Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and Guidelines, 10879-10948 [2015-03467]

Agencies

• Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10879-10948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03467]



[[Page 10879]]

Vol. 80

Friday,

No. 39

February 27, 2015

Part III





Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194





Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and 
Guidelines; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 10880]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194

[Docket No. ATBCB-2015-0002]
RIN 3014-AA37


Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and 
Guidelines

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board or Board), is proposing to revise and update, in a single 
document, both its standards for electronic and information technology 
developed, procured, maintained, or used by federal agencies covered by 
section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and its guidelines for 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment covered by 
Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934. The proposed revisions 
and updates to the section 508-based standards and section 255-based 
guidelines are intended to ensure that information and communication 
technology covered by the respective statutes is accessible to and 
usable by individuals with disabilities.

DATES: Submit comments by May 28, 2015. Two hearings will be held on 
the proposed rule on:
    1. March 5, 2015, 9:30 to 11:30 a.m., San Diego, CA and
    2. March 11, 2015, 9:30 to 11:30 a.m., Washington, DC.
    To preregister to testify at either of the hearings, contact Kathy 
Johnson at (202) 272-0041 (voice), (202) 272-0082 (TTY), or 
board.gov">johnson@access-board.gov.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Regulations.gov ID 
for this docket is ATBCB-2015-0002.
     Email: board.gov">docket@access-board.gov. Include docket number 
ATBCB-2015-0002 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: 202-272-0081.
     Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Technical and 
Information Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, 
Washington, DC 20004-1111.
    All comments, including any personal information provided, will be 
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and be available 
for public viewing.
    The hearing locations are:
    1. San Diego, CA: Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel (Mission Beach A & 
B, 3rd floor), One Market Place, San Diego, CA 92101.
    2. Washington, DC: Access Board conference room, 1331 F Street NW., 
Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.
    Witnesses can testify in person at the hearing in San Diego. 
Witnesses can testify in person or by telephone at the hearing in 
Washington, DC. Copies of the rule will not be available at the 
hearings. Call-in information and a communication access real-time 
translation (CART) web streaming link for the Washington, DC hearing 
will be posted on the Access Board's Web site at https://www.access-board.gov/ictrefresh. The hearings will be accessible to persons with 
disabilities. An assistive listening system, communication access real-
time translation, and sign language interpreters will be provided. 
Persons attending the meetings are requested to refrain from using 
perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other 
participants (see www.accessboard.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for 
more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Creagan, Access Board, 1331 F 
Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone: (202) 
272-0016 (voice) or (202) 272-0074 (TTY). Email address: board.gov">508@access-board.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Executive Summary
III. Statutory Background
IV. Rulemaking History
V. Major Issues
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis
VII. Effective Date
VIII. Regulatory Process Matters

    In this preamble, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board is referred to as ``Access Board,'' ``Board,'' ``we,'' 
or ``our.''

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Access Board encourages all persons interested in the 
rulemaking to submit comments on this proposed rule, as well as the 
preliminary assessment of its estimated benefits and costs. While the 
Board invites comment on any aspect of our proposed rule and regulatory 
assessment, we particularly seek information and data in response to 
the questions posed throughout this preamble. Instructions for 
submitting and viewing comments are provided under the Addresses 
heading above. The Board will consider all timely comments and may 
change the proposed rule based on such comments.

II. Executive Summary

Purpose and Legal Authority

    We are proposing to update our existing Electronic and Information 
Technology Accessibility Standards under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (``508 Standards''), as well as our 
Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines under Section 255 of 
the Communications Act of 1934 (``255 Guidelines''). Since the 
guidelines and standards were issued in 2000 and 1998 respectively, 
there has been a technological revolution, accompanied by an ever-
expanding use of technology and a proliferation of accessibility 
standards globally. Technological advances have resulted in the 
widespread use of multifunction devices that call into question the 
ongoing utility of the product-by-product approach used in the Access 
Board's existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. For example, since 
the existing 508 Standards were issued in 2000, mobile phones moved 
from devices with voice-only capability, to so-called ``smartphones'' 
offering voice, text, and video communications. Desktop computers are 
no longer the only information processing hardware: Mobile devices and 
tablets, which have very different input and output characteristics, 
can typically process vast amounts of electronic information and 
function like desktop computers or telephones. In recognition of these 
converging technologies, one of the primary purposes of the proposed 
rule is to replace the current product-based approach with requirements 
based on functionality, and, thereby, ensure that accessibility for 
people with disabilities keeps pace with advances in electronic and 
information technology.
    Additionally, a number of voluntary consensus standards have been 
developed by standards organizations worldwide over the past decade. 
Examples of these standards include: The Web Accessibility Initiative's 
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, EN 301 549 V1.1.1 
(2014-02), ``Accessibility requirements for public procurement of ICT 
products and services in Europe,'' and the Human Factors Ergonomics 
Society's ANSI/HFES 200.2 (2008) ergonomics specifications for the 
design of accessible software. The harmonization with such 
international standards and guidelines creates a larger marketplace

[[Page 10881]]

for accessibility solutions, thereby attracting more offerings and 
increasing the likelihood of commercial availability of accessible 
information and communication technology options.
    These dramatic changes have led the Access Board to propose 
revisions to the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. We are 
proposing to update the two sets of regulatory provisions jointly to 
ensure consistency in accessibility across the spectrum of 
communication and electronic and information technologies and products. 
The proposed standards and guidelines would support the access needs of 
individuals with disabilities, while also taking into account the costs 
to federal agencies and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment 
of providing accessible electronic information and communication 
technology.
    The term ``information and communication technology'' (ICT) is used 
widely throughout this preamble and the proposed rule. Unless otherwise 
noted, it is intended to broadly encompass electronic and information 
technology covered by Section 508, as well as telecommunications 
products, interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) products, 
and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) covered by Section 255. Examples 
of ICT include computers, information kiosks and transaction machines, 
telecommunications equipment, multifunction office machines, software, 
Web sites, and electronic documents.
    This proposed rule would eliminate 36 CFR part 1193 in its 
entirety, revise 36 CFR 1194, and add three new appendices to Part 1194 
containing the Application and Scoping Requirements for the 508 
Standards (Appendix A), the Application and Scoping Requirements for 
the 255 Guidelines (Appendix B), and new Technical Requirements that 
apply to both Section 508-covered and Section 255-covered ICT. In this 
preamble, the Board refers to specific provisions of the proposed new 
508 Standards and 255 Guidelines by their proposed new section numbers: 
E101-103 (508 Chapter 1: Application and Administration); E201-208 (508 
Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements); C101-103 (255 Chapter 1: Application 
and Administration); C201-206 (255 Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements); 
301-302 (Chapter 3: Functional Performance Criteria); 401-413 (Chapter 
4: Hardware); 501-504 (Chapter 5: Software); and 601-603 (Support 
Documentation and Services).
    Legal Authority for 508 Standards: Section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (hereafter, ``Section 508''), as amended, 29 
U.S.C. 794d, mandates that federal agencies ``develop, procure, 
maintain, or use'' ICT in a manner that ensures federal employees with 
disabilities have comparable access to and use of such information and 
data relative to other federal employees, unless doing so would impose 
an undue burden. The Rehabilitation Act also requires federal agencies 
to ensure that members of the public with disabilities have comparable 
access to publicly-available information and services unless doing so 
would impose an undue burden on the agency. In accordance with section 
508(a)(2)(A), the Access Board must publish standards that define 
electronic and information technology along with the technical and 
functional performance criteria necessary for accessibility, and 
periodically review and amend the standards as appropriate. When the 
Access Board revises its existing 508 Standards (whether to keep up 
with technological changes or otherwise), the Rehabilitation Act 
mandates that, within six months, both the Federal Acquisition 
Regulatory Council (FAR Council) and federal agencies incorporate these 
revised standards into their respective acquisition regulations and 
procurement policies and directives. Thus, with respect to procurement-
related matters, the Access Board's 508 Standards are not self-
enforcing; rather, these standards become enforceable when adopted by 
the FAR Council and federal agencies.
    Legal Authority for 255 Guidelines: Section 255 of the 
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 255 (hereafter, ``Section 255''), 
requires telecommunications equipment and services to be accessible to 
and usable by individuals with disabilities, where readily achievable. 
``Readily achievable'' is defined in the statute as ``easily 
accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or 
expense.'' In determining whether an access feature is readily 
achievable, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has 
exclusive authority over enforcement under Section 255, has directed 
telecommunications equipment manufacturers and service providers to 
weigh the nature and cost of that feature against the individual 
company's overall financial resources, taking into account such factors 
as the type, size, and nature of its business operation. Under Section 
255, the Access Board is required to develop guidelines for the 
accessibility of telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment in conjunction with the FCC and to review and update the 
guidelines periodically. The FCC is responsible for enforcing Section 
255 and issuing implementing regulations; it is not bound to adopt the 
Access Board's guidelines as its own or to use them as minimum 
requirements.

Summary of Key Provisions

A. Proposed 508 Standards
    The proposed standards replace the current product-based approach 
with a functionality-based approach. The proposed technical 
requirements, which are organized along the lines of ICT functionality, 
provide standards to ensure that covered hardware, software, electronic 
content, and support documentation and services are accessible to 
people with disabilities. In addition, the proposed standards include 
functional performance criteria, which are outcome-based provisions for 
cases in which the proposed technical requirements do not address one 
or more features of ICT. The four major changes in the proposed 508 
Standards are:
     Broad application of WCAG 2.0: The proposed rule would 
incorporate by reference the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 
(WCAG) 2.0, a voluntary consensus standard developed by ICT industry 
representatives and other experts. It would also make WCAG 2.0 Success 
Criteria applicable not only to content on the ``World Wide Web'' 
(hereafter, Web), but also to non-Web electronic documents and software 
(e.g., word processing documents, portable document format files, and 
project management software). By applying a single set of requirements 
to Web sites, electronic documents, and software, this proposed 
provision would adapt the 508 Standards to reflect the newer 
multifunction technologies (e.g., smartphones that have 
telecommunications functions, video cameras, and computer-like data 
processing capabilities) and address the accessibility challenges that 
these technologies pose for individuals with disabilities.
     Delineation of covered electronic ``content'': The 
proposed rule would also specify that all types of public facing 
content, as well as eight enumerated categories of non-public facing 
content that communicate agency official business, would have to be 
accessible, with ``content'' encompassing all forms of electronic 
information and data. The existing standards require federal agencies 
to make electronic information and data accessible, but do not 
delineate clearly the scope of covered information and data; as a 
result, document accessibility has been inconsistent across federal

[[Page 10882]]

agencies. By focusing on public facing content and certain types of 
agency official communications that are not public facing, the proposed 
rule would bring needed clarity to the scope of electronic content 
covered by the 508 Standards and, thereby, help federal agencies make 
electronic content accessible more consistently.
     Expanded interoperability requirements: The existing 
standards require ICT to be compatible with assistive technology--that 
is, hardware or software that increases or maintains functional 
capabilities of individuals with disabilities (e.g., screen magnifiers 
or refreshable braille displays). But, because this requirement has 
given rise to ambiguity in application, the proposed rule would provide 
more specificity about how operating systems, software development 
toolkits, and software applications should interact with assistive 
technology. These proposed requirements would allow assistive 
technology users to take full advantage of the functionalities that ICT 
products provide.
     Requirement for RTT functionality: The proposed standards 
would require real-time text (RTT) functionality wherever an ICT 
product provides real-time, two-way voice communication. RTT is defined 
in the proposed rule as text that is transmitted character by character 
as it is being typed. An RTT recipient can read a message while it is 
being written, without waiting for the message to be completed; this is 
different from other message technologies such as ``short messaging 
service'', or SMS, which transmit the entire message only after typing 
is complete. This proposed requirement would have an impact on federal 
agencies as well as ICT providers, federal employees, and members of 
the public.
B. Proposed 255 Guidelines
    Given the trend toward convergence of technologies and ICT 
networks, the Access Board is updating the 255 Guidelines at the same 
time that it is updating the 508 Standards. The existing guidelines 
include detailed requirements for the accessibility, usability, and 
compatibility of telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment. For example, the guidelines require input, output, display, 
control, and mechanical functions to be accessible to individuals with 
disabilities. The compatibility requirements focus on the need for 
standard connectors, compatibility of controls with prosthetics, and 
TTY compatibility. The guidelines define ``usable'' as providing access 
to information about how to use a product, and direct that 
instructions, product information, documentation, and technical support 
for users with disabilities be functionally equivalent to that provided 
to individuals without disabilities. The proposed guidelines include 
many non-substantive revisions to the existing requirements for clarity 
along with a few important new provisions. Two notable proposed 
additions to the proposed 255 Guidelines are:
     Requirement for RTT functionality: Just as the proposed 
508 Standards would require federal agencies to offer RTT functionality 
in certain ICT, the proposed 255 Guidelines would require the 
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment to provide RTT 
functionality wherever a telecommunications product provides real-time, 
two-way voice communication. This proposed requirement would allow 
people who are deaf or hard of hearing to have faster and more natural 
conversations than the current text-messaging functionality.
     Application of WCAG 2.0 to electronic documents: The 
proposed 255 Guidelines would preserve the current requirement that 
when a document is provided in a non-electronic format, alternate 
formats (such as large-print or braille) usable by individuals with 
vision impairments need to be provided. The proposed guidelines also 
would require documentation in electronic formats--including Web-based 
self-service support and electronic documents--to conform to all Level 
A and AA Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0 or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1). This 
proposal for accessible electronic support documentation is derived 
from the existing guidelines, but would newly require compliance with 
WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1. This proposal is intended to address the problem 
that many online product (or support) documents for telecommunications 
equipment are inaccessible to individuals with visual impairments.

Summary of Preliminary Regulatory Analysis

    Consistent with the obligation that federal agencies under 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 propose and adopt regulations only 
upon a reasoned determination that benefits justify costs, the proposed 
rule has been evaluated from a benefit-cost perspective in a 
preliminary regulatory impact analysis (Preliminary RIA) prepared by 
the Board's consulting economic firm. The focus of the Preliminary RIA 
is to define and, where possible, quantify and monetize the potential 
economic benefits and costs of the proposed 508 Standards and 255 
Guidelines. We summarize its methodology and results below; a complete 
copy of this regulatory assessment is available on the Access Board's 
Web site (www.access-board.gov), as well as the federal government's 
online rulemaking portal (www.regulations.gov).
    To estimate likely incremental compliance costs attributable to the 
proposed rule, the Preliminary RIA estimates, quantifies, and monetizes 
costs in the following broad areas: (1) Costs to federal agencies and 
contractors related to policy development, employee training, 
development of accessible ICT, evaluation of ICT, and creation or 
remediation electronic documents; and (2) costs to manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment of 
ensuring that that their respective Web sites and electronic support 
documentation conform to accessibility standards, including WCAG 2.0.
    On the benefits side, the Preliminary RIA estimates likely 
incremental benefits by monetizing the value of three categories of 
benefits expected to accrue from the proposed 508 Standards: (a) 
Increased productivity of federal employees with certain disabilities 
who are expected to benefit from improved ICT accessibility; (b) time 
saved by members of the public with certain disabilities when using 
more accessible federal Web sites; and (c) reduced phone calls to 
federal agencies as members of the public with certain disabilities 
shift their inquiries and transactions online due to improved 
accessibility of federal Web sites. The Preliminary RIA, for analytical 
purposes, defines the beneficiary population as persons with vision, 
hearing, and speech disabilities, as well as those with manipulation, 
reach, or strength limitations. The Preliminary RIA does not formally 
quantify or monetize benefits accruing from the proposed 255 Guidelines 
due to insufficient data and methodological constraints.
    Table 1 below summarizes the results from the Preliminary RIA with 
respect to the likely monetized benefits and costs, on an annualized 
basis, from the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. All 
monetized benefits and costs are incremental to the applicable 
baseline, and were estimated for a 10-year time horizon using discount 
rates of 7 and 3 percent.

[[Page 10883]]



          Table 1--Annualized Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs Under the Proposed Rule, 2015-2024
                                                [In 2015 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  7% discount rate (in     3% discount rate (in
                                                                       millions)                millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized incremental benefits to federal agencies, members of                    $69.1                    $67.5
 the public with vision disabilities (under proposed 508
 Standards)...................................................
Monetized incremental costs to federal agencies (under                           $155.0                   $146.8
 proposed 508 Standards)......................................
Monetized incremental costs to telecommunications equipment                       $10.6                     $9.8
 manufacturers (under proposed 255 Guidelines)................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Preliminary RIA monetizes likely incremental benefits and 
costs attributable to the proposed rule, this represents only part of 
the regulatory picture. Today, though ICT is now woven into the very 
fabric of everyday life, millions of Americans with disabilities often 
find themselves unable to use--or use effectively--computers, mobile 
devices, federal agency Web sites, or electronic content. The Board's 
existing standards and guidelines are greatly in need of a ``refresh'' 
to keep up with technological changes over the past fifteen years. The 
Board expects this proposed rule to be a major step toward ensuring 
that ICT is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities--
both in the federal workplace and society generally. Indeed, much--if 
not most--of the significant benefits expected to accrue from the 
proposed rule are difficult if not impossible to quantify, including: 
Greater social equality, human dignity, and fairness. Each of these 
values is explicitly recognized by Executive Order 13563 as important 
qualitative considerations in regulatory analyses.
    Moreover, American companies that manufacture telecommunications 
equipment and ICT-related products would likely derive significant 
benefits from the harmonized accessibility standards. Given the 
relative lack of existing national and globally-recognized standards 
for accessibility of mobile technologies, telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers would greatly benefit from harmonization of the 255 
guidelines with consensus standards. Similar benefits would likely 
accrue more generally to all ICT-related products as a result of 
harmonization.
    It is also equally important to note that some potentially 
substantial incremental costs arising from the proposed rule are not 
evaluated in the Preliminary RIA, either because such costs could not 
be quantified or monetized (due to lack of data or for other 
methodological reasons) or are inherently qualitative. The impact of 
the proposed 255 Guidelines on telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers is, as the Preliminary RIA notes, particularly difficult 
to quantify due to lack of cost data and a dynamic telecommunications 
marketplace. As a consequence, for example, the Preliminary RIA thus 
neither quantifies nor monetizes potential compliance costs related to 
the proposed requirement that ICT providing real-time, two-way voice 
communication support RTT functionality.
    The Access Board welcomes comments on all aspects of the 
Preliminary RIA to improve the assumptions, methodology, and estimates 
of the incremental benefits and costs of the proposed rule. The full 
Preliminary RIA posted on the Board's Web site poses numerous 
regulatory assessment-related questions or areas for public comment, 
and interested parties are encouraged to review that document and 
provide responsive data and other information. In addition, the Board 
sets forth below--in the section providing a more in-depth discussion 
of the Preliminary RIA--several additional questions on which it seeks 
input. See Section VIII.A.6 (Regulatory Process Matters--Preliminary 
Regulatory Impact Analysis--Conclusion).

III. Statutory Background

    Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 
(hereafter, ``Section 508''), calls for the Access Board to issue and 
publish standards setting forth the technical and functional 
performance criteria necessary to implement the Act's accessibility 
requirements for electronic and information technology. The statute 
also provides that the Board shall periodically review and, as 
appropriate, amend the standards to reflect technological advances or 
changes in electronic and information technology. This proposed rule 
uses the term ``508 Standards'' to refer to the standards called for by 
the Rehabilitation Act.
    Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(hereafter, ``Section 255''), tasks the Access Board with the 
development of guidelines for accessibility of telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment, and provides that the Board 
shall review and update the guidelines periodically. Note that 
reference is made here to ``Section 255 of the Communications Act,'' 
rather than the commonly used reference to ``Section 255 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996'' because the Telecommunications Act 
does not itself contain a section 255. Instead, the Telecommunications 
Act amended the Communications Act by adding a new section 255 to it. 
Therefore, for the sake of simplicity and accuracy, this proposed rule 
uses the term ``255 Guidelines'' to refer to the guidelines called for 
by the amended Communications Act.
    As noted in the Summary above, this proposed rule seeks to revise 
and update both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines in a single 
rulemaking. The Access Board is taking this approach because we feel 
that the two sets of requirements, by virtue of their subject matter, 
are inextricably linked from a regulatory and policy perspective.

IV. Rulemaking History

A. Existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines (1998-2000)

    We issued the 255 Guidelines in 1998, 63 FR 5608 (Feb. 3, 1998), 
and these are available on our Web site at www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-telecommunications-act-guidelines/section-255-guidelines. The Board's 
508 Standards, issued in 2000, 65 FR 80500 (Dec. 21, 2000), are 
available at www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/section-508-standards. They were codified in 36 CFR part 1193 and 36 CFR part 1194, 
respectively. In this preamble, all citations to 36 CFR part 1193 refer 
to the existing 255 Guidelines in force since 1998, while all citations 
to 36 CFR part 1194 refer to the existing 508 Standards in force since 
2000.
    The existing 508 Standards require federal agencies to ensure that 
persons

[[Page 10884]]

with disabilities--namely, federal employees with disabilities and 
members of the public with disabilities--have comparable access to, and 
use of, electronic and information technology (regardless of the type 
of medium) absent a showing of undue burden. See 36 CFR part 1194. 
Among other things, these standards: Define key terms (such as 
``electronic and information technology'' and ``undue burden''); 
establish technical requirements and functional performance criteria 
for covered information and technologies; require agencies to document 
undue burden determinations when procuring covered products; and 
mandate accessibility of support documentation and services. Generally 
speaking, the existing 508 Standards take a product-based regulatory 
approach in that technical requirements for electronic and information 
technology are grouped by product type: Software applications and 
operating systems; Web-based intranet and Internet information and 
applications; telecommunications products; self-contained, closed 
products; and desktop and portable computers.
    The existing 255 Guidelines require manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment to ensure 
that new and substantially upgraded existing equipment is accessible 
to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities when readily 
achievable. See 36 CFR part 1193. The existing guidelines, as with the 
508 Standards, define key terms (such as ``telecommunications 
equipment'' and ``readily achievable'') and establish technical 
requirements for covered equipment, software, and support 
documentation. These guidelines also require manufacturers of covered 
equipment to consider inclusion of individuals with disabilities in 
their respective processes for product design, testing, trials, or 
market research.

B. Advisory Committee and Final Report (2006-2008)

    In the years following our initial promulgation of the 508 
Standards and 255 Guidelines, technology continued to evolve at a rapid 
pace. Pursuant to our statutory mandate, the Board deemed it necessary 
and appropriate to review and update the 508 Standards and 255 
Guidelines in order to make them consistent with one another and 
reflective of technological changes. The Board formed the 
Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory 
Committee (hereafter, ``Advisory Committee'') in 2006 to review the 
existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines and recommend amendments. The 
Advisory Committee's forty-one members comprised a broad cross-section 
of stakeholders representing industry, disability groups, and 
government agencies. The Advisory Committee also included 
representatives from the European Commission, Canada, Australia, and 
Japan. The Advisory Committee recognized the importance of 
standardization across markets worldwide and coordinated its work with 
standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and abroad, such as the World Wide 
Web Consortium (W3C[supreg]), and with the European Commission. The 
Advisory Committee addressed a range of issues, including new or 
convergent technologies, market forces, and international 
harmonization.
    On April 3, 2008, the Advisory Committee presented us with its 
report (hereafter, ``TEITAC Report'') recommending amendments to the 
508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. The TEITAC Report is available at 
www.access-board.gov/teitac-report.

C. First Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2010)

1. General
    Based on the TEITAC Report, the Board developed an Advance Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in 2010 (2010 ANPRM) to update the 508 Standards 
as well as the 255 Guidelines. On the recommendation of the Advisory 
Committee, the Board used the phrase ``Information and Communication 
Technology'' (ICT) to collectively refer to the products addressed by 
the rules. A complete discussion of this proposed change is found in 
Section VI.B (Section-by-Section Analysis--508 Standards: Application 
and Scoping--E103), and Section VI.C (Section-by-Section Analysis--255 
Guidelines: Application and Scoping--C103). The 2010 ANPRM was 
published in the Federal Register, 75 FR 13457 (March 22, 2010), and is 
available at www.access-board.gov/ict2010anprm.
2. Structure
    The 2010 ANPRM began with two separate introductory chapters. ``508 
Chapter 1: Application and Administration,'' contained provisions 
preceded by the letter ``E,'' and included scoping, application, and 
definition provisions particular to the 508 Standards. ``255 Chapter 1: 
Application and Administration,'' contained provisions preceded by the 
letter ``C,'' and included similar provisions particular to the 255 
Guidelines. The 2010 ANPRM also included, in Chapter 2, a common set of 
functional performance criteria for the 508 Standards and the 255 
Guidelines that required ICT to provide access to all functionality in 
at least one of each of ten specified modes. Chapter 3 contained 
technical requirements applicable to features of ICT found across a 
variety of platforms, formats, and media.
    Chapters 4, 5, and 6 all contained technical requirements that were 
closely adapted from the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 
2.0 Success Criteria but rephrased as mandatory requirements. Chapter 4 
addressed platforms, applications, interactive content, and 
applications. Chapter 5 covered access to electronic documents and 
common interactive elements found in content, and Chapter 6 addressed 
access to audio and visual content, as well as players of such content.
    Chapter 7 addressed hardware aspects of ICT, such as standard 
connections and reach ranges. Chapter 8 addressed ICT with audio output 
functionality when that output is necessary to inform, alert, or 
transmit information or data. Chapter 9 addressed ICT supporting real-
time simultaneous conversation in audio, text, or video formats and 
Chapter 10 covered product support documentation and services.
3. Hearings and General Comments
    The Access Board held two public hearings on the 2010 ANPRM--March 
2010 (San Diego, CA) and July 2010 (Washington, DC). We also received 
384 written comments during the comment period. Comments came from 
industry, federal and state governments, foreign and domestic companies 
specializing in information technology, disability advocacy groups, 
manufacturers of hardware and software, trade associations, 
institutions of higher education, research and trade organizations, 
accessibility consultants, assistive technology industry and related 
organizations, and individuals.
    In general, commenters agreed with our approach to addressing the 
accessibility of ICT through functionality rather than discrete product 
types. Commenters also expressed strong support for our efforts to 
update the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, as well as our decision to 
follow the Advisory Committee's recommendation to require harmonization 
with WCAG 2.0. However, many commenters expressed concern that the 2010 
ANPRM was not user-friendly, e.g., that it was too long (at close to 
100 pages), organized in a

[[Page 10885]]

confusing manner, and suffered from some internal inconsistencies. For 
example, commenters noted confusion by virtue of the fact that some 
chapters focused on functional features of accessibility while others 
addressed specific types of technology, or that the meaning of ``ICT'' 
seemed to vary depending on the context of the specific chapter.

D. Second Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2011 ANPRM)

1. General
    Upon reviewing the extensive and detailed comments on the 2010 
ANPRM, the Board realized the need to reorganize the structure of the 
proposed rule. More importantly, we needed to obtain further public 
comment on major issues and harmonize with the European Commission's 
ICT standardization efforts that were already underway at that time. 
Accordingly, the Board issued a second ANPRM (2011 ANPRM) that, as 
discussed in detail below, differed significantly from the 2010 ANPRM 
in terms of both structure and content. The 2011 ANPRM was published in 
the Federal Register, 76 FR 76640 (Dec. 8, 2011), and is also available 
at www.access-board.gov/ict2011anprm.
2. Structure
    In response to public comments on the 2010 ANPRM that the length 
and organization of the document made it unwieldy, the Board 
consolidated and streamlined provisions into six chapters (from ten), 
consolidated advisories, and reduced the page count from close to 100 
to less than 50. The Board also removed scoping and application 
language from the chapters containing technical provisions and 
relocated them to new chapters applicable to Section 508 (508 Chapters 
1 and 2) and Section 255 (255 Chapters 1 and 2) respectively. We 
revised the overall structure of the functional performance criteria so 
that the provisions had parallel structure, and grouped technical 
requirements for similar functions together in the same chapter. To 
address inconsistencies in the 2010 ANPRM, where some chapters focused 
on features of products and others addressed specific types of 
products, the Board standardized its approach by removing references to 
types of products while focusing instead on specific features of 
products. We also removed specific proposed requirements relating to 
Web and non-Web content, documents and user applications, and 
referenced WCAG 2.0 instead.
3. Hearings and General Comments
    Hearings were held in January 2012 in Washington, DC and in March 
2012 in San Diego, CA. Additionally, ninety-one written comments were 
received in response to the 2011 ANPRM. Comments came from industry, 
federal and state governments, foreign and domestic companies 
specializing in information technology, disability advocacy groups, 
manufacturers of hardware and software, trade associations and trade 
organizations, institutions of higher education and research, 
accessibility consultants, assistive technology industry and related 
organizations, and individual stakeholders who did not identify with 
any of these groups.
    In general, commenters continued to agree with our approach to 
address ICT accessibility by focusing on features, rather than discrete 
product types. Commenters supported the conciseness of the proposed 
provisions in the 2011 ANPRM, and asked for further streamlining where 
possible. Comments addressed a variety of other topics, which are 
discussed below in Section IV.E. (Rulemaking History--2010 and 2011 
ANPRMs: Significant Issues), and Section V (Major Issues).

