Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines; Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards, 13457-13468 [2010-6245]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS
1. The authority citation for part 100
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.
2. Add § 100.122 to read as follows:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) Regulated area. All navigable
waters of Huntington Bay, NY within
100 yards of any swimmer or safety craft
on the race course bounded by the
following points: Start/Finish at
approximate location 40°54′26″ N
073°24′29″ W, East Turn at approximate
location 40°54′45″ N 073°23′37″ W and
a West Turn at approximate location
40°54′31″ N 073°25′21″ W.
(b) Definitions. The following
definitions apply to this section:
Designated On-scene Patrol Personnel,
means any commissioned, warrant or
petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
operating Coast Guard vessels who have
been authorized to act on the behalf of
the Captain of the Port Long Island
Sound.
(c) Special local regulations. (1) No
person or vessel may approach or
remain within 100 yards of any
swimmer or safety craft within the
regulated area during the enforcement
period of this regulation unless they are
officially participating in the Fran
Schnarr Open Water Championships
event or are otherwise authorized by the
Captain of the Port Long Island Sound
or by Designated On-scene Patrol
Personnel.
(2) All persons and vessels must
comply with the instructions from Coast
Guard Captain of the Port or the
Designated On-scene Patrol Personnel.
The Designated On-scene Patrol
Personnel may delay, modify, or cancel
the swim event as conditions or
circumstances require.
(3) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast
Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing
light or other means, the operator of the
vessel must proceed as directed.
(4) Persons and vessels desiring to
enter the regulated area within 100
yards of a swimmer or safety craft may
request permission to enter from the
designated on scene patrol personnel by
contacting them on VHF–16 or by a
request to the Captain of the Port Long
14:16 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
Dated: February 11, 2010.
Daniel A. Ronan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Long Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 2010–6159 Filed 3–19–10; 8:45 am]
§ 100.122 Fran Schnarr Open Water
Championships, Huntington Bay, New York.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Island Sound via phone at (203) 468–
4401.
(d) Enforcement Period. This rule is
enforced on a specified day each July to
be determined on an annual basis.
Notification of the specific date, times
and enforcement of the special local
regulation will be made via a Notice of
Enforcement in the Federal Register,
separate marine broadcasts and local
notice to mariners.
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ARCHITECTURAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS
COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Parts 1191, 1193, and 1194
[Docket No. 2010–1]
RIN 3014–AA37
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings
and Facilities; Telecommunications
Act Accessibility Guidelines;
Electronic and Information Technology
Accessibility Standards
AGENCY: Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board) is issuing this
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) to begin the
process of updating its standards for
electronic and information technology
and its Telecommunications Act
Accessibility Guidelines. At the same
time, the Board is proposing to revise its
Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines to address
access to self-service machines used for
ticketing, check-in or check-out, seat
selection, boarding passes, or ordering
food in restaurants and cafeterias. The
Board has developed draft standards
and guidelines for these purposes. The
draft text (draft) is available on the
Board’s Web site (https://www.accessboard.gov/508.htm). The Board invites
the public to review and comment on all
aspects of this draft, including the
advantages and disadvantages of draft
provisions, the organizational approach
to presenting the standards and
guidelines, alternative policies to those
contained in the draft, and information
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13457
on benefits and costs. After reviewing
the comments received in response to
this advance notice and draft, the Board
will issue a proposed rule followed by
a final rule.
DATES: Comments should be received by
June 21, 2010. The Board will hold a
public hearing to provide an additional
opportunity for comment. The hearing
will take place on March 25, 2010 from
9 a.m. to noon in conjunction with the
25th Annual International Technology &
Persons With Disabilities Conference. It
will be held at the Manchester Grand
Hyatt Hotel, Elizabeth Ballroom, One
Market Place, San Diego, CA 92101. To
pre-register to testify please contact
Kathy Johnson at (202) 272–0041 or
Johnson@access-board.gov.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number 2010–1 or
RIN number 3014–AA37, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: ictrule@access-board.gov.
Include docket number 2010–1 or RIN
number 3014–AA37 in the subject line
of the message.
• Fax: 202–272–0081.
• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:
Office of Technical and Informational
Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street,
NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC
20004–1111.
All comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim
Creagan, Office of Technical and
Information Services, Access Board,
1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004–1111.
Telephone number: 202–272–0016
(voice); 202–272–0082 (TTY). Electronic
mail address: creagan@accessboard.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 8, 1996, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 was
enacted. Section 255 of the Act requires
manufacturers to ensure that
telecommunications equipment or
customer premises equipment are
designed, developed, and fabricated to
be accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities when it is
readily achievable to do so; readily
achievable means easily
accomplishable, without much
difficulty or expense. The Access Board
was given the responsibility for
developing accessibility guidelines for
telecommunications equipment and
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
13458
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
customer premises equipment in
conjunction with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC).
The Board was also instructed to review
and update the guidelines periodically.
The Board published the guidelines on
February 3, 1998. 63 FR 5608 (February
3, 1998); 36 CFR part 1193. The
guidelines were based on
recommendations from a
Telecommunications Access Advisory
Committee that the Board had created.
On August 7, 1998, the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998, which includes
the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of
1998, was signed into law. Section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments
requires that when Federal departments
or agencies develop, procure, maintain,
or use electronic and information
technology, they must ensure that the
technology is accessible to people with
disabilities, unless an undue burden
would be imposed on the department or
agency. Section 508 required the Access
Board to publish standards setting forth
a definition of electronic and
information technology and technical
and functional performance criteria for
such technology. The Board was also
required to periodically review and, as
appropriate, amend the standards to
reflect technological advances or
changes in electronic and information
technology. The Board published the
standards on December 21, 2000. 65 FR
80500 (December 21, 2000); 36 CFR part
1194. The standards were based on
recommendations from an Electronic
and Information Technology Access
Advisory Committee that the Board had
created to assist it in developing the
standards.
Since the Board issued the
Telecommunications Act Accessibility
Guidelines (guidelines) and the
Electronic and Information Technology
Accessibility Standards (standards),
technology has changed. Additionally,
several organizations have asked the
Board to update its standards so they are
harmonized with efforts taking place
around the globe. The
telecommunications provisions in the
standards are based on and are
consistent with the telecommunications
provisions in the guidelines. Therefore,
the Board has decided to update and
revise the standards and the guidelines
together to address changes in
technology and to make both documents
more consistent. Through this update,
the Board is addressing new technology
and seeks to harmonize, to the extent
possible, its criteria with other
standards and guidelines in order to
improve accessibility and facilitate
compliance.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:16 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
In addition, the Board is proposing to
amend the Americans with Disabilities
Act Guidelines (ADAAG) to address
access to self-service machines used for
ticketing, check-in or check-out, seat
selection, boarding passes, or ordering
food in restaurants and cafeterias. In
2006, the National Council on Disability
released a report, NCD Position Paper
on Access to Airline Self-Service Kiosk
Systems, which recommended that
accessibility provisions from ADAAG or
the section 508 standards be
incorporated into an updated Air Carrier
Access Act regulation for accessible
design applicable to both proprietary
and common-use self-service kiosk
systems (https://www.ncd.gov/
newsroom/publications/2006/
kiosk.htm). In May 2008 the Department
of Transportation amended its Air
Carrier Access Act rules to apply to
foreign carriers but decided to defer
action on kiosks and noted that the
Access Board has work under way that
could affect kiosks. 73 FR 27614 (May
13, 2008).
There have also been numerous
settlement agreements and structured
negotiations reached with various
public accommodations on tactile point
of sale devices (https://lflegal.com/
category/settlements/point-of-salesettlements/). With the proliferation of
point of sale machines, kiosks, and
other self-service machines, the Board
has decided that in addition to updating
the standards for electronic and
information technology and the
guidelines for telecommunications
products, it should revise the Americans
with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines to address access to this new
technology to ensure its accessibility for
people with disabilities. The Board
proposes to extend coverage to selfservice machines used for ticketing,
check-in or check-out, seat selection,
boarding passes, or ordering food in
restaurants and cafeterias. This would
include point of sale devices used to
check-in or check-out products at retail
establishments such as those addressed
in the settlement agreements and
structured negotiations as well as other
self-service machines.
To begin the process of updating the
standards and guidelines, the Board
formed the Telecommunications and
Electronic and Information Technology
Advisory Committee (TEITAC or
Committee), to review the existing
standards and guidelines and to
recommend changes. The Committee
met regularly from September 2006 to
April 2008, and held numerous
teleconferences in between meetings.
The Committee’s 41 members
comprised a broad cross-section of
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
stakeholders, including representatives
from industry, disability groups,
standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and
abroad, and government agencies. In
their deliberations, Committee members
addressed a range of issues, including
new or convergent technologies, market
forces, and international harmonization.
Recognizing the importance of
standardization across markets
worldwide, the Committee coordinated
its work with standard-setting bodies in
the U.S. and abroad, such as the World
Wide Web Consortium, and the
Committee included representatives
from the European Union, Canada,
Australia, and Japan.
On April 3, 2008 the Committee
presented its report to the Board. The
Committee’s report recommends
detailed revisions to the Board’s section
508 standards and Telecommunications
Act accessibility guidelines. The
Committee’s report is available on the
Board’s website at https://www.accessboard.gov/sec508/refresh/report.
The Board staff has been working
with an ad hoc committee of Board
members and staff from several Federal
agencies to develop this notice and
draft. The final version of the draft will
ultimately replace the section 508
standards, the Telecommunications Act
accessibility guidelines, and make
amendments to the Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines. In addition to agencies that
are represented on the Board, staff from
the Federal Communications
Commission, Social Security
Administration, Internal Revenue
Service, and the Department of
Homeland Security have been involved
in the ad hoc committee’s work.
The draft is available on the Board’s
website at www.access-board.gov/
508.htm. At a later date, the Board will
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
to update the standards and guidelines
based on the input received in response
to this advance notice and draft. The
proposed rule will provide another
opportunity for public comment. The
Board will also prepare a regulatory
assessment to accompany the proposed
rule. To assist the Board in developing
the regulatory assessment, the Board
invites comments on the quantitative
and qualitative benefits and costs
associated with the changes proposed in
the draft; the Board also asks
commenters to provide information on
the benefits and costs of alternative
policies which they propose. The Board
will finalize the standards and
guidelines based on the comments
received in response to the proposed
rule.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Approach
The TEITAC sought to balance the
need for detailed criteria with an
approach that accommodates the
dynamic and ever-evolving nature of the
technologies covered. Many people,
from product designers and engineers to
procurers and end users, have called for
clear delineation of what makes a
product accessible for compliance
purposes. However, the Committee
determined that product-specific criteria
will not keep pace with innovative
trends and market forces which enhance
the capabilities of products and blur
their categorization. Convergent
technologies, for example, support the
growing demand for all-in-one products,
such as mobile devices that offer voice
and text communication, web browsing,
and media players.
The Committee’s report recommended
a revised set of performance criteria that
specify access capabilities for products
generally. The Committee organized its
recommendations to serve as a
framework for updated technical
specifications to address hardware, user
interfaces and electronic content, audiovisual players, displays, and content,
real-time voice communication, and
authoring tools. Unlike the current
standards, the committee’s
recommendations are organized
primarily by the features or capabilities
of a product, instead of discreet product
types. The recommendations contain
advisory and background information
on the performance and technical
provisions, including references to
related standards, and update defined
terms and provisions covering
documentation, support, and
maintenance. The report also advises
the Board on considerations for future
updates, supplementary guidance
materials and tools, compliance testing,
and further research.
Question 1: The Board developed the
draft using the organizational approach
recommended by the Committee in
which the provisions are organized
primarily by the features or capabilities
of a product, instead of discrete product
types. The Board seeks comments on the
usability and effectiveness of this
approach, as well as alternative
organizational approaches.
Question 2: The Board seeks input on
what implementation time frames
would be reasonable, specifically
whether some provisions should have
differing implementation dates.
Structure of the Draft
The draft contains revisions to the
current standards and guidelines which
the Board is considering. The revisions
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:16 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
are largely based on the
recommendations of the TEITAC report.
Some provisions reflect changes to the
TEITAC recommendations made by the
Board, as noted in the detailed summary
which follows. The draft also contains
revisions that would amend provisions
in the Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) by
applying requirements of the standards
to self-service machines. The draft
standards and guidelines share a
common set of functional performance
criteria (Chapter 2) and technical design
criteria (Chapters 3–10), but have
separate introductory chapters (Chapter
1) which outline scoping, application,
and definitions. Chapter 1 labeled, ‘‘508
Chapter 1: Application and
Administration’’ addresses products
covered by Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act and its provisions are
preceded by the letter ‘‘E’’; the other
chapter 1 is labeled, ‘‘255 Chapter 1:
Application and Administration’’ and
addresses telecommunications
equipment and customer premises
equipment covered by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its
provisions are preceded by the letter
‘‘C’’.
Question 3: To improve usability, the
Board titled each provision and located
advisory notes next to the associated
requirements. Are there any other
format changes that will make the draft
easier to use?
