, electronic
documents.
Keyboard. A set of systematically arranged alphanumeric keys or
a control that generates alphanumeric input by which a machine or
device is operated. A keyboard includes tactilely discernible keys
used in conjunction with the alphanumeric keys if their function
maps to keys on the keyboard interfaces.
Label. Text, or a component with a text alternative, that is
presented to a user to identify content. A label is presented to all
users, whereas a name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive
technology. In many cases, the name and the label are the same.
Menu. A set of selectable options.
Name. Text by which software can identify a component to the
user. A name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology,
whereas a label is presented to all users. In many cases, the label
and the name are the same. Name is unrelated to the name attribute
in HTML.
Operable Part. A component of ICT used to activate, deactivate,
or adjust the ICT.
Platform Accessibility Services. Services provided by a platform
enabling interoperability with assistive technology. Examples are
Application Programming Interfaces (API) and the Document Object
Model (DOM).
Platform Software. Software that interacts with hardware, or
provides services for other software. Platform software may run or
host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software
or hardware layers. A single software component may have both
platform and non-platform aspects. Examples of platforms are:
Desktop operating systems; embedded operating systems, including
mobile systems; Web browsers; plug-ins to Web browsers that render a
particular media or format; and sets of components that allow other
applications to execute, such as applications which support macros
or scripting.
Programmatically Determinable. Ability to be determined by
software from author-supplied data that is provided in a way that
different user agents, including assistive technologies, can extract
and present the information to users in different modalities.
Real-Time Text (RTT). Communications using the transmission of
text by which
[[Page 10944]]
characters are transmitted by a terminal as they are typed. Real-
time text is used for conversational purposes. Real-time text also
may be used in voicemail, interactive voice response systems, and
other similar applications.
Software. Programs, procedures, rules and related data and
documentation that direct the use and operation of ICT and instruct
it to perform a given task or function.
Specialized Customer Premises Equipment. Assistive technology
used by individuals with disabilities to originate, route, or
terminate telecommunications or interconnected VoIP service.
Examples are TTYs and amplified telephones.
Telecommunications. The signal transmission between or among
points specified by the user of information and of the user's
choosing without change in the form or content of the information as
sent and received.
Telecommunications Equipment. Equipment, other than customer
premises equipment, used by a carrier to provide telecommunications
services, and includes software integral to such equipment
(including upgrades).
Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturer. A manufacturer of ICT
that is telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment.
Terminal. Device or software with which the end user directly
interacts and that provides the user interface. For some systems,
the software that provides the user interface may reside on more
than one device such as a telephone and a server.
Text. A sequence of characters that can be programmatically
determined and that expresses something in human language.
TTY. Equipment that enables interactive text based
communications through the transmission of frequency-shift-keying
audio tones across the public switched telephone network. TTYs
include devices for real-time text communications and voice and text
intermixed communications. Examples of intermixed communications are
voice carry over and hearing carry over. One example of a TTY is a
computer with TTY emulating software and modem.
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). A technology that provides
real-time voice communications. VoIP requires a broadband connection
from the user's location and customer premises equipment compatible
with Internet protocol.
255 Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements
C201 Application
C201.1 Scope. Manufacturers of telecommunications equipment
shall comply with the requirements in the 255 Guidelines applicable
to such equipment when newly released, upgraded, or substantially
changed from an earlier version or model. Manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment shall also conform to the requirements
in the 255 Guidelines for software, content, and support
documentation and services where associated with the use of such
equipment.
C201.2 Readily Achievable. When a telecommunications equipment
manufacturer determines that conformance to one or more requirements
in Chapter 4 (Hardware) or Chapter 5 (Software) would not be readily
achievable, it shall ensure that the equipment or software is
compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer
premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to
the extent readily achievable.
C201.3 Access to Functionality. Telecommunications equipment
manufacturers shall ensure that ICT is accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities by providing direct access to all
functionality of ICT. Where telecommunications equipment
manufacturers can demonstrate that it is not readily achievable for
ICT to provide direct access to all functionality, ICT shall support
the use of assistive technology and specialized customer premises
equipment where readily achievable.
C201.4 Prohibited Reduction of Accessibility, Usability, and
Compatibility. No change shall be undertaken that decreases, or has
the effect of decreasing, the net accessibility, usability, or
compatibility of ICT.