E. 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues

    In this section, the Board collectively reviews the principle 
issues from the 2010 ANPRM and 2011 ANPRM in consolidated fashion.
1. Evolving Approach to Covered Electronic Content
    Nearly two decades have passed since promulgation of the existing 
508 Standards. Since that time, the types of--and uses for--electronic 
documents and other content have grown tremendously. This growth, 
coupled with the fact that the existing standards do not clearly spell 
out the scope of covered electronic content, led to inconsistencies in 
accessibility of electronic data and information across federal 
agencies. One of the goals of this rulemaking is thus to provide 
updated standards for electronic content that clearly delineate the 
accessibility requirements applicable to electronic content.
    In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed that, when federal agencies 
communicate using electronic content, that content would be required to 
comply with the revised 508 Standards when ``(a) an official 
communication by the agency or a representative of the agency to 
federal employees which contains information necessary for them to 
perform their job functions; or (b) an official communication by an 
agency or a representative of the agency to a member of the public, 
which is necessary for them to conduct official business with the 
agency as defined by the agency's mission.'' Many commenters disagreed 
with this approach because, in their view, all agency communications 
would fall into one of the two categories, and therefore no content 
would be exempt. In addition, commenters feared that our approach would 
require each employee to be capable of creating accessible content for 
all of his or her own individual communications. According to the 
commenters, this, in turn, would require costly training without 
necessarily resulting in greater accessibility.
    We responded to these concerns in the 2011 ANPRM by proposing that 
electronic content need be made accessible only if it both communicated 
official agency business to a federal employee or a member of the 
public and fell into one of nine specified categories: (1) Content that 
is public facing; (2) content that is broadly disseminated throughout 
an agency, including templates; (3) letters adjudicating any cause 
within the agency's jurisdiction; (4) internal or external program and 
policy announcements; (5) notices of benefits, program eligibility, and 
employment opportunities and decisions; (6) forms, questionnaires, and 
surveys; (7) emergency notifications; (8) formal acknowledgements and 
receipts; and (9) educational and training materials. This included all 
formats of official communications by agencies, including Web pages, 
postings on social media, and email. Our intent was to clarify what 
information and data would be required to be accessible without placing 
an undue burden on government communications and operations.
    Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM generally supported this approach. 
However, one commenter expressed concern that limiting coverage of 
electronic content to certain specific categories could lead to a non-
inclusive work environment for employees and that agencies would make 
accessible only that content covered by the 508 Standards to the 
exclusion of anything else. Some commenters recommended that the Board 
associate templates with forms in one category and differentiate that 
category from the category containing questionnaires and surveys. 
Several commenters--including federal agencies--found the language in 
the provision on content that was ``broadly disseminated'' to be vague 
and

[[Page 10886]]

overbroad, and requested that this provision be either revised or 
withdrawn.
    Another key issue addressed in the Board's advance notices of 
proposed rulemaking was the scope of exceptions to covered content. In 
the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed an exception for content stored 
solely for archival purposes or retained solely to preserve the exact 
image of the original hard copy. We retained that exception in the 2011 
ANPRM, but added a second exception for ``works in progress and drafts 
that are not public facing and that are intended for limited internal 
distribution.''
    Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM raised many questions as to how those 
exceptions would apply. For example, some commenters expressed 
confusion about the exception for archival materials. Many commenters 
viewed ``archival'' as referring to content preserved in agencies' 
internal information technology content management systems, rather than 
public records preservation generally, and asked us to clarify what the 
Board meant by the term. Other commenters expressed concern that 
otherwise accessible materials might be rendered inaccessible during 
the archiving process.
    In addition to making significant revisions in the 2011 ANPRM to 
covered content under the proposed 508 Standards, the Board also 
amended our approach to content subject to the 255 Guidelines. We 
proposed that ``electronic content integral to the use of ICT'' covered 
by the 255 Guidelines must conform to Level A and Level AA Success 
Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages in WCAG 
2.0, as incorporated by reference in C102 (Referenced Standards). The 
Board received no comments on this provision in the 2011 ANPRM.
    In this proposed rule, the Board clarifies areas of confusion and 
makes various other changes to the scope of covered electronic content. 
We discuss our approach in further detail in Section V.A (Major 
Issues--Electronic Content), Section VI.B (Section-by-Section 
Analysis--508 Standards: Application and Scoping--E205), and Section 
VI.C (Section-by-Section Analysis--Technical Requirements--C203).
2. Treatment of WCAG 2.0
    The Access Board and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)--the 
leading international standards organization for the World Wide Web--
share a rich history of collaboration on guidelines for Web site 
accessibility. The existing 508 Standards and WCAG 1.0 were under 
development around the same time period in the late 1990s; WCAG 1.0 was 
finalized in May 1999, and the existing 508 Standards shortly 
thereafter in December 2000. The existing 508 Standards, Sec.  
1194.22--which addresses ``Web-based Intranet and Internet Information 
and Applications''--has two endnotes, the first of which notes the 
Board's view that eleven out of our sixteen provisions of the standards 
are consistent with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0 
Priority 1 Checkpoints. The remaining five provisions in that section 
do not have close analogs to WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 checkpoints, but they 
strongly influenced the development of the next iteration of WCAG, WCAG 
2.0.
    As part of the 508 Standards refresh, the Advisory Committee 
recommended--and the Access Board agreed--that closer harmonization 
with WCAG 2.0 was necessary to promote greater accessibility. 
Consequently, in the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed to include most 
Level A and Level AA WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. However, rather than 
using the text of relevant portions of WCAG 2.0 verbatim, the Board 
restated those Success Criteria in mandatory language thought to be 
better suited for a regulatory environment. Comments to the 2010 ANPRM 
identified three major problems with that approach. First, many 
expressed concern that rephrasing WCAG 2.0's Success Criteria would 
introduce discrepancies in, and fragmentation of, the 508 Standards. 
Second, other commenters feared that rephrasing of success criteria, 
rather than incorporating WCAG 2.0 by reference, would make dynamic 
linkages in the online version of WCAG 2.0 to important supplementary 
information less available to the reader. These commenters emphasized 
the usefulness of the online in-context hypertext links to robust 
guidance materials as aids for understanding and applying the WCAG 2.0 
Success Criteria. Lastly, commenters found our division of provisions 
(including the many rephrased WCAG Success Criteria) into those 
respectively oriented towards either documents or software to be 
somewhat arbitrary and counterproductive.
    In response to these comments, the Access Board substantially 
revised the approach to WCAG 2.0 in the 2011 ANPRM. We proposed to 
require all covered content to conform to WCAG 2.0, which would be 
incorporated by reference in the proposed 508 Standards.
    Commenters generally voiced strong support for the Board's decision 
to incorporate by reference WCAG 2.0 and apply it to all types of 
covered ICT, rather than simply seeking harmonization between WCAG 2.0 
and the proposed rule. While commenters expressed concern as to how 
closely WCAG 2.0 would apply to some types of content, they generally 
supported the concept of expanding the application of WCAG 2.0 to all 
types of Web and non-Web ICT. A few commenters, including 
representatives of the software industry, also suggested that the rule 
allow for compliance with any subsequent and, as yet unpublished, 
revisions to WCAG 2.0 by the W3C.
    Some commenters, on the other hand, requested that the Board return 
to its previous approach in the 2010 ANPRM, rather than incorporate 
WCAG 2.0 by reference. Most of these commenters believed that this 
approach would make the Board's rule easier to use because the 
necessary text would be contained in a single document. Some of these 
commenters also asserted that the structure of WCAG 2.0 is confusing 
and makes it difficult to separate the normative and non-normative 
portions.
    In this NPRM, the Board is retaining the Level A and Level AA 
Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 for all ICT 
subject to Sections 508 and 255, including documents and software. The 
Board also proposes, as in the 2011 ANPRM, to incorporate WCAG 2.0 by 
reference, rather than restating its requirements in the proposed rule. 
Incorporating the WCAG Success Criteria verbatim in the rule would be 
unhelpful because they are best understood within the context of the 
original source materials. WCAG 2.0 incorporates context-sensitive 
hypertext links to supporting advisory materials. The two core linked 
resources are Understanding WCAG 2.0 and Techniques for WCAG 2.0. The 
first provides background information, including discussion of the 
intention behind each of the success criteria. The second provides 
model sample code for conformance. The linked expository of documents, 
which is publicly available online free of charge, comprise a rich and 
informative source of detailed technical assistance and are updated 
regularly by standing working committees. These linked resources are 
not themselves requirements and agencies adopting WCAG 2.0 are not 
bound by them.
    The Board cannot accept the suggestion of software industry 
representatives that the proposed rule permit compliance with any 
follow-on versions of WCAG 2.0. Federal agencies cannot ``dynamically'' 
incorporate by reference future editions of consensus

[[Page 10887]]

standards.\1\ Such action is legally prohibited since it would, among 
other things, unlawfully delegate the government's regulatory authority 
to standards development organizations, as well as bypass rulemaking 
requirements (which would typically include a public 
notice[hyphen]and[hyphen]comment period). Federal agencies are required 
to identify the particular version of consensus standards incorporated 
by reference in a regulation. When an updated edition of a consensus 
standard is published, the agency must revise its regulation if it 
seeks to incorporate any of the new material. Nevertheless, the Access 
Board plans to remain abreast of updates to voluntary consensus 
standards bearing on ICT, and will consider incorporating them into 
future rulemakings, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., 1 CFR 51.1(f) (2014) (``Incorporation by 
reference of a publication is limited to the edition of the 
publication that is approved [by the Office of Federal Register]. 
Future amendments or revisions of the publication are not 
included.''); Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the 
President, OMB Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the 
Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in 
Conformity Assessment Activities (1998); see also Nat'l Archives & 
Records Admin., Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, Ch. 6 
(April 2014 Revision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We discuss incorporation of WCAG 2.0 in further detail below in 
Section V.B (Major Issues--WCAG 2.0 Incorporation by Reference), 
Section VI.B (Section-by-Section Analysis--508 Standards: Application 
and Scoping--E205 and E207.2), and Section VI.C (Section-by-Section 
Analysis--255 Guidelines: Application and Scoping--C203 and C205.2).
3. Relationship Between Functional Performance Criteria and Technical 
Provisions
    Over the years, agencies and other stakeholders had expressed 
confusion concerning the interaction between the technical requirements 
and functional performance criteria in the existing 508 Standards. To 
address this confusion, in the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed language 
to clarify that ICT may be deemed accessible if satisfying all 
applicable technical requirements, irrespective of whether the 
functional performance criteria had been met. In other words, the Board 
proposed that the technical requirements took precedence over the 
functional performance criteria in the sense that agencies should look 
first to applicable technical provisions, and only turn to the 
functional performance criteria when such requirements did not fully 
address the technology at issue. Commenters objected to this approach, 
citing the concern that ICT procurements satisfying only the technical 
requirements would not necessarily ensure sufficient access to 
individuals with disabilities.
    We responded to this concern by proposing in the 2011 ANPRM that 
ICT be required to conform to the functional performance criteria in 
every case, even when technical provisions were met. We also proposed 
to use the functional performance criteria (as did the 2010 ANPRM) to 
evaluate equivalent facilitation. That is, a covered entity would have 
the option of applying the concept of equivalent facilitation in order 
to achieve conformance with the intent of the technical requirements, 
provided that the alternative afforded individuals with disabilities 
substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and usability than 
would result from compliance with the technical requirements.
    Some commenters, such as those representing federal agencies, the 
disability community, and other interested parties applauded this 
approach. Other commenters representing industry objected, noting that 
functional performance criteria are subjective and cannot be tested 
objectively. Industry commenters stated that they could not guarantee 
that the functional performance criteria had been met unless they 
controlled all the components of the end-to-end solution.
    In this NPRM, the Board is not proposing that the functional 
performance criteria apply in every case. However, the Board does 
propose application of the functional performance criteria (with some 
modifications) to determine equivalent facilitation (E101.2 and 
C101.2), and to assess accessibility when technical provisions do not 
address one or more features of ICT. The Board discusses this issue in 
further detail below in Section V.C (Major Issues--Functional 
Performance Criteria), Section VI.B (Section-by-Section Analysis--508 
Standards: Application and Scoping--E203 and E204), and Section VI.C 
(Section-by-Section Analysis--255 Guidelines: Application and Scoping--
C202).
4. Coverage of Real-Time Text
    As noted previously, the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines 
were promulgated nearly fifteen years ago. At that time, TTYs were the 
most commonly available text-based system for communicating within a 
voice communication system. Since then, technology has greatly advanced 
to the point where, in addition to TTYs, multiple text-based means of 
communication are available in the marketplace. One such emerging means 
of communication is real-time text technology. RTT technology provides 
the ability to communicate using text messages that are transmitted in 
near real-time as each character is typed, rather than as a block of 
text after the entire message is completed. RTT is important as an 
equivalent alternative to voice communications for persons who are 
deaf, or who have limited hearing or speech impairments. It allows the 
recipient to read the sender's text as soon as it is entered, thus 
making RTT more conversational and interactive, in a manner similar to 
a telephone conversation. This also makes RTT particularly useful in an 
emergency situation when speed and accuracy of a message--or even a 
partial message--are critical.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Pursuant to the Twenty-First Century Communications and 
Video Accessibility Act of 2010, the FCC formed an Emergency Access 
Advisory Committee. In January 2012, the committee issued an 
``Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC) Report and 
Recommendations.'' In the report, the committee discussed a number 
of policy and technical recommendations. These recommendations cover 
both interim and future action in Emergency Communications (see 
https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312161A1.doc). 
In Appendix C to the report, the committee recommended that 
terminals offering real-time text conversation support ITU-T 
Recommendation T.140 and that text conversation be provided 
according to RFC 4103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Advisory Committee examined real-time text technology and 
recommended that the Board update the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines 
to include specifications for RTT. More specifically, the Advisory 
Committee recommended that, when hardware or software provides real-
time voice conversation functionality, it must provide at least one 
means of RTT communication. See TEITAC Report, Part 6, Subpt. C, Rec. 
6-A. With respect to interoperability (i.e., operating outside a closed 
network), the Committee had two recommendations. First, the Advisory 
Committee recommended use of the TIA 825-A (Baudot) standard when ICT 
interfaces with the publicly switched telephone network (PSTN). Second, 
when ICT interoperated with VoIP products or systems using Session 
Initiation Protocol (SIP), the Advisory Committee did not recommend a 
specific standard, noting that there were several possible standards at 
that time (April 2008), such as RFC 4103, TIA 1001, and MSRP (RFC 
4975). Id.
    In keeping with the Advisory Committee's recommendation, the Board 
proposed in the 2010 ANPRM, to require ICT providing real-time voice 
communication to support RTT

[[Page 10888]]

functionality. The Board also proposed prescriptive standards for RTT 
(e.g., transmission delay, error rates), as well as interoperability 
requirements. For interoperability with PSTN, the Board proposed (as 
did the Advisory Committee) use of the TIA 825-A (Baudot) standard. For 
ICT interoperating with VoIP products or systems using SIP, the Board 
did not propose a specific standard; instead, the Board proposed that 
such products or systems support transmission of RTT conforming to a 
``commonly used cross-manufacturer, non-proprietary standard.'' The 
Board considered referencing RFC 4103, but elected not to do so 
because, at that time, it was not thought to be a referenceable 
standard.
    Commenters responding to the RTT-related proposals in the 2010 
ANPRM generally supported RTT, but offered mixed views on the Board's 
proposed technical specifications. Commenters representing people with 
disabilities strongly supported inclusion of RTT functionality 
requirements in the proposed rule. They emphasized, among other things, 
that RTT represented a major advance by allowing persons with hearing- 
or speech-related disabilities to communicate through real-time text on 
mainstream devices, rather than having to use special and expensive 
devices (such as TTYs). They were critical, however, of the Board's 
decision not to incorporate a specific VoIP-related interoperability 
standard. Commenters representing people with disabilities (and also 
academia) urged the Board to adopt RFC 4103 for RTT interoperating with 
VoIP using SIP, and provided information to support its use as a 
referenceable standard. Commenters from industry, on the other hand, 
encouraged the Board to take a cautious approach to RTT. They believed 
that, while RTT technology held promise as a major improvement in text 
communication (particularly in emergency situations), it was not 
sufficiently mature at that time to warrant adoption of a particular 
interoperability standard--including RFC 4103--for Internet-based 
calls. Commenters also objected to the proposed character and 
transmission delay rates as being overly prescriptive, thus potentially 
restricting the development of future technologies. (No commenters took 
issue with the Board's proposal to incorporate TIA 825-A as the 
standard for interoperability with PSTN.)
    Based on these comments, in the 2011 ANPRM, the Board proposed to 
retain the references to the TIA 825-A standard for TTY signals on the 
PSTN, and to add a requirement for conformance with the RFC 4103 
standard for VoIP products or systems using SIP. We did not retain the 
provisions specifying character and transmission delay rates. Overall, 
commenters largely supported the Board's revisions to RTT-related 
requirements in the 2011 ANPRM. However, several commenters 
representing industry and a local government agency asserted that RTT 
was not sufficiently mature or deployed widely enough to be useful. 
Some commenters also identified other standards aside from RFC 4103 
that were currently in use (e.g., XMPP and XEP-0301) and could serve to 
facilitate RTT for Internet-based calls.
    In this NPRM, the Board proposes to require that, where ICT 
provides real-time, two-way voice communication, such ICT must also 
support RTT functionality. Proposed 410.6 would require features 
capable of text generation to be compatible with real-time voice 
communication used on a network. ICT would be required to interoperate 
either within its own closed system or outside a network. For example, 
a closed communication system, such as within a federal agency, would 
be required to interoperate with either the publicly switched telephone 
network (PSTN) or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) products or 
systems to support the transmission of real-time text. The Board 
believes that RTT is sufficiently mature as a technology (and has 
sufficiently proliferated in the current ICT marketplace) to warrant 
coverage in the proposed rule. For example, real-time instant messaging 
programs--such as Yahoo![supreg]Messenger and AOL Instant Messenger's 
``Real-Time IM'' --have, in the past, used proprietary protocols that 
were very similar to SIP.
    Where federal agencies provide their employees with smartphones or 
similar technology, this NPRM would require such ICT to have the 
potential to communicate using RTT. The Board does not, however, 
thereby intend to require that all phone users (with or without 
disabilities) communicate using RTT in all circumstances. Similar to 
several other proposed accessibility features in the proposed rule, RTT 
must only be enabled and used when needed to ensure comparable access 
and use of ICT by persons with hearing disabilities. For example, 
federal managers will need to make clear that, when deaf or hard-of-
hearing employees with agency-provided smartphones use RTT, coworkers 
without disabilities using agency smartphones will also need the RTT 
feature on their respective phones enabled. Such an approach ensures 
that communications among deaf and hearing coworkers are equally 
effective as voice conversations among employees who do not have 
hearing impairments. Employees who do not need to communicate using RTT 
would otherwise be able to disable or ignore this feature.
    The Board does not suggest that other forms of electronic 
communication--text or email, for example--would not be used by deaf 
employees and their colleagues. However, RTT offers many of the same 
benefits as voice communication. For example, a deaf attorney may need 
to seek the advice of his supervisor or colleagues during a break in a 
sensitive negotiation. Given the urgency and time-sensitive nature of 
the communications between employees, the deaf employee may request 
that his colleagues make themselves available during the negotiation by 
enabling RTT on their phones.
    The Board did not consider proposing that agencies be permitted to 
provide RTT-enabled phones to employees only upon request. We did not 
consider this approach for two significant reasons. First, making 
accessible ICT available only upon request would run counter to Section 
508's basic premise that information and data must be accessible to all 
employees without special treatment or the necessity for individualized 
treatment. Permitting issuance of RTT-enabled smartphones only when 
requested or deemed needed would be no different than permitting 
agencies to procure inaccessible ICT, such as a copy machine, where 
they have not identified a need for the accessible features among 
current staff. Second, while a proposal permitting agencies to issue 
non-RTT smartphones absent a special request for RTT features might 
modestly reduce an agency's ICT costs (to the extent, if any, that the 
purchase cost of RTT-enabled smartphones exceeds the cost of 
smartphones without this feature) and allow agencies to take user 
preferences regarding RTT into account, such an alternative would erode 
the proposed rule's benefits because employees with disabilities who 
need RTT would not be able to communicate with coworkers who are using 
government-issued, non-RTT smartphones.
    Question 1. To realize the full potential benefits of the Section 
508 proposal to require RTT functionality wherever an ICT product 
provides real-time, two-way voice communication, federal managers would 
need to direct their employees to keep the RTT features on their phones 
enabled when needed to accommodate employees with

[[Page 10889]]

disabilities who use RTT, and federal employees would need to follow 
such directives. How would keeping RTT enabled on an ``as needed'' 
basis affect federal employees' use of texting? For example, would it 
cause them to substitute texting with other methods of communication? 
How can the Board analyze and quantify such effects?
    Question 2. The benefits of the RTT proposal under Section 255 are 
dependent upon the extent RTT features would be enabled and used by the 
public. The public would not be required to use or keep the RTT 
features on their phones enabled. Is there available information 
regarding the extent the public would use RTT features if they were 
available on their phones? Would use of RTT be different for people 
with and without disabilities?
    In terms of RTT standards, the Board is proposing to require that 
ICT interoperating with VoIP products using SIP must support the 
transmission of RTT that conforms to RFC 4103 (RTP Payload for Text 
Conversion (2005)). In the Major Issues section, the Board also seeks 
comment on whether additional standards for real-time text, which are 
in the process of being finalized (such as XEP-0301), should be 
referenced. See Section V.D, Question 8. We discuss RTT-related issues 
in further detail below in Section V.D (Major Issues--Real-Time Text), 
and Section VI.D (Section-by-Section Analysis--Technical Requirements 
and Functional Performance Criteria--section 410.6).
5. Interoperability Requirements for Assistive Technology
    Assistive technology (AT) is hardware or software used to increase, 
maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of individuals with 
disabilities. Examples of assistive technology commonly used with 
computers include: Screen readers, screen magnification software, 
specialized keyboards, refreshable braille displays, and voice 
recognition software. Assistive technology provides access beyond that 
offered by so-called ``mainstream'' hardware or software.
    Compatibility with assistive technology is a foundational concept 
common to the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. ICT and 
assistive technologies must generally work together to provide users 
with necessary interface functions and features. The existing 508 
Standards include general requirements for ICT to be compatible with 
assistive technology. Section 1194.21(b) requires that applications not 
disrupt or disable activated features of other products that are 
identified as accessibility features where those features are developed 
and documented according to industry standards. Additionally, this 
section requires that applications not disrupt or disable activated 
features of any operating systems that are identified as accessibility 
features. Section 1194.21(b) is directed only to applications, and does 
not require assistive technology to be compatible with other assistive 
technology. Section 1194.21(d), moreover, obligates mainstream software 
to provide ``sufficient information'' about its user interface elements 
to assistive technology.
    The existing 255 Guidelines, though taking a slightly different 
tact, also require mainstream products to be compatible with assistive 
technologies. Under these guidelines, telecommunications equipment must 
be compatible with ``peripheral devices and specialized premises 
equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve 
accessibility.'' 36 CFR 1193.51. Compatibility is specified by 
provisions requiring: External access to controls and information 
needed for product operation, connection points for external audio 
processing devices, compatibility of controls with prosthetic devices, 
and TTY connectability and compatibility.
    The existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines are, however, equally 
silent concerning whether (or how) their requirements apply to 
assistive technology. That is, while these standards and guidelines 
require ICT to interoperate with assistive technology, they do not 
directly regulate assistive technology. Over the years, this silence in 
the 508 Standards has led to confusion. We have thus viewed coverage of 
assistive technology as a key issue throughout the process of updating 
the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines.
    The Advisory Committee, when addressing assistive technology, 
offered several perspectives. First, to improve ICT-AT compatibility, 
the committee recommended updated--and more comprehensive--technical 
standards that require mainstream computer operating systems and 
software with user interfaces to ``expose'' (i.e., make available at 
the underlying program level) accessibility information that 
facilitates use of assistive technology. For example, screen reading 
and voice recognition software may be used to emulate, respectively, 
the physical click of a mouse button or the keystrokes from a hardware 
keyboard. These ICT interoperability requirements were carefully 
crafted among the various stakeholders on the committee, as well as 
harmonized with an international consensus standard for software 
accessibility (ISO 9241-171 Ergonomics of human-system interaction--
Part 171: Guidance on software accessibility (2008)). See TEITAC 
Report, Part 6, Subpt. C, Recs. 3-V & 3-U. Second, the committee 
debated--though could not reach consensus on--a recommendation 
obligating assistive technology to use (as applicable) the standardized 
set of accessibility information provided by mainstream operating 
systems and software, rather than taking customized approaches. See 
TEITAC Report, Part 7, Subpt. C, Rec. 3-VV.
    In the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs, which drew heavily from the TEITAC 
Report, the Board took similar approaches to assistive technology. 
These ANPRMs largely adopted the committee's recommended set of updated 
technical standards governing the program-level accessibility 
information mainstream operating systems and software must make 
available to assistive technology. The Board also proposed to require 
assistive technology to use this accessibility information to achieve 
interoperability. Commenters generally applauded the Board's proposed 
refresh of the interoperability requirements for mainstream operating 
systems and software, and viewed these requirements as a big step 
forward. Assistive technology vendors and trade organizations, however, 
uniformly objected to the imposition of requirements on assistive 
technology. They expressed a need to be wholly unconstrained to best 
serve consumers. They also expressed concern that accessibility 
services varied widely from platform to platform, and were often 
insufficient to support necessary features of their assistive 
technology products. All other commenter groups--including individuals 
with disabilities and the mainstream IT industry--advocated maintaining 
the minimal requirements for assistive technology included in the 
ANPRMs.
    In this NPRM, the Board proposes to retain, with minimal changes, 
the technical interoperability requirements for mainstream operating 
systems and software from the prior ANPRMs. The Board also found 
commenters' arguments for inclusion of minimal requirements for 
assistive technology to be compelling. Accordingly, the Board has also 
retained the proposal requiring assistive technology to use the basic 
set of accessibility information provided by operating systems and 
software to achieve interoperability. We discuss these issues in 
further detail below in Section V.E (Major Issues--Assistive 
Technology), and Section VI.D (Section-by-Section Analysis--Functional

[[Page 10890]]

Performance Criteria and Technical Requirements--502 and 401)
6. Modifications to the Functional Performance Criterion for Limited 
Vision
    In order to ensure that ICT meets the needs of a wider range of 
users, the Board proposed in the 2010 ANPRM to revise the functional 
performance criterion for limited vision. The existing criterion 
specifies that ICT providing a visual mode of operation must furnish at 
least one accessible mode that accommodates visual acuity up to 20/70. 
The Board proposed to increase the covered acuity range to 20/200 (or a 
field of vision less than 20 degrees)--which is a common legal 
definition of blindness--to afford more individuals with disabilities 
the option of a visual mode of operation. Organizations representing 
persons with disabilities disagreed with the visual acuity proposed 
requirement, stating that it did not sufficiently address the needs of 
users with severe low vision. Industry groups suggested that the 
proposed visual acuity criterion contradicted several technical 
requirements. These commenters also indicated that our approach did not 
address features that could improve accessibility for persons with low 
vision, and were critical of the limitation that only one feature had 
to be provided for each mode of operation.
    In response to these comments, in the 2011 ANPRM, the Access Board 
dispensed with specified measurements of visual acuity and relied 
instead on a functional approach reflective of the needs of users with 
low vision. We proposed that, when ICT provides a visual mode of 
operation, it must also provide at least one mode of operation that 
magnifies, one mode that reduces the field of vision, and one mode that 
allows user control of contrast. These modes would need to be supplied 
directly in the same ICT or through compatible assistive technology. 
Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM strongly approved of our approach to 
functional performance criteria for limited vision.
    Accordingly, the Board proposes to retain this approach to 
functional performance criteria for limited vision in this propose 
rule. We discuss the issue in further detail in Section VI.B (Section-
by-Section Analysis--Section 508 Application and Scoping--E203), 
Section VI.C (Section-by-Section Analysis--255 Guidelines Application 
and Scoping--C201.3), and Section VI.D (Section-by-Section Analysis--
Functional Performance Criteria and Technical Requirements--302.2).
7. Definition and Coverage of Technology with ``Closed Functionality''
    In its TEITAC Report, the Advisory Committee recommended that the 
Board make a nomenclature change to ``closed functionality'' from the 
existing term ``self-contained, closed products'' to better reflect a 
regulatory approach to ICT based on functionality, rather than type of 
product. The Advisory Committee observed that, due to technological 
changes since the promulgation of the existing standards and 
guidelines, some formerly ``closed'' product types were now open, while 
some formerly open product types were now closed--frequently by policy, 
rather than technological constraint. See TEITAC Report, Part 4, 
section 4.2. It suggested that when the functionality of a technology 
product is closed for any reason, including policy or technical 
limitations, then such product should be treated as having closed 
functionality.
    In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board followed the Advisory Committee's 
recommendation and proposed to substitute the term ``closed 
functionality'' for ``self-contained, closed products,'' as used in the 
existing 508 Standards. See 36 CFR 1194.4. While both terms refer to 
ICT with characteristics that limit its functionality, the term 
``closed functionality''--in the Board's view--better describes 
situations where the ICT is locked down by policy, rather than design. 
This may occur, for example, when an agency provides computers with 
core configurations that cannot be changed or adjusted by a user. We 
proposed permitting ICT to have closed functionality; however, such ICT 
still would need to be accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities without assistive technology. Commenters did not object to 
the new terminology of ``closed functionality'' but asked for more 
detail and clarity in the applicable standards.
    In the 2011 ANPRM, the Access Board proposed specific requirements 
for ICT with closed functionality to ensure accessibility to 
individuals with disabilities, which included a provision requiring ICT 
with closed functionality to be speech-output enabled. The term 
``speech-output enabled'' means that the ICT can transmit speech 
output. These proposed requirements were derived from the Americans 
with Disabilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility 
Guidelines (ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines), 36 CFR Part 1191, 
Appendix D, section 707.5 Speech Output.
    Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM generally supported our proposed 
requirement for ``closed functionality,'' and the Board proposes to 
retain it in this proposed rule. We discuss the issue further in detail 
below in Section VI.D (Section-by-Section Analysis--Functional 
Performance Criteria and Technical Requirements--section 402).
8. Revisions to Exceptions Under 508 Standards
    In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board reorganized the exceptions in the 
existing 508 Standards and recommended deleting three others that were 
unnecessary or had led to confusion. The three exceptions proposed for 
deletion were: Sec.  1194.3(c) (assistive technology at federal 
employees' workstations); Sec.  1194.3(d) (access to agency-owned ICT 
in public locations); and Sec.  1194.3(f) (ICT equipment in maintenance 
spaces or closets). By proposing deletion of these three exceptions, 
the Board intended only administrative changes to clarify the 508 
Standards; there was no intent to narrow their scope or application.
    First, with respect to Sec.  1194.3(c), which provides that 
assistive technology need not be supplied at all federal employees' 
workstations, the Board proposed its deletion because, in essence, it 
provided an exception where none was needed, and thus led to confusion. 
There is no general rule in the existing 508 Standards that agencies 
provide assistive technology at all employee workstations; rather, 
these standards merely require compatibility with assistive technology 
when ICT is not directly accessible.
    Second, the Board proposed deletion of Sec.  1194.3(d) because it 
conveys the impression that the 508 Standards govern the locations 
where ICT must be made available to the public. The 508 Standards do 
not, in any way, control where ICT is located. Therefore, the exception 
was unnecessary.
    Third, the Board proposed to delete the exception in 1194.3(f) for 
ICT equipment located in maintenance spaces or closets frequented only 
by service personnel for ``maintenance, repair, and occasional 
monitoring of equipment.'' We reasoned that, since maintenance spaces 
or closets are already exempted from accessibility requirements under 
section F203.6 of the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Standards, there 
was no need for a similar exception in the 508 Standards.
    Commenters' views on the proposed deletion of these three 
exceptions were mixed. On the one hand, most commenters supported 
removal of the exceptions pertaining to employee

[[Page 10891]]

workstations and public availability of agency-owned ICT. On the other 
hand, however, many commenters objected to our proposed removal of the 
exception for ICT located in maintenance spaces since there are still 
many functions--particularly with respect to maintenance, repair, and 
monitoring--that, in the commenters' view, could only be performed in 
maintenance spaces. In response to these comments, the Board has 
retained the exception for maintenance spaces in this NPRM, but 
proposes to limit its application to situations in which the controls 
for ICT functions are located in spaces that are frequented only by 
service personnel. This is consistent with the ADA and ABA 
Accessibility Guidelines, which exempt such spaces from accessibility 
requirements. However, where the functions of ICT located in 
maintenance spaces can be controlled remotely, this exception would not 
apply to such remote functions. These remote functions would still need 
to comply with applicable 508 Standards.
    Lastly, in the 2010 ANPRM, the Access Board proposed to revise and 
relocate the exception in Sec.  1194.3(b), which exempts ICT acquired 
by a contractor that is ``incidental to a contract'' from compliance 
with 508 Standards. Specifically, the Board proposed deleting the 
phrase ``incidental to a contract'' and relocating the exception to a 
new section relating to federal contracts. We did so in an effort to 
streamline and clarify the text of this exception. Commenters 
criticized this approach as confusing, particularly since the phrase 
``incidental to a contract'' is a well-established term within the 
federal procurement community--a group that would likely be 
significantly impacted by the provision. Consequently, in the 2011 
ANPRM, the Board proposed to restore the exception in Sec.  1194.3(b) 
to its original language. We retain this approach in this NRPM, and 
thereby propose to exempt ICT acquired by a federal contractor that is 
``incidental to a contract'' from compliance with the 508 Standards.
    We discuss exception issues in further detail below in Section VI.B 
(Section-by-Section--508 Standards: Application and Scoping--E202.3 and 
E202.4).
9. Broadening of Documentation Requirement for Undue Burden Exception
    Section 1194.2(a)(2) of the existing 508 Standards requires 
agencies to provide supporting documentation when determining that 
procurement of a compliant product would impose an undue burden. In the 
2010 ANPRM, the Access Board proposed to broaden the undue burden 
documentation requirement so that it applied not only to ICT 
procurement, but also to other situations in which the 508 Standards 
applied--namely, the development, maintenance, or use of ICT. We did 
not receive any comments directly related to this approach, but did 
receive a few comments requesting clarification of the factors to be 
addressed in the determination of undue burden. In the 2011 ANPRM, the 
Board retained the broadened scope of the undue burden documentation 
requirement, but clarified the factors to be applied in the undue 
burden calculus. We proposed that an agency would be required to 
consider the extent to which conformance would impose significant 
difficulty or expense in light of the resources available to the 
program or component for which the ICT is being procured, developed, 
maintained or used. Commenters generally supported this approach.
    In this NPRM, in proposed E202.5.2, the Board retains the undue 
burden documentation requirement as proposed in the 2011 ANPRM. This 
proposed provision is discussed in detail below in Section VI.B 
(Section-by-Section Analysis--508 Standards: Application and Scoping--
E202.5.2).

F. Harmonization With European Activities

1. History
    In 2006, as noted above, the Access Board convened a 
Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory 
Committee to review and update the existing standards and guidelines. 
The Advisory Committee met from 2006 to 2008. Four of the forty-one 
members of the Advisory Committee were international stakeholders: the 
European Commission, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Among other issues, 
the Advisory Committee addressed harmonization of standards across 
markets and worked closely with standard-setting bodies in the United 
States and abroad. The Advisory Committee issued its final report in 
2008.
    While the Access Board was in the process of updating its existing 
508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, a similar process began in Europe to 
create the first European set of ICT accessibility standards. As a 
result of the 2005 EU-US Economic Initiative, the Access Board and the 
European Commission began to work closely on the issue of Information 
and Communications Technology standards (See: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/june/tradoc_127643.pdf).
    In 2005, the European Commission released Mandate 376, 
``Standardisation Mandate to CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI in Support of 
European Accessibility Requirements for Public Procurement of Products 
and Services in the ICT Domain'' (https://www.ictsb.org/Working_Groups/DATSCG/Documents/M376.pdf). The Mandate required the three European 
standards organizations--European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 
European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) and 
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)--to: inventory 
European and international accessibility requirements; provide an 
assessment of suitable testing and conformity schemes; and, develop a 
European accessibility standard for ICT products and services along 
with guidance and support material for public procurements including an 
online toolkit.
    In 2010, the Board released an ANPRM based on the 2008 TEITAC 
Report. We then published a second ANPRM in 2011 and took notice of the 
standardization work going on in Europe at the time, stating:

    [T]he Board is interested in harmonizing with standards efforts 
around the world in a timely way. Accordingly, the Board is now 
releasing this second Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2011 
ANPRM) to seek further public comment on specific questions and to 
harmonize with contemporaneous standardization efforts underway by 
the European Commission.