The draft is substantially reorganized
from the current standards and
guidelines. Following the
recommendations in the TEITAC report,
the draft provisions have been organized
in terms of functionality, rather than
product categories. For example, the
Board separated conversation
functionality, including both voice and
text (Chapter 9) from audio output
functionality, such as alert indicators
(Chapter 8).
Question 4: The Board seeks feedback
on the overall organization of the draft,
especially how aspects of technology are
addressed by the chapter organization.
For example, should software (Chapter
4) and electronic documents (Chapter 5)
be combined? Or, should all
requirements for audio output,
including conversation functionality
and status indicator sounds (Chapter 8),
be combined with text messaging
capability (Chapter 9) into one chapter?
Major Changes From Current
Requirements
The draft addresses some issues
which were not covered in the current
standards or guidelines but were the
subject of supplementary technical
guidance. The draft does not seek to
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13459
change the approach to these issues but
instead makes them explicit. For
example, the relationship between the
functional performance criteria and the
technical provisions is unchanged.
However the draft text seeks to clarify
(in Chapter 1) that a product may be
deemed accessible if it meets all the
technical provisions, even if the
functional performance criteria are not
completely met.
The draft does not seek to
substantively change the majority of
requirements in the current standards or
guidelines, consistent with the TEITAC
report. However, some material is
changed in the draft. For example, the
draft contains significant revisions to
the general exceptions. All substantive
changes are explained in the Summary
of Provisions below. One of the most
significant changes being considered by
the Board involves the application of
the guidelines and standards to
electronic content. The Board is
proposing to cover electronic content of
certain official communications by
Federal agencies. Another significant
change concerns coverage of self-service
machines under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Summary of Provisions
This section provides an overview of
the draft and highlights substantive
revisions and updates from the TEITAC
report, unless otherwise noted. The
draft includes some non-substantive
editorial changes to the TEITAC
recommendations made by the Board
that are not detailed in this discussion.
In addition to the specific questions
below corresponding to individual
provisions, the Board seeks general
comments on these provisions,
including the extent to which they are
necessary, their advantages and
disadvantages, their quantitative and
qualitative benefits and costs, and
alternative policies. The Board also
invites the public to identify any gaps
in the draft guidelines and standards,
and approaches to addressing such gaps.
508 Chapter 1: Application and
Administration
The draft contains provisions for
information and communication
technology for Federal departments and
agencies, including the U.S. Postal
Service, as set forth in Section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
General Requirement (E102)
The draft standards would be applied
by Federal agencies so that employees
and members of the public with
disabilities have access to and use of
electronic and information technology
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
13460
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
that is comparable to the level of access
and usability available to persons
without disabilities unless it would be
an undue burden to do so. The Board
added this provision to clarify these
responsibilities. This would not change
the scope or application of the
standards.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Application (E103)
This section covers application of the
standards to information and
communication technology procured,
developed, maintained, or used by or on
behalf of Federal agencies. The phrase
‘‘or on behalf of agencies’’ has been
added to cover technologies used by
contractors under a contract with a
Federal agency. A citation to the statute
has been added to this provision.
Coverage of agencies is unchanged;
however, the draft provision seeks to
provide more detail regarding which
agencies are covered. The term
‘‘Information and Communication
Technology (ICT),’’ as defined in section
E111, encompasses both electronic and
information technology covered by
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
and telecommunications products
covered by Section 255 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The
Committee recommended use of the
broader term ICT for convenience and
clarity since the technical requirements
and functional performance criteria
apply under both laws and since the
term ICT is widely used by most other
countries.
Electronic Content (E103.3.1)
The amendments to the Rehabilitation
Act require that when developing,
procuring, maintaining, or using
electronic and information technology,
each Federal department or agency shall
ensure, unless an undue burden would
be imposed on the department or
agency, that electronic and information
technology allows (regardless of the
type of medium) individuals with
disabilities to have access to and use of
information and data that is comparable
to the access to and use of the
information and data by others without
disabilities (see 29 U.S.C. 794d
(a)(1)(A)). The current standards do not
adequately address what is meant by
comparable access to information and
data. There has been much confusion
over whether and how such electronic
content is addressed.
The draft contains a new provision
which the Board is considering to
address access to electronic content of
certain official communications by
Federal agencies or agency
representatives. This draft requirement
would apply to electronic content
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:16 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
regardless of the method of transmission
or storage but is limited to official
agency communications. ‘‘Official
communication’’ refers specifically to
communication by a Federal agency to
employees that contains information
necessary for those employees to
perform their job functions and
information relevant to enjoyment of the
benefits and privileges of employment
or to communication by a Federal
agency to members of the general public
that contains information necessary for
the conduct of official business with the
agency. Examples of such electronic
content may include email messages,
Word documents, and other types and
formats. The current standards address
access to some types of electronic
content, such as web pages, forms, and
video productions. A definition of
‘‘content,’’ is included in section E111.
Question 5: The draft requirement
which the Board is considering for
access to electronic content in the draft
is limited to certain official
communications by Federal agencies.
Other types of communications and
electronic content are not addressed.
The Board seeks comment on this draft
requirement and what other types of
content including social media (i.e.,
YouTube and Twitter) should be
addressed and the benefits and costs of
extending coverage to other forms of
electronic content. The Board is
interested in comments from agencies
about how this provision could be
implemented across large and diverse
institutions. How should attachments to
official email messages be handled? The
Board is also interested in information
on the benefits and costs associated
with this change, particularly from
Federal agencies. How should this
provision apply to records requested
from the National Archives and Records
Administration who is prohibited from
altering archival records?
application section which contains a
provision specific to Federal contracts
(E103.4.2).
The Board is considering removing
three exceptions in the current
standards:
• One exception stated that assistive
technology need not be provided at all
workstations for all Federal employees
(1194.3(c)). The current standards
require that ICT either be directly
accessible or compatible with assistive
technology. Since the standards do not
require the provision of assistive
technology at each work station, the
Board considers this exception
unnecessary.
• The second exception states that
where agencies provide information and
data to the public through accessible
ICT, the accessible ICT need only be
provided at the intended public location
(1194.3(d)). The Board is considering
removing this exception from the
standards because no provision in the
standards requires accessible ICT in
more than one location. Since these
exceptions are contained in the statute,
their removal from the standards will
not impact application.
• A third exception states that
products located in spaces used only by
service personnel for maintenance and
repair need not be accessible. The Board
believes this provision is unnecessary
since most functions can be accessed
remotely.
Question 6: The Board seeks comment
on removing these exceptions and the
impact of removing them, including the
benefits and costs associated with
removing them. Should the exception
concerning ICT acquired by a contractor
incidental to a contract be repeated in
this section and in section E103.4.2?
Undue Burden (E104)
Consistent with the Committee’s
recommendations, this section in the
draft is substantively unchanged from
the current standards.
WCAG 2.0 Harmonization (E107)
The Committee recommended that the
Board seek to harmonize the standards
with the World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C) Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0 once they were finalized.
The Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 was published
as a W3C recommendation on December
11, 2008; about 8 months after the
Committee provided its report to the
Board. The Board is considering that
web pages, as defined by WCAG 2.0,
which are Level AA conformant, be
deemed to be in conformance with the
provisions noted in the draft.
Question 7: The Board seeks comment
on this approach to harmonization with
WCAG 2.0 including suggestions for
General Exceptions (E105)
The current standards contain six
exceptions. In the draft, two of the
exceptions are retained unchanged: The
prohibition against requiring
fundamental alteration in the nature of
a product or components; and the
statutory exception for products whose
function, operation, or use involves
national security or cryptological
activities. Another exception concerning
ICT acquired by a contractor incidental
to a contract has been relocated to the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Equivalent Facilitation (E106)
This section is substantively
unchanged from the current standards.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
alternative approaches to achieving
harmonization, and comments on the
benefits and costs associated with the
Board’s approach.
Best Meets (E108)
This section is substantively
unchanged from the current standards.
Provision of Support Services and
Materials (E109)
The Board is considering requiring
agencies to provide alternate methods of
communication through help desks and
technical support services and to
provide support services and materials
in alternate formats. Chapter 10 of the
technical requirements specifies the
types of information to be provided,
such as descriptions of the builtinaccessibility features of a product and
information about operation of features
that can be accessed from the keyboard.
Definitions (E111)
The draft contains a number of new
definitions. Most defined terms derive
either from the Committee report or
from the WCAG 2.0. Consistent with the
Committee’s report, the draft seeks to
minimize deviations from industry
usage and understanding of defined
terms to ensure consistency with
industry standards and best practices.
The draft uses the term ‘‘Information
and Communication Technology, (ICT)’’
to refer to both telecommunications
products covered by Section 255 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and to
electronic and information technology
covered by Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act. The Board has
defined this term to include existing
definitions of ‘‘electronic and
information technology’’ and
‘‘telecommunications products’’ in the
current standards and guidelines. The
definition is intended to encompass a
wide expanse of products and the
functions for which they are used.
Question 8: The Board is interested in
comment on the definition of
Information and Communication
Technology.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Referenced Standards or Guidelines
(E112)
Other standards and guidelines
referenced in this draft are based on
recommendations from the Committee.
The intent is to promote testability and
usability of the draft provisions.
255 Chapter 1: Application and
Administration
This chapter covers application of the
draft to telecommunications and
interconnected Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) products and Customer
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:16 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
Premises Equipment (CPE) covered by
Section 255 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996. It applies to manufacturers
of telecommunications equipment or
customer premises equipment and
requires products to be designed,
developed, and fabricated to be
accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities when it is readily
achievable to do so; readily achievable
means easily accomplishable, without
much difficulty or expense.
General Requirement (C102)
This draft provision is substantially
unchanged from the current guidelines
and the Committee recommendations;
the draft provision applies to
manufacturers of telecommunications
products.
Application (C103)
The draft provisions apply to
telecommunications products and
interconnected VoIP products and CPE.
This section now specifically references
interconnected VoIP products,
consistent with Federal Communication
Commission regulations. An advisory
note provides examples of covered
technologies, such as instant messaging
that supports real-time conversation in
other modes, and products beyond those
typically thought of as communications
devices, such as web interfaces used to
access functions in VoIP systems.
Direct Accessibility (C103.4)
This draft provision is updated yet
consistent with the current guidelines
which require telecommunications
equipment and CPE to be directly
accessible when it is readily achievable
to do so.
Compatibility Design (C103.4.1)
This draft provision is similar to the
current guidelines which require
telecommunications equipment and
CPE to be compatible with peripheral
devices and specialized customer
premises equipment when it is readily
achievable to do so.
Prohibited Reduction of Accessibility
(C103.5)
This draft provision is substantially
unchanged from the current guidelines.
Information, Documentation, and
Training (C104)
This draft provision is substantially
unchanged from the current guidelines
and would require manufacturers to
provide access to information,
documentation, and training to their
customers. This may be done through
help desks and support services and
shall include alternate methods of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13461
communication. Chapter 10 of the
technical requirements specifies the
types of information to be provided,
such as descriptions of the built-in
accessibility features of a product and
information about operation of features
that can be accessed from the keyboard.
Equivalent Facilitation (C105)
This section is substantively
unchanged from the current guidelines.
WCAG 2.0 Harmonization (C106)
The Committee recommended that the
Board harmonize its rule with the World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
once they were finalized. The Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG) 2.0 was published as a W3C
recommendation on December 11, 2008.
The Board is considering that web
pages, as defined by WCAG 2.0, which
are Level AA conformant, shall be
deemed to be in conformance with the
provisions noted in the draft.
Product Design, Development, and
Evaluation (C107)
This section is substantially
consistent with the current guidelines
which require manufacturers to evaluate
the accessibility, usability, and
compatibility of telecommunications
products and CPE. It has been revised to
include references to VoIP and other
technologies.
Definitions (C109)
The draft contains a number of new
definitions. Most defined terms derive
either from the Committee report or
WCAG 2.0. Consistent with the
Committee’s report, the draft minimizes
deviations from industry usage and
understanding of defined terms to
ensure consistency with industry
standards and best practices. The
definition of ‘‘Interconnected Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) Service’’ derives
from FCC regulations and was included
in the Committee report.
Question 9: The Board is interested in
comment on the proposed definitions.
Referenced Standards or Guidelines
(E110)
The external standards and guidelines
referenced in the draft are based on
recommendations from the Committee.
The intent is to promote testability and
usability of the provisions of this part.
Chapter 2: Functional Performance
Criteria
Functional Performance Criteria (202)
This draft provision is consistent with
the recommendation of the Committee
to retain all existing functional
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
13462
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
performance criteria and to add a
provision that addresses color vision
deficits and a provision to minimize
photosensitive seizure triggers. The
Committee and the Board felt it was
important that functional performance
criteria map to technical specifications.
Question 10: The Board is interested
in comment on how the functional
performance criteria should be
implemented in relation to the technical
provisions. Does the approach discussed
in E103.5 and C103.6, as a statement of
current practice, clarify or confuse the
issue? If the approach is confusing, how
could it be made less confusing?