EXCEPTION: Discontinuation of a product shall not be prohibited.
C201.5 Design, Development, and Fabrication. Telecommunications
equipment manufacturers shall evaluate the accessibility, usability,
and interoperability of ICT during its product design, development,
and fabrication.
C202 Functional Performance Criteria
C202.1 General. Where the requirements in Chapters 4 and 5 do
not address one or more features of ICT, the features not addressed
shall conform to the Functional Performance Criteria specified in
Chapter 3.
C203 Electronic Content
C203.1 General. Regardless of the medium or the method of
transmission and storage, electronic content integral to the use of
ICT shall conform to Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and
Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages in WCAG 2.0
(incorporated by reference in Chapter 1) or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1)
(incorporated by reference in Chapter 1).
C204 Hardware
C204.1 General. Where components of ICT are hardware, and
transmit information or have a user interface, those components
shall conform to applicable requirements in Chapter 4.
EXCEPTION: Components of ICT shall not be required to conform to
402, 407.11, 407.12, 408, and 409.
C205 Software
C205.1 General. Where components of ICT are software and
transmit information or have a user interface, those components
shall conform to C205 and applicable requirements in Chapter 5.
C205.2 WCAG Conformance. User interface components and content
of platforms and applications shall conform to Level A and Level AA
Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified for Web
pages in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1).
C206 Support Documentation and Services
C206.1 General. Where support documentation and services are
provided for ICT, telecommunications equipment manufacturers shall
provide such documentation and services in conformance with Chapter
6, upon request and at no additional charge.
Appendix C to Part 1194--Functional Performance Criteria and Technical
Requirements
Chapter 3: Functional Performance Criteria
301 General
301.1 Scope. The requirements of Chapter 3 shall apply to ICT
where required by 508 Chapter 2 (Scoping Requirements), 255 Chapter
2 (Scoping Requirements), and where otherwise referenced in any
other chapter of the 508 Standards or 255 Guidelines.
302 Functional Performance Criteria
302.1 Without Vision. Where a visual mode of operation is
provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of operation that does
not require user vision.
302.2 With Limited Vision. Where a visual mode of operation is
provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of operation that
magnifies, one mode that reduces the field of vision required, and
one mode that allows user control of contrast.
302.3 Without Perception of Color. Where a visual mode of
operation is provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of
operation that does not require user perception of color.
302.4 Without Hearing. Where an auditory mode of operation is
provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of operation that does
not require user hearing.
302.5 With Limited Hearing. Where an auditory mode of operation
is provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of operation that
improves clarity, one mode that reduces background noise, and one
mode that allows user control of volume.
302.6 Without Speech. Where a spoken mode of operation is
provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of operation that does
not require user speech.
302.7 With Limited Manipulation. Where a manual mode of
operation is provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of
operation that does not require fine motor control or operation of
more than one control at the same time.
302.8 With Limited Reach and Strength. Where a manual mode of
operation is provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of
operation that is operable with limited reach and limited strength.
Chapter 4: Hardware
401 General
401.1 Scope. The requirements of Chapter 4 shall apply to ICT
that is hardware where required by 508 Chapter 2 (Scoping
Requirements), 255 Chapter 2 (Scoping Requirements), and where
otherwise referenced in any other chapter of the 508 Standards or
255 Guidelines.
EXCEPTION: Hardware that is assistive technology shall not be
required to conform to the requirements of this chapter.
[[Page 10945]]
402 Closed Functionality
402.1 General. Except for personal headsets and other audio
couplers, closed functionality of ICT shall be operable without
requiring the user to attach or install assistive technology and
shall conform to 402.
402.2 Speech-Output Enabled. ICT with a display screen shall be
speech-output enabled. Operating instructions and orientation,
visible transaction prompts, user input verification, error
messages, and all displayed information for full use shall be
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision
impairments. Speech output shall be delivered through a mechanism
that is readily available to all users, including, but not limited
to, an industry standard connector or a telephone handset. Speech
shall be recorded or digitized human, or synthesized. Speech output
shall be coordinated with information displayed on the screen.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. Audible tones shall be permitted instead of
speech where the content of user input is not displayed as entered
for security purposes, including, but not limited to, asterisks
representing personal identification numbers. 2. Advertisements and
other similar information shall not be required to be audible unless
conveying information necessary for the transaction being conducted.