    In February 2013, the European Commission published its draft 
standard EN 301 549 V1.0.0 (2013-02), ``Accessibility requirements for 
public procurement of ICT products and services in Europe'' (https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf). The vote on the standard was completed in 
February 2014. The European Standard has been formally adopted by all 
three European standards organizations--CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI. The 
standards are now available to the target audience, government 
officials, who may use the standards as technical specifications or 
award criteria in public procurements of ICT products and services. The 
standard harmonizes and facilitates the public procurement of 
accessible ICT products and services within Europe. More information is 
available at: https://www.mandate376.eu/

[[Page 10892]]

2. Comparison of Proposed Rule With EN 301 549 Standard
a. General Comparison: Approach, Terminology and Organization
    In this NPRM, the Board makes several proposals that are similar to 
those in the most recently published EN 301 549. Both the proposed rule 
and EN 301 549 address the functions of technology, rather than 
categories of technologies. Similarly, both offer technical 
requirements and functional performance criteria for accessible ICT. 
For example, our use of the phrase ``information and communication 
technology'' (ICT) in this NRPM, as a replacement of the existing term 
``electronic and information technology,'' originates in the common 
usage of ICT throughout Europe and the rest of the world. Moreover, 
both documents are organized in similar ways, in that they both have 
initial scoping and definitions chapters, followed by separate chapters 
containing technical requirements and functional performance criteria.
    Organizationally, the documents differ in several respects. These 
general differences are outlined in Table 2 below:

     Table 2--Formatting Differences Between the NPRM and EN 301 549
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       EN 301 549 V1.1.1
           Differences              ICT NPRM (2014)        (2014-02)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of chapters. Note: EN 301  6.................  13.
 549 breaks out several sections  Chapter 1--         Chapter 2--
 as separate chapters which are    Application and     References.
 combined in the ICT NPRM.         Administration.    Chapter 3--
                                  ..................   Definitions and
                                  Chapter 2--Scoping   Abbreviations.
                                  Requirements......  Chapter 1--Scope.
                                  Chapter 3--         Chapter 10--
                                   Functional          Documents.
                                   Performance        Chapter 4--
                                   Criteria.           Functional
                                                       Performance
                                                       Criteria.
                                  Chapter 4--         Chapter 5--Generic
                                   Hardware.           Requirements
                                                       (Biometrics,
                                                       volume control,
                                                       receipts and
                                                       tickets, closed
                                                       functionality,
                                                       assistive
                                                       technology).
                                                      Chapter 6--ICT
                                                       with two way
                                                       voice
                                                       communications.
                                                      Chapter 7--ICT
                                                       with video
                                                       capabilities.
                                                      Chapter 8--
                                                       Hardware.
                                  Chapter 5--         Chapter 9--Web
                                   Software.           content.
                                  ..................  Chapter 11--Non-
                                                       Web software.
                                  Chapter 6--Support  Chapter 12--
                                   Documentation and   Documentation and
                                   Services.           support services.
Unique chapters.................  No comparable       13--Relay and
                                   chapter.            Emergency
                                                       Services.
                                              Annex A--Copy of
                                   Incorporated by     WCAG 2.0.
                                   reference
                                   (Sections E207.2
                                   and C205.2).
                                   Similar    Annex B--Charts
                                   comparisons are     showing
                                   found in the        relationships
                                   TEITAC Report.      between
                                                       requirements and
                                                       functional
                                                       performance
                                                       criteria.
                                   Not        Annex C--
                                   within the scope    Determination of
                                   of Section 508 or   Compliance.
                                   Section 255;
                                   Section 508
                                   compliance is
                                   determined by
                                   each federal
                                   agency.
                                   Not        Section 8.3.2
                                   within the scope    Clear floor
                                   of Section 508 or   space.
                                   Section 255.       Section 8.3.2.1
                                  ..................   Change in level.
                                   Most       Section 8.3.2.2
                                   similar to ``303    Operating area.
                                   Changes in
                                   Level'' from the
                                   2010 ADA
                                   Standards for
                                   Accessible Design.
Differing treatment of similar    Section 410.6 Real- Section 6.3 Real-
 concepts.                         Time Text           time text (RTT)
                                   Functionality       functionality
                                   Discussed more      Discussed more
                                   fully.              fully.
                                  410.8 Video         6.6 Video
                                   Communication       Communication
                                   Discussed more      Discussed more
                                   fully.              fully.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Specific Examples: Differing Treatment of Similar Concepts
Real-Time Text Functionality
    In this NPRM, the Board proposes that where ICT provides real-time 
voice communication, it must also support real-time text (RTT) 
functionality, as described in 410.6. Most significantly, the Board 
proposes to require that where ICT interoperates with Voice over 
Internet Protocol (VoIP) products using Session Initiation Protocol 
(SIP), it must support the transmission of RTT that conforms to RFC 
4103 (RTP Payload for Text Conversion (2005)). In the Major Issues 
section, the Board asks whether additional standards for real-time 
text, which are in the process of being finalized (such as XEP-0301), 
should also be referenced. See Section V.D, Question 8. The proposed 
rule limits the approach to RTT by proposing to only incorporate by 
reference a maximum of two standards for RTT interoperating with VoIP.
    In contrast, EN 301 549 allows the use of multiple standards for 
RTT. In addition to referencing RFC 4103 (section 6.3.3(b)), it permits 
the use of four other standards and an unspecified ``common 
specification'' for RTT exchange. The only criterion in the common 
specification is that it must indicate a method for indicating loss or 
corruption of characters. For a further discussion of RTT 
functionality, see Section V.D (Major Issues--Real-Time Text) below.
    We are not proposing to adopt the other four standards referenced 
by EN 301 549 because they are not applicable to the type of technology 
used in the United States. Just as mobile phones are not directly 
compatible between the United States and Europe (i.e., CDMA phone 
systems versus GSM (Global System Mobile)), portions of the four 
standards referenced in EN 301 549 are simply not relevant in the U.S. 
market, and there are no indications that they

[[Page 10893]]

will have domestic relevance in the near future.
    The standards referenced by EN 301 549 address more than just real-
time text functionality. Some are quite broad and address several 
communications features, such as video speed and accuracy. One example 
of such a standard is ETSI TS 126 114 (Universal Mobile 
Telecommunications System (UMTS)) which covers voice, video, and data 
transmission rates and speeds. This standard supports an approach to 
communication known as ``total communication.'' We are not proposing to 
adopt this approach. In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed transmission 
accuracy rates and speeds for video, text and voice data, based on 
recommendations from the Advisory Committee. In response, we received 
numerous comments questioning the accuracy of the proposed rates, the 
sources for the proposals and the research underlying the proposed 
rates. Consequently, the Board removed those proposals in the 2011 
ANPRM.
    Question 3. We are seeking further information on the benefits and 
costs associated with adopting standards that address total 
communications, including voice, video, and data transmission rates and 
speeds. We seek recommendations for specific standards that the Board 
might reference to address total communication.
Video Communication
    In this NPRM, the Board proposes that where ICT provides two-way 
voice communication that includes real-time video functionality, the 
quality of the video must be sufficient to support communication using 
sign language (section 410.8). The provision specifies a desired 
outcome and does not provide specific technical requirements. This 
approach resulted from public comments in response to our proposal in 
the 2010 ANPRM. Public commenters noted there were no existing 
standards supporting the technical requirements the Board had proposed 
concerning resolution, frame rates, and processing speed. In the 2011 
ANPRM, the Board elected to remove those proposed technical 
requirements in favor of simply requiring the quality of the video to 
be sufficient to support communications using sign language. We 
received no comments on this approach, and retain it here in this NPRM.
    EN 301 549, on the other hand, takes a different tact. In ``6.6 
Video Communication,'' the standard specifies numeric measurements for 
such features as resolution (6.6.2), frame rates (6.6.3) and 
alternatives to video-based services (6.7). This approach is similar to 
our proposal in the 2010 ANPRM, which, as noted, the Board dropped due 
to significant negative comments.
    In general, the approaches taken in EN 301 549 and this NPRM are 
similar and complimentary. The Access Board's proposed rule contains 
less detail in some proposed provisions, as discussed above. We elected 
to pursue this course in response to public comments and our desire to 
make use of a number of voluntary consensus standards by incorporating 
them by reference. This approach will result in better harmonization of 
accessibility standards worldwide.

V. Major Issues

    The five major issues addressed in this NPRM are: (a) Scope of 
covered electronic content; (b) incorporation by reference of WCAG 2.0; 
(c) relationship between functional performance criteria and technical 
requirements; (d) coverage of real-time text; and (e) interoperability 
requirements for assistive technology. Each of these areas is discussed 
below.

A. Electronic Content

    In this NPRM, the Board aims to bring needed clarity to the scope 
of electronic content subject to accessibility requirements in the 508 
Standards. Based on the language of the Rehabilitation Act, Sec.  
1194.1 of the existing standards speaks of federal agencies ensuring 
that federal employees and members of the public with disabilities have 
comparable ``access to and the use of [electronic] information and 
data.'' Given its breadth, federal agencies have--not altogether 
surprisingly--had difficulty applying this mandate. The existing 
requirement does not adequately address what is meant by comparable 
access to information and data. Consequently, there has been confusion 
over whether and how such electronic content must be made accessible. 
Agencies have been reluctant to apply the existing 508 Standards to 
electronic information and data, except for Web pages.
    The proposed rule would address these deficiencies in the existing 
508 Standards by clearly delineating the scope of covered electronic 
content, as well as specifying concrete, testable, technical 
requirements to ensure the accessibility of such content. The Board 
proposes that all covered electronic content would be required to 
conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and 
Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages or, where applicable, 
ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1).
    Covered electronic content would, under the proposed rule, include 
two discrete groups of content. First, the Board proposes in E205.2 
that all public-facing content--which encompasses electronic 
information and data made available by agencies to members of the 
general public--must satisfy applicable accessibility requirements in 
the proposed rule (i.e., WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria 
or PDF/UA-1). This would include, for example, agency Web sites (and 
documents posted thereon), blog posts, and social media sites. Coverage 
of this broad category of agency-sponsored content is important because 
persons with disabilities should have equal access to electronic 
information and data made available to the public generally. This is an 
essential right established by the Rehabilitation Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An analogous provision in proposed C203.1 would require 
telecommunications equipment manufacturers to make content integral 
to the use of ICT conform to WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The central principle underlying the accessibility requirement for 
public-facing content is the notion that federal agencies must ensure 
equal access to electronic information that they themselves directly 
make available to the general public by posting on a public fora. So, 
for example, if a federal agency posts a PDF version of a recent 
settlement agreement on its Web site as part of a press release, that 
document would need to comply with PDF/UA-1. Or, if an agency posts a 
video created by an advocacy organization on the agency's Web site (or, 
alternatively, on a social media site hosted by a third party), the 
agency would also be required to ensure that that electronic 
information complied with accessibility requirements in proposed E205.2 
for public-facing content. On the other hand, if a federal agency is 
the plaintiff in a lawsuit and serves an electronic version of a legal 
brief on a corporate defendant, the agency's legal brief would not be 
considered public-facing content even if the corporation subsequently 
posts a copy of the agency's document on its own Web site.
    Second, with respect to electronic content that is not public 
facing, the Board aims to limit the scope of covered content to eight 
discrete categories of agency official communications that are most 
likely to affect a significant number of federal employees or the 
general public. Proposed E205.3 would require an agency's non-public 
facing electronic content to meet the accessibility requirements in the 
proposed rule (i.e., WCAG 2.0 Level A

[[Page 10894]]

and Level AA Success Criteria or PDF/UA-1) when such content (a) 
constitutes agency official business, and (b) falls within one or more 
of eight categories of communication. Coverage would extend to all 
forms of content constituting official communications by agencies, 
including Web pages, postings on social media, emails, and electronic 
documents. The Board believes that this approach strikes an appropriate 
balance in ensuring the accessibility of essential electronic content 
for persons with disabilities, while also tempering agency compliance 
obligations. This approach also compliments the requirements of 
sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which require agencies 
to provide reasonable accommodations as necessary to address the 
disability-related needs of employees and the public respectively.
    Specifically, proposed E205.3 sets forth the following eight 
categories of non-public facing agency official communications that 
must satisfy the accessibility requirements in the proposed 508 
Standards: (1) Emergency notifications (e.g., an evacuation 
announcement in response to fires or other emergencies); (2) initial or 
final decisions adjudicating administrative claims or proceedings; (3) 
internal or external program or policy announcements (i.e., information 
promulgated by an agency relating to programs it offers or policy areas 
it deals with); (4) notices of benefits, program eligibility, 
employment opportunities or personnel actions; (5) formal 
acknowledgements or receipts (i.e., official replies by an agency that 
recognize the receipt of a communication); (6) questionnaires or 
surveys; (7) templates or forms; and (8) educational or training 
materials.
    By limiting the scope of covered electronic content to these 
proposed eight categories of official communications, the Board intends 
to encourage agencies to do more to ensure that individuals with 
disabilities have comparable access to, and use of, electronic 
information and data. The Board does not intend this proposed approach 
to disturb or override the independent legal obligations of agencies--
whether arising under sections 501 or 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or 
other statutes--to provide accessible communications as a reasonable 
accommodation or other required accommodations. For example, draft 
electronic documents exchanged by federal employees as part of an 
agency working group would not be covered by proposed E205.3, but might 
still be required to be accessible by Section 501 when needed by a 
federal employee with a disability to perform his or her job.
    Question 4. Are the eight proposed categories of non-public facing 
content sufficiently clear? Do they ensure a sufficient level of 
accessibility without imposing an unnecessary burden on agencies? If 
not, the Board encourages commenters to suggest revisions to these 
categories that would improve clarity or strike a more appropriate 
balance.
    Notably absent from the proposed eight categories of non-public 
facing content is a type of content--namely, content ``broadly 
disseminated throughout an agency''--that was included in the 2011 
ANPRM. Several federal agencies and other commenters found this 
language to be vague and overbroad, and called for its revision or 
withdrawal. The Board acknowledges that the ``broadly disseminated'' 
category could, in practice, prove challenging to apply and lead to 
inconsistent implementation across agencies that the proposed 508 
Standards are designed to address. Accordingly, the Board has not 
included ``broadly disseminated'' content as a category in the proposed 
rule. The Board nonetheless welcomes comment on this issue, and may 
include a ``widely disseminated''-style category in the final rule 
should there prove to be a workable definition or metric to assess 
compliance.
    Question 5. Should a category for ``widely disseminated'' 
electronic content be included among the categories of non-public 
facing official communications by agencies that must meet the 
accessibility requirements in the 508 Standards? Why or why not? If 
such a category were to be included in the final rule, what metrics 
might be used to determine whether a communication is broadly 
disseminated throughout an agency?
    Lastly, with respect to exceptions, the Board proposes in this NPRM 
an exception in E205.3 for non-public facing records maintained by the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for archival 
purposes under federal recordkeeping requirements. As proposed, such 
content--even if otherwise meeting the conditions in proposed E205.3 
for electronic content that must be made accessible (i.e., non-public 
facing agency official communications that fall within one or more of 
the eight enumerated categories)--would not be required to comply with 
the proposed 508 Standards so long as it remained non-public facing. 
The Board anticipates that the only content covered by this exception 
would be non-public facing archival materials administered or 
maintained by NARA in compliance with federal recordkeeping 
requirements, such as the Federal Records Act (codified at 44 U.S.C. 
Chapters 21, 29 and 33). It bears noting that NARA is not generally 
responsible for remediating inaccessible materials submitted to NARA by 
other agencies unless such materials are made publicly available by, 
for example, being posted on NARA's Web site.
    Though the 2011 ANPRM included an express exception for draft 
materials, no such exception is included in either proposed E205.2 
(Public Facing) or E205.3 (Agency Official Communications) for two main 
reasons. First, public-facing content--such as that covered by proposed 
E205.2--should be equally accessible to all members of the public 
regardless of whether it is in draft or final form. For example, a 
draft policy published for comment on an agency Web site should be 
accessible so that all affected individuals may provide feedback. 
Secondly, drafts, by their very nature, would typically fall outside 
the scope of the eight categories of content constituting agency 
official communications subject to proposed E205.3. Only final 
electronic documents that are ready for distribution would qualify as 
the type of content identified in proposed categories 1 through 8 of 
this provision. For example, a draft memorandum by an agency component 
announcing a new telework policy would not constitute a ``policy 
announcement'' (Category 3) subject to proposed E205.3 until it is 
finalized and ready to be transmitted to its intended audience of 
component employees.

B. WCAG 2.0 Incorporation by Reference

    As noted above, the Board proposes in this NPRM to incorporate by 
reference WCAG 2.0. In the following sections, the Board discusses the 
rationale for, and certain issues related to, incorporation of this 
consensus standard.
1. Rationale for Incorporation by Reference
    We have four principal reasons for incorporation by reference of 
WCAG 2.0. They are as follows:
    First, our approach is consistent with that taken by other 
international standards organizations dealing with this issue. 
Standards developed in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada already 
directly reference WCAG 2.0. Moreover, WCAG 2.0 serves as the basis for 
Web accessibility standards in Germany (under ``BITV 2''), France 
(under ``RGAA 2.2.1'') and Japan (under ``JIS X 83141'') and has so far 
generated

[[Page 10895]]

eight formal authorized translations. In addition, the European 
Commission references WCAG 2.0 in EN 301 549.
    Second, incorporation by reference of WCAG 2.0 is consistent with 
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), as well as Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development 
and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment 
Activities (1998), which direct agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards in lieu of government-unique standards except where 
inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OMB is in the process of updating Circular A-119. See 
Request for Comments on a Proposed Revision of OMB Circular No. A-
119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary 
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, 79 FR 
8207 (proposed Feb. 11, 2014). In its request for comment, OMB 
stated: ``The revised Circular would maintain a strong preference 
for using voluntary consensus standards in Federal regulation and 
procurement. It would also acknowledge, however, that there may be 
some standards not developed using a consensus-driven process that 
are in use in the market--particularly in the information technology 
space--and that may be relevant (and necessary) in meeting agency 
missions and priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, our approach is consistent with that being taken by another 
federal agency addressing a similar topic, namely the Department of 
Transportation's recent final rule addressing, among other things, the 
accessibility of air carrier and ticket agent Web sites. See 
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, 78 FR 67882 
(Nov. 12, 2013).
    Fourth, incorporation of WCAG 2.0 directly serves the best 
interests of Americans with disabilities because it will help 
accelerate the spread of Web accessibility. The accessibility of the 
Web is essential to enable the participation of individuals with 
disabilities in today's information society.
2. Justification for Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web ICT
    The Access Board is proposing to require not only Web content to 
conform to the Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance 
Requirements in WCAG 2.0--an approach with which commenters to the 2010 
and 2011 ANPRMs unanimously agreed--but also software and non-Web 
documents. Several commenters to the 2011 ANRPM were critical of this 
approach, and questioned the propriety of applying WCAG 2.0 to non-Web 
ICT. For the reasons noted below, the Board believes that applying WCAG 
2.0 outside the web browser environment not only ensures greater 
accessibility for persons with disabilities, but also minimizes the 
incremental burden on regulated entities by simplifying compliance 
through incorporation of a technologically-neutral consensus standard.
    Because WCAG 2.0 was written to be technology neutral, the language 
and phrasing of the Success Criteria can be applied to any technology 
found on the Web. Since most file types are found on the Web and much 
software is now Web-enabled, it is reasonable to utilize WCAG 2.0 to 
evaluate off-line documents and software interfaces with 
straightforward substitution of terms to address this new application. 
This approach has the potential to significantly simplify accessibility 
conformance and assessment.
    We find support for our approach from two other sources, namely the 
European Commission's Standardization Mandate M 376 (M376) of March 
2012 and the World Wide Web Consortium's WCAG2ICT Task Force (``Task 
Force''). The W3C formed the Task Force in June 2012 in part to address 
reservations, expressed by some of the commenters to our 2011 ANPRM, 
about applying the criteria for accessible Web content to off-line 
documents and software. W3C invited participation from subject-matter 
experts from around the world, including representatives of federal 
agencies and others who had concerns with our approach. The Task 
Force's final consensus report provides guidance concerning application 
of WCAG 2.0 to non-Web ICT, specifically non-Web documents and 
software. See W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, WSC Working Group 
Note--Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and 
Communications Technologies (Sept. 5, 2013), available at https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/.
    The Task Force analyzed each of the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria to 
determine their suitability for application to non-Web content. There 
are thirty-eight Level A and Level AA Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0. The 
Task Force found that the majority of Success Criteria from WCAG 2.0 
can be applied to non-Web documents and software with no, or only 
minimal, changes. Specifically, twenty-six Success Criteria do not 
include any Web-related terms and, therefore, can be applied directly 
as written and as described in the ``Intent'' sections of the most 
current version of ``Understanding WCAG 2.0.'' Thirteen of these 
twenty-six can be applied without any additional notes. The other 
thirteen also can be applied as written, but the Task Force provided 
additional informative notes in its report for the sake of clarity.
    Of the remaining twelve Success Criteria, the Task Force found that 
eight of them can be applied as written when certain Web-specific terms 
or phrases like ``Web page'' are replaced with non-Web terms or phrases 
like ``non-Web documents and software.'' Additional notes are provided 
in the Task Force report to assist in the application of these Success 
Criteria to non-Web ICT. One example is Success Criterion 2.4.5 
Multiple Ways. The Task Force noted that, when applied to the non-Web 
environment, this criterion requires that there be more than one way to 
locate a document (or software program) within a set of documents or 
programs. For mobile devices, this criterion could be satisfied by an 
operating system that makes files locatable by directory and search 
functions--features that are nearly ubiquitous among mobile operating 
systems in use today.
    Another example is Success Criterion 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation. 
For this criterion, the Task Force noted that application to the non-
Web environment would require consistency among navigational elements 
when such elements were repeated within sets of documents or software 
programs. To be conformant, navigational elements would be required to 
occur in the same relative order each time they are presented. It is 
unlikely that authors would provide navigation elements for a set of 
related documents and then present them differently from document to 
document, thereby defeating their purpose.
    The Task Force's report also notes that applying the success 
criteria in WCAG 2.0 to non-Web ICT with closed functionality proves 
problematic when a success criterion assumes the presence of assistive 
technologies, since closed functionality--by definition--does not allow 
attachment or use of assistive technology. This might occur, for 
example, when an eBook allows assistive technologies to access all of 
the user interface controls of the eBook program (open functionality), 
but does not allow such technologies to access the actual content of 
books (closed functionality). The Task Force identified 14 success 
criteria for which compliance might prove challenging for developers of 
ICT products with closed functionality. We propose to resolve this 
issue by exempting ICT with closed functionality from certain WCAG 2.0 
Success Criteria, in conjunction with the addition of requirements 
specific to such products in Chapter 402, Closed Functionality.

[[Page 10896]]

    By incorporating WCAG 2.0 by reference, the proposed standards 
would provide a single set of requirements for Web sites, documents, 
and software. WCAG 2.0 addresses new technologies and is responsive to 
the fact that the characteristics of products (e.g., native browser 
behavior and plug-ins and applets) have converged over time. Today, 
there are fewer distinctions among product categories, and some are 
outdated. For example, modern smartphones include: Software 
applications and operating systems, Web-based intranet and Internet 
information and applications, and video and multimedia products. 
Additionally, smartphones are portable computers, telecommunications 
products, and self-contained closed products. New requirements in WCAG 
2.0 also address gaps in the existing 508 Standards. Examples include: 
A requirement for a logical reading order, the ability to resize text, 
and the ability to turn off background audio that might interfere with 
comprehension and screen reading software.
3. Comparison of WCAG 2.0 to Existing 508 Standards
    While the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria build on the heritage of the 
existing 508 Standards, they are generally more explicit than the 
standards. Careful attention was given during their development to 
ensure that the Success Criteria are written as objectively testable 
requirements. In addition, unlike the existing 508 Standards, WCAG 2.0 
is written in a technologically neutral fashion, which makes it 
directly applicable to a wide range of content types and formats.
    For example, operability of ICT through keyboards (or alternate 
keyboard devices) is often critical to accessibility. Persons who are 
blind or who have limited vision often use screen readers to navigate 
Web pages using only the keyboard. Keyboard operability is also 
essential for many individuals with motor impairments who use alternate 
keyboards, or input devices that act as keyboard emulators when 
accessing ICT because they find mouse pointing to be cumbersome or 
impossible. Keyboard emulators include voice recognition software, sip-
and-puff software, and on-screen keyboards. The existing 508 Standards 
envision keyboard operability from both software and Web-based 
information or applications, but such requirements were not necessarily 
explicit. Section 1194.21(a) expressly mandates that, when software is 
designed to run on a keyboard, all product functions must generally be 
executable through a keyboard. With respect to Web-based information 
and applications, the 508 Standards are not so explicit. At the time 
these standards were promulgated, Web pages created with HyperText 
Markup Language (HTML[supreg]) were always keyboard operable. 
Therefore, an express requirement for keyboard operability by Web pages 
was unnecessary. The existing 508 Standards expressly require keyboard 
operability for Web pages that require applets and plug-ins to 
interpret page content since keyboard operation in these contexts was 
not ubiquitous. See 36 CFR 1194.22(m). Collectively, the existing 508 
Standards thus address keyboard operability both within and outside the 
Web environment, but do so in a variety of ways.
    Over the years, however, Web technologies have become more complex. 
Use of keyboards is often secondary to mouse or touch-only interfaces. 
Success Criterion 2.1.1 requires all functionality to be operable 
through a keyboard interface. Section 1194.21(a) of the existing 508 
Standards requires that ``[w]hen software is designed to run on a 
system that has a keyboard, product functions shall be executable from 
a keyboard where the function itself or the result of performing a 
function can be discerned textually.'' This current wording is phrased 
as an input requirement based on output, and it leaves ``discerned 
textually'' as an undefined term. These are both flaws that may create 
accessibility gaps in application. For example, an operating system 
feature like ``mouse keys'' (where the keyboard cursor keys are used to 
steer the mouse pointer) satisfies this provision on its face, even 
though that feature is of no use to someone who cannot see the screen 
and relies on screen reading software. Success Criterion 2.1.1, on the 
other hand, while longer, only references input and uses no special 
jargon. This success criterion reads: ``All functionality of the 
content [must be] operable through a keyboard interface without 
requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the 
underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the 
user's movement and not just the endpoints.''
    The Access Board has created a comprehensive table comparing WCAG 
2.0 Level A and AA Success Criteria to the corresponding requirements 
in the existing 508 Standards. The table can be found on our Web site 
at www.access-board.gov/wcag2-508. In this table, the Board has 
identified WCAG 2.0 success criteria as either ``substantially 
equivalent'' or ``new'' relative to the existing 508 Standards. 
Identification of a WCAG 2.0 success criterion as ``new'' indicates 
that it has no corresponding provision in the existing 508 Standards; 
rather, it addresses a deficiency with the existing 508 Standards as 
identified by the developers of WCAG. In most cases, agencies with 
Section 508 compliance testing processes have adapted their procedures 
to address these accessibility concerns.
    In sum, there are 38 WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA Success Criteria. 
After careful comparison of these success criteria to the existing 508 
Standards, the Access Board deems 22 success criteria to be 
substantially equivalent in substance to our existing standards. The 
Board estimates that agencies with content that meets this group of 
existing 508 Standards will incur no or minimal costs by virtue of 
incorporation of WCAG 2.0 into our proposed rule. For the remaining 16 
success criteria the Board deems to be new, it is anticipated that 
agencies would, to a greater or lesser extent (depending on the content 
and criteria at issue), incur some costs when implementing WCAG 2.0.
    Question 6. The Board seeks comment on the extent that the proposed 
incorporation of WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria would 
result in new costs or benefits. We have characterized the majority of 
success criteria as ``substantially equivalent'' to requirements under 
the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines and request comment as to 
the accuracy of this characterization.
4. Proposed Updates to Other Web-Specific Provisions in Existing 508 
Standards
    Along with the incorporation by reference of WCAG 2.0, the Board 
also proposes to update six provisions in the existing 508 Standards 
related to Web content to account for technological changes or their 
respective obsolescence. These six provisions for which the Board 
proposes deletion or replacement are as follows:
    We propose to replace Sec.  1194.21(g) of the existing 508 
Standards, which prohibits applications from overriding user-selected 
contrast and color selections and other individual display attributes, 
with a new section 503.2 User Preferences. As with Sec.  1194.21(g), 
this proposed provision requires applications to permit user 
preferences from platform settings for display settings. However, 
proposed 503.2 also provides an exception for applications--such as Web 
software--that are designed to be isolated from their operating 
systems. By design, Web applications (such as, for example, software 
used to create interactive

[[Page 10897]]

multimedia content) are isolated from the operating system (i.e., 
``sand boxed'') for security reasons. An expectation that certain 
platform settings (e.g., font preferences) apply globally to all 
documents found on the Web is not practical.
    We propose to delete Sec.  1194.22(d) of the existing 508 
Standards, which requires that Web documents be organized so they are 
readable without requiring an associated style sheet. Cascading style 
sheets (CSS) are now well supported by assistive technology and, 
consequently, this provision is unnecessary. For example, contemporary 
techniques using CSS to selectively hide irrelevant content from all 
users also selectively hides irrelevant content from users of assistive 
technology.
    We propose to delete Sec.  1194.22(k) of the existing 508 
Standards, which permits text-only Web pages under certain 
circumstances, because incorporation of WCAG 2.0 success criteria 
renders this provision obsolete. While WCAG 2.0 does permit 
``conforming alternate versions,'' text-only pages could not provide 
equivalent information or functionality for all but the most trivial 
Web content. The WCAG requirement for a conforming alternate version 
significantly exceeds the expectations for text only pages.
    Question 7. A Web page can conform to WCAG 2.0 either by satisfying 
all success criteria under one of the levels of conformance or by 
providing a conforming alternate version. WCAG 2.0 always permits the 
use of conforming alternate versions. Are there any concerns that 
unrestricted use of conforming alternate versions of Web pages may lead 
to the unnecessary development of separate Web sites or unequal 
services for individuals with disabilities? Should the Board restrict 
the use of conforming alternate versions beyond the explicit 
requirements of WCAG 2.0? The Board requests that responses be provided 
in the context of the WCAG definition for conforming alternate versions 
(https://w3.org/TR/WCAG20/<#conforming-alternate-versiondef). 
Commenters should review the guidance material as to why conforming 
alternate versions are permitted (https://w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html<#uc-whypermit-head).
    We propose to delete Sec.  1194.22(l) of the existing 508 
Standards, which applies when pages utilize scripting languages to 
display content or to create interface elements and requires the 
scripted information to be identified with functional text that can be 
read by assistive technology. Because WCAG 2.0 is technology neutral, 
inclusion of a separate provision applicable to scripting languages 
would be redundant; the same requirements that apply to HTML and other 
Web technologies also apply to scripting languages.
    We propose to delete Sec.  1194.22(m) of the existing 508 
Standards, which applies when a Web page needs an applet, plug-in, or 
other application present on the client system to interpret page 
content and requires that such page provide a link to a plug-in or 
applet that complies with other referenced standards (in Sec.  1194.21) 
relating to software applications. Because WCAG 2.0 applies directly to 
applets, plug-ins, and Web applications, Sec.  1194.22(m) is redundant.
    Lastly, the Board proposes to delete Sec.  1194.24(e) of the 
existing 508 Standards, which requires that the non-permanent display 
or presentation of alternate text presentation or audio descriptions be 
user-selectable. Section 1194.24(e) essentially duplicates requirements 
for video and multimedia products already set forth in other provision 
in the same section (i.e., subsections (c) and (d)). The provision for 
user selectable closed captions and audio description restates existing 
practice, so it is unnecessary.