General (202.1)
The current standards require
products to have at least one mode of
operation and information retrieval that
meets the functional performance
criteria. More and more products are
now multi-functional. For example,
many devices allow users to make
telephone calls, send text messages, and
access the Internet. In recognition of this
growing multi-functionality of covered
products, the Board is considering
requiring that each mode of operation of
a product meet the functional
performance criteria.
Without Vision (202.2)
This provision is substantially
unchanged from the current standards
and the Committee report, except for the
use of the term ‘‘non-visual access.’’
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
With Limited Vision (202.3)
This provision addresses access to at
least one mode of operation for users
with limited vision. The Board is
considering revising the current
specification to require that ICT meet
the needs of a greater range of users. The
current standards require an accessible
mode that accommodates visual acuity
up to 20/70. The Board is considering
increasing the covered range to 20/200,
which is the legal definition of
blindness so that more people have the
option to use a visual-based mode
instead of non-visual accessible modes.
Question 11: The Board is interested
in comment on whether and the extent
to which this change will sufficiently
improve access for people with limited
vision and the benefits and costs
associated with this change.
Without Perception of Color (202.4)
The Committee’s report recommended
the addition of a provision specifying
that functionality not be based on the
ability to perceive color. This is
consistent with the technical provisions
in the current standards that prohibit
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:16 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
relying on color alone as the sole means
of indicating status or function.
Question 12: The Board is interested
in comment on this proposed new
provision, including information on the
benefits and costs associated with this
addition.
Without Hearing (202.5)
This draft provision is substantially
consistent with the current standards
and the Committee report.
With Limited Hearing (202.6)
This provision seeks to address access
for users with limited hearing. The
current standards stipulate that at least
one mode be provided in ‘‘an enhanced
auditory fashion.’’ The provision the
Board is considering would require that
any auditory features, where provided,
include at least one mode of operation
that improves clarity, reduces
background noise, or allows control of
volume. The Board included this change
to make the requirement more specific.
The Committee considered such a
change but did not recommend specific
language.
Question 13: The Board is interested
in comment on the proposed change to
improve access for individuals with
hearing impairments, including
information on the benefits and costs
associated with this change.
Without Speech (202.7)
This provision is substantially
unchanged from the current standards
and the Committee report.
With Limited Manipulation (202.8) and
With Limited Reach and Strength
(202.9)
These draft provisions are consistent
with a provision in the current
standards but the Board has separated
them into two distinct provisions. The
Board is considering making this change
to address issues of fine motor control
or simultaneous actions apart from the
reach ranges or strength necessary to
access and operate controls. These
provisions are consistent with technical
specifications addressing reach ranges
and operable parts.
Without Physical Contact (202.10)
This is a new provision the Board is
considering adding due to the
significant population of users who are
unable to make contact with a product,
as well as the many types of technology
now available that do not require
physical contact, such as Bluetooth and
wireless connectivity. The Committee
considered, but did not reach
consensus, on adding such a
requirement. The wording of the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
provision derives from that considered
by the Committee.
Question 14: The Board is interested
in comment on the proposed new
provision to improve access for
individuals who are unable to make
contact with a product, including
information on the benefits and costs
associated with this change.
Minimize Photosensitive Seizure
Triggers (202.11)
This is a new provision which the
Board is considering adding to address
hazards posed to people with
photosensitive epilepsy. The Board
added this provision as a functional
criterion for consistency with technical
specifications for flashing (306).
Question 15: The Board is seeking
comment on whether cognitive
disabilities are sufficiently addressed in
the functional performance provisions
and seeks suggestions on how the
requirements might better address the
accessibility needs of individuals with
cognitive disabilities.
Chapter 3: Common Functionality
This chapter covers those common
features of information and
communication technology which are
found across a variety of platforms,
formats, and media. The draft
requirements of this chapter which the
Board is considering derive from
provisions for self-contained closed
products and desktop and portable
computers in the current standards. The
Board organized this chapter to cover all
technical requirements that address
elements or functionality common to
ICT. These requirements apply generally
to all types of ICT.
Closed Functionality (302)
The Board is considering this draft
provision to require that ICT with
closed functionality be usable by people
with disabilities without requiring
assistive technology other than personal
headsets. The current standards address
this only in relation to self-contained
closed products. The Committee
recommended this change since closed
functionality is not product or function
specific and may be found in many
contexts, due to either design or policy
considerations. For example, selfcontained closed products such as
kiosks may be closed due to design,
while software applications may have
certain limitations imposed on
functionality due to policy
considerations, such as maintaining
security.
Question 16: The Board is interested
in comments on how closed
functionality is covered in the draft.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Should other means of assistive
technology besides personal headsets be
permitted to provide access to ICT with
closed functionality?
Biometrics (303)
The Committee recommended that the
current requirements for biometric
identification be expanded to allow for
alternate forms of user identification or
control which may be either biometric
or non-biometric. The requirement for a
non-biometric form of user
identification or control is retained. The
Board is considering a requirement for
an alternate biometric that uses
dissimilar characteristics to the default
biometric.
Preservation of Information Provided for
Accessibility (304)
This draft provision is substantially
unchanged from the current standards
and the Committee recommendations.
Color (305)
This draft provision is substantially
unchanged from the current
requirements and the Committee
recommendations.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Flashing (306)
In this draft provision the Board is
considering specifying a maximum 3per-second flash rate for ICT light
flashes. This differs from the current
standards which specify that ‘‘products
shall be designed to avoid causing the
screen to flicker with a frequency
greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.’’
The Committee recommended this
change because the current provision is
too restrictive in prohibiting flashing
within a certain range with no
consideration for the size of the flashing
area. The provision is consistent with
WCAG 2.0.
Operable Parts (307)
In this draft provision the Board is
considering addressing controls and
keys, tactile discernability, key repeat
and adjustability functions, nonmechanical controls, and accessible
reach ranges. The Board is considering
revising the provision to reference
specifications for reach ranges in the
Board’s Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and Architectural Barriers Act
(ABA) Accessibility Guidelines for
buildings and facilities, which address
both forward and side reach ranges,
since some products may require a
variety of approaches. The current
standards only specify side reach
ranges. The ADA and ABA guidelines
specify a maximum side reach height
that is lower than the maximum height
specified in the current standards (48
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:16 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
inches maximum instead of 54 inches).
This would eliminate any potential
conflict between the ICT requirements
and the ADA and ABA accessibility
guidelines.
Chapter 4: Platforms, Applications, and
Interactive Content
General (401)
This chapter provides technical
requirements for platforms,
applications, and interactive content.
The Board separated these requirements
from those for static electronic
documents (Chapter 5). These
provisions are harmonized with WCAG
2.0.
Non-Text Content (402)
In this draft section the Board is
considering providing technical
requirements for non-text content,
including audio and visual content and
CAPTCHA (Completely Automated
Public Turing Test to tell Computers
and Humans Apart). It references
specifications for non-text content in
Chapter 5 and requirements for audio
and video content in Chapter 6.
Specifications for all other types of
interactive content are contained in this
chapter.
Distinguishable Content (403)
In this section the Board is
considering new requirements to
address the difficulties persons with
hearing loss or low vision may
experience in distinguishing between
foreground and background content,
whether that content is audio
(background music to an audio track of
speakers) or text. These draft
requirements are based on
recommendations from the Committee.
The Board is also considering adding a
provision for resizable text for
consistency with WCAG 2.0.
Keyboard Operation (404)
This draft section is substantively
unchanged from the current standards
and is consistent with recommendations
from the Committee.
Time Limits (405)
This draft section is substantively
unchanged from the current standards
and is consistent with recommendations
from the Committee.
Navigation (406)
In this draft section the Board is
considering addressing navigation and
includes substantive changes from the
current standards and the Committee’s
recommendations. A provision to
bypass blocks of content (406.2),
consistent with the current standards
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13463
was recommended for deletion in the
Committee report. The Board is
considering retaining this provision for
consistency with WCAG 2.0. The Board
is also considering adding a provision
on focus order (406.3) for the same
reason, and a new provision covering
multiple ways to locate content (406.4),
which was recommended by the
Committee.
Question 17: The draft includes three
provisions (406.2, 406.3, and 406.4) not
included in the Committee report but
that are consistent with WCAG 2.0. Are
these provisions important enough for
end-users to be included for the sake of
harmonization with other standards?
The Board seeks comment on the
benefits and costs of these additions.
Predictability (407), Input Assistance
(408), User Preferences (409), and
Interoperability With Assistive
Technology (410)
These draft sections are substantively
unchanged from the current standards
and are consistent with
recommendations from the Committee.
Compatible Technologies (411)
This draft section is consistent with
the current standards and contains
provisions that are closely adapted from
provisions the Committee considered
but did not reach consensus on.
Assistive Technology Function (412)
The Board is considering a new
requirement that closely reflects
recommendations the Committee
considered but did not agree on. The
Board added this provision because it
believes it is important to address how
applications use platform accessibility
services to make information about
components programmatically
determinable.
Question 18: The draft includes a
requirement for ICT which provides an
assistive technology function. Should
the requirements apply to assistive
technology? The Board seeks comment
on the benefits and costs on including
explicit requirements for assistive
technology.
Authoring Tools (413)
In this new section the Board is
considering requiring that for all formats
supported by an authoring tool, the
authoring tool must provide a mode of
operation that supports the creation of
electronic documents that conform to
the ICT accessibility requirements. The
Committee recommended that authoring
tools be required to support the ability
to improve the accessibility of content.
Question 19: Do the proposed
provisions for authoring tools reflect
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
13464
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
features that many authoring tools
already provide? If not, could such
features be added to authoring tools
relatively easily? The Board seeks
comment on the benefits and costs of
including such requirements for
authoring tools.
Chapter 5: Electronic Documents
The Board is considering separating
requirements that generally apply to
non-interactive content (Chapter 5) from
those that generally apply to interactive
interfaces (Chapter 4). Chapter 5 covers
access to electronic documents which
contain mostly static, read-only, noninteractive electronic content. Electronic
content covered by this chapter includes
most non-paper documents and web
content, regardless of format. Examples
include word processing files (such as
Word and WordPerfect), Portable
Document Format (PDF), presentations
(such as Power Point), spreadsheets
(such as Excel), and simple web pages
not containing embedded objects (such
as Flash, Silverlight, or Air). All of these
elements are covered in this chapter. In
addition, electronic documents may also
contain some modest interactive
components such as hypertext links,
buttons, and form elements or fields.
These common elements are covered in
this chapter as well. The draft
provisions of this chapter derive from
requirements in the current standards
for web-based intranet and internet
information and applications. Whereas
the current standards focus on webbased documents, this chapter would
apply to a wide range of content
formats.
Question 20: The Board seeks
comment on whether there is a better
way to distinguish between
requirements for software applications
covered by Chapter 4 and electronic
documents covered by Chapter 5.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Non-Text Content (502)
This provision is consistent with the
current standards but provides more
detail on what constitutes a ‘‘text
equivalent’’ for many common
situations.
Adaptable Presentation of Content (503)
In this section the Board is
considering addressing adaptable
presentation of content, including
features which allow content to be
presented in different ways without
losing or changing information or the
structure of the content, such as contrast
options for viewing websites. Other
elements of presentation include the
ability to programmatically determine
the information, structure, and
relationships implied by visual or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:16 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
auditory formatting. When a screen
reader reads content, the presentation
format of the content changes, but the
information provided and the structure
or relationships of the content do not.
For example, columns in a table should
still be distinguishable from rows,
separate paragraphs of information
should still be separate, and the
arrangement of the content should still
be apparent. This draft section contains
specifications based on the current
standards for data tables, scripts, and
forms, but includes new provisions for
logically correct reading sequence and
sensory characteristics.
Distinguishable Presentation of Text
Content (504)
This draft section is based on
requirements in the current standards
for web-based intranet and internet
information and applications but
includes new specifications for contrast
and text enlargement. The Committee
recommended contrast ratios for text
and images of text of at least 4.5:1. The
draft includes a requirement that text be
easily resizable for consistency with
WCAG 2.0 which the Board is
considering.
Navigation and Orientation (505)
In this draft section the Board is
considering addressing navigation and
orientation and stems from the current
standards but includes new
requirements regarding link purpose in
context, headings, and labels. The draft
contains new requirements which the
Board is considering which state that
the purpose of each link shall be
determinable from the link text alone, or
from the link text together with it’s
programmatically determined link text,
unless the author intends the purpose of
the link to be ambiguous. The reason for
this requirement is to allow users to
understand the purpose of each link so
they can determine whether they want
to follow the link. In addition, the
Committee report included an advisory
note recommending that specifications
for document titles (505.2) apply not
just to frames, as in the current
standards, but broadly to all document
types. The Board also has included this
provision as a requirement for greater
consistency with WCAG 2.0.
Input Assistance (507)
This draft provision is consistent with
requirements in the current standards
for web based forms but has been
revised to apply to all types of forms.