402.2.1 User Control. Speech output for any single function
shall be automatically interrupted when a transaction is selected.
Speech output shall be capable of being repeated and paused.
402.2.2 Braille Instructions. Where speech output is required by
402.2, braille instructions for initiating the speech mode of
operation shall be provided. Braille shall conform to 36 CFR part
1191, Appendix D, Section 703.3.
402.3 Volume. ICT that delivers sound, including speech required
by 402.2, shall provide volume control and output amplification
conforming to 402.3.
EXCEPTION: ICT conforming to 410.2 shall not be required to
conform to 402.3.
402.3.1 Private Listening. Where ICT provides private listening,
it shall provide a mode of operation for controlling the volume and
a means for effective magnetic wireless coupling to hearing
technologies.
402.3.2 Non-private Listening. Where ICT provides non-private
listening, incremental volume control shall be provided with output
amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB. Where the ambient
noise level of the environment is above 45 dB, a volume gain of at
least 20 dB above the ambient level shall be user selectable. A
function shall be provided to automatically reset the volume to the
default level after every use.
402.4 Characters. At least one mode of characters displayed on
the screen shall be in a sans serif font. Where ICT does not provide
a screen enlargement feature, characters shall be \3/16\ inch (4.8
mm) high minimum based on the uppercase letter ``I''. Characters
shall contrast with their background with either light characters on
a dark background or dark characters on a light background.
403 Biometrics
403.1 General. Biometrics shall not be the only means for user
identification or control.
EXCEPTION: Where at least two biometric options that use
different biological characteristics are provided, ICT shall be
permitted to use biometrics as the only means for user
identification or control.
404 Preservation of Information Provided for Accessibility
404.1 General. ICT that transmits or converts information or
communication shall not remove non-proprietary information provided
for accessibility or shall restore it upon delivery.
405 Flashing
405.1 General. Where ICT emits lights in flashes, there shall be
no more than three flashes in any one-second period.
EXCEPTION: Flashes that do not exceed the general flash and red
flash thresholds defined in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in
Chapter 1) are not required to conform to 405.
406 Standard Connections
406.1 General. Where data connections used for input and output
are provided, at least one of each type of connection shall conform
to industry standard non-proprietary formats.
407 Operable Parts
407.1 General. Where provided, operable parts of ICT shall
conform to 407.
407.2 Contrast. Where provided, keys and controls shall contrast
visually from background surfaces. Characters and symbols shall
contrast visually from background surfaces with either light
characters or symbols on a dark background or dark characters or
symbols on a light background.
407.3 Tactilely Discernible. At least one tactilely discernible
input control shall be provided for each function and shall conform
to 407.3.
EXCEPTION: Devices for personal use with input controls that are
audibly discernable without activation and operable by touch shall
not be required to be tactilely discernible.
407.3.1 Identification. Input controls shall be tactilely
discernible without activation and operable by touch. Where
provided, key surfaces outside active areas of the display screen
shall be raised above surrounding surfaces.
407.3.2 Alphabetic Keys. Where provided, individual alphabetic
keys shall be arranged in a QWERTY keyboard layout and the ``F'' and
``J'' keys shall be tactilely distinct from the other keys. Where
the ICT provides an alphabetic overlay on numeric keys, the
relationships between letters and digits shall conform to ITU-T
Recommendation E.161 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1).
407.3.3 Numeric Keys. Where provided, numeric keys shall be
arranged in a 12-key ascending or descending keypad layout. The
number five key shall be tactilely distinct from the other keys.
407.4 Key Repeat. Where a keyboard with key repeat is provided,
the delay before the key repeat feature is activated shall be fixed
at, or adjustable to, 2 seconds minimum.
407.5 Timed Response. Where a timed response is required, the
user shall be alerted visually, as well as by touch or sound, and
shall be given the opportunity to indicate that more time is needed.
407.6 Status Indicators. Status indicators, including all
locking or toggle controls or keys (e.g., Caps Lock and Num Lock
keys), shall be discernible visually and by touch or sound.
407.7 Color. Color coding shall not be used as the only means of
conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response,
or distinguishing a visual element.
407.8 Audio Signaling. Audio signaling shall not be used as the
only means of conveying information, indicating an action, or
prompting a response.