C. Functional Performance Criteria

    The functional performance criteria are outcome-based provisions 
that address barriers to using ICT by individuals with certain 
disabilities, such as those related to vision, hearing, color 
blindness, speech, and manual dexterity. Both the existing 508 
Standards and 255 Guidelines provide functional performance criteria. 
However, the existing 508 Standards do not expressly define the 
relationship between its functional performance criteria and technical 
requirements. To address this gap, the Board proposes to clarify when 
application of the functional performance criteria in the 508 Standards 
is required. (We are not proposing to change the application of the 
functional performance criteria in the 255 Guidelines.) The Board also 
proposes, in this NPRM, to update several functional performance 
criteria in Chapter 3 to refine some criteria and to make editorial 
changes necessitated by revisions elsewhere in the proposed rule.
1. Application of Functional Performance Criteria: 508 Standards
    Section 1194.31 of the existing 508 Standards, which sets forth six 
specific functional performance criteria, does not specify when federal 
agencies and other covered entities should or must apply these 
criteria. As described in the preamble to the final rule for the 
existing standards:

    This section [1194.31] provides functional performance criteria 
for overall product evaluation and for technologies or components 
for which there is no specific requirement under other sections. 
These criteria are also intended to ensure that the individual 
accessible components work together to create an accessible product. 
(65 FR 80519 (Dec. 21, 2000))

    Over the ensuing years, some have raised questions about 
application of the functional performance criteria in the existing 508 
Standards. The General Services Administration's IT Accessibility and 
Workforce (GSA/ITAW)--which is the federal government's principal 
coordinator for Section 508 implementation--provides the following 
information in a ``Q&A'' format concerning application of the 
functional performance criteria:

    How should an agency proceed in identifying ``applicable'' 
technical provisions in Subparts B [technical provisions], C 
[functional performance criteria], and D [information, 
documentation, and support] of the Access Board's standards to 
ensure acquired products provide comparable access?
    Agencies should first look to the provisions in Subpart B 
[technical provisions] to determine if there are specific technical 
provisions that apply to the [ICT] need they are seeking to satisfy.
    If there are applicable provisions in Subpart B [technical 
provisions] that fully address the product or service being 
procured, then the agency need not look to Subpart C [functional 
performance criteria]. Acquired products that meet the specific 
technical provisions set forth in Subpart B [technical provisions] 
will also meet the broader functional performance criteria in 
Subpart C [functional performance criteria].
    If an agency's procurement needs are not fully addressed by 
Subpart B [technical provisions], then the agency must look to 
Subpart C [functional performance criteria] for applicable 
functional performance requirements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ General Services Admin., Section 508 Frequently Asked 
Questions 11 (Jan. 2014) (response to Question B.2.ii), available at 
https://section508.gov/Section508_FAQs..

    The GSA/ITAW's Q&A document also suggests that the functional 
performance criteria in the existing 508 Standards be used to evaluate 
ICT products for equivalent facilitation. Id.
    As recounted previously, the Board's approach to specifying 
requirements for application of the functional performance criteria has 
evolved over the course of this rulemaking. The Advisory Committee 
recommended that the Board clarify the relationship

[[Page 10898]]

between the functional performance criteria and the technical 
provisions in the 508 Standards, but did not reach consensus on how to 
address this issue. In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed to use the 
approach suggested in the GSA/ITAW's Q&A document--namely, that 
agencies first look to the technical provisions in the 508 Standards to 
determine whether there were specific provisions that applied to the 
ICT being procured. If there were technical provisions that fully 
addressed the ICT being procured, then the agency would not need to 
apply the functional performance criteria. Application of the 
functional performance criteria would thus only be required under the 
following two circumstances: When the agency's procurement needs were 
not fully addressed by technical provisions in the 508 Standards, or 
when evaluating ICT for equivalent facilitation. This proposal was 
intended to reflect current agency practice.
    Concerns expressed by commenters led the Board to propose 
redefining the relationship between the functional performance criteria 
and the technical provisions in the 508 Standards. In the 2011 ANPRM, 
the Board proposed that ICT would be required to conform to the 
functional performance criteria, even when the technical provisions 
were met. This proposal, too, received mixed reviews from commenters. 
While some commenters supported this approach, industry groups objected 
to it as unworkable. They viewed the functional performance criteria as 
overly subjective and not subject to objective testing. As one 
commenter from the IT industry noted: ``[A] supplier cannot guarantee 
that the functional performance criteria have been met unless the 
supplier controls all the components of the end-to-end solution.''
    In this NPRM, the Board heeds the concerns of industry groups and 
effectively returns to our original proposal whereby the functional 
performance criteria in the 508 Standards apply only in two specific 
circumstances--when there are ``gaps'' in the technical requirements 
and when evaluating equivalent facilitation. Specifically, agencies 
would be required to apply the functional criteria as follows. First, 
where the proposed requirements in Chapter 4 for hardware and Chapter 5 
for software do not address one or more of the features of ICT, 
sections E204.1 and C202.1 would require the features that are not 
addressed in those chapters to conform to the functional performance 
criteria in Chapter 3. This is consistent with the GSA/ITAW's 
recommended approach under the existing 508 Standards. It is also 
consistent with Sec. Sec.  1193.21 and 1193.41 of the existing 255 
Guidelines. Second, section E101.2 proposes to require the functional 
performance criteria to be used when evaluating ICT for equivalent 
facilitation. This is consistent with the GSA/ITAW's recommended 
approach under the existing 508 Standards.
    With respect to the 255 Guidelines, neither the Advisory Committee 
(in its TEITAC Report) nor the Board (in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs) 
previously proposed any changes to the manner in which 
telecommunications equipment manufacturers must apply the functional 
performance criteria. Likewise, the Board proposes no changes in this 
NPRM. See Section VI.D (Section-by-Section Analysis--Functional 
Performance Criteria and Technical Requirements--C201.3 and C202).
2. Updates to Functional Performance Criteria: 508 Standards and 255 
Guidelines
    As noted above, the Board is also proposing in this NPRM to update 
several functional performance criteria in Chapter 3 (located in 
Appendix C--Technical Requirements)--which applies to both the 508 
Standards and the 255 Guidelines--by refining some criteria and making 
editorial changes necessitated by revisions elsewhere in the proposed 
rule. We highlight below several of the principle revisions to the 
functional performance criteria proposed in this NPRM. In addition, 
Table 3, which follows at the end of this section, provides a detailed 
comparison of the functional performance criteria in the existing 508 
Standards (Sec.  1194.31), 255 Guidelines (1193.41), and the proposed 
rule (section 302).
    First, while the functional performance criteria in proposed 302 no 
longer reference assistive technology, this amounts to an editorial 
change only. The existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines allow 
certain functional performance criteria to be satisfied either directly 
or indirectly through support for assistive technology. (See, e.g., 
existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec.  1194.31(a)-(e)). The functional 
performance criteria in the proposed rule do not provide for compliance 
through support for assistive technology because other proposed 
revisions to the 508 Standards (E203.1) and 255 Guidelines (C201.3) 
would impose a general requirement that agencies and telecommunications 
equipment manufacturers respectively ensure that all functionality of 
ICT is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, 
either directly or by supporting the use of assistive technology.
    Second, as discussed in Section IV.E.6, the Board proposes to 
revise the criteria for users with limited vision in section 302.2. The 
existing 508 Standards require at least one mode of operation and 
information retrieval that does not require visual acuity greater than 
20/70 to be provided in audio and enlarged print output working 
together or independently. The existing 255 Guidelines are similar, 
except that they define users with limited vision as users possessing 
visual acuity that ranges between 20/70 and 20/200. The proposed rule 
would require at least one mode of operation that magnifies, one mode 
that reduces the field of vision required, and one mode that allows 
user control of contrast where a visual mode of operation is provided. 
The proposed rule does not refer to visual acuity since comments in 
response to proposals in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs recommended that the 
criteria should address features that would improve accessibility for 
users with limited vision instead of using visual acuity as a measure 
of limited vision.
    Third, there are two functional performance provisions in the 
existing 255 Guidelines that are not found in the functional 
performance criteria for existing 508 Standards: operations without 
time-dependent controls (255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.41(g)) and 
operations with limited cognitive skills (255 Guidelines Sec.  
1193.41(i)). There is a technical provision in the existing 508 
Standards that corresponds to 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.41(g) requiring 
the operation of ICT without time-dependent controls (508 Standards 
Sec.  1194.22(p)). This is addressed in the proposed rule in WCAG 2.0 
Success Criteria 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable and 2.2.2 Pause, Stop and 
Hide. We propose to incorporate by reference WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 
in proposed E207.2 and C205.2.
    Fourth, the Board proposes not to include a functional performance 
criteria relating to limited cognitive skills. The existing 255 
Guidelines provide a criterion for at least one mode of operation that 
minimizes cognitive skills required of the user (Sec.  1193.41(i)), 
while the existing 508 Standards have no parallel provision. Such a 
criterion has not been included in the proposed rule on the advice of 
the Advisory Committee, which recommended deletion of this criteria 
pending future research. (See Section VI.C (Section-by-Section 
Analysis--Application and Scoping).

[[Page 10899]]

    Table 3 below provides a provision-by-provision summary of how the 
proposed rule would revise the existing functional performance criteria 
by comparing the criteria in proposed 302 (in the left-hand column of 
the table) to its counterparts in existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.31 
(in the middle column of the table) and existing 255 Guidelines Sec.  
1193.41 (in the right-hand column of the table).

 Table 3--Comparison of the Functional Performance Criteria in the NPRM
              and Existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Proposed Sections E207.2 and
 C205.2 (incorporating WCAG 2.0      Existing 508        Existing 255
      by reference) and 302            Standards          Guidelines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
302.1 Without Vision. Where a     Sec.   1194.31 (a)  Sec.   1193.41(a)
 visual mode of operation is       At least one mode   Operable without
 provided, ICT shall provide at    of operation and    vision. Provide
 least one mode of operation       information         at least one mode
 that does not require user        retrieval that      that does not
 vision.                           does not require    require user
                                   user vision shall   vision.
                                   be provided, or
                                   support for
                                   assistive
                                   technology used
                                   by people who or
                                   blind or visually
                                   impaired shall be
                                   provided.
302.2 With Limited Vision. Where  Sec.   1194.31 (b)  Sec.   1193.41 (b)
 a visual mode of operation is     At least one mode   Operable with low
 provided, ICT shall provide at    of operation and    vision and
 least one mode of operation       information         limited or no
 that magnifies, one mode that     retrieval that      hearing. Provide
 that reduces the field of         does not require    at least one mode
 vision required, and one mode     visual acuity       that permits
 that allows user control of       greater than 20/    operation by
 contrast.                         70 shall be         users with visual
                                   provided in audio   acuity between 20/
                                   and enlarged        70 and 20/200,
                                   print output        without relying
                                   working together    on audio output.
                                   or independently,
                                   or support for
                                   assistive
                                   technology used
                                   by people who or
                                   visually impaired
                                   shall be provided.
302.3 Without Perception of       No criteria for     Sec.   1193.41 (c)
 Color. Where a visual mode of     users without       Operable with
 operation is provided, ICT        perception of       little or no
 shall provide at least one mode   color.              color perception.
 of operation that does not                            Provide at least
 require user perception of                            one mode that
 color..                                               does not require
                                                       user color
                                                       perception.
302.4 Without Hearing. Where an   Sec.   1194.31 (c)  Sec.   1193.41 (d)
 auditory mode of operation is     At least one mode   Operable without
 provided, ICT shall provide at    of operation and    hearing. Provide
 least one mode of operation       information         at least one mode
 that does not require user        retrieval that      that does not
 hearing.                          does not require    require user
                                   user hearing        auditory
                                   shall be            perception.
                                   provided, or
                                   support for
                                   assistive
                                   technology used
                                   by people who are
                                   deaf or hard of
                                   hearing shall be
                                   provided.
302.5 With Limited Hearing.       Sec.   1194.31 (d)  Operable with low
 Where an auditory mode of         Where audio         vision and
 operation is provided, ICT        information is      limited or no
 shall provide at least one mode   important for the   hearing. Provide
 of operation that improves        use of a product,   at least one mode
 clarity, one mode that reduces    at least one mode   that permits
 background noise, and one mode    of operation and    operation by
 that allows user control of       information         users with visual
 volume.                           retrieval shall     acuity between 20/
                                   be provided in an   70 and 20/200,
                                   enhanced auditory   without relying
                                   fashion, or         on audio output.
                                   support for
                                   assistive hearing
                                   devices shall be
                                   provided.
302.6 Without Speech. Where a     Sec.   1194.31 (e)  Sec.   1193.41(h)
 spoken mode of operation is       At least one mode   Operable without
 provided, ICT shall provide at    of operation and    speech. Provide
 least one mode of operation       information         at least one mode
 that does not require user        retrieval that      that does not
 speech.                           does not require    require user
                                   user speech shall   speech.
                                   be provided, or
                                   support for
                                   assistive
                                   technology used
                                   by people with
                                   disabilities
                                   shall be provided.
302.7 With Limited Manipulation.  Sec.   1194.31 (f)  Sec.   1193.41 (e)
 Where a manual mode of            At least one mode   Operable with
 operation is provided, ICT        of operation and    limited manual
 shall provide at least one mode   information         dexterity.
 of operation that does not        retrieval that      Provide at least
 require fine motor control or     does not require    one mode that
 operation of more than one        fine motor          does not require
 control at the same time.         control or          user fine motor
                                   simultaneous        control or
                                   actions and that    simultaneous
                                   is operable with    actions.
                                   limited reach and
                                   strength shall be
                                   provided.
302.8 With Limited Reach or       ..................  Sec.   1193.41 (f)
 Strength. Where a manual mode                         Operable with
 of operation is provided, ICT                         limited reach and
 shall provide at least one mode                       strength. Provide
 of operation that is operable                         at least one mode
 with limited reach and limited                        that is operable
 strength.                                             with user limited
                                                       reach and
                                                       strength.
WCAG 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable:
 For each time limit that is set
 by the content, at least one of
 the following is true: (Level
 A).
 
     Turn off: The user
     is allowed to turn off the
     time limit before
     encountering it; or
 
     Adjust: The user is  Sec.   1194.22 (p)  Sec.   1193.41 (g)
     allowed to adjust the time    When a timed        Operable without
     limit before encountering     response is         time-dependent
     it over a wide range that     required, the       controls. Provide
     is at least ten times the     user shall be       at least one mode
     length of the default         alerted and given   that does not
     setting; or                   sufficient time     require a
                                   to indicate more    response time.
                                   time is required.   Alternatively, a
                                                       response time may
                                                       be required if it
                                                       can be by-passed
                                                       or adjusted by
                                                       the user over a
                                                       wide range.

[[Page 10900]]

 
     Extend: The user is
     warned before time expires
     and given at least 20
     seconds to extend the time
     limit with a simple action
     (for example, ``press the
     space bar''), and the user
     is allowed to extend the
     time limit at least ten
     times; or
     Real-time
     Exception: The time limit
     is a required part of a
     real-time event (for
     example, an auction), and
     no alternative to the time
     limit is possible; or
     Essential
     Exception: The time limit
     is essential and extending
     it would invalidate the
     activity; or
     20 Hour Exception:
     The time limit is longer
     than 20 hours.
WCAG 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide:
 For moving, blinking,
 scrolling, or auto-updating
 information, all of the
 following are true: (Level A).
 
     Moving, blinking,    Sec.   1194.22 (h)  Sec.   1193.43 (c)
     scrolling: For any moving,    When animation is   Access to moving
     blinking or scrolling         displayed, the      text. Provide
     information that (1) starts   information shall   moving text in at
     automatically, (2) lasts      be displayable in   least one static
     more than five seconds, and   at least one non-   presentation mode
     (3) is presented in           animated            at the option of
     parallel with other           presentation mode   the user.
     content, there is a           at the option of
     mechanism for the user to     the user.
     pause, stop, or hide it
     unless the movement,
     blinking, or scrolling is
     part of an activity where
     it is essential; and
     Auto-updating: For
     any auto-updating
     information that (1) starts
     automatically and (2) is
     presented in parallel with
     other content, there is a
     mechanism for the user to
     pause, stop, or hide it or
     to control the frequency of
     the update unless the auto-
     updating is part of an
     activity where it is
     essential.
No corresponding provisions.....  No corresponding    Sec.   1193.41 (i)
                                   provisions.         Operable with
                                                       limited cognitive
                                                       skills. Provide
                                                       at least one mode
                                                       that minimizes
                                                       the cognitive,
                                                       memory, language,
                                                       and learning
                                                       skills required
                                                       of the user.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Real-Time Text

    In this NPRM, the Board proposes to require that ICT support RTT 
functionality whenever such ICT also provides real-time, two-way voice 
communication. This proposal represents a significant shift in approach 
for both the 508 Standards and the 255 Guidelines to better align with 
current technology. The existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines were 
published over a decade ago. At the time, TTYs were the most commonly 
available text-based system for communicating within a voice 
communication system. Since then, technology has greatly advanced. 
There are now, in addition to TTYs, multiple text-based means of 
communication available in the marketplace. This proposed revision will 
update the standards to reflect changes in telecommunications 
technology.
    Section 410.6 of the proposed rule would require ICT with real-time 
voice communication features to also support communication through 
real-time text. Such ICT would be required to support RTT either within 
its own closed system or outside a network. For example, a closed 
communication system, such as within a federal agency, would be 
required to interoperate with either the publicly switched telephone 
network (PSTN) or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) products or 
systems to support the transmission of real-time text. When ICT 
interoperates with VoIP products or systems using Session Initiation 
Protocol (SIP), the Board proposes to require the transmission of real-
time text to conform to the Internet Engineering Task Force's RFC 4103 
standard for RTP Payload for Text Conversation. Where ICT interoperates 
with the PSTN, real-time text would be required to conform to the 
Telecommunications Industry Association's TIA 825-A standard for TTY 
signals at the PSTN interface (also known as Baudot). RFC 4103 and TIA 
825-A are final standards proposed for incorporation by reference in 
508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1 (see sections E102 and C102, 
respectively).
    Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM noted that other standards aside from 
RFC 4103--such as XMPP and XEP-0301--were currently in use and could be 
referenced as specifications for ICT interoperability with VoIP using 
SIP. XEP-0301 is one of several pending standards developed for use in 
the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). XMPP is a set of 
open technologies for instant messaging, multi-party chat, voice and 
video calls, collaboration, and generalized routing of XML data. XMPP 
was originally developed in the Jabber open-source community to provide 
an open, secure,

[[Page 10901]]

spam-free, decentralized alternative to closed instant messaging 
services. XMPP differs from SIP, which is an application layer protocol 
used to establish, modify, and terminate multimedia sessions such as 
VoIP calls. Currently, both the XMPP and the SIP protocol are used in 
the marketplace. At this time, however, only the standard supporting 
the transmission of RTT over SIP (RFC 4103) is final. The standard 
supporting RTT over XMPP (XEP-0301) is not yet finalized.
    XEP-0301, In-Band Real-time Text, is a specification for real-time 
text transmitted in-band over an XMPP network. It is used for text 
messaging. As of the date of this publication, according to the XMPP 
Standards Foundation, the XEP-0301 standard is under review and not yet 
final. XEP-0301 has many advantages: It allows transmission of real-
time text with minimal delays; it supports message editing in real-
time; and, it has reliable real-time text delivery. It can be used for 
multiple users and allows alternate optional presentations of real-time 
text, including split screen or other layouts. The standard also allows 
use within gateways to interoperate with other real-time text 
protocols, including RFC 4103. It allows immediate conversational text 
through mobile phone text messaging and mainstream instant messaging. 
For more information on the benefits of XEP-0301, see https://www.realjabber.org/xep/xep-0301.html.
    Yet despite its potential benefits, the Board cannot incorporate 
XEP-0301 until it becomes a final standard. However, should the XEP-
0301 standard be finalized before publication of the final rule, the 
Board plans to incorporate it by reference as an alternative technology 
to support transmission of RTT when interoperating with VoIP products 
or systems using XMPP. RFC 4103 would, in any event, be retained for 
ICT interoperating with VoIP products or systems using SIP technology.
    Question 8. If the XEP-0301 standard is finalized, the Board is 
considering incorporating it by reference as an alternative standard 
for XMPP networks. We seek comment on the benefits, costs, and possible 
drawbacks associated with referencing this standard in addition to the 
RFC 4103 standard.
    The European standard, EN 301 549 would allow the use of multiple 
standards for RTT. As discussed in 4.6, Harmonization with European 
Activities above, EN 301 549 lists several standards for RTT, as well 
as an unspecified ``common specification'' for RTT. The common 
specification must indicate a method for indicating loss of corruption 
of characters. The Board seeks comment on whether other standards 
should be incorporated by reference. The other standards are:
     ITU-T v.18, Recommendation ITU-T V.18 (2000) ``Operational 
and interworking requirements for DCEs operating in the text telephone 
mode'' (see EN 301 549 6.3.3(a)). This Recommendation specifies 
features to be incorporated in data carrier equipment intended for use 
in, or communicating with, text telephones primarily used by people who 
are deaf or hard of hearing.
     IP Multimedia Sub-System (IMS) protocols specified in TS 
126 114, TS 122 173, and TS 134 229 (see EN 301 549 6.3.3(c)). ETSI TS 
126 114, Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (which was 
referenced in the EAAC Report and Recommendation noted previously in 
Section IV.F.2) supports a ``total communication'' approach by 
establishing a minimum set of codecs and transport protocols that must 
be supported by all elements in the IMS system for video, real-time 
text, audio, and high definition (HD) audio. As noted previously, the 
Board decided not to require standards for video, audio, or HD audio in 
this proposed rule beyond the technical requirements set forth in 
proposed 410 (ICT with Two-Way Voice Communication). Both the ETSI TS 
122 173 and ETSI TS 134 229 standards are still under development, and, 
therefore, cannot be referenced at this time.
    Question 9. Are there sufficient net benefits to be derived from 
requiring ITU-T v.18 that the Board should reference it in addition to 
TIA 825-A (2003)? We are requesting that telecommunication equipment 
manufacturers, in particular, provide any data regarding potential 
costs related to complying with this standard. Are there suggestions 
for other standards which would result in the same level of 
accessibility?
    Question 10. Are there net benefits to be derived from requiring 
more standards addressing multimedia than what we propose? The Board is 
requesting that telecommunication equipment manufacturers, in 
particular, provide any data regarding potential costs related to 
complying with the standards in EN 301 549 6.3.3(c). Are there 
suggestions for other standards which would result in the same level of 
accessibility?
    Question 11. Is ETSI TS 122 173 or ETSI TS 134 229 sufficiently 
significant that the Board should consider referencing either standard 
when it becomes final?

E. Assistive Technology

    Based on the work of the Advisory Committee and feedback from 
commenters, the Board proposes in this NPRM to directly cover some, but 
not all, aspects of assistive technology (AT). All stakeholders agreed 
that improving ICT-AT interoperability was critically important, but 
offered differing perspectives on how to make this happen. There was 
general consensus on some proposals (e.g., requirements for mainstream 
ICT), but not for others (e.g., requirements for, and status of, AT). 
In this NPRM, the Board proposes to revise its existing 508 Standards 
and 255 Guidelines by: (a) Updating the existing requirements for 
mainstream ICT software products--namely, platforms, operating systems, 
and applications--to interoperate with assistive technology based on 
consensus standards; (b) adding a new requirement for AT with a user 
interface to interoperate with mainstream platforms and industry 
standard accessibility services; and (c) clarifying that assistive 
technology is generally exempted from compliance with otherwise 
applicable technical requirements for hardware (Chapter 4) and software 
(Chapter 5). Each of these areas are discussed briefly below.
    With respect to the ICT side of the ICT-AT interoperability 
equation, the Board proposes a set of updated technical requirements 
for platforms and applications that will result in improved 
interoperation. This proposal received strong support from industry 
stakeholders who lauded it as an important improvement from the 
existing requirements because it was comprehensive, testable, and 
harmonized with international consensus standards for software 
accessibility. Proposed 502 contains three main subsections. Proposed 
502.2 Documented Accessibility Features largely tracks Sec.  1194.21(b) 
of the existing 508 Standards, and was strongly recommended by the 
Advisory Committee. Proposed 502.3 (Platform) Accessibility Services 
incorporates much of existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec.  1194.21(b), (c), 
(d), and (f), but proposed 502.3.1 through 502.3.9 provide 
significantly greater detail. Lastly, in 502.4 Platform Accessibility 
Features, the Board proposes to require that platforms provide specific 
accessibility features common to most platforms. This provision is 
being proposed in response to concerns raised by consumers and the 
assistive technology industry that the Board was not being sufficiently 
proactive in spelling out the accessibility features

[[Page 10902]]

that are well-established best practices. This proposal is based on 
requirements in the ANSI/HFES 200.2 Human Factors Engineering of 
Software User Interfaces standard, and represents current industry 
practice.
    Second, to address the role of the AT in ICT-AT interoperability, 
the Board proposes modest requirements for assistive technology. 
Proposed 503.3 Alternate User Interfaces would require assistive 
technology to use the basic set of platform accessibility information 
provided by operating systems and software (i.e., platform 
accessibility information provided under proposed 502.2) to aid 
interoperability, and, thereby, decrease the need for customized 
approaches. In other words, software providing an alternative user 
interface would need to support the platform for which it is designed. 
Commenters outside the AT industry voiced strong support for this 
proposal; these views convinced the Board that this modest shift in 
approach from the existing requirements would better ensure ICT-AT 
interoperability. Because it is sometimes ambiguous whether a software 
product is serving as assistive technology, this proposed provision 
speaks in terms of ``alternate user interface[s] that function[] as 
assistive technology.'' Proposed 503.3 is the only manner in which the 
Board is proposing to directly impose requirements on assistive 
technology; in all other respects, provisions aiding interoperability 
are directed at platforms, operating systems, and other types of 
applications.
    Third, to provide clarification sought by a number of commenters, 
the Board proposes to expressly exempt assistive technology from 
compliance with technical requirements generally applicable to hardware 
(Chapter 4) and software (Chapter 5). Commenters had expressed concern 
that, if assistive technology was treated as ICT for all purposes, some 
assistive technology would not be able to fulfill its intended 
function. For example, an individual with low muscle tone may find that 
a specialized, flat membrane keyboard best serves his or her needs; 
however, such a keyboard would not satisfy the requirements of Chapter 
4 because, among other things, it does not have tactilely discernable 
separation between keys (proposed 407.3). Accordingly, proposed 401.1 
provides an exception for hardware that is assistive technology, and a 
similar exception is proposed for assistive technology software 
(501.1--Exception 2).

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Introduction

    As noted above, the Board is proposing to revise and update both 
the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. The existing standards and 
guidelines are set forth in two separate regulatory parts--36 CFR parts 
1194 and 1193--and apply to different types of covered entities (e.g., 
federal entities and telecommunications equipment manufacturers). 
Nonetheless, these two sets of provisions contain many similar 
provisions and are, in our view, inextricably linked from a regulatory 
perspective. Both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines contain 
technical requirements for the design of accessible ICT. Both contain 
functional performance criteria, which apply when there are gaps in one 
or more of their respective technical provisions. Both address hardware 
and software features of ICT. Finally, both require that support 
documentation and services, when offered, are provided in a manner that 
meets the communication needs of individuals with disabilities and 
conveys information on the accessibility features of ICT.
    We are proposing to combine the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines 
into a single comprehensive set of requirements with three parts that 
will appear as Appendices A, B, and C to 36 CFR part 1194. Appendix A 
covers the proposed application and scoping requirements for ICT 
subject to Section 508 (``508 Chapter 1'' and ``508 Chapter 2''). 
Appendix B addresses the proposed application and scoping requirements 
for ICT covered by Section 255 (``255 Chapter 1'' and ``255 Chapter 
2''). Appendix C includes the proposed functional performance criteria 
(Chapter 3) and the proposed technical requirements (Chapters 4 through 
6) that are referenced by the Section 508 and Section 255 scoping 
provisions in Appendices A and B.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Advisory sections and figures that illustrate the technical 
requirements are available on the Internet at: www.access-board.gov. 
The advisory sections provide guidance only and do not contain 
mandatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Application and scoping includes instructions on when and how the 
provisions in proposed chapters 3 through 6 would apply under Sections 
508 and 255. With this proposed format, it is critical for covered 
entities to review scoping and application in either Appendix A (508 
Chapters 1 and 2) or Appendix B (255 Chapters 1 and 2) before 
consulting the functional performance and technical criteria in 
Appendix C (Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6). For example, under Section 508, 
federal agencies that wish to procure, use, maintain or develop ICT, 
must first understand what ICT is covered by the proposed technical 
requirements and functional performance criteria. This information 
exists only in Appendix A. Agencies would not consult Appendix B 
because it applies only to telecommunications equipment manufacturers 
subject to Section 255. Similarly, telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers would consult Appendix B to ascertain what ICT is subject 
to the proposed technical requirements and functional performance 
criteria under Section 255; they would not be required to comply with 
Appendix A. Nonetheless, it bears noting that, while a Section 255-
covered manufacturer is not obligated to comply with the 508 Standards, 
such manufacturers may still elect at their discretion to consult the 
standards if they wish. For example, if a telecommunications equipment 
manufacturer wished to make certain products (or features of products) 
more marketable to federal agencies, this manufacturer might choose to 
consult the 508 Standards to be familiar with standards governing 
federal agencies' procurement obligations.
    Naming conventions used in the Appendices for requirements also 
help indicate whether a particular provision applies under Section 508, 
Section 255, or both. In Appendix A, all proposed provisions are 
preceded by the letter ``E'' to indicate the provision would be 
applicable under Section 508 only. In Appendix B, all proposed 
provisions are preceded by the letter ``C'' to indicate the provision 
would be applicable under Section 255 only.\7\ The proposed technical 
requirements in Appendix C do not include an alphabetic prefix because, 
as discussed above, they would be applied in accordance with the 
application and scoping requirements in either Appendix A or Appendix 
B, depending on whether the covered entity is subject to Section 508 
(federal entities) or Section 255 (telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The ``C'' prefix for Section 255-specific requirements is a 
shorthand reference to ``communications'' in ICT, while the ``E'' 
prefix for requirements exclusive to the 508 Standards derives from 
``electronic'' in the former regulatory term, E&IT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed formatting and organizational structure is based on 
recommendations made by the Advisory Committee and public comments 
submitted in response to the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs. Section VI.B (508 
Standards: Application and Scoping) and Section VI.C (255 Guidelines:

[[Page 10903]]

Application and Scoping), below, summarize the proposed rule and 
explain any differences between the existing requirements for Section 
508 and Section 255 and the proposed rule. Due to the overlapping 
nature of the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, some of the 
following section-by-section discussions of particular standards also 
address a ``sister'' guideline. In addition, in a number of these 
sections, the Board poses questions soliciting comments, information, 
or data from the public.

B. 508 Standards: Application and Scoping

508 Chapter 1: Application and Administration
    This chapter proposes general requirements reflecting the purpose 
of the 508 Standards (E101.1). It also proposes criteria for equivalent 
facilitation (E101.2), lists referenced standards and where they may be 
obtained (E102), and provides definitions of terms used in the 
standards (E103). 508 Chapter 1 proposes, in large part, to simplify 
and reorganize similar provisions contained in existing 508 Standards 
Sec. Sec.  1194.1 Purpose, 1194.4 Definitions, and 1194.5 Equivalent 
Facilitation.
E101 General
    This is an introductory section.
E101.1 Purpose
    This section states that the purpose of the 508 Standards is to 
provide scoping and technical requirements for ICT that is accessible 
to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Compliance with these 
requirements is mandatory for federal agencies subject to Section 508.
E101.2 Equivalent Facilitation
    This section is based on existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.5. It 
would permit the use of an alternative design or technology in lieu of 
conformance to the proposed technical requirements in Chapters 4 and 5, 
but only if the alternative design or technology provides substantially 
equivalent or greater accessibility and usability by persons with 
disabilities than would be provided by conforming to the proposed 
technical provisions. This section also would require the proposed 
functional performance criteria in Chapter 3 to be used to determine 
whether the alternative design or technology provides individuals with 
disabilities with substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and 
usability. The application of the functional performance criteria for 
this purpose would fill in a gap in the existing 508 Standards, which 
do not explain how the functional performance criteria are to be used 
in relation to the technical provisions. We explain our approach in 
greater detail above in Section V.C (Major Issues--Functional 
Performance Criteria).
E101.3 Conventional Industry Tolerances
    This section would provide that dimensions are subject to 
conventional industry tolerances except where dimensions are stated as 
a range. This proposed provision would be new to the 508 Standards and 
would clarify how dimensions are to be interpreted when specified in 
the text or a referenced standard.
E101.4 Units of Measurement
    This section would note measurements are stated in U.S. customary 
and metric units and that the values stated in each system (U.S. 
customary and metric units) may not be exact equivalents. This section 
would also provide that each system be used independently of the other. 
This proposed section is new to the 508 Standards and would clarify 
dimensions stated in the text of the proposed rule.
E102 Referenced Standards
    This is an introductory section.
E102.1 Incorporation by Reference
    This section lists the technical standards developed by voluntary 
consensus standard-setting bodies that the Board proposes to 
incorporate by reference in the proposed 508 Standards. It would 
require that where there is a difference between a provision of the 
proposed 508 Standards and the referenced standards, the 508 Standards 
would apply.
    Incorporating these standards complies with the federal mandate--as 
set forth in the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 
1995 and OMB Circular A119--that agencies use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory activities unless doing so would be 
legally impermissible or impractical. The standards proposed for 
incorporation would improve clarity because they are built on consensus 
standards developed by stakeholders. Most of these standards are widely 
used and, therefore, should be familiar to many regulated entities.
    Incorporation by reference of these standards would be a distinct 
change and improvement from the existing 508 Standards, which contain 
no referenced standards. The Advisory Committee strongly recommended 
the adoption of specific accessibility consensus standards in order to 
promote harmonization. The adoption of consensus standards results in a 
more unified regulatory environment in which all participants benefit 
from clarity and simplicity. As noted in the TEITAC Report:

    Industry supports harmonization in principle because it allows 
the ICT market to address accessibility through a global process--
one product developed to be sold world-wide--rather than by trying 
to meet unique, potentially conflicting standards required by 
different countries. Harmonization should result in more accessible 
products, delivered through a more economically efficient market. 
Consumers thus benefit directly from harmonization; they also 
benefit indirectly because harmonization allows advocates to focus 
their efforts on fewer standards development activities. It is this 
economy of focused effort that may offer the greatest net benefit to 
people with disabilities. (TEITAC Report, Part 4, section 4.3).