Compatible Technologies (508)
In this new draft section the Board is
considering requiring that content using
mark up languages, such as XML or
HTML, use that language according to
specification when creating electronic
content so that user agents, such as
assistive technology like screen readers,
will be able to properly interpret and
read the content. The Committee noted
that a screen reader may be unable to
properly interpret content which has
been improperly coded, so this
provision is intended to address that
issue. The Committee recommended
this addition as an advisory (nonmandatory) provision, but the Board is
considering the addition as a
requirement to better harmonize the
draft with WCAG 2.0.
Chapter 6: Synchronized Media Content
and Players
Chapter 6 addresses audio and visual
electronic content as well as players of
that content. Other forms of electronic
content are addressed in Chapter 4
(Platforms, Applications, and Interactive
Content) and Chapter 5 (Electronic
Documents). In order to address the
broader range of content now in use,
references to ‘‘multimedia video’’ have
been replaced by the term
‘‘synchronized media,’’ as recommended
by the Committee. The Board recognizes
that while much of the draft maintains
a functional approach to the
requirements, Chapters 6 through 9
adopt a more product oriented
approach.
Question 21: The Board seeks
comment on whether this proposed
approach is successful in making the
document more understandable and
useful. The Board welcomes alternatives
to this organizational approach.
Readability (506)
Video or Audio Content With Interactive
Elements (602)
This is a new provision which the
Board is considering to address
technology that allows users to interact
with video or audio content. It was
recommended by the Committee to
address a new development in
technology that occurred after the
current standards were issued.
This draft provision which the Board
is considering is new and requires that
the language of documents and changes
in language be identified. It is consistent
with WCAG 2.0.
Captions and Transcripts for Audio
Content (603)
This draft provision is derived
substantively from the current standards
but has been reorganized for clarity. It
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
distinguishes pre-recorded content from
real-time content and audio-only
content from synchronized media.
Question 22: The Board is interested
in comments on whether there is a
voluntary consensus standard which
could address some issues related to
captioning quality, such as the degree of
synchronization required and an
allowable error rate.
Video Description and Transcripts for
Video Content (604)
The term ‘‘video description’’ was
recommended by the Committee to
replace the term ‘‘audio description.’’
Video description is used to refer to the
process whereby visual content is made
accessible by the insertion of verbal or
auditory description of on-screen
visuals intended to describe important
visual details. ‘‘Video description’’ is the
preferred terminology.
This draft provision derives
substantively from the current
standards, but has been reorganized for
clarity. It distinguishes pre-recorded
content from real-time content and
visual-only content from synchronized
media.
The Board is considering adding a
new provision on multiple visual areas
of focus to address a problem
experienced by persons with disabilities
when there are multiple, simultaneous
sources of information and data being
provided on-screen. People with
disabilities may miss some of the
information displayed simultaneously
on a screen, when some, but not all, of
the information is described. A typical
example is text on screen that states the
name and title of the person speaking,
but the text is not included in the main
audio output. This provision is intended
to address that concern.
The Board departed from a Committee
recommendation for video description
of pre-recorded content by keeping it as
an unconditional requirement,
consistent with the current standards.
The Committee recommended an option
for providing a text description of video
content where space is not available in
the main program for synchronized
video descriptions. However, new
technology for ‘‘extended description’’
may support conformance to this
provision without fundamentally
altering pre-recorded synchronized
media. Extended description allows
users to pause a video to listen to a
description and resume playing the
video.
Caption Processing Technology (605)
This draft provision addresses
technologies that display and process
captions and is distinct from provisions
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:16 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
for caption content (603). The
Committee recognized that current
audio visual players and displays may
be separate components of a larger
system.
Video Description Processing
Technology (606)
This draft provision addresses
technologies that play and process video
descriptions and is distinct from
requirements for video description of
content (604). It is substantively
consistent with the current standards
but specifies distinct provisions to be
followed for both analog signal tuners
and digital television tuners.
User Controls for Captions and Video
Description (607)
This draft provision covers user
controls for captions as well as video
descriptions and differs from the current
standards which only address video
description controls and are not as
comprehensive in scope. As
recommended by the Committee, this
provision addresses on-screen menus, a
new technology not addressed by the
current standards.
Audio Track and Volume Control (608)
This is a new provision being
considered by the Board to address the
issue of background audio as a barrier
to understanding speech in video
content. It reflects the new digital
television standard that allows
separating audio content into separate
tracks. Rather than applying a
requirement on content authoring, this
provision requires ICT that displays and
processes synchronized media to allow
user adjustment and selection for multichannel videos.
Question 23: The Board seeks
comment on any impact this approach
may have on manufacturers of hardware
or software for audio video players.
Chapter 7: Hardware Aspects of ICT
This chapter covers those features of
ICT relating to hardware. The
requirements of this chapter derive from
provisions for self contained closed
products, desktop and portable
computers, and telecommunication
products in the current standards, as
well as provisions for output, display,
and control functions in the guidelines.
The Committee sought to cover all
requirements specifically related to
hardware in one chapter.
Reach Ranges for Installed or FreeStanding ICT (702)
The Committee recommended that
specifications for reach ranges in the
current ADA and ABA Accessibility
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13465
Guidelines, which address both forward
and side reach ranges, be referenced due
to technologies that may require a
variety of approaches. This is a change
from the current standards which only
addressed side reach ranges. In
addition, the ADA and ABA
Accessibility Guidelines specify a
maximum side reach height that is
lower than the maximum height
specified in the current standards (48
inches maximum instead of 54 inches).
Standard Connections (703)
This provision derives from the
Committee report and current standards
and addresses reach ranges for freestanding ICT. The Board is considering
modifying the provision by replacing
references to ‘‘slots, ports and
connectors,’’ with the term ‘‘connection
points’’ which encompasses a wider
variety of possible ways of connecting to
devices, such as infrared and Bluetooth.
Question 24: The Board seeks
comment on whether this change in
terminology is sufficient, or if it will
result in any confusion or unintended
implementation issues. Should this term
be defined?
Text, Images of Text, and Symbols for
Product Use (704)
This is a new provision that would
require that when text, images of text,
and symbols are provided on hardware
for product use, they must provide one
mode of operation which provides the
same information in electronic format,
unless an exception applies. Without
the addition of a provision to make the
information available electronically,
someone who is blind would not be able
to independently read information on
the bottom of products such as symbols
describing various ports on a portable
computer. In addition, text, images of
text, and symbols must conform to
minimum requirements for size and
contrast ratio. This provision was
recommended by the Committee. The
Board added measurement
specifications on text attributes, derived
from the ADA and ABA Accessibility
Guidelines.
Chapter 8: Audio Output From
Hardware
Following recommendations from the
Committee to orient requirements to
functions of products, the Board has
organized criteria for audio output
functionality into a separate chapter. As
structured, this chapter is a departure
from the current standards and
guidelines which located volume
control provisions in separate sections
associated with different product types.
The provisions of this chapter address
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
13466
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the audio output functionality of
products such as telephones and
information kiosks, as well as media
products, such as portable music
players.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Interactive ICT Within Reach (802)
This draft provision being considered
by the Board applies to those products
that have audio output, are adjustable
by the user, and are within the reach of
the user, such as telephones and
information kiosks. Consistent with a
Committee recommendation for audio
connection, this provision requires
products with audio output to provide
a means of listening through a handset,
jack, or connection adaptor. It would
also require that features be provided to
control volume through hardware such
as jacks and speakers, as well as
software controls for audio.
ICT Typically Held to the Ear (803)
The Board is considering this
provision to address requirements for
volume gain in products with audio
output (either two way voice
communication or one way audio
output), that are typically held to the
ear. It specifies a minimum adjustable
gain level of 18 dB, with a baseline to
ensure measurability and consistency
among products. These specifications
differ from the current standards and
guidelines (which require a gain
adjustable up to a minimum of 20 dB
but do not specify a baseline). In
addition, the provision differs from the
recommendation of the Committee.
The Committee recommended
harmonization with the current FCC
Part 68 regulation, which requires a gain
adjustable up to a minimum of 18 dB
gain for analog telephones and a 15 dB
minimum gain for other telephones.
However, FCC Part 68 specifies 12 dB as
an allowable minimum gain. The Board
is concerned that a product designed
with a 12 dB or 15 dB minimum gain
will not sufficiently meet the needs of
individuals with hearing impairments.
This section also includes
requirements for incremental volume
control and automatic reset that are
consistent with the current standards
and guidelines. An exception for reset
manual override was added at the
recommendation of the Committee and
is consistent with FCC policy (see FCC
Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA
01–578, March 5, 2001; https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/DA-01-578A1.doc). The
requirements specified in the FCC
Memorandum Opinion and Order have
been included in the draft.
Requirements for magnetic coupling
and minimized interference (803.5) are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:16 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
also included in this section and are
consistent with the standards and
guidelines. The Board departed from the
recommendations of the Committee by
including a requirement for magnetic
coupling to apply to headsets because
they are part of telecommunications
products. The draft extends the
minimized interference requirement to
ICT that may not necessarily be used for
telecommunications, such as wands
used for listening to museum audio
tours.
Question 25: The Board is interested
in comment on these provisions,
including information on the benefits
and costs associated with the proposed
requirement for volume gain. In
addition, the Board seeks comment on
whether the specified volume gain for
cellular and landline telephones should
be consistent since the amplification
needs of people who are hard of hearing
are the same for both products.
ICT Not Typically Held to the Ear (804)
This section addresses volume gain,
incremental volume control, and
automatic reset in products that are not
typically held to the ear. The Board
departed from Committee
recommendations and did not
differentiate requirements for products
designed for personal use, such as
speaker telephones, from products
designed for communal use, such as
information transaction machines.
Chapter 9: Conversation Functionality
and Controls
This chapter addresses products that
support a telecommunications
conversation, whether it is in an audio,
text, or video format.
Real-Time Text Functionality (902)
This section contains detailed
specifications being considered by the
Board for real-time text (RTT) and for
hardware and software systems that
support its functionality. Products
covered include terminals, such as
telephones, as well as pass-through
products, including routers. These
specifications are based on
recommendations from the Committee
and are considerably more
comprehensive than those of the current
standards and guidelines that only
address TTY text.
The Board considered referencing the
RFC–4103 standard for VoIP systems
that connect to other VoIP systems using
session initiation protocol (SIP). (RFC is
otherwise known as the Request for
Comments—a series of Internet
standards and protocols distributed by
the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority; see https://
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4103/).
However, since the RFC–4103 was not
developed through a standards
development organization, the Board
did not include a reference to it in this
draft.
Question 26: Is there a similar
standard to the RFC–4103 standard that
has been published by a standards
development organization that the
Board could reference?
Voice Mail, Messaging, Auto-Attendant,
Conferencing and Interactive Voice
Response (903)
This provision corresponds to
specifications in the current standards
for interactive voice response TTY
compatibility but also applies to other
real time text. The Committee
recommended that this provision
reference G.711 specifications for audio
intelligibility in the ITU–T Standard
(International Telecommunication
Union Telecommunication
Standardization Sector). Instead, the
Board has chosen to reference the G.722
standard which provides greater
accessibility through superior clarity. As
recommended by the Committee, this
section also includes a new provision
for message and prompt navigation.
Information About Call Status and
Functions (904)
This section addresses caller
identification and similar functions and
is substantially similar to specifications
in the current standards. An advisory
note clarifies other types of call status
information covered.
Video Communications Support (905)
This is a new provision recommended
by the Committee to require
interoperable technology support for
people who use sign language to
communicate via telecommunications.
It addresses signals as well as terminals
and includes a provision that supports
audio input and output. The Board
enhanced specifications for video
communication quality by adding
requirements for data stream and
display screens, including the provision
of an alternate video display screen, and
revised requirements for speed and
resolution. In addition, the Board added
a requirement for an indication of
camera status for security reasons and
specifications for end-user controls to
help ensure privacy. At the
recommendation of the Committee, the
Board also included a provision to
support a non-auditory alerting system.
Question 27: The Board seeks
comment on this requirement. Are the
specifications for video quality
sufficient to support accessibility? Are
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
there other ways of addressing video
communications that are less complex?
Audio Clarity for Interconnected VoIP
(906)
This is a new section which the Board
is considering that addresses the ability
to enhance clarity in audio through
VoIP systems. This requirement is based
on a recommendation from the
Committee report, but the Board has
revised it to reference the G.722
standard instead of the G.711 standard
to provide greater accessibility.
Alternate Alerting for VoIP Telephone
Systems (907)
As recommended by Committee, in
this new section the Board is
considering requiring that a signal be
provided to indicate incoming calls on
VoIP systems. This requirement can be
met through either built-in or
compatible signaler solutions. Advisory
notes clarify sufficiency of audible and
visual signaling technology.
Question 28: The Board seeks
comment on the requirement that a
signal be provided on all incoming calls
on VoIP systems. Should the
requirement be limited, or should it
apply to all such calls? Should this
feature be selectable by the user?
Chapter 10: ICT Support
Documentation and ICT Support
Services
This chapter covers product support
documentation and services and is
largely consistent with requirements in
the current standards and guidelines.