407.9 Operation. At least one mode of operation shall be
operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping,
pinching, or twisting of the wrist. The force required to activate
operable parts shall be 5 pounds (22.2 N) maximum.
407.10 Privacy. The same degree of privacy of input and output
shall be provided to all individuals. When speech output required by
402.2 is enabled, the screen shall not blank automatically.
407.11 Keys, Tickets, and Fare Cards. Where keys, tickets, or
fare cards are provided, keys, tickets, and fare cards shall have an
orientation that is tactilely discernible if orientation is
important to further use of the key, ticket, or fare card.
407.12 Reach Height. At least one of each type of operable part
of stationary ICT shall be at a height conforming to 407.12.2 or
407.12.3 according to its position established in 407.12.1 for a
side reach or a forward reach.
407.12.1 Vertical Reference Plane. Operable parts shall be
positioned for a side reach or a forward reach determined with
respect to a vertical reference plane. The vertical reference plane
shall be located in conformance to 407.12.2 or 407.12.3.
407.12.1.1 Vertical Plane for Side Reach. Where a side reach is
provided, the vertical reference plane shall be 48 inches (1220 mm)
long minimum.
407.12.1.2 Vertical Plane for Forward Reach. Where a forward
reach is provided, the vertical reference plane shall be 30 inches
(760 mm) long minimum.
407.12.2 Side Reach. Operable parts of ICT providing a side
reach shall conform to 407.12.2.1 or 407.12.2.2. The vertical
reference plane shall be centered on the operable part and placed at
the leading edge of the maximum protrusion of the ICT within the
length of the vertical reference plane. Where a side reach requires
a reach over a portion of the ICT, the height of that portion of the
ICT shall be 34 inches (865 mm) maximum.
407.12.2.1 Unobstructed Side Reach. Where the operable part is
located 10 inches (255 mm) or less beyond the vertical reference
plane, the operable part shall be 48 inches (1220 mm) high maximum
and 15 inches (380 mm) high minimum above the floor.
407.12.2.2 Obstructed Side Reach. Where the operable part is
located more than 10 inches (255 mm), but not more than 24 inches
(610 mm), beyond the vertical
[[Page 10946]]
reference plane, the height of the operable part shall be 46 inches
(1170 mm) high maximum and 15 inches (380 mm) high minimum above the
floor. The operable part shall not be located more than 24 inches
(610 mm) beyond the vertical reference plane.
407.12.3 Forward Reach. Operable parts of ICT providing a
forward reach shall conform to 407.12.3.1 or 407.12.3.2. The
vertical reference plane shall be centered, and intersect with, the
operable part. Where a forward reach allows a reach over a portion
of the ICT, the height of that portion of the ICT shall be 34 inches
(865 mm) maximum.
407.12.3.1 Unobstructed Forward Reach. Where the operable part
is located at the leading edge of the maximum protrusion within the
length of the vertical reference plane of the ICT, the operable part
shall be 48 inches (1220 mm) high maximum and 15 inches (380 mm)
high minimum above the floor.
407.12.3.2 Obstructed Forward Reach. Where the operable part is
located beyond the leading edge of the maximum protrusion within the
length of the vertical reference plane, the operable part shall
conform to 407.12.3.2. The maximum allowable forward reach to an
operable part shall be 25 inches (635 mm).
407.12.3.2.1 Height. The height of the operable part shall
conform to Table 407.12.3.2.1.
Table 407.12.3.2.1--Operable Part Height
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reach depth Operable part height
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 20 inches (510 mm).............. 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum
20 inches (510 mm) to 25 inches (635 mm).. 44 inches (1120 mm) maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
407.12.3.2.2 Knee and Toe Space. Knee and toe space under ICT
shall be 27 inches (685 mm) high minimum, 25 inches (635 mm) deep
maximum, and 30 inches (760 mm) wide minimum and shall be clear of
obstructions.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. Toe space shall be permitted to provide a clear
height of 9 inches (230 mm) minimum above the floor and a clear
depth of 6 inches (150 mm) maximum from the vertical reference plane
toward the leading edge of the ICT. 2. At a depth of 6 inches (150
mm) maximum from the vertical reference plane toward the leading
edge of the ICT, space between 9 inches (230 mm) and 27 inches (685
mm) minimum above the floor shall be permitted to reduce at a rate
of 1 inch (25 mm) in depth for every 6 inches (150 mm) in height.