    Once incorporated by reference, the referenced standards become 
part of the 508 Standards. We are unaware of any duplication or overlap 
among the parts of the proposed standards, including the standards 
incorporated by reference. However, in order to address any potential 
conflicts, proposed E102.1 (as well as C102.1) provide that, when a 
conflict occurs between the 508 Standards (or 255 Guidelines) and a 
standard incorporated by reference, the 508 Standards (or 255 
Guidelines) apply.
    While a discussion of the estimated economic impact of the proposed 
rule--including the proposed incorporation by reference of the 
consensus technical standards listed in E102.1 and C102.1--follows 
below in Section VIII, two points bear noting here. First, the cost of 
implementing this proposed rule can be mitigated, in part, through use 
of an updated product accessibility template that includes WCAG 2.0 and 
the other referenced standards. The product accessibility template, 
available through the GSA Section508.gov site is intended to help 
agencies understand which provisions apply to particular products. We 
expect GSA will update this tool so that it will be available for use 
by agencies on or before the effective date of revised 508 Standards. 
Second, the W3C WCAG Web site provides readily available technical 
assistance--free of charge--that is linked to each technical 
requirement in WCAG 2.0. A great deal of third-party information is 
also available. Collectively, these resources should also greatly aid 
federal agencies and other regulated entities become conversant with 
the provisions in this

[[Page 10904]]

standard, to the extent they are not already familiar with them.
    The Office of the Federal Register recently promulgated a final 
rule requiring federal agencies to provide information to the public in 
regulatory preambles relating to the availability of materials to be 
incorporated by reference. In Section VII.G (Regulatory Process 
Matters--Availability of Materials Incorporated by Reference) below, 
the Board provides information on the availability of ten consensus 
standards proposed for incorporation by reference in the 508 Standards 
and 255 Guidelines.
    The proposed 508 Standards would incorporate by reference the 
following standards:
E102.2 ANSI/HFES
    ANSI/HFES 200.2, Human Factors Engineering of Software User 
Interfaces--Part 2: Accessibility (2008), would be incorporated by 
reference at 502.4. This standard provides ergonomic guidance and 
specifications for the design of accessible software for use at work, 
in the home, in educational settings, and in public places. It covers 
issues associated with designing accessible software for people with a 
wide range of physical, sensory and cognitive abilities, including 
those who are temporarily disabled and the elderly.
    This proposed standard would be new to both the 508 Standards and 
255 Guidelines. Referencing this standard will ensure that ICT 
operating systems provide accessibility features (e.g., keyboard entry 
with a single finger, visual alerts paired with audible prompts) that 
users with disabilities expect and have come to rely upon. These 
features are commonly available in platform operating systems; the 
standard, therefore, serves mainly to codify current industry 
practices.
E102.3 ANSI/IEEE
    ANSI/IEEE C63.19-2011, American National Standard for Methods of 
Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices 
and Hearing Aids, would be incorporated by reference at 410.4.1. This 
standard is consistent with current telecommunications industry 
practices.
    Products conforming to this standard minimize interference to 
hearing aids by wireless telephones. When telephone interference is not 
minimized, it can create noise in hearing aids that masks the sound of 
conversation. An added value of this standard is that it provides a 
uniform method of measurement for compatibility between hearing aids 
and wireless communications devices.
E102.4 ATSC
    A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5: AC-3 Audio System 
Characteristics (2010) would be incorporated by reference at 412.1.1. 
This standard provides technical requirements for digital television 
tuners when they process audio description. This standard is consistent 
with current telecommunications industry practice.
E102.5 IETF
    RFC 4103, RTP Payload for Text Conversation (2005), would be 
incorporated by reference at 410.6.3.2. This standard describes how to 
carry real-time text conversation session contents in RTP packets. 
Real-time text conversation is used alone, or in connection with other 
conversational modalities, to form multimedia conversation services. 
Examples of other conversational modalities are video and voice. When 
using RTT, text is received at the same time it is generated. For 
people who communicate without voice, RTT offers a way to interact that 
more closely resembles a live two-way call. This proposed standard 
would be new to the 508 Standards (as well as the 255 Guidelines), and 
represents a significant shift to better align with current technology. 
IP-based RTT is the only modern technology that offers the same 
functionality that TTYs have historically provided. Contemporary TTYs 
do not work with modern IP desk phones because the acoustic signal 
(Baudot) is garbled due to incompatible compression algorithms. When 
communication in real time is important, as in emergency situations, 
RTT allows users to communicate in a manner similar to a live two-way 
voice call. Parties exchange information in real time and can interrupt 
each other during the conversation. This technology most closely 
approximates the useful features of TTYs. Real-time text is also 
discussed in detail in Section V.D (Major Issues--Real-Time Text) 
above.
E102.6 ISO
    ISO 14289-1 (2012), Document management applications -- Electronic 
document file format enhancement for accessibility -- Part 1: Use of 
ISO 32000-1 (PDF/UA-1), would be incorporated by reference at E205.1 
and 602.3.1. This is an international standard for accessible portable 
document format (PDF) files. PDF/UA-1 provides a technical, 
interoperable standard for the authoring, remediation, and validation 
of PDF content to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities who 
use assistive technology such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, 
joysticks and other assistive technologies to navigate and read 
content. This proposed standard is new to both the 508 Standards and 
the 255 Guidelines. It is offered as an option to WCAG 2.0 for 
accessible PDFs.
E102.7 ITU-T
    ITU-T Recommendation G.722, General Aspects of Digital Transmission 
Systems, Terminal Components, 7 kHz Audio-Coding within 64 kbits/s 
(Sept. 2012), would be incorporated by reference at 410.5. This 
standard is an ITU-T standard coder-decoder program that provides 7 kHz 
wideband audio at data rates from 48, 56, and 64 kbits/s. This standard 
provides a significant improvement in speech quality over earlier 
standards. It was previously proposed in the 2011 ANPRM and received no 
objections.
    ITU-T Recommendation E.161: Arrangement of digits, letters and 
symbols on telephones and other devices that can be used for gaining 
access to a telephone network (Feb. 2001), would be incorporated by 
reference at section 407.3.2. This standard is an ITU-T standard that 
defines the assignment of the basic 26 Latin letters (A to Z) to the 
12-key telephone keypad. It provides guidance for arranging alphabetic 
keys in a predictable, consistent manner. This proposed standard is new 
to the 508 Standards (as well as the 255 Guidelines), though it 
reflects current industry practice.
E102.8 TIA
    TIA 825-A (2003), A Frequency Shift Keyed Modem for Use on the 
Public Switched Telephone Network, would be incorporated by reference 
at 410.6.3.1. This is the standard for TTY signals on the public 
switched telephone network interface (PSTN). This standard is 
consistent with current industry practice in the telecommunications 
industry.
    TIA 1083 (2007), Telephone Terminal Equipment Handset Magnetic 
Measurement Procedures and Performance Requirements, would be 
incorporated by reference at 410.4.2. This standard defines measurement 
procedures and performance requirements for the handset generated audio 
band magnetic noise of wire line telephones, including digital cordless 
telephones. This standard is consistent with current telecommunications 
industry practice.
E102.9 W3C
    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, W3C 
Recommendation,

[[Page 10905]]

December 11, 2008, would be incorporated by reference in sections 
E205.1, E207.2, 405.1 Exception, 501.1 Exception 1, 504.2, 504.3, 
504.4, and 602.3.1. WCAG 2.0 offers a series of recommendations to make 
Web content more accessible to all users, including persons with 
disabilities. We discuss our proposal to incorporate WCAG 2.0 by 
reference in greater detail above in Section V.B (Major Issues--WCAG 
2.0 Incorporation by Reference).
E103 Definitions
    This is an introductory section.
E103.1 Terms Defined in Referenced Standards
    This section proposes that terms defined in referenced standards, 
which are not otherwise defined in section E103.4, would have the 
meaning given them in their respective referenced standards.
E103.2 Undefined Terms
    This section proposes that the meaning of terms not defined in 
section E103.4 or in referenced standards shall be given their 
ordinarily accepted meanings in the sense that the particular context 
implies.
E103.3 Interchangeability
    This section proposes that words, terms, and phrases used in the 
singular shall include the plural and those used in the plural shall 
include the singular.
E103.4 Defined Terms
    This section includes definitions for terms used in, or integral 
to, the proposed 508 Standards. Some of the definitions have been 
carried over in whole or in part from the existing 508 Standards, while 
others represent terms that are new to these standards. We also propose 
to delete several definitions from the existing 508 Standards that are 
either obsolete or no longer needed. A summary of the proposed 
definitions in E103.4 follows below. Terms that are not discussed 
remain unchanged from the existing 508 Standards.
    For four terms in the existing 508 Standards, the Board proposes to 
retain the term, but make slight changes to their respective 
definitions to improve clarity or to account for technological 
advances. The definition of the term ``agency'' would be revised to 
expressly include agencies and departments of the United States as 
defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502 and the U.S. Postal Service. The term 
``assistive technology'' would include minor editorial changes from the 
text in the existing 508 Standards. The term ``operable controls'' 
would be revised to ``operable part,'' which would be defined as ``a 
component of ICT used to activate, deactivate, or adjust the ICT.'' The 
proposed definition would not include the requirement for physical 
contact found in the definition in the existing 508 Standards and would 
not include examples of controls. The term ``TTY'' would be updated to 
reflect modern technologies currently in use, and would specifically 
mention such examples as devices for real-time text communications, 
voice and text intermixed communications (e.g. voice carry over and 
hearing carry over), and computers with TTY-emulating software and a 
modem.
    Two other terms are new to the proposed 508 Standards, but have 
close analogs in the existing standards. First, the term ``closed 
functionality'' would replace ``self-contained closed products.'' The 
proposed new definition would provide a more accurate description of 
the characteristics of the ICT that is addressed in the proposed 
provision in section 402 ``Closed Functionality.'' In addition, this 
term would address both those features of ICT that are closed by design 
and other features that are closed because of policies that may 
restrict specific functions of ICT, where the ICT might normally be 
capable of being made accessible to an individual with a disability. 
For example, a policy not allowing the attachment of data storage 
devices to ICT would, in the case of an individual with low vision, 
essentially block that person from being able to attach a device 
containing magnification software. The new definition would include 
examples of ICT with closed functionality, such as self-service 
machines and fax machines.
    Second, the term ``information and communication technology'' (ICT) 
would replace ``electronic and information technology'' (E&IT), and 
revise the definition significantly. The proposed definition for ICT 
would be broader than the existing definition of E&IT in that it 
encompasses both electronic and information technology covered by 
Section 508, and telecommunications products, interconnected Voice over 
Internet Protocol (VoIP) products, and Customer Premises Equipment 
(CPE) covered by Section 255. Using a common term that is applicable to 
both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines supports one of the central 
goals of this rulemaking--namely, development of a single set of 
comprehensive requirements for two substantive areas that are 
inseparable from regulatory and policy perspectives. Additionally, to 
address confusion regarding application of the existing 508 Standards 
to electronic documents, the proposed ICT definition expressly 
clarifies that electronic content--such as Web pages and PDFs--falls 
within the definition of ICT. Lastly, this newly defined term provides 
an updated set of illustrative examples that better reflect today's 
technologies.
    We developed the definition for ICT by using the concepts from the 
existing definitions of ``electronic and information technology,'' 
``information technology,'' and ``telecommunications equipment,'' 
albeit with significantly revised language. Defining a common term that 
covers both Section 508-covered E&IT and Section 255-covered 
telecommunications products and services is consistent with the overall 
approach in the proposed rule of presenting a unitary set of regulatory 
requirements under these two statutes. The proposed definition of ICT 
is also consistent with the terminology used by the Advisory Committee 
in its TEITAC report. That report noted:

    Section 255 covers telecommunications products and services. 
Section 508 covers electronic and information technologies (E&IT). 
For convenience and clarity, wherever these two categories are taken 
together, we are using the common term ``information and 
communication technologies, or ICT. (TEITAC Report, Part 1 & fn. 1.)

    The TEITAC Report further noted that the 255 Guidelines developed 
by the Access Board ``cover customer premises equipment and 
telecommunications equipment, but do not address services.'' (See 
TEITAC Report, Part 1 & fn. 2.)
    We proposed in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs that the term ``information 
and communication technology (ICT)'' be used to refer to electronic and 
information technology covered by Section 508 as well as to 
telecommunications products, interconnected Voice over Internet 
Protocol (VoIP) products, and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) covered 
by Section 255. Commenters to the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs supported this 
approach. In the proposed rule, the Board retains this approach.
    The remaining 18 terms defined in proposed E103.4 have no 
counterparts in the existing 508 Standards. We propose adding these 
terms to the 508 Standards to provide definitions for key terms used in 
the proposed standards, reflect technological advances since 
promulgation of the existing 508 Standards, and aid stakeholder 
understanding. These new terms are described below.
    The term ``508 Standards'' is defined in order to provide 
consistent cross-reference within the standards to all

[[Page 10906]]

chapters that apply to Section 508-covered federal entities, namely: 
508 Chapters 1 and 2 (36 CFR part 1194, Appendix A), and Chapters 3 
through 6 (36 CFR part 1194, Appendix C). This definition is consistent 
with proposed Sec.  1194.1, as well as usage of the term throughout 
this NPRM.
    The term ``audio description'' is used in existing 508 Standards 
Sec.  1194.24(d) but not defined. We would add a definition derived 
from WCAG 2.0, which would in part explain that ``audio description'' 
is ``narration added to the soundtrack to describe important visual 
details that cannot be understood from the main soundtrack alone.''
    The term ``authoring tool'' would be defined to mean ``any 
software, or collection of software components, that can be used by 
authors, alone or collaboratively, to create or modify content for use 
by others, including other authors,'' and would be included to explain 
the proposed provision in section 504, ``Authoring Tools.''
    The term ``content'' would be defined as ``Electronic information 
and data, as well as the encoding that defines its structure, 
presentation, and interactions.'' The definition is based on WCAG 2.0, 
and is proposed to promote harmonization and greater clarity in the 
proposed Standards and Guidelines.
    The term ``keyboard'' would be defined as ``a set of systematically 
arranged alphanumeric keys or a control that generates alphanumeric 
input by which a machine or device is operated.'' This proposed 
definition would also clarify that a ``keyboard'' includes ``tactilely 
discernible keys used in conjunction with the alphanumeric keys if 
their function maps to keys on the keyboard interfaces.'' This proposed 
new definition would clarify the use of the term ``keyboard'' in 
Chapter 4 (Hardware).
    The term ``Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)'' is new and is 
defined consistent with current FCC regulations.
    The remaining twelve proposed new terms would be added to aid 
stakeholder understanding of particular requirements or criteria in the 
508 Standards. Definitions for the terms ``label,'' ``name,'' 
``programmatically determinable,'' and ``text'' are taken from WCAG 
2.0. Additionally, the terms ``application,'' ``hardware,'' and 
``software'' are based on definitions provided in the FCC's regulations 
implementing Section 255 of the Communications Act. See 47 CFR part 14. 
Definitions for the terms ``menu,'' ``platform accessibility 
services,'' ``platform software,'' ``real-time text,'' and ``terminal'' 
were drawn from the work of the Advisory Committee and other sources. 
``Menu,'' ``platform accessibility services,'' and ``real-time text'' 
were proposed in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs. We received no public 
comments in response to these definitions in the two ANPRMs.
    Lastly, proposed E103.4 would not include several terms that are 
defined in the existing 508 Standards. There terms are not included in 
this proposed rule because either the proposed technical requirement 
associated with the term sufficiently conveys its meaning (i.e., 
``alternate formats'' and ``undue burden''), or because the term is not 
used in the proposed rule (i.e., ``alternate methods,'' ``product,'' 
and ``self-contained, closed products'').
508 Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements
    This chapter proposes scoping for ICT that is procured, developed, 
maintained or used by federal agencies--that is, the types of ICT that 
would be required to conform to the proposed functional performance 
criteria and technical requirements in the 508 Standards, as well as 
the conditions under which these provisions would apply. Chapter 2 
would contain provisions currently addressed in existing 508 Standards 
Sec. Sec.  1194.2 ``Application'' and 1194.3 ``General Exceptions,'' 
thereby locating all scoping provisions in a single chapter.
E201 Application
    This is an introductory section.
E201.1 Scope
    This section proposes that ICT procured, developed, maintained, or 
used by agencies must conform to the proposed requirements set forth 
(or referenced) in 508 Chapter 2. This provision is consistent with 
existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.2.
E202 General Exceptions
    This section contains proposed exceptions to the general scoping 
provisions in proposed 201. The structure of the proposed standards 
reinforces the principle that, under the general scoping provision, all 
ICT procured, developed, maintained or used by agencies would be 
required to conform to the proposed requirements, unless otherwise 
exempted. General exceptions apply broadly and, where applicable, 
exempt ICT from conformance with the proposed 508 Standards. Most of 
the proposed general exemptions are the same as those in existing 508 
Standards Sec.  1194.3, with only minor editorial changes. A brief 
discussion of the proposed changes to the General Exceptions follows 
below.
    The Board is proposing to exclude from this rule two exceptions 
that are contained in the existing 508 Standards: Sec. Sec.  1194.3(c) 
and 1194.3(d). Section 1194.3(c) provides that assistive technology 
need not be provided at the workstations of all federal employees. 
However, there is no general rule in either the existing or proposed 
508 Standards that requires agencies to provide assistive technology at 
all workstations. Instead, these standards require compatibility with 
assistive technology when ICT is not directly accessible. The exception 
in Sec.  1194.3(c) is thus unnecessary and potentially confusing. 
Consequently, the Board is not retaining it in the proposed rule.
    We are also proposing to exclude the exception in Sec.  1194.3(d) 
of the existing 508 Standards, which provides that when agencies 
provide the public access to ICT, they are not required to make agency-
owned ICT available to individuals with disabilities who are members of 
the public at non-public locations. We are proposing to remove this 
exception because there is nothing in the proposed 508 Standards that 
would require an agency to provide accessible ICT at a specific 
location, or that would require public access to locations not open to 
the public. Consequently, this exception is not needed, and its removal 
from the 508 Standards would have no practical impact. The Board 
intends to address the continuing obligation of agencies to provide 
accommodations under Sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in 
forthcoming guidance material to be posted on our Web site following 
publication of the final rule.
E202.1 General
    This section proposes that ICT is exempt from these requirements to 
the extent specified by section E202.
E202.2 National Security Systems
    This section proposes that ICT operated by agencies as part of a 
national security system, as defined by 40 U.S.C. 11103(a), is exempt 
from the requirements of this document. This is unchanged from existing 
508 Standards Sec.  1194.3(a).
E202.3 Federal Contracts
    This section proposes that ICT acquired by a contractor that is 
incidental to a contract would not be required to conform to this 
document. This proposed exception is unchanged from existing 508 
Standards Sec.  1194.3(b), and the Board's approach is discussed in 
greater detail above in Section IV.E.8 (Rulemaking History--2010 and 
2011

[[Page 10907]]

ANPRMs: Significant Issues--Revisions to Exceptions under 508 
Standards).
E202.4 Functions Located in Maintenance or Monitoring Spaces
    This section proposes to revise Sec.  1194.3(f) of the existing 508 
Standards to clarify that, where status indicators and operable parts 
for ICT functions are located in spaces that are only frequented by 
service personnel for maintenance, such items need not conform to the 
requirements of 508 Chapter 2. Functions of ICT located in maintenance 
spaces that can be controlled remotely, however, would still be 
required to comply with applicable standards. For example, if a server 
is located on a tall rack in a maintenance closet accessed only by 
service personnel, the controls on the server need not be accessible. 
However, any network or other server functions that could be accessed 
remotely would be required to comply with the proposed 508 Standards. 
We discuss our approach with respect to this exception in greater 
detail above in Section IV.E.8 (Rulemaking History--Major Issues 
Addressed in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs--Revisions to Exceptions under 
508 Standards).
E202.5 Undue Burden or Fundamental Alteration
    This section proposes to retain the provisions in existing 508 
Standards Sec. Sec.  1194.3(e) and 1194.2(a)(1), but would combine them 
in a single provision. This section would require that agencies comply 
with the requirements of the 508 Standards up to the point where 
conformance would impose an undue burden on the agency or would result 
in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the ICT. Proposed 
subsections E202.5.1 and E202.5.2 respectively set forth criteria for 
undue burden determinations and establish requirements for written 
documentation of undue burden and fundamental alteration findings.
E202.5.1 Basis for a Determination of Undue Burden
    This section proposes to incorporate language from the definition 
of ``undue burden'' in the existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.4 into a 
separate scoping provision. It would require that, when determining 
whether conformance to the proposed 508 Standards would impose an undue 
burden on the agency, the agency must consider the extent to which 
conformance would impose significant difficulty or expense taking into 
consideration the agency resources available to the program or 
component for which the ICT is to be procured, developed, maintained, 
or used. The proposed organizational restructuring of the undue burden 
provision represents an editorial revision only that is not intended to 
have substantive impact.
E202.5.2 Required Documentation
    This section proposes to require responsible agency officials to 
document in writing the basis for determining that compliance with the 
proposed 508 Standards would either impose an undue burden or result in 
a fundamental alteration in the nature of the ICT. This proposed 
documentation requirement is derived from existing 508 Standards Sec.  
1194.2(a)(2) applicable to a determination of undue burden in the 
procurement context. Proposed 202.5.2 would, however, broaden this 
existing requirement by requiring written determinations in two new 
settings: (a) When an agency determines that conformance would result 
in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the ICT; and (b) when an 
agency determines that conforming to one or more provisions applicable 
to the development, maintenance, or use of ICT would impose an undue 
burden. This change is intended to ensure accountability and 
transparency in agencies' Section 508 implementation efforts by 
treating documentation obligations equally as between procurement and 
non-procurement contexts.
    Under Section 508, it is the responsibility of each agency to 
establish policies and procedures describing how they will comply with 
the standards, including those for making undue burden and fundamental 
alteration determinations. The Department of Justice's 2012 Biennial 
Report on Section 508 notes that ``[n]early forty percent of agency 
components reported establishing a formal, written policy to document 
Section 508 exceptions claimed on [ICT] procurements. Many of these 
agency components reported that their [ICT] procurements met the 
Section 508 requirements and that reliance on an exception was 
unnecessary.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Department of Justice, Section 508 Report to the President 
and Congress: Accessibility of Federal Electronic and Information 
Technology (Sept. 2012), available at: https://www.ada.gov/508/508_Report.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Access Board anticipates that the burdens associated with 
broadening the scope of the documentation requirement will be minimal. 
First, proposed 202.5.3 deliberately does not prescribe criteria for 
needed documentation to ensure a deliberative and documented decisional 
process without being overly prescriptive. In this way, each agency is 
free to develop documentation policies and practices that best suit its 
respective needs and resources. Such an approach is consistent with, 
and respectful of, Section 508's grant of independent responsibility 
for Section 508 enforcement to each agency.
    Second, the Board expects that invocation of the undue burden and 
fundamental alteration exceptions will be infrequent, which would also 
mean an infrequent need for written determinations. For example, in the 
procurement context, the DOJ 2012 Biennial Report notes that many 
responding agency components reported having never relied on any 
exception. Agency components that did make occasional use of available 
exceptions, assertions of undue burden or fundamental alteration were, 
in turn, relatively uncommon. Use of these exceptions in procurements 
was limited to ``large'' and ``very large'' agencies; small and mid-
size agencies (i.e., agencies with 10,000 employees or less) did not 
report using these exceptions. For larger agencies, only about 20 
percent of agency components reported using the undue burden or 
fundamental alteration exceptions respectively. Thus, because proposed 
202.5.2 broadens only agencies' respective obligation to document undue 
burden or fundamental alteration determinations, and does not change 
the underlying substantive criteria for these exceptions, it is 
expected that occasions in which agencies must document use of these 
exceptions will be infrequent in both procurement and non-procurement 
contexts.
E202.5.3 Alternative Means
    This section proposes that, when an agency determines that an undue 
burden or fundamental alteration exists, it must provide individuals 
with disabilities access to and use of information and data by an 
alternative means that meets identified needs. The proposed provision 
is taken from existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.2(a)(1) addressing 
undue burden, but adds the reference to fundamental alteration to 
clarify that agencies must still provide people with disabilities 
access to and use of information and data when either of these 
exceptions applies.
E202.6 Best Meets
    This section proposes that, where ICT conforming to one or more 
provisions of the 508 Standards is not commercially available, the 
agency must procure the product that best meets these standards 
consistent with its business needs. This section would editorially 
revise existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.2(b).

[[Page 10908]]

    Question 12. We are requesting information on how many times a 
year, on average, federal agencies respectively procure ICT that ``best 
meets'' the 508 Standards.
E202.6.1 Required Documentation
    This section proposes to require that agencies document in writing 
the basis for determining that ICT fully conforming to applicable 508 
Standards is not commercially available. Documenting the exception for 
commercial non-availability is not a requirement in the existing 508 
Standards, though such documentation is mandated under the current 
federal acquisition regulations. See 48 CFR 39.203. A number of 
commenters to the 2010 ANPRM requested this change and supported its 
inclusion in the 2011 ANPRM. A documentation requirement was proposed 
in the 2011 ANPRM, and the Board did not receive any negative comments.
    Question 13. The Board seeks information from federal agencies on 
the estimated number of hours, on average, they anticipate needing to 
prepare each written documentation of commercial unavailability 
determination under proposed E202.6.1.
E202.6.2 Alternative Means
    This section proposes to require agencies to provide individuals 
with disabilities the information and data that would have been 
provided by fully conforming ICT when such ICT is commercially 
unavailable. Proposed E202.6.2 is similar in intent to proposed 
E202.5.3 (Undue Burden--Alternative Means), and would reinforce the 
statutory requirement for agencies to ensure that individuals with 
disabilities have comparable access to information and data.
E203 Access to Functionality
    This is an introductory section.
E203.1 General
    This section proposes to require agencies to ensure that all 
functionality of ICT is accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities, either directly or by supporting the use of assistive 
technology. While this provision would be new to the 508 Standards, it 
is consistent with current agency practice. The Board interprets the 
statutory requirement to provide comparable access to information and 
data to be consistent with granting access to all functionality of ICT. 
This proposed requirement was strongly supported by the Advisory 
Committee, as well as commenters to the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs.
E203.2 Agency Business Needs
    This section proposes that, when agencies procure, develop, 
maintain or use ICT, they must identify the business needs of 
individuals with disabilities affecting vision, hearing, color 
perception, speech, dexterity, strength, or reach, in order to 
determine how such users will perform the functions supported by such 
ICT. The provision would also require agencies to assess how the ICT 
will be installed, configured, and maintained to support users with 
disabilities. The list of disabilities in this provision parallels the 
functional performance criteria proposed in Chapter 3.
    The Board intends, through this provision, to reinforce the 
fundamental principle that agencies have an affirmative, continuing 
obligation under Section 508 to maintain the accessibility of ICT. 
While this is not a new requirement under Section 508, it is not 
expressly addressed in the existing 508 Standards. The Board proposes 
to include this section in response to many concerns raised over the 
years about the requirements under Section 508 to maintain ICT 
accessibility over time. Proposed 203.2 would make clear, for example, 
that agencies have an affirmative duty to ensure that when an 
accessible operating system is updated, the current or an updated 
version of screen reading software is compatible with the updated 
operating system.
E204 Functional Performance Criteria
    This is an introductory section.
E204.1 General
    This section proposes that, when the technical provisions of 
Chapter 4 and 5 do not address one or more features of ICT, any 
unaddressed features must conform to the Functional Performance 
Criteria specified in Chapter 3. This proposed section is consistent 
with current agency practice. The Functional Performance Criteria, and 
the manner in which they are to be used in evaluating equivalent 
facilitation under proposed E101.2, is discussed in Section IV.E.3 
(Rulemaking History--2010 and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues--
Relationship between Functional Performance Criteria and Technical 
Provisions), and Section V.C (Major Issues--Functional Performance 
Criteria).
E205 Content
    This is an introductory section.
E205.1 General
    This section proposes that public-facing content, along with eight 
specific categories of non-public facing content, must conform to 
proposed E205. In turn, proposed E205 requires conformance to the Level 
A and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified 
for Web pages in WCAG 2.0 or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1), both of which are 
incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1. An 
exception is provided for non-public facing records maintained by the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) under federal 
recordkeeping statutes. These proposed requirements and related 
exception are also discussed in Section IV.E.1 (Rulemaking History--
2010 and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues--Evolving Approaches to 
Covered Electronic Content), and Section V.A (Major Issues--Electronic 
Content).
    Some file formats, it should be noted, do not directly support 
accessibility. For example, the JPEG compression standard for digital 
images does not facilitate embedded text description (commonly referred 
to as ``alt tags''), and the MPEG-4 compression standard for audio and 
video digital data does not support closed captioning. Conformance may 
nonetheless be achieved through a variety of techniques, including 
providing requisite accessibility through the manner in which the 
inaccessible file is delivered or publicly posted. For example, JPEG 
photos posted to a Web site can be associated with descriptive 
identification using HTML. Photos attached to an email could have the 
text alternative provided in the body of the email. Similarly, there 
are commonly available methods for displaying caption text so that it 
is synchronized with MPEG-4 multimedia.
E205.2 Public Facing
    This section proposes that all public-facing content must meet the 
accessibility requirements in E205.4, which, in turn, requires 
conformance to WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and 
Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages or, where applicable, 
ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1). Public-facing content subject to this provision 
would include, for example: agency Web sites; electronic documents, 
images or video posted on agency Web sites; and agency social media 
sites or postings. Content regardless of form or format--including 
draft electronic documents--would be covered under this proposed 
section when public facing. Central to the analysis of whether an 
electronic document should be considered public facing is the identity 
of the party making the electronic content available to the public. If 
a federal agency posts an electronic document on its own Web

[[Page 10909]]

site, third-party social media site, or other electronic public forum, 
that document--whether authored by the agency or a third party--is 
public facing and must comply with E205.2. Coverage of this broad 
category of agency-sponsored content is important because the 
Rehabilitation Act mandates that persons with disabilities--both those 
employed by the federal government and members of the public--have 
comparable access to, and use of, electronic information and data 
relative to persons without disabilities.
    Question 14. Is the scope of public facing content covered by 
proposed E205.2 sufficiently clear? Are there other issues the Board 
should consider in defining the scope of the term ``public facing''?
E205.3 Agency Official Communication
    This section proposes that an agency's non-public facing content be 
required to meet the accessibility requirements in E205.4 (i.e., WCAG 
2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria or PDF/UA-1) when such 
content (a) constitutes agency official business, and (b) falls within 
one or more of eight categories of communication. The eight proposed 
categories are: (1) Emergency notifications; (2) initial or final 
decisions adjudicating administrative claims or proceedings; (3) 
internal or external program or policy announcements; (4) notices of 
benefits, program eligibility, employment opportunities or personnel 
actions; (5) formal acknowledgements or receipts; (6) questionnaires or 
surveys; (7) templates or forms; and (8) educational or training 
materials.
    While there is no express exception for draft content in E205.3, 
the Board expects that drafts, by their very nature, would typically 
fall outside the scope of agency official communications covered by 
this section. Generally speaking, only final documents and other 
electronic materials that are ready for dissemination to their intended 
audience would qualify as the type of content covered by categories 1 
through 8. Draft content would, however, fall within the ambit of 
proposed E205.3 (and, therefore, be required to conform to WCAG 2.0 or 
PDF/UA-1) when an agency intends a draft to be ``final'' in the sense 
that it is being formally disseminated or published for input or 
comment by its intended audience. For example, if any agency task force 
is seeking to improve agency-wide telecommuting policies and circulates 
a draft policy memorandum by email to the office of human resources for 
review, neither the email nor draft memorandum would be covered under 
proposed E205.3. However, if instead, the agency task force had 
completed its draft policy on telecommuting and circulated the draft 
policy as an email attachment sent to all agency employees soliciting 
their input and comments, then both the email and attached draft policy 
memorandum--regardless of format (e.g., word processing document, 
PDF)--would be covered by this section and, accordingly, need to 
satisfy the accessibility requirements in E205.4.
    Proposed E205.3 also provides an exception for non-public facing 
content maintained by NARA for archival purposes even if such content 
otherwise falls into one of the foregoing eight categories. Such 
electronic records would not need to conform to the accessibility 
requirements in proposed E205.4 so long as they remained non-public 
facing. The Board intends the scope of this exception to be limited, 
and anticipates that it will extend only to non-public facing 
electronic materials administered or maintained by NARA in compliance 
with federal recordkeeping statutes and implementing regulations.
E206 Hardware
    This is an introductory section.
E206.1 General
    This section proposes that components of ICT that are hardware, and 
transmit information or have a user interface, must conform to the 
applicable provisions of Chapter 4.
    One hardware provision in the existing 508 Standards that has not 
been retained in the proposed rule is Sec.  1194.23(a). This section 
has two parts. First, it requires telecommunications products that 
provide voice communication to provide a standard non-acoustic 
connection for a TTY unless the product includes a TTY. Second, it 
requires microphones to be capable of being turned on and off to allow 
a user to intermix speech with TTY use. Newer technologies for texting 
have made the requirement for a standard non-acoustic connection for a 
TTY obsolete. To address the use of TTYs by individuals also using 
speech or hearing, the Board is proposing to add section 410.6.5 (HCO 
and VCO Support). Proposed 410.6.5 would support real-time text 
functionality and address the capacity for users to intermix speech 
with text. See Section VI.D. (Section-by-Section Analysis--Technical 
Requirements--410.6). Comments received in response the 2011 ANPRM did 
not object to these proposed changes.
E207 Software
    This is an introductory section.
E207.1 Software
    This section proposes that components of ICT that transmit 
information or have a user interface--such as are firmware, platforms, 
or software applications--must conform to the applicable provisions in 
Chapter 5.
E207.2 WCAG Conformance
    This section would require that user interface components, along 
with the content of platforms and applications, conform to Level A and 
AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified for Web 
pages in WCAG 2.0. For a more complete discussion of WCAG conformance 
requirements in the proposed rule, see the discussion in Section IV.E.2 
(Rulemaking History--2010 and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues--
Treatment of WCAG 2.0), and Section V.B (Major Issues--WCAG 2.0 
Incorporation by Reference).
E208 Support Documentation and Services
    This is an introductory section.
E208.1 General
    This section proposes to require agencies, when providing support 
services or documentation for ICT, to do so in conformance to the 
provisions of Chapter 6.