The Board is considering new
provisions to enhance specifications for
documentation (1002) and support
services (1003).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
ICT Support Documentation (1002)
This section addresses documentation
for accessibility features (1002.2) and
provision of product documentation in
alternate formats (1002.3). The overall
requirements of this section remain
substantively unchanged.
Accessibility Documentation (1002.2)
The Board is considering revising the
provision for documentation to
specifically require that product
documentation address those features
that support accessibility, including the
capability to change settings, and those
features that support compatibility with
assistive technology (1002.2.2). This
revision, as recommended by the
Committee, represents a change from
the current standards, which do not
include such a requirement, and the
guidelines, which require a description
of the compatibility features of a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:16 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
product upon request. In addition, the
Board included a new requirement that
when product components are intended
to be integrated as part of a system,
information must be provided on how to
configure the system to support
accessibility (1002.2.3).
Question 29: The Board seeks
comment on the benefits and costs of
the increased requirements for
documentation.
The Board is also considering adding
a new provision that would require that
documentation be provided on all
features using only the keyboard
(1002.2.4). This includes information on
available keyboard commands and
keyboard navigation. The Committee
discussed this change, but did not
achieve consensus on it.
Alternate Formats (1002.3)
This provision requires that product
documentation be made available in
alternate formats. It has been revised to
require that alternate formats meet
relevant specifications for electronic
documents in Chapter 5.
ICT Support Services (1003)
This section addresses access to
product support services where
provided, such as help desks and
technical support services. It has been
revised, as recommended by the
Committee to require that help desk and
technical support services provide
information on ICT accessibility features
through a referral to a point of contact,
and that information on a contact
method be provided (1003.2.2). The
Board clarified the requirement that
help desks and technical support
services shall provide information and
training on ICT accessibility features
directly to the end user, where
appropriate (1003.2.1). The current
standards only generally require that
support services accommodate the
communication needs of end-users with
disabilities, while the guidelines require
provision of contact information for
manufacturers of telecommunications
products.
The requirement that help desk and
technical support services provide
alternate methods of communication
(1003.2) is consistent with the
provisions in the current standards and
guidelines. Documentation on ICT
accessibility features must be provided
by help desks and technical support
services in alternate formats upon
request. In addition, alternate methods
of communication, such as in-person
and remote communication is required.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13467
Amendments to the Americans With
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
Automatic Teller Machines, Fare
Machines, and Self-Service Machines
(220)
As part of this advance notice, the
Board proposes to supplement
provisions in its ADA Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG) to address access
to self-service machines used for
ticketing, check-in or check-out, seat
selection, boarding passes, or ordering
food in restaurants and cafeterias.
The Board maintains similar
guidelines under the Architectural
Barriers Act (ABA) which applies to
facilities that are federally funded. Since
the section 508 standards apply to ICT
in the Federal sector, corresponding
changes to the ABA guidelines are not
considered necessary. ADAAG already
addresses access to automated teller
machines (ATMs) and to fare vending
machines and provides scoping
requirements (section 220) and
technical specifications (section 707) for
such devices. In its update of ADAAG
in 2004, the Board considered
supplementing these provisions to cover
other types of interactive transaction
machines (ITMs). The Board opted to
defer action at that time to monitor the
application of the section 508 standards
to ITMs in the Federal sector.
In the draft, the Board is considering
extending coverage of ADAAG section
220 beyond ATMs and fare vending
machines to other kinds of self-service
machines. The ADAAG changes being
considered by the Board would apply
relevant requirements of the section 508
standards to these types of machines but
would not change existing requirements
for ATMs or fare vending machines. The
provision references chapters 3 through
9 of the standards.
The changes being considered by the
Board would supplement ADAAG 220
to specifically cover self-service
machines used for ticketing, check-in or
check-out, seat selection, boarding
passes, or ordering food in restaurants
and cafeterias (220.2). Two exceptions
are being considered. One exception
notes that self-service machines are not
required to comply with sections 302;
409–412; 503.1–503.3; 506; 508; 703;
802.2.3; and 802.2.4 of the draft. These
provisions generally address
requirements for products to
interoperate with assistive technology
and therefore are not appropriate for
self-service machines. A second
exception exempts drive-up only selfservice machines.
Question 30: The Board seeks
comment from users and manufacturers
of self-service machines on their
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
13468
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
experiences in using or designing
accessible machines and the benefits
and costs associated with the proposed
requirements.
Impact on Small Entities
The Board is interested in receiving
comments on the potential impact of
this rule on small entities pursuant to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). In
particular, the Board is seeking input on
the numbers of small entities that may
be impacted by this rulemaking, and the
potential compliance costs to these
small entities. Section 601 of the RFA
defines small entities as small
businesses (defined by the U.S. Small
Business Administration), small not-forprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions with a
population of less than 50,000. The
Board is also seeking comment on any
significant alternatives that can
minimize the economic impact of this
rulemaking on small entities while
accomplishing the Board’s objectives.
Question 31: The Board is interested
in comment on the impact on small
entities of the provisions implementing
section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act for
technology procured, developed,
maintained, or used by or on behalf of
Federal agencies. The phrase ‘‘or on
behalf of agencies’’ covers technologies
used by contractors under a contract
with a Federal agency. How many
contractors and subcontractors would be
considered small entities under the SBA
small business size standards? What
types of compliance costs will these
contractors and subcontractors face in
developing the technologies covered by
section 508? For example, will small
contractors and subcontractors face
capital costs for equipment, or hiring
professional expertise or extra staff to
comply with the requirements? Will the
cost of implementation create a
competitive disadvantage for small
contractors versus large contractors?
(i.e., will a small contractor become less
likely to win a Federal contract based on
price?) Should the Board establish
different compliance or reporting
requirements for small contractors and
subcontractors? Does the Board need to
clarify or simplify the compliance
requirements for small contractors or
exempt certain small contractors from
these requirements?
Question 32: The Board is interested
in comment on the impact on small
entities (manufacturers of
telecommunications products) of the
provisions implementing section 255 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
How many manufacturers of
telecommunications products would be
considered small entities, particularly
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:16 Mar 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
with the application of this rule to
interconnected VoIP products? What
types of compliance costs will small
manufacturers face? The Board is
interested in small business estimates
for services required by this rule such as
providing access to information,
documentation, and training of
customers (for example through help
desks and support services). Will this
section require extra technology,
professional expertise or extra staff? Are
there alternative ways that small
manufacturers can provide information
and training at lower costs? Should the
Board establish different compliance or
reporting requirements for small
manufacturers?
Question 33: The Board is interested
in comment on the impact on small
entities (places of public
accommodations and state and local
government entities) of the provisions
for self-service machines under the
Americans With Disabilities Act. How
many and what types of small entities
utilize self-service machines, and what
types of machines do they use? How
many small manufacturers make these
types of machines? How many of the
small entities that use or manufacture
self-service machines have machines
that are accessible? How much will it
cost to develop and produce the
technology that would meet the
proposed provisions? Should the Board
establish different compliance
requirements for small entities to have
accessible machines? Does the Board
need to clarify or simplify the
requirements for small entities or
exempt certain types of machines from
these requirements?
The Board will hold a public hearing
to provide an opportunity for comment.
The hearing will take place on March
25, 2010 from 9 a.m. to Noon in
conjunction with the 25th Annual
International Technology & Persons
with Disabilities Conference. It will be
held at the Manchester Grand Hyatt
Hotel, Elizabeth Ballroom, One Market
Place, San Diego, CA 92101. The
hearing location is accessible to
individuals with disabilities. Sign
language interpreters and real-time
captioning will be provided. For the
comfort of other participants, persons
attending the hearing are requested to
refrain from using perfume, cologne,
and other fragrances. To pre-register to
testify please contact Kathy Johnson at
(202) 272–0041 or Johnson@accessboard.gov.
David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2010–6245 Filed 3–19–10; 8:45 am]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0080; FRL–9128–7]
Disapproval of California State
Implementation Plan Revisions,
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution
Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to
disapprove a revision to the Monterey
Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
District (MBAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This revision concerns opacity
standards related to multiple pollutants,
including particulate matter (PM)
emissions from several different types of
sources, ranging from fugitive dust to
gas turbine generators. We are proposing
action on a local rule that regulates
these emission sources under the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act). We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
April 21, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2009–0080, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
BILLING CODE 8150–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 54 (Monday, March 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13457-13468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6245]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Parts 1191, 1193, and 1194
[Docket No. 2010-1]
RIN 3014-AA37
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines
for Buildings and Facilities; Telecommunications Act Accessibility
Guidelines; Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility
Standards
AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(Access Board) is issuing this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) to begin the process of updating its standards for electronic
and information technology and its Telecommunications Act Accessibility
Guidelines. At the same time, the Board is proposing to revise its
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines to address
access to self-service machines used for ticketing, check-in or check-
out, seat selection, boarding passes, or ordering food in restaurants
and cafeterias. The Board has developed draft standards and guidelines
for these purposes. The draft text (draft) is available on the Board's
Web site (https://www.access-board.gov/508.htm). The Board invites the
public to review and comment on all aspects of this draft, including
the advantages and disadvantages of draft provisions, the
organizational approach to presenting the standards and guidelines,
alternative policies to those contained in the draft, and information
on benefits and costs. After reviewing the comments received in
response to this advance notice and draft, the Board will issue a
proposed rule followed by a final rule.
DATES: Comments should be received by June 21, 2010. The Board will
hold a public hearing to provide an additional opportunity for comment.
The hearing will take place on March 25, 2010 from 9 a.m. to noon in
conjunction with the 25th Annual International Technology & Persons
With Disabilities Conference. It will be held at the Manchester Grand
Hyatt Hotel, Elizabeth Ballroom, One Market Place, San Diego, CA 92101.
To pre-register to testify please contact Kathy Johnson at (202) 272-
0041 or board.gov">Johnson@access-board.gov.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number 2010-1
or RIN number 3014-AA37, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: board.gov">ictrule@access-board.gov. Include docket number
2010-1 or RIN number 3014-AA37 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: 202-272-0081.
Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Technical and
Informational Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004-1111.
All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Creagan, Office of Technical and
Information Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number: 202-272-0016 (voice); 202-
272-0082 (TTY). Electronic mail address: board.gov">creagan@access-board.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was
enacted. Section 255 of the Act requires manufacturers to ensure that
telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment are
designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities when it is readily achievable to do so;
readily achievable means easily accomplishable, without much difficulty
or expense. The Access Board was given the responsibility for
developing accessibility guidelines for telecommunications equipment
and
[[Page 13458]]
customer premises equipment in conjunction with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). The Board was also instructed to
review and update the guidelines periodically. The Board published the
guidelines on February 3, 1998. 63 FR 5608 (February 3, 1998); 36 CFR
part 1193. The guidelines were based on recommendations from a
Telecommunications Access Advisory Committee that the Board had
created.
On August 7, 1998, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which
includes the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, was signed into
law. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments requires that
when Federal departments or agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use
electronic and information technology, they must ensure that the
technology is accessible to people with disabilities, unless an undue
burden would be imposed on the department or agency. Section 508
required the Access Board to publish standards setting forth a
definition of electronic and information technology and technical and
functional performance criteria for such technology. The Board was also
required to periodically review and, as appropriate, amend the
standards to reflect technological advances or changes in electronic
and information technology. The Board published the standards on
December 21, 2000. 65 FR 80500 (December 21, 2000); 36 CFR part 1194.
The standards were based on recommendations from an Electronic and
Information Technology Access Advisory Committee that the Board had
created to assist it in developing the standards.
Since the Board issued the Telecommunications Act Accessibility
Guidelines (guidelines) and the Electronic and Information Technology
Accessibility Standards (standards), technology has changed.
Additionally, several organizations have asked the Board to update its
standards so they are harmonized with efforts taking place around the
globe. The telecommunications provisions in the standards are based on
and are consistent with the telecommunications provisions in the
guidelines. Therefore, the Board has decided to update and revise the
standards and the guidelines together to address changes in technology
and to make both documents more consistent. Through this update, the
Board is addressing new technology and seeks to harmonize, to the
extent possible, its criteria with other standards and guidelines in
order to improve accessibility and facilitate compliance.
In addition, the Board is proposing to amend the Americans with
Disabilities Act Guidelines (ADAAG) to address access to self-service
machines used for ticketing, check-in or check-out, seat selection,
boarding passes, or ordering food in restaurants and cafeterias. In
2006, the National Council on Disability released a report, NCD
Position Paper on Access to Airline Self-Service Kiosk Systems, which
recommended that accessibility provisions from ADAAG or the section 508
standards be incorporated into an updated Air Carrier Access Act
regulation for accessible design applicable to both proprietary and
common-use self-service kiosk systems (https://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2006/kiosk.htm). In May 2008 the Department of
Transportation amended its Air Carrier Access Act rules to apply to
foreign carriers but decided to defer action on kiosks and noted that
the Access Board has work under way that could affect kiosks. 73 FR
27614 (May 13, 2008).