408 Display Screens
408.1 General. Where stationary ICT provides one or more display
screens, at least one of each type of display screen shall be
visible from a point located 40 inches (1015 mm) above the floor
space where the display screen is viewed.
409 Transactional Outputs
409.1 General. Where transactional outputs are provided by ICT
with speech output, the speech output shall audibly provide all
information necessary to complete or verify a transaction.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. Machine location, date and time of transaction,
customer account number, and the machine identifier shall not be
required to be audible. 2. Duplicative information shall not be
required to be repeated where such information has already been
presented audibly. 3. Itineraries, maps, checks, and other visual
images shall not be required to be audible.
410 ICT With Two-Way Voice Communication
410.1 General. ICT that provides two-way voice communication
shall conform to 410.
410.2 Volume Gain. Volume gain shall be provided and shall
conform to 47 CFR 68.317.
410.3 Magnetic Coupling. Where ICT delivers output by an audio
transducer that is typically held up to the ear, ICT shall provide a
means for effective magnetic wireless coupling to hearing
technologies, such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, and assistive
listening devices.
410.4 Minimize Interference. ICT shall reduce interference with
hearing technologies to the lowest possible level and shall conform
to 410.4.
410.4.1 Wireless Handsets. ICT in the form of wireless handsets
shall conform to ANSI/IEEE C63.19-2011 (incorporated by reference in
Chapter 1).
410.4.2 Digital Wireline. ICT in the form of digital wireline
devices shall conform to TIA 1083 (incorporated by reference in
Chapter 1).
410.5 Digital Encoding of Speech. ICT shall transmit and receive
speech that is digitally encoded in the manner specified by ITU-T
Recommendation G.722 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1) for
encoding and storing audio information.
EXCEPTION: Where ICT is a closed system, conformance to
standards other than ITU-T Recommendation G.722 shall be permitted
where equivalent or better acoustic performance is provided and
where conversion to ITU-T Recommendation G.722 at the borders of the
closed system is supported.
410.6 Real-Time Text Functionality. Where ICT provides real-time
voice communication, ICT shall support real-time text functionality
and shall conform to 410.6.
410.6.1 Display of Real-Time Text. Where provided, multi-line
displays shall be compatible with real-time text systems used on the
network.
410.6.2 Text Generation. Where provided, features capable of
text generation shall be compatible with real-time text systems used
on the network.
410.6.3 Interoperability. Where ICT interoperates outside of a
closed system of which it is a part, or where ICT connects to other
systems, ICT shall conform to 410.6.3.1 or 410.6.3.2.
410.6.3.1 PSTN. Where ICT interoperates with the Public Switched
Telephone Network (PSTN), real-time text shall conform to TIA 825-A
(incorporated by reference in Chapter 1).
410.6.3.2 VoIP Using SIP. Where ICT interoperates with Voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) products or systems using Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP), real-time text shall conform to RFC 4103
(incorporated by reference in Chapter 1).
410.6.4 Voice Mail, Auto-Attendant, and IVR Compatibility. Where
provided, voice mail, auto-attendant, and interactive voice response
telecommunications systems shall be compatible with real-time text
that conforms to 410.6.3.
410.6.5 HCO and VCO Support. Real-time voice communication shall
permit users to intermix speech with the use of real-time text and
shall support modes that are compatible with Hearing Carry Over
(HCO) and Voice Carry Over (VCO).
410.7 Caller ID. Where provided, caller identification and
similar telecommunications functions shall be visible and audible.
410.8 Video Communication. Where ICT provides real-time video
functionality, the quality of the video shall be sufficient to
support communication using sign language.
411 Closed Caption Processing Technologies
411.1 General. Where ICT displays or processes video with
synchronized audio, ICT shall conform to 411.1.1 or 411.1.2.
411.1.1 Decoding of Closed Captions. Players and displays shall
decode closed caption data and support display of captions.
411.1.2 Pass-Through of Closed Caption Data. Cabling and
ancillary equipment shall pass through caption data.
412 Audio Description Processing Technology
412.1 General. Where ICT displays or processes video with
synchronized audio, ICT shall provide a mode of operation that plays
associated audio description.