C. 255 Guidelines: Application and Scoping

    These two proposed chapters contain information on the application 
and administration of the 255 Guidelines. As discussed above, whereas 
the 508 Standards relate to the accessibility and usability of 
electronic and information technology, the 255 Guidelines relate to the 
accessibility and usability of telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment, as defined by the Communications Act.
    Because the technologies covered by the 508 Standards and 255 
Guidelines often have similar features and functional and technical 
aspects, the standards and guidelines share common requirements. For 
ease of reference, the Board discusses here only those requirements in 
the 255 Guidelines that differ from those in the 508 Standards. 
Requirements not discussed in the section below (or mentioned only in 
brief detail) should be deemed to be the same for both the 255 
Guidelines and 508 Standards.
    Of note, there are two provisions in the existing 255 Guidelines 
which the Board proposes to not include in the proposed rule: 
Sec. Sec.  1193.41(i) and

[[Page 10910]]

1193.51(d). Section 1193.41(i) requires input controls on 
telecommunications equipment to provide at least one mode of operation 
that minimizes the cognitive skills needed by the user. The Advisory 
Committee was unable to reach consensus on recommendations for 
requirements to make ICT accessible for individuals with cognitive 
disabilities, citing a lack of common standards or testable metrics to 
verify conformance. Consequently, the Advisory Committee recommended 
deletion of the existing requirement pending future research.
    In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board followed this recommendation and 
proposed removal of the existing functional performance criterion 
specifically directed to cognitive disabilities. The Board did, 
however, seek public input on whether other proposed functional 
performance criteria adequately addressed cognitive impairments, and 
solicited input on how updated ICT rules might best address such 
impairments. Commenters responded with a variety of views. Some 
commenters believed that cognitive disabilities were already 
sufficiently addressed through other criteria and requirements, while 
others preferred inclusion of a functional performance criterion for 
cognitive disabilities but offered no substantive proposals. Still 
other commenters--particularly those representing the IT community--
thought more research was needed before meaningful requirements could 
be crafted. Given the variety of commenters' views and the inherent 
difficulty in creating a single functional performance criterion that 
adequately covers the wide spectrum of cognitive and intellectual 
disabilities, the Board elected not to reinstate this functional 
performance criterion in either the 2011 ANPRM or this NPRM.
    We also propose to exclude existing Sec.  1193.51(d) of the 255 
Guidelines relating to TTY connectability from the proposed rule for 
the reasons outlined above in the discussion regarding proposed E206.1 
(which, in turn, addresses proposed deletion of a ``sister'' existing 
provision in the 508 Standards). See Section VI.B. (Section-by-Section 
Analysis--508 Standards: Application and Scoping--E206.1).
255 Chapter 1: Application and Administration
    This chapter proposes general requirements reflecting the purpose 
of the 255 Guidelines (C101.1). It lists referenced standards and where 
they may be obtained (C102), and provides definitions of terms used in 
the proposed 255 Guidelines (C103). 255 Chapter 1 proposes to simplify 
and reorganize similar provisions contained in existing Sec. Sec.  
1193.1 ``Purpose'' and 1193.3 ``Definitions'' of the 255 Guidelines.
C101 General
    This is an introductory section.
C101.1 Purpose
    In keeping with the Board's statutory charge under the 
Communications Act, this section states that the purpose of the 
proposed 255 Guidelines is the provision of scoping and technical 
requirements for telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment to ensure that such equipment is accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities. This section also emphasizes, moreover, 
that the proposed guidelines are to be applied to the extent required 
by regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission under 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 255). As noted 
previously, the FCC has exclusive authority to enforce Section 255 and 
issue implementing regulations; the FCC may--but is not required to--
adopt the proposed guidelines when finalized as enforceable 
accessibility standards for manufacturers of telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment.
C101.2 Equivalent Facilitation
    This proposed section addresses when telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers may use equivalent facilitation, and mirrors a 
corresponding provision in the proposed 508 Standards (E101.2). While 
the existing 255 Guidelines do not expressly address equivalent 
facilitation, the concept of allowing alternative technological 
solutions for accessibility beyond those specified in the guidelines 
derives from the Appendix to 36 CFR part 1193--Advisory Guidance, 
Introduction, paragraph 1, which notes that ``Manufacturers are free to 
use these [suggested strategies in the Appendix] or other strategies in 
addressing the guidelines.'' We proposed inclusion of this equivalent 
facilitation provision in the 2011 ANPRM and received no comments.
C101.3 Conventional Industry Tolerances
    This proposed section, which has a parallel provision in the 
proposed 508 Standards (E101.3), would provide that dimensions are 
subject to conventional industry tolerances except where dimensions are 
stated as a range. This proposed provision would be new to the 255 
Guidelines. It is intended to clarify how dimensions should be 
interpreted when specified in the text of a guideline or referenced 
standard.
C101.4 Units of Measurement
    This proposed section, which also has a counterpart in the proposed 
508 Standards (E101.4), provides that measurements are stated in metric 
and U.S. customary units and that the values stated in each system 
(metric and U.S. customary units) may not be exact equivalents. This 
section would also provide that each system be used independently of 
the other. This proposed section is new to the 255 Guidelines, and 
would clarify dimensions stated in the text of the guidelines or 
referenced standards.
C102 Referenced Standards
    This section identifies the consensus standards that would be 
incorporated by reference in the proposed 255 Guidelines. The section 
also proposes that, where there is a difference between a provision of 
the proposed 255 Guidelines and a referenced standard, the provision of 
the 255 Guidelines would take precedence.
    Incorporation by reference of these standards would be an 
improvement from the existing 255 Guidelines, which contain no 
referenced standards. The Advisory Committee strongly recommended the 
adoption of specific accessibility consensus standards in order to 
promote harmonization. The adoption of consensus standards results in a 
more unified regulatory environment in which all participants benefit 
from clarity and simplicity.
    The standards listed in proposed C102 would apply to ICT subject to 
the 255 Guidelines to the extent that it is readily achievable to do 
so. The Board is proposing to incorporate by reference the same 
standards as those incorporated in the proposed 508 Standards. For a 
discussion of these standards, see Section VI.B (Section-by-Section 
Analysis--508 Standards: Application and Scoping--E102).
    As noted above, one of the standards proposed for incorporation is 
WCAG 2.0. As applied telecommunications equipment, this would require 
manufacturers to conform to WCAG 2.0 when providing electronic content 
integral to the use of their equipment (under proposed C203.1), a user 
interface (under proposed C205.2), or support documentation (under 
proposed C206.1 and 602.3). This would include, for example, consumer 
manuals for telecommunications equipment posted on manufacturer Web 
sites, online registration forms, and interactive

[[Page 10911]]

consumer support interfaces. A similar provision was proposed in the 
2011 ANPRM. Commenters strongly supported incorporation of WCAG 2.0 to 
web content, but some telecommunications industry groups objected to 
application of this standard outside the web environment. The Board's 
bases for applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT is detailed above in the 
Major Issues section. See Section V.B.2 (Major Issues--WCAG 2.0 
Incorporation by Reference--Justification for Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-
Web ICT).
    Question 15. The Access Board requests data or other information 
from telecommunications equipment manufacturers regarding the potential 
costs and benefits of incorporating WCAG 2.0 by reference and applying 
its success criteria to both web and non-web environments. What 
difficulties, if any, do telecommunications equipment manufacturers 
foresee in applying WCAG 2.0 outside the web environment? Does the 
WCAG2ICT Task Force's final report provide sufficient guidance 
concerning application of WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT? If not, what 
additional guidance would telecommunications equipment manufacturers 
find helpful?
C103 Defined Terms
    This section sets forth definitions of terms used in, or integral 
to, the proposed 255 Guidelines. Some of the definitions have been 
carried over in whole or in part from the existing 255 Guidelines, 
while others represent terms that are new to these guidelines. Proposed 
C103 would include nearly all of the same defined terms in the proposed 
508 Standards, with the exception of one term (i.e., ``agency'') that 
has no application in the guidelines. We also propose to revise or 
delete several definitions from the existing 255 Guidelines. 
Highlighted below are notable changes to, or deletion of, defined terms 
in the existing 255 Guidelines. For a complete discussion of all 
defined terms, see Section VI.B. (Section-by-Section Analysis--508 
Standards: Application and Scoping--E103.4).
    As with the proposed 508 Standards, the Board proposes to replace 
the term ``electronic and information technology (E&IT)''--which 
appears in both the existing 255 Guidelines and the 508 Standards--with 
``information and communication technology (ICT).'' The scope and 
application of the term ``ICT'' are discussed in detail in the Section-
by-Section Analysis of the proposed 508 Standards. See Section VI.B 
(Section-by-Section Analysis--508 Standards: Application and Scoping). 
We note here that ICT is a broad term that encompasses not only 
information technology and other electronic systems and processes 
covered by the 508 Standards, but also telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment subject to the 255 Guidelines. The term 
``ICT,'' moreover, embraces not only telecommunications equipment, but 
also its related software and electronic content.
    We also propose to revise definitions for ``customer premises 
equipment'' (CPE) and ``specialized customer premises equipment'' found 
in the existing 255 Guidelines to be consistent with current FCC 
regulations implementing Section 255 of the Communications Act. (See 47 
CFR part 14 (2013)).
    Additionally, the Board proposes to add several terms that would be 
new to the 255 Guidelines. As with the proposed 255 Guidelines, these 
newly defined terms are being proposed to reflect, among other things, 
new terminology used in the proposed guidelines or technological 
changes. One proposed new term is ``255 Guidelines.'' This term is 
newly defined in order to provide consistent cross-reference within the 
guidelines to all chapters that apply to Section 255-covered 
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment, namely: 255 Chapters 1 and 2 (36 CFR part 1194, Appendix B), 
and Chapters 3 through 6 (36 CFR part 1194, Appendix C). This 
definition is consistent with proposed Sec.  1194.2, as well as usage 
of the term throughout this NPRM.
    Other newly defined terms in the proposed 255 Guidelines are: 
``application,'' ``assistive technologies,'' ``audio description,'' 
``authoring tool,'' ``closed functionality,'' ``content,'' 
``hardware,'' ``keyboard,'' ``label,'' ``name,'' ``operable part,'' 
``programmatically determinable,'' ``text,'' ``menu,'' ``platform 
accessibility services,'' ``platform software,'' ``real-time text,'' 
``software,'' ``terminal,'' and ``Voice over Internet Protocol 
(VOIP).'' Each of these new terms is discussed above in the context of 
the proposed 508 Standards. See Section VI.B. (Section-by-Section 
Analysis--508 Standards: Application and Scoping--E103.4).
    Lastly, proposed C103.4 would exclude several terms that are 
defined in the existing 255 Guidelines. These terms are not included in 
this proposed rule because either the proposed technical requirement 
associated with the term sufficiently conveys its meaning (i.e., 
``accessible,'' ``readily achievable,'' ``alternate formats,'' 
``manufacturer,'' and ``telecommunications equipment''), or the term is 
not used in the proposed 255 Guidelines (i.e., ``agency,'' ``alternate 
methods,'' ``peripheral devices,'' and ``product'').
255 Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements
    This chapter proposes scoping for requirements applicable to 
telecommunications equipment manufacturers in the design, development, 
or fabrication of covered ICT that is newly released, upgraded, or 
substantially changed from an earlier version or model--that is, the 
types of ICT that would be required to conform to the proposed 
functional performance criteria and technical requirements in the 255 
Guidelines, as well as the conditions under which these provisions 
would apply.
    Proposed 255 Chapter 2 would differ substantially from its 
counterpart chapter in the proposed 508 Standards due to the exclusion 
of several provisions that are inapplicable in the context of Section 
255. 255 Chapter 2 also simplifies and reorganizes provisions in 
existing 255 Guidelines Sec. Sec.  1193.21, 1193.23, 1193.31, 1193.33, 
1193.39 and 1193.41. All scoping provisions would now be located in 
this chapter.
C201 Application
    This is an introductory section.
C201.1 Scope
    This section proposes that telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment, as well as related software, would be 
required to comply with applicable 255 Guidelines when newly released, 
upgraded, or substantially modified from an earlier version or model.
C201.2 Readily Achievable
    The section proposes that, when a telecommunications equipment 
manufacturer determines that conformance to one or more requirements in 
Chapter 4 (Hardware) or Chapter 5 (Software) would not be readily 
achievable, it shall ensure that the equipment or service is compatible 
with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises 
equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to the extent 
readily achievable. This section mirrors Sec.  1193.21 of the existing 
255 Guidelines.
C201.3 Access to Functionality
    This section proposes that telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers ensure that ICT is accessible to, and usable by, 
individuals with disabilities by providing direct

[[Page 10912]]

access to all functionality of ICT where readily achievable. This 
provision is consistent with existing 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.31.
C201.4 Prohibited Reduction of Accessibility, Usability and 
Compatibility
    This section proposes to prohibit changes in covered ICT that 
decreases, or has the effect of decreasing, its net accessibility, 
usability, or compatibility. This provision largely mirrors existing 
255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.39. Proposed C201.4 is intended to ensure 
that accessibility features in existing technology would not be 
compromised by later alterations in product design. An exception allows 
for the discontinuation of a product. This provision was proposed in 
the 2010 ANPRM, but inadvertently omitted from the 2011 ANPRM.
C201.5 Design, Development and Fabrication
    This section proposes a general requirement that telecommunications 
equipment manufacturers evaluate the accessibility, usability, and 
interoperability of covered ICT during its design, development, and 
fabrication. This provision is largely based on Sec.  1193.23(a) of the 
existing 255 Guidelines. We have not, however, retained Sec.  
1193.23(b) of the existing 255 Guidelines, which requires 
telecommunications equipment manufacturers to consider involving people 
with disabilities in various aspects of product design and development. 
We do not include this provision in the proposed 255 Guidelines because 
it is non-mandatory, advisory material only.
C202 Functional Performance Criteria
    This is an introductory section.
C202.1 General
    This section proposes that when the technical provisions of Chapter 
4 and 5 do not address one or more features of covered ICT, the 
features not addressed must conform to the Functional Performance 
Criteria specified in Chapter 3. This proposed section is consistent 
with 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.41. For a more complete discussion of 
this section, see Section V.C (Major Issues--Relationship between 
Functional Performance Criteria and Technical Provisions).
C203 Electronic Content
    This is an introductory section.
C203.1 General
    The section proposes to require content integral to the use of 
covered ICT to conform to Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and 
Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages in WCAG 2.0 or ISO 
14289-1(PDF/UA-1), both of which are incorporated by reference in 255 
Chapter 1. The meaning and application of this provision is discussed 
in greater detail in Sections V.A (Major Issues--Covered Electronic 
Content). A similar provision was proposed in the 2011 ANPRM. We 
received no adverse comments.
C204 Hardware
    This is an introductory section.
C204.1 General
    This section proposes that, where covered ICT hardware transmits 
information or has a user interface, such hardware must conform to the 
applicable provisions in Chapter 4 (Hardware). Two of the main covered 
hardware components--real-time text and assistive technology--are 
discussed above in the Major Issues section. See Section V.D (Major 
Issues--Real-Time Text), and Section V.E (Major Issues--Assistive 
Technology).
    While the requirements applicable to Section 255-covered hardware 
are generally the same as those applied in the 508 Standards, proposed 
C204.1 provides one exception, which in turn, excepts Section 255-
covered ICT from conforming to five specific requirements. These 
exceptions are proposed due to considerations unique to 
telecommunications equipment. Features associated with these proposed 
exceptions are not typically found on hand-held portable devices 
subject to the 255 Guidelines, such as mobile phones. The five excepted 
requirements for which we are proposing relief, along with the 
underlying rationale, are listed below:
    402 Closed Functionality. If applied to ICT covered by the 255 
Guidelines, proposed 402 would require all products with displays to be 
speech enabled. It would be unreasonable to apply this requirement to 
consumer products that are less technologically advanced, and, 
moreover, doing so would likely eliminate less expensive telephony from 
the marketplace.
    407.11 Keys, Tickets and Fare Cards and 409 Transactional Outputs. 
Keys, tickets, and fare cards are not typically used to operate ICT 
subject only to the 255 Guidelines. Similarly, these types of products 
do not typically provide transactional outputs covered by proposed 409.
    407.12 Reach Height and 408 Display Screens. The technical 
requirements specified for reach ranges (proposed 407.12) and display 
screens (408) are only intended to apply to stationary ICT. It would 
thus be inappropriate to apply these requirements to mobile 
telecommunications equipment subject to the 255 Guidelines (e.g., 
mobile phones, cable modems).
    When these five provisions are applicable in the proposed 508 
Standards, the exception for commercial non-availability would apply 
(under proposed E202.6.2), thereby requiring a federal agency to 
provide a user with disabilities access to, and use of, information by 
an alternative means that meets his or her identified needs.
    Question 16. Is telecommunications equipment covered by Section 255 
sufficiently unique to warrant exemption from the five hardware-related 
accessibility requirements listed in proposed C204.1? Should exceptions 
from other hardware requirements be added, or, conversely, should any 
of these five proposed exceptions be removed?
C205 Software
    This is an introductory section.
C205.1 General
    This section proposes that, where components of ICT transmit 
information or have a user interface, they must conform to the 
applicable provisions in Chapter 5 (Software).
C205.2 WCAG Conformance
    This section proposes that specified components of covered ICT--
namely, user interface components, platform content, and application 
content--must conform to Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and 
Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages in WCAG 2.0, which is 
incorporated by reference in Chapter 1. This requirement is new to the 
255 Guidelines. In the Major Issues section above, the Board discusses 
the benefits of, and issues attendant to, incorporation of WCAG 2.0 
into the 255 Guidelines and 508 Standards. See Section V.B (Major 
Issues--WCAG 2.0 Incorporation by Reference).
C206 Support Documentation and Services
    This is an introductory section.
C206.1 General
    This section proposes to require that where support documentation 
or services are provided, they must conform to the proposed provisions 
of

[[Page 10913]]

Chapter 6. This proposed requirement is from the existing 255 
Guidelines Sec.  1193.33.

D. Functional Performance Criteria and Technical Requirements

    Appendix C sets forth proposed functional performance criteria 
(Chapter 3) and technical requirements (Chapters 4 through 6) that are 
referenced by, and applied in, the Application and Scoping provisions 
in the 508 Standards (Appendix A) and 255 Guidelines (Appendix B). The 
proposed requirements in Appendix C are based on recommendations from 
the Advisory Committee unless otherwise noted.
Chapter 3: Functional Performance Criteria
    Chapter 3 contains proposed functional performance criteria, which 
are outcome-based provisions that apply when applicable technical 
requirements (i.e., Chapters 4 and 5) do not address one or more 
features of ICT. All sections of this chapter are referenced by scoping 
provisions in 508 Chapter 2 and in 255 Chapter 2. These functional 
performance criteria would also be used to determine equivalent 
facilitation under both the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. 
Accordingly, they are referenced by the equivalent facilitation 
provisions in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1.
301 General
    This is an introductory section.
301.1 Scope
    This section proposes that the functional performance criteria in 
Chapter 3 be applied where either (a) required by 508 Chapter 2 or 255 
Chapter 2, or (b) where referenced by other requirements.
302.1 Without Vision
    This section proposes to revise the criterion for users who are 
blind. This provision would clarify the requirements in existing 508 
Standards Sec.  1194.31(a) and 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.41(a) by 
specifying that provision of a mode of operation without vision is 
required when the ICT otherwise provides a visual mode of operation.
302.2 With Limited Vision
    This section proposes to revise the functional performance 
criterion for users with limited vision so that, where a visual mode of 
operation is provided, one mode of operation that magnifies, one mode 
that reduces the field of vision, and one mode that allows user control 
of contrast would be required. This provision contains significant 
changes from the functional performance criteria in the existing 508 
Standards Sec.  1194.31(b) and existing 255 Guidelines Sec.  
1193.41(b). Existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.31(b) requires at least 
one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not require 
visual acuity greater than 20/70 to be provided in both audio and 
enlarged print output working together or independently. Existing 255 
Guidelines Sec.  1193.41(b) is similar, except that it defines users 
with limited vision as users possessing visual acuity that ranges 
between 20/70 and 20/200. For a further discussion of the history of 
these proposed changes, see Section IV.E.6 (Rulemaking History--2010 
and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues--Modifications to the Functional 
Performance Criteria for Limited Vision).
    Question 17. Some commenters raised concerns with proposed 302.2 
With Limited Vision. They recommended that the Board establish 
thresholds for how much magnification, reduction, or contrast is 
sufficient to meet the provision. Should proposed 302.2 be more 
specific, and if so, what should the thresholds be? Please cite a 
scientific basis for threshold recommendations.
302.3 Without Perception of Color
    This section proposes to add a new functional performance criterion 
for users with color blindness to better map to technical 
specifications in the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. Section 302.3 
would require at least one mode of operation that does not require user 
perception of color where a visual mode of operation is provided. The 
technical provisions in existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec.  1194.25(g) 
and 1194.21(i), existing 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.41(c), as well as 
proposed 407.7, prohibit color coding from being the only means of 
conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or 
distinguishing a visual element.
302.4 Without Hearing
    This section proposes to revise the criterion for users who are 
deaf. This provision would clarify the requirements in existing 508 
Standards Sec.  1194.31(c) and existing 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.41(d) 
by specifying that provision of a mode of operation without hearing is 
required when the ICT otherwise provides an auditory mode of operation.
302.5 With Limited Hearing
    This section proposes to revise the criterion for users with 
limited hearing. The existing 508 Standards require at least one mode 
of operation and information retrieval to be provided in an enhanced 
auditory fashion. The existing 255 Guidelines require that input, 
control, and mechanical functions be operable with limited or no 
hearing. Proposed 302.5 is more specific, and would require at least 
one mode of operation that improves clarity, one mode that reduces 
background noise, and one mode that allows user control of volume, when 
an auditory mode of speech is provided.
302.6 Without Speech
    This proposed section would clarify the requirements in existing 
508 Standards Sec.  1194.31(e) and existing 255 Guidelines Sec.  
1193.41(h) by specifying that provision of a mode of operation without 
speech is only required when the ICT provides a spoken mode of 
operation. This section is primarily intended to address the needs of 
users who are unable to speak.
302.7 With Limited Manipulation
    In this section, the Board proposes to address the functional 
performance criterion for users with limited manipulation. The 
provision would require that, when ICT provides a manual mode of 
operation, it must also provide at least one mode of operation that 
does not require fine motor control or operation of more than one 
control at the same time. The existing 508 Standards address the needs 
of users with limited manipulation and users with limited reach or 
strength in the same criterion (see Sec.  1194.31(f)). By contrast, the 
existing 255 Guidelines address the needs of users with limited manual 
dexterity and users with limited reach or strength in different 
provisions (see Sec. Sec.  1193.41(e) and (f)). Because these 
conditions do not necessarily exist together, their respective 
accessibility solutions are best presented separately. The criterion 
for users with limited reach or strength is set forth in proposed 
302.8.
302.8 With Limited Reach and Strength
    In this section, the Board proposes to address the functional 
performance criterion for users with limited reach or strength. The 
existing 508 Standards address the needs of users with limited 
manipulation and users with limited reach or strength in the same 
criterion (see Sec.  1194.31(f)). By contrast, the existing 255 
Guidelines address the needs of users with limited manual dexterity and 
users with limited reach or strength in different criteria (see 
Sec. Sec.  1193.41(e) and (f)). Because these conditions do not 
necessarily exist together, their respective accessibility solutions 
are best presented separately.

[[Page 10914]]

The criterion for users with limited manipulation is set forth in 
proposed 302.7.
Chapter 4: Hardware
    Chapter 4 contains proposed requirements for hardware that 
transmits information or has a user interface. Examples of such 
hardware include computers, information kiosks, and multi-function copy 
machines. This chapter draws substantively from existing 508 Standards, 
as well as the technical requirements for automatic teller machines and 
fare machines in the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. See 36 CFR 
part 1191, Appendix D, section 707. The requirements in this chapter 
apply under both the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines absent 
an express exception.
    Most of the proposed hardware requirements are new to the 255 
Guidelines. This is because the existing 255 Guidelines parallel only 
existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec.  1194.23 Telecommunications products, 
1194.31 Functional performance criteria, and 1194.41 Information, 
documentation, and support. The existing 255 Guidelines do not 
currently address the other 508 requirements in Subpart B Technical 
Standards, namely 508 Standards Sec. Sec.  1194.21 Software 
applications and operating systems, 1194.22 Web-based intranet and 
Internet information and applications, 1194.24 Video and multimedia 
products, 1194.25 Self-contained, closed products, and 1194.26 Desktop 
and portable computers. A major objective of this rulemaking is to 
harmonize the 255 Guidelines and 508 Standards.
    Yet, while new to the 255 Guidelines, these proposed hardware rules 
are generally not expected to have a significant cost impact. Due to 
convergent technologies, a telecommunications product that previously 
stood alone may now be part of a more complex system. For example VoIP 
telephone systems may include a web interface used to operate the 
telephone. While these products have long been required under existing 
guidelines to be accessible, see, e.g., 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.41(a) 
(requiring telecommunications products be operable without vision), the 
product-by-product based structure of the guidelines results in a 
multiplicity of accessibility requirements. This proposed rule aims to 
address this problem by taking a functional approach across 
technologies, as well as by adding clarity and detail as to what 
accessible means. For these reasons, the proposed rule is not expected 
to impose material new costs on manufacturers of telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment.
    With respect to an increasingly ubiquitous type of ICT hardware--
self-service transaction machines--the Board has worked collaboratively 
with the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Transportation (DOT) to 
develop a common set of technical requirements that could be referenced 
and scoped by these agencies in their respective rulemaking 
initiatives. While each agency has different regulatory authority, 
self-service transaction machines can be found in a variety of 
settings, and the accessibility barriers are generally common across 
these settings. In late 2013, DOT published a final rule implementing 
the Air Carrier Access Act that addresses accessibility standards for 
airline Web sites and automated kiosks located at domestic airports. 
See 78 FR 67882 (Nov. 12, 2013). The DOT requirements for automated 
kiosks are consistent with existing 508 Standards for self-contained, 
closed products. In 2010, DOJ published an ANPRM to solicit public 
comment on accessibility requirements under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act for furniture and equipment. See 75 FR 43452 (July 26, 
2010). Such requirements would cover, among other things, kiosks, 
interactive transaction machines, and point-of-sale devices. In a 
future rulemaking, the Board may update the ADA and ABA Accessibility 
Guidelines to harmonize those guidelines with the proposed 508 
Standards and the 255 Guidelines, once finalized.
401 General
    This is an introductory section.
401.1 Scope
    This section proposes that the technical requirements for hardware 
in Chapter 4 be applied where (a) required by 508 Chapter 2 or 255 
Chapter 2, or (b) where referenced by other requirements. Assistive 
technology hardware would be excepted from conformance with this 
chapter. This exception is proposed in response to public comments to 
the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs that sought clarification on this point. 
Commenters expressed the concern that, should this scoping section be 
read as obligating assistive technology hardware to meet the 
requirements of this chapter, some assistive technology would not be 
able to serve its function. For example, people with very low muscle 
tone might use a specialized membrane keyboard that is completely flat, 
with no tactilely discernible separation between the keys, because it 
is the most optimal input device for them. This type of specialized 
keyboard, however, would not be permitted under proposed 407.3, which 
addresses tactilely discernible input controls. In light of the 
specialized nature of assistive technology, the Board proposes it be 
excepted from the technical requirements in this chapter.
402 Closed Functionality
    This is an introductory section.
402.1 General
    This section proposes to require ICT with closed functionality to 
be operable without requiring the user to attach or install assistive 
technology, with the exception of personal headsets or other audio 
couplers. This provision is needed because, when ICT has closed 
functionality, the end user typically does not have the option of 
installing or attaching assistive technology. Closed functionality can 
also apply to the platform user interface. This is sometimes referred 
to as ``firmware'' because it has a software aspect, but is not 
alterable by the end-user and the user interface is necessarily tied to 
the hardware platform. The proposed technical requirements for software 
(Chapter 5) do not specifically address closed functionality, except 
for the interoperability of software and assistive technology.
    Components of ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines would be excepted 
from the requirements of this section (see C204.1 Exception) because 
such telecommunications equipment typically has closed functionality. 
For example, it is often impossible to attach or install assistive 
technology, such as a specialized keyboard.
    Variable message signs (VMS) frequently are installed in federal 
buildings and facilities to provide information about ongoing events. 
Some VMS also convey information relevant to emergencies. VMS with 
closed functionality would be covered by this section. The Board is 
currently unaware of any VMS technology that provides audible output. 
However, there is one voluntary consensus standard addressing 
accessibility of VMS with respect to the needs of persons with low 
vision. The most recent edition of the International Code Council 
(ICC)'s ``Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities'' (ICC A117.1-
2009) contains specifications for making high-resolution and low-
resolution VMS more accessible to people with low vision. For low-
resolution signs, these requirements address signage characters (e.g., 
case, style, height, width, stroke width, and spacing), as well as 
other characteristics relating to height above