There have also been numerous settlement agreements and structured
negotiations reached with various public accommodations on tactile
point of sale devices (https://lflegal.com/category/settlements/point-of-sale-settlements/). With the proliferation of point of sale
machines, kiosks, and other self-service machines, the Board has
decided that in addition to updating the standards for electronic and
information technology and the guidelines for telecommunications
products, it should revise the Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines to address access to this new technology to
ensure its accessibility for people with disabilities. The Board
proposes to extend coverage to self-service machines used for
ticketing, check-in or check-out, seat selection, boarding passes, or
ordering food in restaurants and cafeterias. This would include point
of sale devices used to check-in or check-out products at retail
establishments such as those addressed in the settlement agreements and
structured negotiations as well as other self-service machines.
To begin the process of updating the standards and guidelines, the
Board formed the Telecommunications and Electronic and Information
Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC or Committee), to review the
existing standards and guidelines and to recommend changes. The
Committee met regularly from September 2006 to April 2008, and held
numerous teleconferences in between meetings. The Committee's 41
members comprised a broad cross-section of stakeholders, including
representatives from industry, disability groups, standard-setting
bodies in the U.S. and abroad, and government agencies. In their
deliberations, Committee members addressed a range of issues, including
new or convergent technologies, market forces, and international
harmonization. Recognizing the importance of standardization across
markets worldwide, the Committee coordinated its work with standard-
setting bodies in the U.S. and abroad, such as the World Wide Web
Consortium, and the Committee included representatives from the
European Union, Canada, Australia, and Japan.
On April 3, 2008 the Committee presented its report to the Board.
The Committee's report recommends detailed revisions to the Board's
section 508 standards and Telecommunications Act accessibility
guidelines. The Committee's report is available on the Board's website
at https://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/report.
The Board staff has been working with an ad hoc committee of Board
members and staff from several Federal agencies to develop this notice
and draft. The final version of the draft will ultimately replace the
section 508 standards, the Telecommunications Act accessibility
guidelines, and make amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines. In addition to agencies that are represented
on the Board, staff from the Federal Communications Commission, Social
Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and the Department
of Homeland Security have been involved in the ad hoc committee's work.
The draft is available on the Board's website at www.access-board.gov/508.htm. At a later date, the Board will publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking to update the standards and guidelines based on the
input received in response to this advance notice and draft. The
proposed rule will provide another opportunity for public comment. The
Board will also prepare a regulatory assessment to accompany the
proposed rule. To assist the Board in developing the regulatory
assessment, the Board invites comments on the quantitative and
qualitative benefits and costs associated with the changes proposed in
the draft; the Board also asks commenters to provide information on the
benefits and costs of alternative policies which they propose. The
Board will finalize the standards and guidelines based on the comments
received in response to the proposed rule.
[[Page 13459]]
Regulatory Approach
The TEITAC sought to balance the need for detailed criteria with an
approach that accommodates the dynamic and ever-evolving nature of the
technologies covered. Many people, from product designers and engineers
to procurers and end users, have called for clear delineation of what
makes a product accessible for compliance purposes. However, the
Committee determined that product-specific criteria will not keep pace
with innovative trends and market forces which enhance the capabilities
of products and blur their categorization. Convergent technologies, for
example, support the growing demand for all-in-one products, such as
mobile devices that offer voice and text communication, web browsing,
and media players.
The Committee's report recommended a revised set of performance
criteria that specify access capabilities for products generally. The
Committee organized its recommendations to serve as a framework for
updated technical specifications to address hardware, user interfaces
and electronic content, audio-visual players, displays, and content,
real-time voice communication, and authoring tools. Unlike the current
standards, the committee's recommendations are organized primarily by
the features or capabilities of a product, instead of discreet product
types. The recommendations contain advisory and background information
on the performance and technical provisions, including references to
related standards, and update defined terms and provisions covering
documentation, support, and maintenance. The report also advises the
Board on considerations for future updates, supplementary guidance
materials and tools, compliance testing, and further research.
Question 1: The Board developed the draft using the organizational
approach recommended by the Committee in which the provisions are
organized primarily by the features or capabilities of a product,
instead of discrete product types. The Board seeks comments on the
usability and effectiveness of this approach, as well as alternative
organizational approaches.
Question 2: The Board seeks input on what implementation time
frames would be reasonable, specifically whether some provisions should
have differing implementation dates.
Structure of the Draft
The draft contains revisions to the current standards and
guidelines which the Board is considering. The revisions are largely
based on the recommendations of the TEITAC report. Some provisions
reflect changes to the TEITAC recommendations made by the Board, as
noted in the detailed summary which follows. The draft also contains
revisions that would amend provisions in the Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) by applying
requirements of the standards to self-service machines. The draft
standards and guidelines share a common set of functional performance
criteria (Chapter 2) and technical design criteria (Chapters 3-10), but
have separate introductory chapters (Chapter 1) which outline scoping,
application, and definitions. Chapter 1 labeled, ``508 Chapter 1:
Application and Administration'' addresses products covered by Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act and its provisions are preceded by the
letter ``E''; the other chapter 1 is labeled, ``255 Chapter 1:
Application and Administration'' and addresses telecommunications
equipment and customer premises equipment covered by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its provisions are preceded by the
letter ``C''.
Question 3: To improve usability, the Board titled each provision
and located advisory notes next to the associated requirements. Are
there any other format changes that will make the draft easier to use?
The draft is substantially reorganized from the current standards
and guidelines. Following the recommendations in the TEITAC report, the
draft provisions have been organized in terms of functionality, rather
than product categories. For example, the Board separated conversation
functionality, including both voice and text (Chapter 9) from audio
output functionality, such as alert indicators (Chapter 8).
Question 4: The Board seeks feedback on the overall organization of
the draft, especially how aspects of technology are addressed by the
chapter organization. For example, should software (Chapter 4) and
electronic documents (Chapter 5) be combined? Or, should all
requirements for audio output, including conversation functionality and
status indicator sounds (Chapter 8), be combined with text messaging
capability (Chapter 9) into one chapter?
Major Changes From Current Requirements
The draft addresses some issues which were not covered in the
current standards or guidelines but were the subject of supplementary
technical guidance. The draft does not seek to change the approach to
these issues but instead makes them explicit. For example, the
relationship between the functional performance criteria and the
technical provisions is unchanged. However the draft text seeks to
clarify (in Chapter 1) that a product may be deemed accessible if it
meets all the technical provisions, even if the functional performance
criteria are not completely met.
The draft does not seek to substantively change the majority of
requirements in the current standards or guidelines, consistent with
the TEITAC report. However, some material is changed in the draft. For
example, the draft contains significant revisions to the general
exceptions. All substantive changes are explained in the Summary of
Provisions below. One of the most significant changes being considered
by the Board involves the application of the guidelines and standards
to electronic content. The Board is proposing to cover electronic
content of certain official communications by Federal agencies. Another
significant change concerns coverage of self-service machines under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Summary of Provisions
This section provides an overview of the draft and highlights
substantive revisions and updates from the TEITAC report, unless
otherwise noted. The draft includes some non-substantive editorial
changes to the TEITAC recommendations made by the Board that are not
detailed in this discussion. In addition to the specific questions
below corresponding to individual provisions, the Board seeks general
comments on these provisions, including the extent to which they are
necessary, their advantages and disadvantages, their quantitative and
qualitative benefits and costs, and alternative policies. The Board
also invites the public to identify any gaps in the draft guidelines
and standards, and approaches to addressing such gaps.
508 Chapter 1: Application and Administration
The draft contains provisions for information and communication
technology for Federal departments and agencies, including the U.S.
Postal Service, as set forth in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973.
General Requirement (E102)
The draft standards would be applied by Federal agencies so that
employees and members of the public with disabilities have access to
and use of electronic and information technology
[[Page 13460]]
that is comparable to the level of access and usability available to
persons without disabilities unless it would be an undue burden to do
so. The Board added this provision to clarify these responsibilities.
This would not change the scope or application of the standards.
Application (E103)
This section covers application of the standards to information and
communication technology procured, developed, maintained, or used by or
on behalf of Federal agencies. The phrase ``or on behalf of agencies''
has been added to cover technologies used by contractors under a
contract with a Federal agency. A citation to the statute has been
added to this provision. Coverage of agencies is unchanged; however,
the draft provision seeks to provide more detail regarding which
agencies are covered. The term ``Information and Communication
Technology (ICT),'' as defined in section E111, encompasses both
electronic and information technology covered by Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act and telecommunications products covered by Section
255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Committee recommended
use of the broader term ICT for convenience and clarity since the
technical requirements and functional performance criteria apply under
both laws and since the term ICT is widely used by most other
countries.
Electronic Content (E103.3.1)
The amendments to the Rehabilitation Act require that when
developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and information
technology, each Federal department or agency shall ensure, unless an
undue burden would be imposed on the department or agency, that
electronic and information technology allows (regardless of the type of
medium) individuals with disabilities to have access to and use of
information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the
information and data by others without disabilities (see 29 U.S.C. 794d
(a)(1)(A)). The current standards do not adequately address what is
meant by comparable access to information and data. There has been much
confusion over whether and how such electronic content is addressed.
The draft contains a new provision which the Board is considering
to address access to electronic content of certain official
communications by Federal agencies or agency representatives. This
draft requirement would apply to electronic content regardless of the
method of transmission or storage but is limited to official agency
communications. ``Official communication'' refers specifically to
communication by a Federal agency to employees that contains
information necessary for those employees to perform their job
functions and information relevant to enjoyment of the benefits and
privileges of employment or to communication by a Federal agency to
members of the general public that contains information necessary for
the conduct of official business with the agency. Examples of such
electronic content may include email messages, Word documents, and
other types and formats. The current standards address access to some
types of electronic content, such as web pages, forms, and video
productions. A definition of ``content,'' is included in section E111.
Question 5: The draft requirement which the Board is considering
for access to electronic content in the draft is limited to certain
official communications by Federal agencies. Other types of
communications and electronic content are not addressed. The Board
seeks comment on this draft requirement and what other types of content
including social media (i.e., YouTube and Twitter) should be addressed
and the benefits and costs of extending coverage to other forms of
electronic content. The Board is interested in comments from agencies
about how this provision could be implemented across large and diverse
institutions. How should attachments to official email messages be
handled? The Board is also interested in information on the benefits
and costs associated with this change, particularly from Federal
agencies. How should this provision apply to records requested from the
National Archives and Records Administration who is prohibited from
altering archival records?
Undue Burden (E104)
Consistent with the Committee's recommendations, this section in
the draft is substantively unchanged from the current standards.
General Exceptions (E105)
The current standards contain six exceptions. In the draft, two of
the exceptions are retained unchanged: The prohibition against
requiring fundamental alteration in the nature of a product or
components; and the statutory exception for products whose function,
operation, or use involves national security or cryptological
activities. Another exception concerning ICT acquired by a contractor
incidental to a contract has been relocated to the application section
which contains a provision specific to Federal contracts (E103.4.2).
The Board is considering removing three exceptions in the current
standards:
One exception stated that assistive technology need not be
provided at all workstations for all Federal employees (1194.3(c)). The
current standards require that ICT either be directly accessible or
compatible with assistive technology. Since the standards do not
require the provision of assistive technology at each work station, the
Board considers this exception unnecessary.
The second exception states that where agencies provide
information and data to the public through accessible ICT, the
accessible ICT need only be provided at the intended public location
(1194.3(d)). The Board is considering removing this exception from the
standards because no provision in the standards requires accessible ICT
in more than one location. Since these exceptions are contained in the
statute, their removal from the standards will not impact application.
A third exception states that products located in spaces
used only by service personnel for maintenance and repair need not be
accessible. The Board believes this provision is unnecessary since most
functions can be accessed remotely.
Question 6: The Board seeks comment on removing these exceptions
and the impact of removing them, including the benefits and costs
associated with removing them. Should the exception concerning ICT
acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract be repeated in this
section and in section E103.4.2?
Equivalent Facilitation (E106)
This section is substantively unchanged from the current standards.
WCAG 2.0 Harmonization (E107)
The Committee recommended that the Board seek to harmonize the
standards with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 once they were finalized. The Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 was published as a W3C
recommendation on December 11, 2008; about 8 months after the Committee
provided its report to the Board. The Board is considering that web
pages, as defined by WCAG 2.0, which are Level AA conformant, be deemed
to be in conformance with the provisions noted in the draft.
Question 7: The Board seeks comment on this approach to
harmonization with WCAG 2.0 including suggestions for
[[Page 13461]]
alternative approaches to achieving harmonization, and comments on the
benefits and costs associated with the Board's approach.
Best Meets (E108)
This section is substantively unchanged from the current standards.
Provision of Support Services and Materials (E109)
The Board is considering requiring agencies to provide alternate
methods of communication through help desks and technical support
services and to provide support services and materials in alternate
formats. Chapter 10 of the technical requirements specifies the types
of information to be provided, such as descriptions of the built-
inaccessibility features of a product and information about operation
of features that can be accessed from the keyboard.