412.1.1 Digital Television Tuners. Where audio description is
played through digital television tuners, the tuners shall conform
to ATSC A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5 (2010)
(incorporated by reference in Chapter 1). Digital television tuners
shall provide processing of audio description when encoded as a
Visually Impaired (VI) associated audio service that is provided as
a complete program mix containing audio description according to the
ATSC A/53 standard.
413 User Controls for Captions and Audio Description
413.1 General. Where ICT displays video with synchronized audio,
ICT shall provide user controls for closed captions and audio
description conforming to 413.1.
EXCEPTION: Devices for personal use where closed captions and
audio description can be enabled through system-wide platform
settings shall not be required to conform to 413.1.
413.1.1 Caption Controls. ICT shall provide user controls for
the selection of captions in at least one location that is
comparable in prominence to the location of the user controls for
volume.
413.1.2 Audio Description Controls. ICT shall provide user
controls for the selection of audio description in at least one
location that is comparable in prominence to the
[[Page 10947]]
location of the user controls for program selection.
Chapter 5: Software
501 General
501.1 Scope. The requirements of Chapter 5 shall apply to ICT
software and applications where required by 508 Chapter 2 (Scoping
Requirements), 255 Chapter 2 (Scoping Requirements), and where
otherwise referenced in any other chapter of the 508 Standards or
255 Guidelines.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. Web applications that conform to all Level A and
Level AA Success Criteria and all Conformance Requirements in WCAG
2.0 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1) shall not be required
to conform to 502 and 503. 2. Software that is assistive technology
and that supports the accessibility services of the platform shall
not be required to conform to the requirements in this chapter.
502 Interoperability With Assistive Technology
502.1 General. Platforms, software tools provided by the
platform developer, and applications, shall conform to 502.
EXCEPTION: Platforms and applications that have closed
functionality and that conform to 402 shall not be required to
conform to 502.
502.2 Documented Accessibility Features. Platforms and
applications shall conform to 502.2.
502.2.1 User Control of Accessibility Features. Platforms shall
provide user control over platform features that are defined in the
platform documentation as accessibility features.
502.2.2 No Disruption of Accessibility Features. Applications
shall not disrupt platform features that are defined in the platform
documentation as accessibility features.
502.3 Accessibility Services. Platforms and software tools
provided by the platform developer shall provide a documented set of
accessibility services that support applications running on the
platform to interoperate with assistive technology and shall conform
to 502.3. Applications that are also platforms shall expose the
underlying platform accessibility services or implement other
documented accessibility services.
502.3.1 Object Information. The object role, state(s), boundary,
name, and description shall be programmatically determinable. States
that can be set by the user shall be capable of being set
programmatically, including through assistive technology.
502.3.2 Row, Column, and Headers. If an object is in a table,
the occupied rows and columns, and any headers associated with those
rows or columns, shall be programmatically determinable.
502.3.3 Values. Any current value(s), and any set or range of
allowable values associated with an object, shall be
programmatically determinable. Values that can be set by the user
shall be capable of being set programmatically, including through
assistive technology.
502.3.4 Label Relationships. Any relationship that a component
has as a label for another component, or of being labeled by another
component, shall be programmatically determinable.
502.3.5 Hierarchical Relationships. Any hierarchical (parent-
child) relationship that a component has as a container for, or
being contained by, another component shall be programmatically
determinable.
502.3.6 Text. The content of text objects, text attributes, and
the boundary of text rendered to the screen, shall be
programmatically determinable. Text that can be set by the user
shall be capable of being set programmatically, including through
assistive technology.
502.3.7 Actions. A list of all actions that can be executed on
an object shall be programmatically determinable. Applications shall
allow assistive technology to programmatically execute available
actions on objects.
502.3.8 Focus Cursor. Applications shall expose information and
mechanisms necessary to track and modify focus, text insertion
point, and selection attributes of user interface components.
502.3.9 Event Notification. Notification of events relevant to
user interactions, including but not limited to, changes in the
component's state(s), value, name, description, or boundary, shall
be available to assistive technology.
502.4 Platform Accessibility Features. Platforms and platform
software shall conform to the requirements in ANSI/HFES 200.2, Human
Factors Engineering of Software User Interfaces--Part 2:
Accessibility (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1) listed below:
1. Section 9.3.3 Enable sequential entry of multiple (chorded)
keystrokes.