[[Page 10915]]

the floor, finish, contrast, protective coverings, brightness, and rate 
of change. High-resolution VMS need only comply with the provisions for 
character case (uppercase), protective coverings, brightness, and rate 
of change since they typically meet or exceed the other specifications. 
In addition, section 1110.4 of the 2012 edition of the International 
Building Code requires VMS in transportation facilities and in 
emergency shelters to comply with ICC A117.1 unless equivalent 
information is provided audibly. The IBC, however, does not require the 
VMS, itself, to provide the audible message. For example, in a 
transportation facility, information equivalent to the VMS display can 
be provided through a public address system.
    Question 18. In the final rule, the Board is considering 
incorporating by reference the requirements for VMS in ICC A117.1-
2009--or its successor ICC A117.1-2015, if the standard has been 
finalized by that time--in order to make such signs more accessible to 
individuals who are blind or have low vision. The Board seeks comment 
on the advisability of incorporating by reference the requirements in 
ICC A117.1-2009 (or its successor) for variable message signs. Are 
there technologies that would allow a user to receive an audible 
message generated by the VMS sign? If so, the Board requests that 
commenters provide information regarding this technology. Until VMS can 
be made directly accessible to persons who are blind, we recognize that 
VMS would have to be paired with audible public address announcements. 
If VMS cannot be speech enabled, should the Board require VMS to, at 
least, be accessible to people with low vision?
402.2 Speech-Output Enabled
    This section proposes to require ICT with closed functionality that 
has a display screen to be speech-output enabled. This means that 
operating instructions and orientation, visible transaction prompts, 
user input verification, error messages, and all displayed information 
necessary for full use, would have to be accessible to and usable by 
individuals with vision impairments. In actual practice, for all but 
the simplest ICT (e.g., hardware without display screens), this means 
ensuring that the ICT has built-in speech output. This explicit 
requirement would be new to the 508 Standards. That is, while the 
requirement in existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.25(a) has been 
interpreted as requiring ICT with closed functionality to provide 
speech output since that is the only means of making such products 
``usable by people with disabilities without requiring an end-user to 
attach assistive technology,'' there is currently no express mandate 
for speech output. This proposed section contains two exceptions, which 
exempt specific types of information from speech output requirements, 
as discussed below.
Exception 1 to 402.2 Speech-Output Enabled
    This section proposes to exclude from the requirement for speech 
output any user inputted content that is not displayed as entered for 
security purposes, such as when asterisks are shown on-screen instead 
of personal identification numbers. Excluded material may be delivered 
as audible tones, rather than as speech.
Exception 2 to 402.2 Speech-Output Enabled
    This section proposes to permit visible output that is not 
necessary for the transaction being conducted--such as advertisements 
and similar material--from the requirement for audible output.
402.2.1 User Control
    This section proposes requirements for user control of speech-
enabled output concerning interruption upon selection of a transaction, 
as well as repeat and pause capabilities. This section is similar to 
Sec.  1194.25(e) of the existing 508 Standards.
402.2.2 Braille Instructions
    This section proposes that, where displays for ICT with closed 
functionality are required to have speech output, instructions for 
initiating the speech mode be provided in braille. Braille instructions 
would be required to conform to specifications for braille in the ADA 
and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. See ADA and ABA Accessibility 
Guidelines, 36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, section 703.3. This 
requirement would be new to the 508 Standards. For telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment subject to Section 255, this 
requirement is inapplicable; an exception to proposed C204.1 expressly 
exempts such ICT from this hardware requirement. This proposal was 
included in the 2011 ANPRM, and the Board received no comments.
402.3 Volume
    This section proposes to require two alternate standards for volume 
control and output amplification on ICT with closed functionality that 
delivers sound, depending on whether such sound is being conveyed for 
private or non-private listening. An exception also provides that ICT 
conforming to 410.2, which addresses volume gain for ICT with two-way 
voice communication, would be exempted from complying with this 
section.
402.3.1 Private Listening
    This section proposes to require that, where ICT subject to 402.3 
provides a mechanism for private listening--such as a handset or 
headphone jack--it must have a mode of operation for controlling the 
volume, and provide a means for effective magnetic wireless coupling to 
hearing technologies. This proposed requirement would be new to the 508 
Standards.
402.3.2 Non-private Listening
    This section proposes to require that, where ICT subject to 402.3 
provides non-private listening, incremental volume control must be 
provided with output amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB. In 
addition, where the ambient noise level of the environment is above 45 
dB, a volume gain of at least 20 dB above the ambient level would be 
required and must be user selectable. This provision would require a 
function to be provided to automatically reset the volume to the 
default level after every use. This section closely corresponds to 
Sec.  1194.25(f) in the existing 508 Standards.
402.4 Characters
    This section proposes to require that at least one mode of 
characters displayed on a screen be in sans serif font. In addition, 
where ICT does not provide a screen enlargement feature, characters 
would be required to have a minimum height requirement of 3/16 inch 
based on the uppercase letter ``I.'' This section would also require 
that characters contrast with their background with either light 
characters on a dark background or dark characters on a light 
background. This section would be new to the 508 Standards.
403 Biometrics
    This is an introductory section.
403.1 General
    This section proposes to prohibit biometrics from being the only 
means for user identification or control unless at least two different 
biometric options using different biological characteristics are 
provided. This new exception was recommended by the Advisory Committee. 
Without the added exception, the language in this section is 
substantially unchanged from

[[Page 10916]]

Sec.  1194.25(d) of the 508 Standards, but would be new to the 255 
Guidelines.
404 Preservation of Information Provided for Accessibility
    This is an introductory section.
404.1 General
    This section proposes to prohibit ICT that transmits or converts 
information or communication from removing non-proprietary information 
provided for accessibility or, if the non-proprietary information or 
communication is removed, this section would require that it be 
restored upon delivery. For example, a video or multimedia presentation 
with closed captioning would be required to retain the caption 
encoding, or, if removed in transmission, then restore such encoding 
upon delivery. This provision closely models Sec. Sec.  1194.23(j) and 
1193.37 of the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, respectively.
405 Flashing
    This is an introductory section.
405.1 General
    This section proposes that, where ICT emits lights in flashes, 
there can be no more than three flashes in any one-second period. An 
exception would allow small flashes not exceeding the general flash and 
red flash thresholds defined in Success Criterion 2.3.1 of WCAG 2.0 
because such flashes do not pose seizure risks to users. This 
requirement is based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee. 
This proposed section closely corresponds to existing 508 Standards 
Sec. Sec.  1194.21(k), 1194.22(j), and 1194.25(i), and is similar to 
Sec.  1193.43(f) of the existing 255 Guidelines. The flash rate 
specification in this section is supported by scientific studies on 
seizures and photosensitivity.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Graham Harding, et al., Photic- and Pattern-
Induced Seizures: Expert Consensus of the Epilepsy Foundation of 
America Working Group, 46 Epilepsia 1426 (2005); Arnold Wilkins, et 
al., Characterizing the Patterned Images That Precipitate Seizures 
and Optimizing Guidelines to Prevent Them, 46 Epilepsia 1212 (2005); 
see also Ofcom, Guidance Notes Section 2: Harm & Offence for 
Licensees on Flashing Images and Regular Patterns in Television 
(Issue Ten: July 2012), available at https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/guidance/831193/section2.pdf; Information about Photosensitive Seizure Disorders, 
Trace Research & Development Center (June 2009), https://trace. wisc. 
edu/peat/photosensitive.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

406 Standard Connections
    This is an introductory section.
406.1 General
    This section proposes that, where ICT provides data connections 
used for input and output, at least one of each type of data connection 
conform to industry standard non-proprietary formats, e.g., jacks and 
plugs. This proposed section closely corresponds to Sec.  1194.26(d) of 
the existing 508 Standards and Sec.  1193.51(a) of the existing 255 
Guidelines. The intent of this provision is to support compatibility 
with assistive technology hardware.
407 Operable Parts
    This is an introductory section.
407.1 General
    This section addresses accessibility features of operable parts--
such as keys and controls--when part of the user interface is hardware. 
This section proposes to require operable parts of ICT to conform to 
the technical requirements in proposed 407.2, 407.3, and 407.4. This 
section is consistent with requirements in existing 508 Standards 
Sec. Sec.  1194.21 and 1194.25, along with Sec.  1193.41(f) of the 
existing 255 Guidelines.
407.2 Contrast
    This section proposes that keys and controls, where provided, 
contrast visually from background surfaces. Characters and symbols 
would have to provide this contrast with either light characters or 
symbols on a dark background or dark characters or symbols on a light 
background. The goal of this section is to make operable parts of 
hardware on ICT more usable for persons with low vision. A contrast 
requirement for hardware was recommended by the Advisory Committee. It 
would be new to the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines.
407.3 Tactilely Discernible
    This section proposes to require that at least one tactilely 
discernible input control conforming to the requirements of this 
section be provided for each function. ICT containing touchscreens is 
widely used in the marketplace. Touchscreens currently are not 
generally tactilely discernible. This requirement would not prohibit 
use of touchscreens, membrane keys, or gesture input, provided there is 
at least one alternative method of input that is tactilely discernible. 
The intent of this proposed section is to address the difficulty 
certain people with visual and dexterity impairments often have when 
using touchscreens. This section, which contains subsections for three 
types of functions (i.e., identification, alphabetic keys, and numeric 
keys) is new to the 255 Guidelines, but is consistent with existing 508 
Standards Sec. Sec.  1194.23(k)(1)-(k)(4), with some changes as 
discussed below.
    The Board is also proposing an exception to the requirement for 
tactile discernibility for touchscreen-based devices in today's 
marketplace that have proven to be accessible to--and popular with--
people with visual disabilities. Specifically, the proposed exception 
would exempt devices for personal use offering input controls that (a) 
are audibly discernible without activation, and (b) operable by touch. 
Examples of currently available devices without tactilely discernible 
keyboards that are still navigable and usable by individuals with 
visual disabilities include devices offered by Apple with the iOS-based 
VoiceOver feature, such as the iPhone[supreg] and iPad[supreg]. 
Technology has evolved to the point where touch screens can be made 
navigable by blind users. Keyboards are an optional design feature. 
This proposed exception would be a significant departure from the 508 
Standards and 255 Guidelines, but more accurately reflects the state of 
current technology. We welcome comment on this proposed approach.
    In addition, the Board is considering adding to the final rule a 
requirement that at least one type of input technology on ICT with 
touch screens be compatible with a prosthetic, similar to the 
requirement in existing 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.51(c).
    Question 19. Does the proposed exception to the requirement for 
tactilely discernible input controls strike the appropriate balance so 
that it permits innovative accessibility approaches for individuals 
with visual impairments without being overbroad? Should there be 
additional requirements for touchscreens? For example, should the Board 
require touchscreens to be compatible with prosthetic devices?
407.3.1 Identification
    This section proposes to require input controls to be tactilely 
discernible without activation, as well as operable by touch. It also 
would require key surfaces outside active areas of display screens to 
be raised above their surrounding surfaces. The Board notes that, by 
requiring raised key surfaces, it does not thereby intend to prohibit 
contouring of keys. Users with limited manual dexterity may prefer 
concave keys. Contoured keys would be permitted under proposed 407.3.1, 
for example, by providing keys with raised edges and concave centers, 
as is often used on computer keyboards and landline telephone keypads. 
This section is new to the 255 Guidelines, but is similar to existing 
508 Standards Sec. Sec.  1194.23(k)(1), 1194.25(c), and

[[Page 10917]]

1194.26(b). It is also consistent with the requirements for input 
controls in the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. See 36 CFR part 
1191, Appendix D, section 707. This is not a material change from the 
existing standards, and therefore, imposes no new costs.
    Question 20. Some industry commenters to the 2011 ANPRM suggested 
that the Board permit concave--as well as raised--key surfaces. What 
would be the impact on accessibility if proposed 407.3.1 instead 
prohibited key surfaces outside the active area of the display screen 
from being flush with surrounding surfaces?
407.3.2 Alphabetic Keys
    This section proposes to require alphabetic keys, where provided, 
to be arranged in a traditional QWERTY layout, with tactilely distinct 
letter ``F'' and ``J'' keys. The requirement for tactilely discernible 
home row keys derives from existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.23(k)(1), 
but would be a new requirement for the 508 Standards and 255 
Guidelines. The intent of this section is to address identification and 
orientation when alphabetic key entry is used. This section was added 
to the proposed rule at the request of commenters to the 2011 ANPRM, 
who suggested that a requirement for alphabetic keys was needed to 
complement the proposed requirement for numeric key layout (proposed 
407.3.3). Where a numeric keypad with an alphabetic overlay is provided 
(such as on a telephone keypad), the relationships between letters and 
digits would be required to conform to ITU-T Recommendation E.161, as 
incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1.
    This requirement for a QWERTY layout in keyboards and conformance 
to ITU-T Recommendation E.161, while new to the 508 Standards and 255 
Guidelines, represents current design practice. Accordingly, there 
should be no additional cost associated with this provision.
407.3.3 Numeric Keys
    This section proposes to require numeric keys, where provided, to 
be arranged in a 12-key ascending or descending keyboard layout, with a 
tactilely distinct number ``5'' key. The requirement for a tactilely 
discernible ``5'' key derives from existing 508 Standards Sec.  
1194.23(k)(1), but would be a new requirement for the 508 Standards and 
255 Guidelines. The intent of this section is to address identification 
and orientation when numeric data entry is used.
407.4 Key Repeat
    This section proposes to require that, where a keyboard with a key 
repeat feature is provided, the delay before activation of the key 
repeat feature must be fixed at, or adjustable to, 2 seconds minimum. 
The intent of this section is to address the unintentional activation 
of keys by people with dexterity impairments. The proposed requirement 
closely corresponds to existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec.  1194.23(k)(3), 
1194.25(c), and 1194.26(b), but is new to the 255 Guidelines. Because 
telecommunications products generally do not have a key repeat feature, 
the Board expects the impact of this provision on telecommunications 
equipment manufacturers to be negligible.
407.5 Timed Response
    This section proposes to require that where a timed response is 
required, ICT would have to alert the user visually, as well as by 
touch or sound. It would also have to provide the user an opportunity 
to indicate that more time is needed. The intent of this section is to 
afford people with certain disabilities--namely, those relating to 
manual dexterity, cognitive disabilities, or otherwise affecting 
response time--additional time to complete a task, if needed. The 
proposed requirement is consistent with existing 255 Guidelines Sec.  
1193.41(g), and closely corresponds to existing 508 Standards 
Sec. Sec.  1194.25(b) and 1194.22(p).
407.6 Status Indicators
    This section would require status indicators, including all locking 
or toggle controls or keys, such as ``Caps Lock'' and ``Num Lock,'' to 
be discernible visually and by either touch or sound. The intent is to 
ensure that users who are blind can determine the status of locking or 
toggle keys audibly or by touch, and that users who are deaf can make 
this determination visually. This proposed provision closely 
corresponds to existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec.  1194.23(k)(4), 
1194.25(c), and 1194.26(b), but would be new to the 255 Guidelines. 
While new to the 255 Guidelines, status indicators for Caps Lock and 
Num Lock controls represent current design practice. Accordingly, there 
should be no additional cost associated with this provision.
407.7 Color
    This section proposes to prohibit color-coding from being the only 
means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a 
response, or distinguishing a visual element. The proposed section is 
the same as existing 508 Standards Sec.  1195.25(g), and is consistent 
with 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.41(c). The use of color is also 
addressed in existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.22(c), which requires 
that Web pages ``be designed so that all information conveyed with 
color is also available without color, for example from context or mark 
up.'' The intent of the proposed section is to address the needs of 
people who are color blind or have low vision. The proposed prohibition 
on color-coding represents current practice in the design of electronic 
content and, therefore, should not result in any additional cost.
407.8 Audio Signaling
    This section proposes to prohibit audio signaling from being the 
only means of conveying information, indicating an action, or prompting 
a response. For example, when a landline telephones provides a stutter 
tone to indicate a voice mail message, such a tone is typically 
accompanied by an activated light on the phone. This proposal closely 
parallels the prohibition in existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.25(g) 
against use of color as the only means of conveying information. The 
section is intended to address the needs of individuals with hearing 
impairments in the same way that proposed 407.7 addresses the needs of 
persons who have color blindness. Although an express prohibition on 
audio signaling would be new to the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, 
such a prohibition is implied by the existing functional performance 
criteria (508 Standards Sec.  1194.31(c)), and represents current 
industry practice. This proposed provision should not, therefore, 
result in any significant cost increase.
407.9 Operation
    This section would require ICT with operable parts to provide at 
least one mode of operation that is operable with one hand, and 
prohibits operable parts requiring tight grasping, pinching, or 
twisting of the wrist. The force required to activate operable parts 
would be limited to 5 lbs. (22.2 N) maximum. The proposed requirement 
closely corresponds to existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec.  1194.23(k)(2), 
1194.25(c), and 1194.26(b), and is consistent with existing 255 
Guidelines Sec. Sec.  1193.41(e) and (f). This section is aimed at 
addressing the needs of people with manual dexterity impairments when 
using operable parts.
407.10 Privacy
    This proposed section would require the same degree of privacy of 
input and output for all individuals. For example,

[[Page 10918]]

individuals using a speech output mode must be afforded the same degree 
of privacy as those using a display screen. The proposed requirement 
would be new to both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. ATMs and 
Fare Vending Machines, as addressed in the ADA and ABA Accessibility 
Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, section 707.4), typically 
support compliance with this requirement by providing a handset or 
audio jack. Additionally, this proposed section would prohibit screens 
from automatically going blank when the speech function is engaged. 
Many people with low vision use speech output to supplement or 
reinforce on-screen prompts. Consequently, automatically blanking the 
screen would render the ICT less accessible to these users. Provision 
of an option for users to blank the screen, however, may be helpful to 
individuals who desire greater privacy.
407.11 Keys, Tickets, and Fare Cards
    This section would require that, when kiosks or other ICT provide a 
key, ticket, or fare card, those objects have a tactilely discernible 
orientation, if orientation is important to the object's further use. 
This requirement would be new to the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, 
and is intended to address the needs of individuals with visual 
impairments. This section is identical to the recently issued final 
rule by the Department of Transportation concerning the accessibility 
of tickets and boarding passes issued by shared-use automated kiosks at 
airport facilities. See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in 
Air Travel: Accessibility of Web sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. 
Airports, 78 FR 67882 (Nov. 12, 2013) (to be codified at 49 CFR part 
27). ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines would be expressly exempted from 
the requirements of this section (by proposed C204.1 Exception) because 
telecommunications equipment does not typically issue keys, tickets, or 
fare cards.
407.12 Reach Height
    This section proposes requirements for the height of side and 
forward reaches that would enable persons using wheelchairs or other 
mobility aids to reach and operate at least one of each type of 
operable part. This proposed section would apply only to ICT that is 
stationary. By ``stationary,'' the Board means that the ICT, once put 
in place, is not intended to be relocated for routine use. Proposed 
407.12 parallels existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.25(j), which applies 
side reach requirements to ICT that is ``freestanding, non-portable, 
and intended to be used in one location.'' We are proposing to use the 
term ``stationary'' to address concerns that the word ``freestanding'' 
implies an independent supporting structure that may not always be in 
place, such as with a multifunction printer specifically designed for 
table-top or desk-top use.
    Specifically, this section would establish requirements for 
position (i.e., vertical reference plane), forward reach, and side 
reach. This section proposes maximum and minimum reach heights for 
either forward (over the lap) or side reaches to stationary ICT. 
Existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.25(j) only provides specifications 
for side reaches to operable parts of ICT. This section would provide 
greater design flexibility by permitting controls to be configured for 
either forward reach (407.12.3) or side reach (407.12.2). This 
flexibility would allow manufacturers to assess conformance prior to 
sale and independent of factors outside their control. For example, a 
manufacturer cannot control the installation location once ICT is 
purchased. However, because controls are designed to be within reach, 
the purchaser can then ensure that the ICT is located so that at least 
one of each type of control is accessible to individuals with 
disabilities. ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines would be expressly 
exempted from the requirements of this section (by proposed C204.1 
Exception) because it is not typically stationary.
    Question 21. Should the requirements for reach height in proposed 
407.12 apply to ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines, such as, for 
example, routers attached to racks? The Board asks that 
telecommunications equipment manufacturers provide information on the 
costs of such a requirement. Are there alternative ways of making these 
components accessible? We welcome comments on suggested approaches.
407.12.1 Vertical Reference Plane
    This section proposes that the positioning of operable parts for 
side reaches and forward reaches be determined with respect to a 
vertical reference plane, with the location and length of the plane 
dependent on the type of reach. The provisions for a side reach in 
existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.25(j)(1) contain references to this 
same vertical reference plane.
407.12.1.1 Vertical Plane for Side Reach
    This section proposes that, where a side approach is provided, the 
vertical reference plane must have a minimum length of 48 inches. The 
48-inch dimension is based on the length of a stationary occupied 
wheelchair. This side reach requirement mirrors existing 508 Standards 
Sec.  1194.25(j)(1) and Figure 1.
407.12.1.2 Vertical Plane for Forward Reach
    This section proposes that, where a forward reach is provided, the 
vertical reference plane must be, at a minimum, 30 inches long. The 30-
inch dimension is based on the width of a stationary occupied 
wheelchair. This dimension is consistent with the ADA and ABA 
Accessibility Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, section 305.5).
407.12.2 Side Reach
    This section specifies proposed requirements for operable parts 
providing unobstructed or obstructed side reaches. It proposes to limit 
the height of the portion of the ICT over which a person must reach to 
access controls to 34 inches maximum in height. Although the existing 
508 Standards do not include a maximum height for the portion of the 
ICT over which a person must reach, the proposed 34 inches maximum 
height is consistent with ICC A117.1-2009, as well as the ADA and ABA 
Accessibility Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, section 308). 
Without such a height limitation, controls at 48 inches could be out of 
reach if an obstruction blocked a user's arm and impeded his or her 
reach to the controls.
407.12.2.1 Unobstructed Side Reach
    This section proposes that, where the operable part is located 10 
inches or less behind the vertical reference plane, the operable part 
must be 48 inches high maximum and 15 inches high minimum above the 
floor. Although existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.25(j)(2) permits a 
maximum reach height of 54 inches, it contains the same minimum height 
(15 inches) and 10-inch reach depth. The proposed lowering of the 
maximum height for unobstructed side reach (i.e., from 54 inches in the 
existing 508 Standards to 48 inches in this proposed rule) reflects a 
similar change in 2004 to the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. See 
36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, section 308.3. This proposed maximum 
height is also consistent with accessible reaches specified in the 1998 
edition, as well as two subsequent editions, of the ICC A117.1.
407.12.2.2 Obstructed Side Reach
    This section proposes that, where the operable part is located more 
than 10 inches, but not more than 24 inches,

[[Page 10919]]

behind the vertical reference plane, the height of the operable part 
must be 46 inches maximum and 15 inches minimum above the floor. In 
addition, the operable part would not be permitted to be located more 
than 24 inches behind the vertical reference plane. Although it is 
editorially revised, this section is the same as existing 508 Standards 
Sec. Sec.  1194.25(j)(3) and 1194.25(j)(4).
407.12.3 Forward Reach
    This section contains proposed requirements for operable parts 
providing either an unobstructed or obstructed forward reach. This 
section proposes to limit the height of an obstruction that must be 
reached over to operate the control to 34 inches in height. The 34-inch 
height restriction is consistent with the ADA and ABA Accessibility 
Guidelines. See 36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, section 308. The proposed 
provision would also require the vertical reference plane to be 
centered on, and intersect with, the operable part.
    As noted previously, the existing 508 Standards do not provide 
specifications for forward reaches. While this requirement (and its 
subsections) would thus be new to the existing 508 Standards, it 
nonetheless would provide greater design flexibility by permitting 
controls to be configured for forward reach (or, alternatively, side 
reach), at the manufacturer's discretion.
407.12.3.1 Unobstructed Forward Reach
    This section proposes that, where an unobstructed forward reach is 
provided, the operable part must be located 48 inches high maximum and 
15 inches high minimum above the floor. An unobstructed forward reach, 
for purposes of this section, occurs when the operable part is located 
at the leading edge of the maximum protrusion within the length of the 
vertical reference plane of the ICT. These dimensions and their 
resulting geometry are consistent with the ADA and ABA Accessibility 
Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, sections 306 and 308).
407.12.3.2 Obstructed Forward Reach
    This section proposes that, where an obstructed forward reach is 
provided, the maximum allowable forward reach to an operable part would 
be 25 inches. An obstructed forward reach, for purposes of this 
section, occurs when the operable part is located behind the leading 
edge of the maximum protrusion within the length of the vertical 
reference plane of the ICT. In addition, this proposed section also 
contains subsections, as discussed below, establishing maximum heights 
for operable parts with obstructed forward reaches, as well as 
dimensions for knee and toe spaces. These dimensions and their 
resulting geometry are consistent with the ADA and ABA Accessibility 
Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, sections 306 and 308).
407.12.3.2.1 Height
    This section, presented in tabular form (Table 407.12.3.2.1), 
proposes alternative maximum heights for operable parts with obstructed 
forward reaches depending on reach depth. As specified in this table, 
if the reach depth of the operable part is less than 20 inches, then 
the operable part must be no higher than 48 inches. If the reach depth 
of the operable part is 20 inches to 25 inches, then the operable part 
must be no higher than 44 inches. These dimensions and their resulting 
geometry are consistent with the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines 
(36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, sections 306 and 308).
407.12.3.2.2 Knee and Toe Space
    This section proposes dimensions for knee and toe space under ICT 
when an obstructed forward reach is provided. The dimensions necessary 
to accommodate the full knee and toe space under ICT would be 27 inches 
high minimum, 25 inches deep maximum, and 30 inches wide minimum. This 
knee and toe space would also have to be clear of obstructions. These 
dimensions and their resulting geometry are consistent with the ADA and 
ABA Accessibility Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191, Appendix D, sections 
306 and 308).
    There are two proposed exceptions to this knee and toe space 
requirement. First, toe space with a reduced clear height of 9 inches 
(rather than 27 inches) would be permitted for a depth of no more than 
6 inches. Building on this exception, the second exception would allow 
further reduction in the height of the space along the profile of the 
knee to the toe sloping at 6:1 toward the maximum protrusion of the 
ICT. This means that, for every 6 inches of height, the line can move 
toward the maximum protrusion of the ICT up to 1 inch or, put another 
way, 6 inches of rise to 1 inch of run. These two exceptions allow ICT 
to provide space beneath operable controls for ICT for knees and toes, 
or a portion of knees and toes, depending on the location of the 
controls.
408 Display Screens
    This is an introductory section.
408.1 General
    This section proposes to require that, where stationary ICT 
provides one or more display screens, at least one of each type of 
screen must be visible from a point located 40 inches above the floor 
space where the display screen is to be viewed. The word ``stationary'' 
in this proposed section would have the same meaning as in proposed 
407.12. The intent of this provision is to ensure that display screens 
are viewable by individuals who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids. 
This would be a new requirement for the 508 Standards. ICT subject to 
the 255 Guidelines would be expressly exempted from the requirements of 
this section (by proposed C204.1 Exception) because such equipment is 
not typically stationary.
    Question 22. The visibility requirements for display screens in 
section 408.1 apply only to stationary ICT (i.e., ICT that is not 
intended to be moved once put in place), and, consequently, would not 
generally apply to telecommunications equipment subject to the 255 
Guidelines--such as cable modems and routers. Should the requirements 
for display screens apply to ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines?
    In addition to the proposed requirements above, the Board is 
considering establishing a requirement for the angle of the display 
screen to be adjustable, so that a person using a wheelchair or other 
mobility aid could see the entire viewable area of the display screen 
and minimize the effect of glare.
    Question 23. Should the Board add a requirement that the viewing 
angle of display screens be adjustable to permit wheelchair users or 
persons of small stature to see the entire viewable area of such 
screens and minimize glare? Are there other characteristics of display 
screens that would make them more viewable to persons who use 
wheelchairs or other mobility aids?
409 Transactional Outputs
    This is an introductory section.
409.1 General
    This section proposes that, where transactional outputs--such as 
tickets and receipts--are provided by ICT with speech output, the 
speech output must contain all information necessary to complete or 
verify a transaction. As applied to ICT with closed functionality and 
display screens required to be speech-output enabled under proposed 
402.2, this section would require all

[[Page 10920]]

information necessary to complete or verify a transaction, including 
information printed on receipts or tickets, to be provided audibly.
    This proposed requirement in 409.1 would be new to the 508 
Standards. ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines would be expressly 
exempted from the requirements of this section (by proposed C204.1 
Exception) because telecommunications equipment generally does not 
provide transactional outputs. For ICT covered by the 508 Standards, 
there would be exceptions for three specific types of transactional 
outputs: Information unrelated to the substance of particular 
transactions (e.g., machine location and identifier, time of 
transaction); information already presented audibly during the same 
transaction; and, lastly, itineraries, maps, and other visual images. 
Each of these exceptions is discussed below.
    Question 24. Do the three proposed exceptions to 409.1 adequately 
cover the types of information that should be exempted from the 
requirement for audible presentation of transactional outputs? Are 
there other types of information typically provided on transaction 
outputs that should be exempted? Should the Board limit the types of 
transactional outputs required to be presented audibly to certain types 
of outputs, e.g., tickets or sales receipts?
Exception 1 to 409.1
    Proposed Exception 1 would exempt information regarding the machine 
location, date and time of transaction, customer account number, and 
the machine identifier from the proposed requirement for audible 
transaction output. Although this information may be on printed 
receipts and other transactional outputs, it is not typically consulted 
by the user during, or immediately following, a transaction. This 
proposed exception is based on an exception to the requirements for 
speech output at Automated Teller Machines and Fare Vending Machines in 
the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. See 36 CFR part 1191, 
Appendix D, section 707.5.2 Exception 1.
Exception 2 to 409.1
    Proposed Exception 2 would exempt all information that is part of a 
transactional output from the proposed requirement if it has already 
been presented audibly at another point during the same transaction. 
For example, if a user purchasing stamps on a self-service U.S. Post 
Office machine selected a particular commemorative stamp and the 
selected stamp name was presented in an audible format previously in 
that same transaction, it need not be repeated when the machine issues 
the stamp.
Exception 3 to 409.1
    Proposed Exception 3 would exempt itineraries, maps, or other 
visual images that are provided on ticketing machines from being 
required to be presented in an audible format. This exception is 
proposed in recognition of the technical challenges posed by audible 
presentation of visual images.
    Question 25. Are there requirements in proposed Exception 3 to 
409.1 sufficiently clear?
410 ICT With Two-Way Voice Communication
    This is an introductory section.
410.1 General
    This section addresses the accessibility of telecommunications 
equipment that offers two- way voice communication (i.e., an 
interactive, multi-party voice communication occurring in real time), 
including both older technologies (such as landline telephones and two-
way pagers) and more modern ICT (such as mobile wireless devices). It 
would also apply to two-way video communication when the video also 
transmits voice communication. Proposed 410.1 would require ICT with 
two-way voice communication functionality to conform to the technical 
requirements in proposed 410.2 through 410.8, which cover, among other 
things: Volume gain magnetic coupling, minimization of interference, 
real-time text functionality, and video communication.
410.2 Volume Gain
    This section proposes to require ICT with two-way communication to 
provide volume gain conforming to the FCC's current regulation at 47 
CFR 68.317, which establishes technical standards for volume control on 
analog and digital telephones to facilitate hearing aid compatibility. 
The proposed section would replace existing 508 Standards Sec.  
1194.23(f) and existing 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.43(e). The Advisory 
Committee recommended that the Board adopt the FCC's volume gain 
requirements for landline ICT with two-way voice communication.
    In July 2013, the FCC issued a request for comment on a petition 
for rulemaking filed by a telecommunications industry group requesting 
that the agency revise its hearing aid compatibility volume control 
gain requirements for analog and digital telephones.\10\ The 
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) petition urged the 
Commission to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to, among other 
things, update its Part 68 rule to incorporate the most recent TIA 
standard for hearing aid compatibility volume control on telephones: 
ANSI/TIA-4965, Receive Volume Control Requirements for Digital and 
Analog Wireline Handset Terminals (2012). 28 FCC Rcd. at 10338-39. At 
present, the Commission's regulation at Sec.  68.317 sets forth 
separate requirements for analog and digital telephones based on speech 
amplification metrics known as ``Receive Objective Loudness Rating'' 
(ROLR). ANSI/TIA-4965, on the other hand, uses a new amplification 
metric--referred to as ``conversational gain''--to establish 
requirements for both analog and digital telephones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Request for Comment on Petition for Rulemaking filed by 
the Telecommunications Industry Association Regarding Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Volume Control Requirements, 28 FCC Rcd. 10338 (July 
19, 2013) (TIA Petition). The comment period on this petition closed 
in September 2013. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the ``conversational gain'' method of measuring amplification 
for wireline phones in ANSI/TIA-4965 may hold promise, it would be 
premature for the Board to reference this standard unless and until it 
is adopted by the FCC. As the lead regulatory agency on hearing aid 
compatibility standards for wireline telephones, the FCC is in the best 
position to assess the technical merits, as well as costs and benefits, 
of referencing this new TIA standard in any subsequent revisions to its 
existing regulation in Part 68.
    Question 26. The Board proposes to adopt 47 CFR 68.317, which is 
the FCC's current regulatory standard addressing volume control for 
analog and digital telephones. In the future, should the FCC revise its 
regulation and incorporate by reference ANSI/TIA-4965 (or any other 
consensus standard) for wireline phones, the Board plans to update its 
regulations--as needed--to reflect revisions by the Commission. We seek 
comment on this proposed course of action.
410.3 Magnetic Coupling
    This section proposes to require that, where ICT with two-way voice 
communication delivers output by an audio transducer that is typically 
held up to the ear, it provide a means for effective magnetic wireless 
coupling to hearing technologies, such as hearing aids, cochlear 
implants, and assistive listening devices. This section is equivalent 
to Sec. Sec.  1194.23(h) and