Definitions (E111)
The draft contains a number of new definitions. Most defined terms
derive either from the Committee report or from the WCAG 2.0.
Consistent with the Committee's report, the draft seeks to minimize
deviations from industry usage and understanding of defined terms to
ensure consistency with industry standards and best practices.
The draft uses the term ``Information and Communication Technology,
(ICT)'' to refer to both telecommunications products covered by Section
255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and to electronic and
information technology covered by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act. The Board has defined this term to include existing definitions of
``electronic and information technology'' and ``telecommunications
products'' in the current standards and guidelines. The definition is
intended to encompass a wide expanse of products and the functions for
which they are used.
Question 8: The Board is interested in comment on the definition of
Information and Communication Technology.
Referenced Standards or Guidelines (E112)
Other standards and guidelines referenced in this draft are based
on recommendations from the Committee. The intent is to promote
testability and usability of the draft provisions.
255 Chapter 1: Application and Administration
This chapter covers application of the draft to telecommunications
and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) products and
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) covered by Section 255 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. It applies to manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment and
requires products to be designed, developed, and fabricated to be
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities when it is
readily achievable to do so; readily achievable means easily
accomplishable, without much difficulty or expense.
General Requirement (C102)
This draft provision is substantially unchanged from the current
guidelines and the Committee recommendations; the draft provision
applies to manufacturers of telecommunications products.
Application (C103)
The draft provisions apply to telecommunications products and
interconnected VoIP products and CPE. This section now specifically
references interconnected VoIP products, consistent with Federal
Communication Commission regulations. An advisory note provides
examples of covered technologies, such as instant messaging that
supports real-time conversation in other modes, and products beyond
those typically thought of as communications devices, such as web
interfaces used to access functions in VoIP systems.
Direct Accessibility (C103.4)
This draft provision is updated yet consistent with the current
guidelines which require telecommunications equipment and CPE to be
directly accessible when it is readily achievable to do so.
Compatibility Design (C103.4.1)
This draft provision is similar to the current guidelines which
require telecommunications equipment and CPE to be compatible with
peripheral devices and specialized customer premises equipment when it
is readily achievable to do so.
Prohibited Reduction of Accessibility (C103.5)
This draft provision is substantially unchanged from the current
guidelines.
Information, Documentation, and Training (C104)
This draft provision is substantially unchanged from the current
guidelines and would require manufacturers to provide access to
information, documentation, and training to their customers. This may
be done through help desks and support services and shall include
alternate methods of communication. Chapter 10 of the technical
requirements specifies the types of information to be provided, such as
descriptions of the built-in accessibility features of a product and
information about operation of features that can be accessed from the
keyboard.
Equivalent Facilitation (C105)
This section is substantively unchanged from the current
guidelines.
WCAG 2.0 Harmonization (C106)
The Committee recommended that the Board harmonize its rule with
the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0 once they were finalized. The Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 was published as a W3C recommendation on December
11, 2008. The Board is considering that web pages, as defined by WCAG
2.0, which are Level AA conformant, shall be deemed to be in
conformance with the provisions noted in the draft.
Product Design, Development, and Evaluation (C107)
This section is substantially consistent with the current
guidelines which require manufacturers to evaluate the accessibility,
usability, and compatibility of telecommunications products and CPE. It
has been revised to include references to VoIP and other technologies.
Definitions (C109)
The draft contains a number of new definitions. Most defined terms
derive either from the Committee report or WCAG 2.0. Consistent with
the Committee's report, the draft minimizes deviations from industry
usage and understanding of defined terms to ensure consistency with
industry standards and best practices. The definition of
``Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Service'' derives
from FCC regulations and was included in the Committee report.
Question 9: The Board is interested in comment on the proposed
definitions.
Referenced Standards or Guidelines (E110)
The external standards and guidelines referenced in the draft are
based on recommendations from the Committee. The intent is to promote
testability and usability of the provisions of this part.
Chapter 2: Functional Performance Criteria
Functional Performance Criteria (202)
This draft provision is consistent with the recommendation of the
Committee to retain all existing functional
[[Page 13462]]
performance criteria and to add a provision that addresses color vision
deficits and a provision to minimize photosensitive seizure triggers.
The Committee and the Board felt it was important that functional
performance criteria map to technical specifications.
Question 10: The Board is interested in comment on how the
functional performance criteria should be implemented in relation to
the technical provisions. Does the approach discussed in E103.5 and
C103.6, as a statement of current practice, clarify or confuse the
issue? If the approach is confusing, how could it be made less
confusing?
General (202.1)
The current standards require products to have at least one mode of
operation and information retrieval that meets the functional
performance criteria. More and more products are now multi-functional.
For example, many devices allow users to make telephone calls, send
text messages, and access the Internet. In recognition of this growing
multi-functionality of covered products, the Board is considering
requiring that each mode of operation of a product meet the functional
performance criteria.
Without Vision (202.2)
This provision is substantially unchanged from the current
standards and the Committee report, except for the use of the term
``non-visual access.''
With Limited Vision (202.3)
This provision addresses access to at least one mode of operation
for users with limited vision. The Board is considering revising the
current specification to require that ICT meet the needs of a greater
range of users. The current standards require an accessible mode that
accommodates visual acuity up to 20/70. The Board is considering
increasing the covered range to 20/200, which is the legal definition
of blindness so that more people have the option to use a visual-based
mode instead of non-visual accessible modes.
Question 11: The Board is interested in comment on whether and the
extent to which this change will sufficiently improve access for people
with limited vision and the benefits and costs associated with this
change.
Without Perception of Color (202.4)
The Committee's report recommended the addition of a provision
specifying that functionality not be based on the ability to perceive
color. This is consistent with the technical provisions in the current
standards that prohibit relying on color alone as the sole means of
indicating status or function.
Question 12: The Board is interested in comment on this proposed
new provision, including information on the benefits and costs
associated with this addition.
Without Hearing (202.5)
This draft provision is substantially consistent with the current
standards and the Committee report.
With Limited Hearing (202.6)
This provision seeks to address access for users with limited
hearing. The current standards stipulate that at least one mode be
provided in ``an enhanced auditory fashion.'' The provision the Board
is considering would require that any auditory features, where
provided, include at least one mode of operation that improves clarity,
reduces background noise, or allows control of volume. The Board
included this change to make the requirement more specific. The
Committee considered such a change but did not recommend specific
language.
Question 13: The Board is interested in comment on the proposed
change to improve access for individuals with hearing impairments,
including information on the benefits and costs associated with this
change.
Without Speech (202.7)
This provision is substantially unchanged from the current
standards and the Committee report.
With Limited Manipulation (202.8) and With Limited Reach and Strength
(202.9)
These draft provisions are consistent with a provision in the
current standards but the Board has separated them into two distinct
provisions. The Board is considering making this change to address
issues of fine motor control or simultaneous actions apart from the
reach ranges or strength necessary to access and operate controls.
These provisions are consistent with technical specifications
addressing reach ranges and operable parts.
Without Physical Contact (202.10)
This is a new provision the Board is considering adding due to the
significant population of users who are unable to make contact with a
product, as well as the many types of technology now available that do
not require physical contact, such as Bluetooth and wireless
connectivity. The Committee considered, but did not reach consensus, on
adding such a requirement. The wording of the provision derives from
that considered by the Committee.
Question 14: The Board is interested in comment on the proposed new
provision to improve access for individuals who are unable to make
contact with a product, including information on the benefits and costs
associated with this change.
Minimize Photosensitive Seizure Triggers (202.11)
This is a new provision which the Board is considering adding to
address hazards posed to people with photosensitive epilepsy. The Board
added this provision as a functional criterion for consistency with
technical specifications for flashing (306).
Question 15: The Board is seeking comment on whether cognitive
disabilities are sufficiently addressed in the functional performance
provisions and seeks suggestions on how the requirements might better
address the accessibility needs of individuals with cognitive
disabilities.
Chapter 3: Common Functionality
This chapter covers those common features of information and
communication technology which are found across a variety of platforms,
formats, and media. The draft requirements of this chapter which the
Board is considering derive from provisions for self-contained closed
products and desktop and portable computers in the current standards.
The Board organized this chapter to cover all technical requirements
that address elements or functionality common to ICT. These
requirements apply generally to all types of ICT.
Closed Functionality (302)
The Board is considering this draft provision to require that ICT
with closed functionality be usable by people with disabilities without
requiring assistive technology other than personal headsets. The
current standards address this only in relation to self-contained
closed products. The Committee recommended this change since closed
functionality is not product or function specific and may be found in
many contexts, due to either design or policy considerations. For
example, self-contained closed products such as kiosks may be closed
due to design, while software applications may have certain limitations
imposed on functionality due to policy considerations, such as
maintaining security.
Question 16: The Board is interested in comments on how closed
functionality is covered in the draft.
[[Page 13463]]
Should other means of assistive technology besides personal headsets be
permitted to provide access to ICT with closed functionality?
Biometrics (303)
The Committee recommended that the current requirements for
biometric identification be expanded to allow for alternate forms of
user identification or control which may be either biometric or non-
biometric. The requirement for a non-biometric form of user
identification or control is retained. The Board is considering a
requirement for an alternate biometric that uses dissimilar
characteristics to the default biometric.
Preservation of Information Provided for Accessibility (304)
This draft provision is substantially unchanged from the current
standards and the Committee recommendations.
Color (305)
This draft provision is substantially unchanged from the current
requirements and the Committee recommendations.
Flashing (306)
In this draft provision the Board is considering specifying a
maximum 3-per-second flash rate for ICT light flashes. This differs
from the current standards which specify that ``products shall be
designed to avoid causing the screen to flicker with a frequency
greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.'' The Committee recommended
this change because the current provision is too restrictive in
prohibiting flashing within a certain range with no consideration for
the size of the flashing area. The provision is consistent with WCAG
2.0.
Operable Parts (307)
In this draft provision the Board is considering addressing
controls and keys, tactile discernability, key repeat and adjustability
functions, non-mechanical controls, and accessible reach ranges. The
Board is considering revising the provision to reference specifications
for reach ranges in the Board's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Guidelines for
buildings and facilities, which address both forward and side reach
ranges, since some products may require a variety of approaches. The
current standards only specify side reach ranges. The ADA and ABA
guidelines specify a maximum side reach height that is lower than the
maximum height specified in the current standards (48 inches maximum
instead of 54 inches). This would eliminate any potential conflict
between the ICT requirements and the ADA and ABA accessibility
guidelines.
Chapter 4: Platforms, Applications, and Interactive Content
General (401)
This chapter provides technical requirements for platforms,
applications, and interactive content. The Board separated these
requirements from those for static electronic documents (Chapter 5).
These provisions are harmonized with WCAG 2.0.
Non-Text Content (402)
In this draft section the Board is considering providing technical
requirements for non-text content, including audio and visual content
and CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Public Turing Test to tell Computers
and Humans Apart). It references specifications for non-text content in
Chapter 5 and requirements for audio and video content in Chapter 6.
Specifications for all other types of interactive content are contained
in this chapter.
Distinguishable Content (403)
In this section the Board is considering new requirements to
address the difficulties persons with hearing loss or low vision may
experience in distinguishing between foreground and background content,
whether that content is audio (background music to an audio track of
speakers) or text. These draft requirements are based on
recommendations from the Committee. The Board is also considering
adding a provision for resizable text for consistency with WCAG 2.0.
Keyboard Operation (404)
This draft section is substantively unchanged from the current
standards and is consistent with recommendations from the Committee.
Time Limits (405)
This draft section is substantively unchanged from the current
standards and is consistent with recommendations from the Committee.
Navigation (406)
In this draft section the Board is considering addressing
navigation and includes substantive changes from the current standards
and the Committee's recommendations. A provision to bypass blocks of
content (406.2), consistent with the current standards was recommended
for deletion in the Committee report. The Board is considering
retaining this provision for consistency with WCAG 2.0. The Board is
also considering adding a provision on focus order (406.3) for the same
reason, and a new provision covering multiple ways to locate content
(406.4), which was recommended by the Committee.
Question 17: The draft includes three provisions (406.2, 406.3, and
406.4) not included in the Committee report but that are consistent
with WCAG 2.0. Are these provisions important enough for end-users to
be included for the sake of harmonization with other standards? The
Board seeks comment on the benefits and costs of these additions.
Predictability (407), Input Assistance (408), User Preferences (409),
and Interoperability With Assistive Technology (410)
These draft sections are substantively unchanged from the current
standards and are consistent with recommendations from the Committee.
Compatible Technologies (411)
This draft section is consistent with the current standards and
contains provisions that are closely adapted from provisions the
Committee considered but did not reach consensus on.
Assistive Technology Function (412)
The Board is considering a new requirement that closely reflects
recommendations the Committee considered but did not agree on. The
Board added this provision because it believes it is important to
address how applications use platform accessibility services to make
information about components programmatically determinable.
Question 18: The draft includes a requirement for ICT which
provides an assistive technology function. Should the requirements
apply to assistive technology? The Board seeks comment on the benefits
and costs on including explicit requirements for assistive technology.