2. Section 9.3.4 Provide adjustment of delay before key
acceptance.
3. Section 9.3.5 Provide adjustment of same-key double-strike
acceptance.
4. Section 10.6.7 Allow users to choose visual alternative for
audio output.
5. Section 10.6.8 Synchronize audio equivalents for visual
events.
6. Section 10.6.9 Provide speech output services.
7. Section 10.7.1 Display any captions provided.
503 Applications
503.1 General. Applications shall conform to 503.
503.2 User Preferences. Applications shall permit user
preferences from platform settings for color, contrast, font type,
font size, and focus cursor.
EXCEPTION: Applications that are designed to be isolated from
their underlying platforms, including Web applications, shall not be
required to conform to 503.2.
503.3 Alternative User Interfaces. Where an application provides
an alternative user interface that functions as assistive
technology, the application shall use platform and other industry
standard accessibility services.
503.4 User Controls for Captions and Audio Description. Where
ICT displays video with synchronized audio, ICT shall provide user
controls for closed captions and audio description conforming to
503.4.
503.4.1 Caption Controls. Where user controls are provided for
volume adjustment, ICT shall provide user controls for the selection
of captions at the same menu level as the user controls for volume
or program selection.
503.4.2 Audio Description Controls. Where user controls are
provided for program selection, ICT shall provide user controls for
the selection of audio description at the same menu level as the
user controls for volume or program selection.
504 Authoring Tools
504.1 General. Where an application is an authoring tool, the
application shall conform to 504 to the extent that information
required for accessibility is supported by the destination format.
504.2 Content Creation or Editing. Authoring tools shall provide
a mode of operation to create or edit content that conforms to all
Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and all Conformance
Requirements in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1)
for all features and formats supported by the authoring tool.
Authoring tools shall permit authors the option of overriding
information required for accessibility.
EXCEPTION: Authoring tools shall not be required to conform to
504.2 when used to directly edit plain text source code.
504.2.1 Preservation of Information Provided for Accessibility
in Format Conversion. Authoring tools shall, when converting content
from one format to another or saving content in multiple formats,
preserve the information required for accessibility to the extent
that the information is supported by the destination format.
504.3 Prompts. Authoring tools shall provide a mode of operation
that prompts authors to create content that conforms to all Level A
and Level AA Success Criteria and all Conformance Requirements in
WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1). Authoring tools
shall provide the option for prompts during initial content creation
or when the content is saved.
504.4 Templates. Where templates are provided, templates
allowing content creation that conforms to all Level A and Level AA
Success Criteria and all Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0
(incorporated by reference in Chapter 1) shall be provided for a
range of template uses.
Chapter 6: Support Documentation and Services
601 General
601.1 Scope. The technical requirements in Chapter 6 shall apply
to ICT support documentation and services where required by 508
Chapter 2 (Scoping Requirements), 255 Chapter 2 (Scoping
Requirements), and where otherwise referenced in any other chapter
of the 508 Standards or 255 Guidelines.
602 Support Documentation
602.1 General. Documentation that supports the use of ICT shall
conform to 602.
602.2 Accessibility and Compatibility Features. Documentation
shall list and
[[Page 10948]]
explain how to use the accessibility and compatibility features
required by Chapters 4 and 5. Documentation shall include
accessibility features that are built-in and accessibility features
that provide compatibility with assistive technology.
602.3 Electronic Support Documentation. Documentation in
electronic format, including Web-based self-service support, shall
conform to all Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and all
Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in
Chapter 1), or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1) (incorporated by reference in
Chapter 1).
602.4 Alternate Formats for Non-electronic Support
Documentation. Alternate formats usable by individuals who are blind
or have low vision shall be provided upon request for support
documentation in non-electronic formats.
603 Support Services
603.1 General. ICT support services including, but not limited
to, help desks, call centers, training services, and automated self-
service technical support, shall conform to 603.
603.2 Information on Accessibility and Compatibility Features.
ICT support services shall include information on the accessibility
and compatibility features required by 602.2.
603.3 Accommodation of Communication Needs. Support services
shall be provided directly to the user or through a referral to a
point of contact. Such ICT support services shall accommodate the
communication needs of individuals with disabilities.
[FR Doc. 2015-03467 Filed 2-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P