Authoring Tools (413)
In this new section the Board is considering requiring that for all
formats supported by an authoring tool, the authoring tool must provide
a mode of operation that supports the creation of electronic documents
that conform to the ICT accessibility requirements. The Committee
recommended that authoring tools be required to support the ability to
improve the accessibility of content.
Question 19: Do the proposed provisions for authoring tools reflect
[[Page 13464]]
features that many authoring tools already provide? If not, could such
features be added to authoring tools relatively easily? The Board seeks
comment on the benefits and costs of including such requirements for
authoring tools.
Chapter 5: Electronic Documents
The Board is considering separating requirements that generally
apply to non-interactive content (Chapter 5) from those that generally
apply to interactive interfaces (Chapter 4). Chapter 5 covers access to
electronic documents which contain mostly static, read-only, non-
interactive electronic content. Electronic content covered by this
chapter includes most non-paper documents and web content, regardless
of format. Examples include word processing files (such as Word and
WordPerfect), Portable Document Format (PDF), presentations (such as
Power Point), spreadsheets (such as Excel), and simple web pages not
containing embedded objects (such as Flash, Silverlight, or Air). All
of these elements are covered in this chapter. In addition, electronic
documents may also contain some modest interactive components such as
hypertext links, buttons, and form elements or fields. These common
elements are covered in this chapter as well. The draft provisions of
this chapter derive from requirements in the current standards for web-
based intranet and internet information and applications. Whereas the
current standards focus on web-based documents, this chapter would
apply to a wide range of content formats.
Question 20: The Board seeks comment on whether there is a better
way to distinguish between requirements for software applications
covered by Chapter 4 and electronic documents covered by Chapter 5.
Non-Text Content (502)
This provision is consistent with the current standards but
provides more detail on what constitutes a ``text equivalent'' for many
common situations.
Adaptable Presentation of Content (503)
In this section the Board is considering addressing adaptable
presentation of content, including features which allow content to be
presented in different ways without losing or changing information or
the structure of the content, such as contrast options for viewing
websites. Other elements of presentation include the ability to
programmatically determine the information, structure, and
relationships implied by visual or auditory formatting. When a screen
reader reads content, the presentation format of the content changes,
but the information provided and the structure or relationships of the
content do not. For example, columns in a table should still be
distinguishable from rows, separate paragraphs of information should
still be separate, and the arrangement of the content should still be
apparent. This draft section contains specifications based on the
current standards for data tables, scripts, and forms, but includes new
provisions for logically correct reading sequence and sensory
characteristics.
Distinguishable Presentation of Text Content (504)
This draft section is based on requirements in the current
standards for web-based intranet and internet information and
applications but includes new specifications for contrast and text
enlargement. The Committee recommended contrast ratios for text and
images of text of at least 4.5:1. The draft includes a requirement that
text be easily resizable for consistency with WCAG 2.0 which the Board
is considering.
Navigation and Orientation (505)
In this draft section the Board is considering addressing
navigation and orientation and stems from the current standards but
includes new requirements regarding link purpose in context, headings,
and labels. The draft contains new requirements which the Board is
considering which state that the purpose of each link shall be
determinable from the link text alone, or from the link text together
with it's programmatically determined link text, unless the author
intends the purpose of the link to be ambiguous. The reason for this
requirement is to allow users to understand the purpose of each link so
they can determine whether they want to follow the link. In addition,
the Committee report included an advisory note recommending that
specifications for document titles (505.2) apply not just to frames, as
in the current standards, but broadly to all document types. The Board
also has included this provision as a requirement for greater
consistency with WCAG 2.0.
Readability (506)
This draft provision which the Board is considering is new and
requires that the language of documents and changes in language be
identified. It is consistent with WCAG 2.0.
Input Assistance (507)
This draft provision is consistent with requirements in the current
standards for web based forms but has been revised to apply to all
types of forms.
Compatible Technologies (508)
In this new draft section the Board is considering requiring that
content using mark up languages, such as XML or HTML, use that language
according to specification when creating electronic content so that
user agents, such as assistive technology like screen readers, will be
able to properly interpret and read the content. The Committee noted
that a screen reader may be unable to properly interpret content which
has been improperly coded, so this provision is intended to address
that issue. The Committee recommended this addition as an advisory
(non-mandatory) provision, but the Board is considering the addition as
a requirement to better harmonize the draft with WCAG 2.0.
Chapter 6: Synchronized Media Content and Players
Chapter 6 addresses audio and visual electronic content as well as
players of that content. Other forms of electronic content are
addressed in Chapter 4 (Platforms, Applications, and Interactive
Content) and Chapter 5 (Electronic Documents). In order to address the
broader range of content now in use, references to ``multimedia video''
have been replaced by the term ``synchronized media,'' as recommended
by the Committee. The Board recognizes that while much of the draft
maintains a functional approach to the requirements, Chapters 6 through
9 adopt a more product oriented approach.
Question 21: The Board seeks comment on whether this proposed
approach is successful in making the document more understandable and
useful. The Board welcomes alternatives to this organizational
approach.
Video or Audio Content With Interactive Elements (602)
This is a new provision which the Board is considering to address
technology that allows users to interact with video or audio content.
It was recommended by the Committee to address a new development in
technology that occurred after the current standards were issued.
Captions and Transcripts for Audio Content (603)
This draft provision is derived substantively from the current
standards but has been reorganized for clarity. It
[[Page 13465]]
distinguishes pre-recorded content from real-time content and audio-
only content from synchronized media.
Question 22: The Board is interested in comments on whether there
is a voluntary consensus standard which could address some issues
related to captioning quality, such as the degree of synchronization
required and an allowable error rate.
Video Description and Transcripts for Video Content (604)
The term ``video description'' was recommended by the Committee to
replace the term ``audio description.'' Video description is used to
refer to the process whereby visual content is made accessible by the
insertion of verbal or auditory description of on-screen visuals
intended to describe important visual details. ``Video description'' is
the preferred terminology.
This draft provision derives substantively from the current
standards, but has been reorganized for clarity. It distinguishes pre-
recorded content from real-time content and visual-only content from
synchronized media.
The Board is considering adding a new provision on multiple visual
areas of focus to address a problem experienced by persons with
disabilities when there are multiple, simultaneous sources of
information and data being provided on-screen. People with disabilities
may miss some of the information displayed simultaneously on a screen,
when some, but not all, of the information is described. A typical
example is text on screen that states the name and title of the person
speaking, but the text is not included in the main audio output. This
provision is intended to address that concern.
The Board departed from a Committee recommendation for video
description of pre-recorded content by keeping it as an unconditional
requirement, consistent with the current standards. The Committee
recommended an option for providing a text description of video content
where space is not available in the main program for synchronized video
descriptions. However, new technology for ``extended description'' may
support conformance to this provision without fundamentally altering
pre-recorded synchronized media. Extended description allows users to
pause a video to listen to a description and resume playing the video.
Caption Processing Technology (605)
This draft provision addresses technologies that display and
process captions and is distinct from provisions for caption content
(603). The Committee recognized that current audio visual players and
displays may be separate components of a larger system.
Video Description Processing Technology (606)
This draft provision addresses technologies that play and process
video descriptions and is distinct from requirements for video
description of content (604). It is substantively consistent with the
current standards but specifies distinct provisions to be followed for
both analog signal tuners and digital television tuners.
User Controls for Captions and Video Description (607)
This draft provision covers user controls for captions as well as
video descriptions and differs from the current standards which only
address video description controls and are not as comprehensive in
scope. As recommended by the Committee, this provision addresses on-
screen menus, a new technology not addressed by the current standards.
Audio Track and Volume Control (608)
This is a new provision being considered by the Board to address
the issue of background audio as a barrier to understanding speech in
video content. It reflects the new digital television standard that
allows separating audio content into separate tracks. Rather than
applying a requirement on content authoring, this provision requires
ICT that displays and processes synchronized media to allow user
adjustment and selection for multi-channel videos.
Question 23: The Board seeks comment on any impact this approach
may have on manufacturers of hardware or software for audio video
players.
Chapter 7: Hardware Aspects of ICT
This chapter covers those features of ICT relating to hardware. The
requirements of this chapter derive from provisions for self contained
closed products, desktop and portable computers, and telecommunication
products in the current standards, as well as provisions for output,
display, and control functions in the guidelines. The Committee sought
to cover all requirements specifically related to hardware in one
chapter.
Reach Ranges for Installed or Free-Standing ICT (702)
The Committee recommended that specifications for reach ranges in
the current ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines, which address both
forward and side reach ranges, be referenced due to technologies that
may require a variety of approaches. This is a change from the current
standards which only addressed side reach ranges. In addition, the ADA
and ABA Accessibility Guidelines specify a maximum side reach height
that is lower than the maximum height specified in the current
standards (48 inches maximum instead of 54 inches).
Standard Connections (703)
This provision derives from the Committee report and current
standards and addresses reach ranges for free-standing ICT. The Board
is considering modifying the provision by replacing references to
``slots, ports and connectors,'' with the term ``connection points''
which encompasses a wider variety of possible ways of connecting to
devices, such as infrared and Bluetooth.
Question 24: The Board seeks comment on whether this change in
terminology is sufficient, or if it will result in any confusion or
unintended implementation issues. Should this term be defined?
Text, Images of Text, and Symbols for Product Use (704)
This is a new provision that would require that when text, images
of text, and symbols are provided on hardware for product use, they
must provide one mode of operation which provides the same information
in electronic format, unless an exception applies. Without the addition
of a provision to make the information available electronically,
someone who is blind would not be able to independently read
information on the bottom of products such as symbols describing
various ports on a portable computer. In addition, text, images of
text, and symbols must conform to minimum requirements for size and
contrast ratio. This provision was recommended by the Committee. The
Board added measurement specifications on text attributes, derived from
the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines.
Chapter 8: Audio Output From Hardware
Following recommendations from the Committee to orient requirements
to functions of products, the Board has organized criteria for audio
output functionality into a separate chapter. As structured, this
chapter is a departure from the current standards and guidelines which
located volume control provisions in separate sections associated with
different product types. The provisions of this chapter address
[[Page 13466]]
the audio output functionality of products such as telephones and
information kiosks, as well as media products, such as portable music
players.
Interactive ICT Within Reach (802)
This draft provision being considered by the Board applies to those
products that have audio output, are adjustable by the user, and are
within the reach of the user, such as telephones and information
kiosks. Consistent with a Committee recommendation for audio
connection, this provision requires products with audio output to
provide a means of listening through a handset, jack, or connection
adaptor. It would also require that features be provided to control
volume through hardware such as jacks and speakers, as well as software
controls for audio.
ICT Typically Held to the Ear (803)
The Board is considering this provision to address requirements for
volume gain in products with audio output (either two way voice
communication or one way audio output), that are typically held to the
ear. It specifies a minimum adjustable gain level of 18 dB, with a
baseline to ensure measurability and consistency among products. These
specifications differ from the current standards and guidelines (which
require a gain adjustable up to a minimum of 20 dB but do not specify a
baseline). In addition, the provision differs from the recommendation
of the Committee.
The Committee recommended harmonization with the current FCC Part
68 regulation, which requires a gain adjustable up to a minimum of 18
dB gain for analog telephones and a 15 dB minimum gain for other
telephones. However, FCC Part 68 specifies 12 dB as an allowable
minimum gain. The Board is concerned that a product designed with a 12
dB or 15 dB minimum gain will not sufficiently meet the needs of
individuals with hearing impairments.
This section also includes requirements for incremental volume
control and automatic reset that are consistent with the current
standards and guidelines. An exception for reset manual override was
added at the recommendation of the Committee and is consistent with FCC
policy (see FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 01-578, March 5, 2001;
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-578A1.doc).
The requirements specified in the FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order have
been included in the draft.
Requirements for magnetic coupling and minimized interference
(803.5) are also included in this section and are consistent with the
standards and guidelines. The Board departed from the recommendations
of the Committee by including a requirement for magnetic coupling to
apply to headsets because they are part of telecommunications products.
The draft extends the minimized interference requirement to ICT that
may not necessarily be used for telecommunications, such as wands used
for listening to museum audio tours.
Question 25: The Board is interested in comment on these
provisions, including information on the benefits and costs associated
with the proposed requirement for volume gain. In addition, the Board
seeks comment on whether the specified volume gain for cellular and
landline telephones should be consistent since the amplification needs
of people who are hard of hearing are the same for both products.
ICT Not Typically Held to the Ear (804)
This section addresses volume gain, incremental volume control, and
automatic reset in products that are not typically held to the ear. The
Board departed from Committee recommendations and did not differentiate
requirements for products designed for personal use, such as speaker
telephones, from products designed for communal use, such as
information transaction machines.
Chapter 9: Conversation Functionality and Controls
This chapter addresses products that support a telecommunications
conversation, whether it is in an audio, text, or video format.
Real-Time Text Functionality (902)
This section contains detailed specifications being considered by
the Board for real-time text (RTT) and for hardware and software
systems that support its functionality. Products covered include
terminals, such as telephones, a