[[Page 10921]]

1193.43(i) of the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, 
respectively.
410.4 Minimize Interference
    This proposed section would require wireless handsets and digital 
wireless devices to reduce interference with hearing technologies to 
the lowest possible level, with interference specifications set forth 
in proposed subsections 410.4.1 (wireless handsets) and 410.4.2 
(digital wireline). This section closely corresponds to existing 508 
Standards Sec.  1194.23(i) and 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.43(h), but 
also incorporates by references consensus standards developed since the 
508 Standards and 255 Guidelines were published.
    The proposed subsections 410.4.1 and 410.4.2 refer to industry-
accepted standards for performance requirements for mobile and landline 
telephones.
410.4.1 Wireless Handsets
    This section proposes that ICT in the form of wireless handsets--
that is, cellular telephones--would be required to conform to ANSI/IEEE 
C63.19-2011, as incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 
Chapter 1.
410.4.2 Digital Wireline
    This section proposes that ICT in the form of digital wireline 
devices (such as VoIP-based office desk telephones) would be required 
to conform to TIA 1083, as incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1 
and 255 Chapter 1.
410.5 Digital Encoding of Speech
    This section proposes to require ICT with two-way voice 
communication to transmit and receive digitally encoded speech in the 
manner specified by ITU-T Recommendation G.722, a consensus standard 
for encoding and storing digital audio information that is incorporated 
by reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1. An exception for 
closed systems would exempt such systems from conformance to ITU-T 
Recommendation G.722 provided that they conform to another standard 
that ensures equivalent or better acoustic performance and support 
conversion to ITU-T Recommendation G.722 at their borders. This 
provision was recommended by the Advisory Committee to help improve 
auditory clarity for persons with hearing impairments. It is new to 
both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines.
410.6 Real-Time Text Functionality
    This proposed section establishes requirements for RTT 
functionality for ICT that provides real-time voice communication. As 
noted previously, both the Advisory Committee and the Board believe 
that RTT represents an important technological advance that provides an 
equivalent alternative to voice communications for persons who are 
deaf, as well as those with limited hearing or speech impairments. RTT 
delivers a more interactive, conversational communication experience 
compared to standard text messaging. It also provides superior speed 
and reliability in emergency situations. Furthermore, RTT permits the 
user to communicate using mainstream devices--such as mobile phones--
rather than having to use specialized and expensive devices (such as 
TTYs). See discussion above in Section IV.E.4 (Rulemaking History--2010 
and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues--Coverage of Real-Time Text), and 
Section V.D (Major Issues--Real-Time Text).
    Proposed 410.6 would require that, where ICT supports real-time 
voice communication, it must also support RTT functionality. 
Subsections of this proposed provision would, in turn, establish 
technical requirements for display, text generation, and 
interoperability. Importantly, proposed 410.6 would not mandate that 
all ICT provide RTT functionality. Rather, only those ICT that already 
have real-time voice communication capabilities would be required to 
support RTT functions. In this way, the Board's approach to 
requirements for RTT in the proposed rule mirrors the approach taken in 
the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines toward TTY compatibility. 
Neither the existing standards and guidelines nor the proposed rule 
establish an across-the-board command that telecommunications equipment 
or devices ``build in'' text capability. Instead, both sets of rules 
simply require that, when such equipment or devices offer voice 
communication functions, they must also ensure compatibility with 
certain types of text communication (i.e., TTY and RTT) by supporting 
use of specified cross-manufacturer, non-proprietary signals. See 36 
CFR 1193.51((e), 1194.23(b).
410.6.1 Display of Real-Time Text
    This proposed section is new to the 508 Standards and 255 
Guidelines and would require that, wherever ICT provides real-time 
voice communication and includes a multi-line screen, the ICT must also 
support the display of real-time text. This provision would not apply 
to telecommunications devices that either do not have display screens, 
or only have display screens capable of showing one line of text at a 
time.
410.6.2 Text Generation
    This proposed section is new to the 508 Standards and 255 
Guidelines and would require that, wherever ICT provides real-time 
voice communication and includes a keyboard, the ICT must also support 
the generation of real-time text.
410.6.3 Interoperability
    This section proposes that, where ICT with real-time two-way voice 
communication operates outside of a closed network or connects to 
another system, such ICT must ensure real-time text interoperability by 
using one of two cross-manufacturer, non-proprietary consensus 
standards depending on the nature of the system with which it is 
exchanging information--namely, a traditional telephone network or 
Internet-based telephony.
410.6.3.1 PSTN
    This section proposes that, where ICT with real-time two-way voice 
communication interoperates with the publicly switched telephone 
network (PSTN), real-time text conform to TIA 825-A (incorporated by 
reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1). This is the current 
industry standard for TTY signals (also known as Baudot) at the PSTN 
interface.
410.6.3.2 VoIP Using SIP
    This section proposes that, where ICT with real-time two-way voice 
communication interoperates with ``Voice over Internet Protocol'' 
(VoIP) products or systems that use Session Initiated Protocol (SIP), 
real-time text conform to RFC 4103 (incorporated by reference in 508 
Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1). In Question 8 above, see Section V.D., 
the Board seeks comment regarding the potential benefits, costs, and 
drawbacks associated with referencing other standards in addition to 
RFC 4103.
410.6.4 Voice Mail, Auto-Attendant, and IVR Compatibility
    This section proposes that, where ICT provides real-time two-way 
voice communication, any associated voice mail, auto-attendant, and 
interactive voice response systems must be compatible with real-time 
text functionality. This section derives from existing 508 Standards 
Sec. Sec.  1194.23(c)-(e), as well as existing 255 Guidelines 
Sec. Sec.  1193.51(d)-(e).
410.6.5 HCO and VCO Support
    This section proposes that, where ICT provides real-time two-way 
voice communication, it must permit users to intermix speech with the 
use of real-

[[Page 10922]]

time text. Such ICT would also be required to support modes that are 
compatible with Hearing Carry Over (HCO) and Voice Carry Over (VCO). 
This provision is collectively derived from existing 508 Standards 
Sec.  1194.23(a) and 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.51(d), and is consistent 
with changes in technology over time from TTYs to real-time text 
functionality. It is particularly significant in preserving the use of 
HCO/VCO with evolving technology.
410.7 Caller ID
    This section proposes that, where ICT provides two-way voice 
communication, any associated caller identification or similar 
telecommunications functions must be presented in both visual (e.g., 
text) and auditory formats. This requirement would be new to the 255 
Guidelines, but corresponds to a similar requirement in Sec.  
1194.23(e) of the existing 508 Standards. This proposed requirement 
could be met, for example, by having the system provide Caller ID in an 
auditory format, or by ensuring that Caller ID is available to 
assistive technology. Presentation of Caller ID in both visible and 
auditory forms ensures that individuals with visual impairments, 
hearing loss, or both, could use Caller ID and similar services, when 
provided.
410.8 Video Communication
    This section proposes that ICT with real-time video functionality 
must ensure that the quality of the video is sufficient to support 
communication through sign language. This proposed section would be new 
to both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. The Advisory Committee 
recommended that the Board include a provision requiring ICT used to 
transmit video communications in real-time to meet certain 
specifications for video quality and fluidity (i.e., speed, data 
stream, and latency). See TEITAC Report, Part 6. Subpt. C, Rec. 6-E.
    The Board's proposals relating to the requisite quality of real-
time video communications have received mixed reviews from commenters. 
In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed specifications for the quality of 
real-time video communication that largely mirrored the Advisory 
Committee's recommendation. Many commenters expressed support for the 
general concept of a video quality requirement as important for 
ensuring the accessibility of a means of communication, which, for 
persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, is the functional equivalent 
of voice communication. Some commenters, on the other hand, were 
critical of the Board's proposed technical specifications as overly 
prescriptive or unsupported by research. In light of such concerns, in 
the 2011 ANPRM, the Board simply proposed--as here in this proposed 
rule--that the quality of video must be sufficient to support sign 
language communication. Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM, while again 
generally supportive of the effort to ensure real-time video 
communications were usable by persons with hearing impairments, largely 
took issue with the proposal's lack of testable measures.
    While the Board is mindful of commenters' criticisms to the 2011 
ANPRM's performance-based standard for video quality of real-time video 
functionality, the Board has nonetheless retained this standard in this 
proposed rule. This provision would cover video communication via the 
web on dedicated videophones, as well as commonly used ICT such as 
smartphones. We are not aware of standards or specifications for video 
quality that would provide testable and achievable metrics to assess 
the quality and transmission of real-time video communications. 
However, technologies--as well as standards development--have 
progressed greatly in recent years. We welcome public comment on 
technological improvements or useful metrics relating to real-time 
video communication developed since the 2011 ANPRM.
    Question 27. Does the performance-based standard in proposed 410.8 
ensure that video quality would be sufficient to support a real-time 
video conversation in which one or more parties use sign language? If 
not, are there standards for video quality or transmission that would 
better implement the accessibility goal of this proposed requirement? 
Would it be readily achievable for manufacturers of telecommunications 
equipment to comply with section 410.8?
411 Closed Caption Processing Technologies
    This is an introductory section.
411.1 General
    This section addresses the accessibility of audio-visual 
technologies--including analog and digital televisions, tuners, 
personal video display devices, converter boxes, and computer 
equipment--by requiring such technologies to support closed and open 
captions. Captioning is critical for persons with hearing impairments 
to use and understand information presented in a video format. 
Specifically, proposed 411.1 provides that, where audio-visual players 
and displays process video with synchronized audio, they must either 
decode closed caption data and display open captions, or pass-through 
the closed captioning data stream in an accessible format. This 
proposal largely corresponds to existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec.  
1194.23(j) and 1194.24(a), and existing 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.37, 
though it differs in a few notable respects. Due to advances in 
technology, this proposed section neither distinguishes between analog 
and digital televisions, nor conditions the requirement for closed 
caption decoder circuitry on screen size. Additionally, the proposal 
substitutes the term ``synchronized audio information'' for 
``multimedia'' because it is more precise and consistent with current 
terminology.
    Question 28. Would compliance with section 411 be readily 
achievable for manufacturers of mobile telecommunications equipment?
411.1.1 Decoding of Closed Captions
    This section proposes that, where audio-visual players and displays 
process video with synchronized audio, they must decode closed caption 
data and support display of open captions.
411.1.2 Pass-Through of Closed Caption Data
    This section proposes that, where audio-visual players and displays 
process video with synchronized audio, cabling and ancillary equipment 
would be required to pass through caption data. High-definition 
multimedia cables (HDMI) carry audio and video signals, and are 
technically capable of passing through caption data; typically, 
however, caption data is not included with the audio-visual stream.
412 Audio Description Processing Technology
    This is an introductory section.
412.1 General
    This proposed section would require that, where ICT displays or 
processes video with synchronized audio, ICT must provide a mode of 
operation that plays associated audio description. This requirement 
draws from the audio description requirement in existing 508 Standards 
Sec.  1194.24(b), but would include a specification for digital 
television tuners. This would be a new requirement to the 255 
Guidelines.
    Question 29. Would compliance with section 412 be readily 
achievable for manufacturers of mobile telecommunications equipment?

[[Page 10923]]

412.1.1 Digital Television Tuners
    This section proposes that, where audio description is played 
through a digital television tuner, that such tuner conform to Part 5 
of the ATSC A/53 Digital Television Standard (incorporated by reference 
in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1). The provision then goes on to 
require that tuners provide processing for audio description when 
encoded as a Visually Impaired (VI) associated audio service. This is 
the industry-wide accepted method for delivery of audio description 
content and the means to identify audio as a VI associated audio 
service.
413 User Controls for Captions and Audio Description
    This is an introductory section.
413.1 General
    This proposed section addresses the accessibility of controls for 
captioning and audio description on devices used to watch video 
programming, including analog and digital televisions, tuners, personal 
video display devices, converter boxes, and computer equipment. 
Specifically, this provision would require hardware displaying video 
with synchronized audio to locate user controls for closed captions and 
audio description in specified locations of equal prominence to common 
user controls (i.e., volume and program selection), as set forth in two 
accompanying subsections (proposed 413.1.1 and 413.1.2). An exception 
would be provided for devices for personal use when closed captions and 
audio description can be enabled through system-wide platform settings. 
This exception is proposed in recognition of the fact that the small 
size of most mobile devices would make compliance particularly 
challenging.
    The requirements in proposed 413.1 would be new to the 508 
Standards and the 255 Guidelines. The Advisory Committee recommended 
inclusion of this provision to ensure that persons with hearing- and 
vision-related disabilities can find--and use--captioning and audio 
description controls. See TEITAC Report, Part 6, Subpt. C, Rec. 4-C. 
(Complimentary provisions governing software-based on-screen controls 
for captions and audio description are addressed in proposed 503.4.)
    This proposed requirement, albeit with slightly different wording, 
was included in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs. Comments from organizations 
representing persons with disabilities lauded this proposed requirement 
as a significant step toward improving the accessibility of captioning 
and audio description controls. These organizations characterized 
consumers with disabilities as having long struggled with varying 
methods among manufacturers for accessing such controls, describing 
them as typically more complex and less ``user friendly'' compared to 
the control of other core functions. They also noted that difficulties 
locating and using caption and audio description controls is of 
particular concern for persons with disabilities when in unfamiliar 
locations (e.g., television in hotel room), or an emergency situation 
when accessing captioned or audio described information could be life-
saving.
    Commenters with connections to the ICT industry, on the other hand, 
expressed concern with the broad scope of the proposed provision. These 
commenters noted that the proposed requirement governing location of 
controls for captions and audio description would apply not only to 
televisions and remote controls, but also a wide range of ``general 
purpose'' devices--such as desktop computers, laptops, and other mobile 
devices--for which multimedia output is an incidental function. They 
suggested that either the scoping of the requirement be modified, or 
``general purpose'' devices be exempted from providing physical buttons 
for closed captions and audio description. Others simply noted more 
generally that providing caption controls with equal prominence to 
volume controls could be problematic for some types of hardware-based 
ICT.
    In late 2013, the FCC issued a final rule addressing, among other 
things, the accessibility of user interfaces on digital devices and 
software used to view video programming, including closed captioning 
and audio description (which, in the Commission's rule, is referred to 
as ``video description'').\11\ To implement the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), Public Law 
111-260 (2010) (codified in scattered sections of 47 U.S.C.), the FCC, 
in pertinent part, promulgated rules requiring ``digital apparatus'' 
designed to receive or play back video programming to provide access to 
closed captioning and video description through a mechanism that is 
reasonably comparable to a button, key or icon.\12\ ``Navigation 
devices''--which include digital cable ready televisions, set-top 
boxes, computers with CableCARD slots, and cable modems--are required 
to provide similar access to closed captioning (but not, at this 
juncture, video description) for on-screen menus and guides. The 
Commission declined, however, to adopt technical standards, performance 
objectives, or other specific metrics to evaluate accessibility. 
Establishment of such standards, the Commission determined, was beyond 
its statutory authority, and would, in any event, potentially stifle 
innovative approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Programming 
Guides, 78 FR 77210 (Dec. 20, 2013); Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 12-108, 28 FCC Rcd. 
17330 (Oct. 31, 2013) (to be codified at 47 CFR pt. 79) (hereafter, 
FCC User Interface Accessibility Order).
    \12\ ``Digital apparatus,'' as defined by the FCC, encompasses 
devices or software designed to receive or play back video 
programming that does not have built-in capacity to access cable 
programming or services. This term includes: Televisions and 
computers that are not designed to be cable ready; removable media 
players; mobile devices (such as tablets and smartphones) without 
pre-installed applications to access cable; and, ``video players and 
user interfaces of video applications, such as Netflix, Hulu, and 
Amazon, when such applications are pre-installed . . . by the 
manufacturer.'' FCC User Interface Accessibility Order at ]] 2, 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed 413.1, in the Board's view, complements the approach taken 
by the FCC in its final rule on accessibility of user interfaces. As 
with the FCC's rule, the Board proposes to require that ICT with the 
capability of displaying video with synchronized audio ensure that 
controls for closed captions and audio description are accessible to 
persons with disabilities. Unlike the FCC, however, the Board does 
propose technical standards--namely, placement of caption and audio 
description controls--that govern how accessibility must be achieved. 
This is consistent with the Board's statutory mandate under both the 
Rehabilitation Act and Communications Act. See 29 U.S.C. 
794d(2)(A)(ii), 794d(B); 47 U.S.C. 255(e). Thus, while the FCC may have 
been statutorily constrained by the CVAA with respect to technical 
standards for user interfaces, the Board is not. Indeed, one of Board's 
core missions is the establishment of technical standards. In this way, 
proposed 413.1 may be seen as complimenting the FCC's recent final 
rule. Both agencies establish an accessibility mandate for user 
interfaces on certain ICT that displays video with synchronized audio, 
but the Board, in this proposed rule, goes one step further by 
establishing a metric to assess accessibility--namely, placement of 
user controls for closed captions and audio description in locations of 
equal prominence to other core functions (i.e., volume control and 
program selection).

[[Page 10924]]

    Question 30. Does proposed 413.1 strike an appropriate balance 
between ensuring users with hearing or vision impairments can readily 
find and use controls for closed captioning and audio description, 
while also affording device manufacturers sufficient design 
flexibility? Should the requirement for a captioning button be limited 
to devices that have both up/down volume controls and a mute button? 
Or, more generally, should the provision of caption controls be limited 
to certain types of hardware?
413.1.1 Caption Controls
    This proposed section would require that, where video-capable 
hardware provides physical volume adjustment controls, such ICT must 
also have a control for closed captioning in at least one location of 
comparable prominence to the volume adjustment controls. So, for 
example, if a television had physical volume controls on the display 
panel, as well as its accompanying remote control, this proposed 
requirement would be satisfied so long as a user control for captions 
was located either, at the manufacturer's discretion, on the display or 
remote control in an equally prominent location to the volume control. 
(If this television also had a feature to adjust volume by way of an 
on-screen tool or menu, caption control requirements for this on-screen 
control would be governed by the software-based requirements in 
proposed 503.4.)
    Question 31. While the Board believes that proposed 413.1.1 would 
greatly benefit persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, we did not 
monetize the benefits or costs of providing caption controls on covered 
hardware. The Board seeks data and other information from the public in 
order to estimate the monetized costs and benefits of this proposal. 
For commenters who do not view this proposed requirement as beneficial, 
how should the accessibility barriers faced by individuals with hearing 
impairments who seek to locate and operate closed caption features be 
addressed? Commenters should provide concrete suggestions for improving 
proposed 413.1.1.
413.1.2 Audio Description Controls
    This proposed section would require that, where video-capable 
hardware provides controls for program selection, such ICT must have 
user controls for audio description in at least one location of 
comparable prominence to the program selection controls. This 
requirement would be new to the 508 Standards. Locating audio 
description controls in a prominent location is not currently a common 
design practice, though the Board does not anticipate that it will add 
substantial cost. In practice, this would require one extra button on a 
remote control. While not as common as products featuring controls for 
captioning, there are already products commercially available that 
feature user controls for audio description.
    Question 32. While the Board believes that proposed 413.1.2 would 
greatly benefit consumers who are blind or have low vision, we did not 
monetize the benefits or costs of providing audio description controls 
on covered hardware. The Board seeks data and other information in 
order to estimate the monetized costs and benefits of this proposal. 
For commenters who do not view this proposed requirement as beneficial, 
how should the accessibility barriers faced by individuals with vision 
impairments who seek to locate and operate audio description features 
be addressed? Commenters should provide concrete suggestions for 
improving proposed 413.1.2.
Chapter 5: Software
    Chapter 5 contains proposed technical requirements for software, 
applications, platforms, and software tools. The requirements in this 
chapter, along with the scoping provisions in proposed E207 and C205, 
collectively form the ``suite'' of accessibility requirements for these 
types of ICT. This chapter is largely drawn from existing 508 Standards 
Sec.  1194.21, but with updating to harmonize with WCAG 2.0.
501 General
    This is an introductory section.
501.1 Scope
    This section proposes that the technical requirements for software 
in this chapter be applied where either (a) required by 508 Chapter 2 
or 255 Chapter 2, or (b) where otherwise referenced in any other 
chapters. There are two exceptions. Exception 1, as proposed, provides 
that Web applications conforming to all Level A and AA Success Criteria 
and all Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 need not conform to 
proposed 502 (Interoperability with Assistive Technology) or 503 
(Applications). This exception is provided because software that 
conforms to WCAG 2.0 AA is already accessible. The value of promoting a 
single harmonized standard outweighs any small benefit that might be 
achieved by conforming to overlapping, but separate, standards.
    Exception 2 proposes that software that (1) is assistive technology 
and (2) supports the accessibility services of the platform for which 
it is designed need not conform with the provisions of this chapter. 
This exception is included because assistive technology frequently 
needs flexibility in order to perform well for end-users with 
disabilities. For example, a switch-activated on-screen keyboard might 
not have a mode that makes it usable by someone who is blind. This 
exception is also deliberately limited to software that follows 
platform specifications because it is important that assistive 
technology be compatible with other assistive technology.
502 Interoperability With Assistive Technology
    This is an introductory section.
502.1 General
    This section proposes that platforms, software tools provided by 
platform developers, and applications must conform to the requirements 
in the accompanying subsections related to documented accessibility 
features (502.2), accessibility services (502.3), and platform 
accessibility services (502.4). An exception is provided for platforms 
and applications that have closed functionality.
    This section has implications for both platform developers and 
federal procurement officials. Agencies would have to ensure that all 
operating systems they purchase have an associated set of documented 
accessibility services. Software developers would have to provide 
accessibility services when creating platforms and their software 
tools.
502.2 Documented Accessibility Features
    This section addresses the compatibility of software and assistive 
technology. Specifically, under proposed 502.2, platform features that 
are defined in the platform documentation as accessibility features 
would be required to conform to requirements in accompanying 
subsections related to user control (502.2.1) and non-disruption 
(502.2.2) of accessibility features.
502.2.1 User Control of Accessibility Features
    This section proposes that platforms must provide user control over 
platform features when such features are defined in platform 
documentation as serving an accessibility purpose. This provision would 
be new to the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, though it draws on the 
prohibition in Sec.  1194.21(b) of the existing 508 Standards against 
disrupting or disabling accessibility

[[Page 10925]]

features. The Advisory Committee recommended that the Board include an 
express provision ensuring that persons with disabilities are able to 
activate and use features or settings--such as font size, or color--
that preclude network or system-wide configurations from ``locking 
down'' needed accessibility features. See TEITAC Report, Part 6, Subpt. 
C, Rec. 2-C. This proposal was included in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs, 
and the only comments received related to minor editorial changes.
502.2.2 No Disruption of Accessibility Features
    This section proposes that, where accessibility features are 
defined in platform documentation, applications must not disrupt them. 
This provision mirrors existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.21(b). The 
Advisory Committee strongly recommended that the Board include this 
requirement in the proposed rule not only to ensure accessibility, but 
also to avoid platform developers from being responsible for 
incompatibilities that derived from undocumented platform services or 
hidden requirements of assistive technology. See TEITAC Report, Part 6, 
Subpt. C, Rec. 3-Q. This proposal was included in the 2010 and 2011 
ANPRMs and received no adverse comments.
502.3 Accessibility Services
    This section proposes that platforms (such as operating systems) 
and software tools provided by the platform developer furnish a 
documented set of accessibility services--usually referred to as 
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)--in order to enable 
applications running on the platform to interoperate with assistive 
technology. Additionally, applications that are themselves platforms 
would be required to expose underlying platform accessibility services 
or implement other document accessibility services.
    This proposal does not have an analog in the existing 508 Standards 
because, at the time the standards were issued in 2000, mainstream 
operating systems had a well-established track record of providing 
APIs. Since then, some platforms, particularly those used by first 
generation mobile devices, stopped providing these requisite components 
of baseline accessibility. This proposed provision would not represent 
a significant change from widespread industry practice, since all major 
platforms have well-developed APIs that incorporate accessibility. 
Consequently, it is important to expressly require APIs. A documented 
set of accessibility services is important to end-users because, 
without them, developers are likely to provide inconsistent access to 
assistive technology, thereby leaving end-users with disabilities 
without access to needed features. Well-documented accessibility 
services are especially important for developers new to accessibility, 
and can serve to alert all developers to the importance of the 
accessibility features of platforms.
502.3.1 Object Information
    This section proposes that particular programming elements--namely 
object role, state, boundary, name, and description--must be 
programmatically determinable. Moreover, user-adjustable states would 
be required to be set programmatically, including through assistive 
technology. This proposal, along with proposed 502.3.3, corresponds to 
WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 4.1.2 Name, Role, and Value. It is also 
consistent with existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.21(d), but more 
explicitly provides for the user to be able to change data values, not 
just read them. Making the specified states programmatically 
determinable is already a widespread industry practice and is a 
standard feature provided in software designed to be accessible. 
Nonetheless, it is important to address this issue in the proposed rule 
because, on occasion, users of assistive technology find that they can 
read data in fields, but cannot make changes.
502.3.2 Row, Column, and Headers
    This section proposes that, where a programming object is in a 
table, occupied rows and columns (i.e., those populated with data), as 
well as any headers associated with such rows or columns, must be 
programmatically determinable. This provision corresponds to Sec. Sec.  
1194.22(g) and 1194.22(h) of the existing 508 Standards. A similar 
requirement is set forth in WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 1.3.1 Info and 
Relationships. See W3C, Understanding SC 1.3.1, Understanding WCAG 2.0 
(Sept. 16, 2014), https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html.
502.3.3 Values
    This section proposes that current values, as well as any set or 
range of allowable values associated with a programming object, must be 
programmatically determinable. This proposal would also require values 
that can be set by the user to be capable of being set 
programmatically, including through assistive technology. This 
proposal, along with proposed 502.3.1, corresponds to WCAG 2.0 Success 
Criteria 4.1.2 Name, Role, and Value. An express requirement for values 
to be set programmatically would be new to the 508 Standards. However, 
existing industry practice in response to existing standards (i.e., 508 
Standards Sec.  1194.21(d)) is to permit values to be set 
programmatically.
502.3.4 Label Relationships
    This section proposes that relationships between components must be 
programmatically exposed to assistive technology where a component 
labels, or is labeled by, another component. This provision corresponds 
to Sec. Sec.  1194.21(l) and 1194.22(n) in the existing 508 Standards, 
though it is broader in scope since, unlike these current requirements, 
its coverage extends beyond forms. A similar requirement is set forth 
in WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 1.3.1 Info and Relationships. See W3C, 
Understanding SC 1.3.1, Understanding WCAG 2.0 (Sept. 16, 2014), https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html.
502.3.5 Hierarchical Relationships
    This section proposes that any hierarchical (parent-child) 
relationship between components be programmatically exposed to 
assistive technology. This is important for individuals who use 
assistive technology so they can understand the relationships or 
interdependencies between menu options, database entries, or other 
software elements that have parent-child relationships. For example, 
word processing and email software commonly use one or more sub-menus 
that cascade from a ``main'' menu item, which permit the user to 
perform desired actions such as saving a file in a specific format or 
altering font styles. Requiring components to expose (i.e., provide) 
hierarchical relationships to assistive technology ensures that an 
individual using a screen reader, for example, could understand these 
relationships and, thereby, perform the desired function or action. 
This provision corresponds to existing 508 Standards Sec. Sec.  
1194.21(l) and 1194.22(n). In addition, in response to existing 508 
Standards Sec.  1194.21(d), current industry practice is to ensure that 
any parent-child relationship that components have to other components 
is programmatically exposed to assistive technology. This requirement 
closely parallels Success Criterion 1.3.1 in WCAG 2.0, but has greater 
specificity because software is more structured than Web content.

[[Page 10926]]

502.3.6 Text
    This section proposes that the content of text objects, text 
attributes, and on-screen text boundaries be programmatically 
determinable. Additionally, text that can be set by the user would have 
to be capable of being set programmatically, including through 
assistive technology. This provision would be useful for a screen-
reader user, for example, when filling in a field on a form. It would 
be quite frustrating to be able to navigate to a form field, and 
perhaps even read placeholder text in that field, but then not be able 
to enter text as needed. This provision corresponds to Sec.  1194.21(f) 
in the existing 508 Standards.
502.3.7 Actions
    This section proposes that a list of all actions that can be 
executed on an object must be programmatically determinable. An example 
of an ``object'' is a drop-down menu of states and U.S. territories in 
an online form. Applications would also be required to allow assistive 
technology to programmatically execute available actions on objects. 
While this requirement is new to the 508 Standards, it represents 
widespread industry practice. It is also already a feature provided by 
software designed to be accessible. This proposed requirement is 
important because, on occasion, developers new to accessibility 
overlook this need.
502.3.8 Focus Cursor
    This section proposes that software be required to expose 
information and mechanisms necessary to programmatically track and 
modify keyboard focus, text insertion point, and selection attributes 
of user interface components. An example of ``focus cursor'' is a 
database, which, as the user hits the tab key, displays a visible box 
outlining the various fields. This provision corresponds to Sec.  
1194.21(c) in the existing 508 Standards.
502.3.9 Event Notification
    This section proposes that programmatic notification of events 
relevant to user interactions--including changes in a component's 
state, value, name, description, or boundary--must be available to 
assistive technologies. This proposal complements existing 508 
Standards Sec.  1194.21(d), but more explicitly requires that changes 
to on-screen user interfaces be done in a way that such changes, 
otherwise known as events, are exposed to assistive technology. Such 
event notification is already a widespread industry practice, and, 
moreover, a feature provided by software designed to be accessible. 
This proposed requirement is important to address this issue in these 
proposed requirements because, on occasion, developers new to 
accessibility overlook this need.
502.4 Platform Accessibility Features
    This section addresses specifications for capabilities that users 
with disabilities have come to expect as core accessibility features 
when using today's platforms and operating systems, such as allowing 
adjustment of delay before key acceptance and displaying provided 
captions. These features include: sticky keys; bounce keys; delay keys; 
show sounds; the ability to produce synthesized speech; and, the 
capability to display captions included in content. Specifically, this 
proposal would require platforms and platform software to conform to 
seven specific sections in ANSI/HFES 200.2, Human Factors Engineering 
of Software User Interfaces (incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1 
and 255 Chapter 1). While this proposed requirement (and accompanying 
incorporation by reference of ANSI/HFES 200.2) is new to the 508 
Standards and 255 Guidelines, it does not represent a material change 
from current industry practice. The seven enumerated features were 
first available as an add-on for the IBM DOS 3.3 operating system 
(which was publicly released in the mid-1980s), and have been 
incorporated into every release of the Microsoft Windows[supreg] 
operating system since then.
    Question 33. The Board is requesting information from covered 
entities and other stakeholders on the potential costs or benefits from 
incorporation of ANSI/HFES 200.2, Human Factors Engineering of Software 
User Interfaces--Part 2: Accessibility (2008). Are there suggestions 
for other standards that would result in the same level of 
accessibility?
503 Applications
    This is an introductory section.
503.1 General
    This section addresses specifications for non-Web software--that 
is, programs with a user interface that are executed on a computing 
platform--related to certain user preferences, interfaces, and 
controls. The proposed requirements in this section are separate from, 
and in addition to, any required conformance to WCAG 2.0 success 
criteria that may be otherwise required under the proposed 508 
Standards (under E207) or the 255 Guidelines (under C205).
503.2 User Preferences
    This section proposes that applications must permit user 
preferences to carry over from platform settings for text color, 
contrast, font type, font size, and focus cursor. This closely 
corresponds to Sec.  1194.21(g) in the existing 508 Standards.
    An exception is provided that would exempt software designed to be 
isolated from the underlying operating system. Lightweight applications 
(often called ``applets'') using the Adobe[supreg] Flash[supreg] 
Platform, Oracle[supreg] Java Platform, W3C HTML 5 platform, and 
similar technologies, are commonly isolated in this way for security 
reasons. Accordingly, it would be a fundamental alteration to require 
such applications to carry over platform settings.
503.3 Alternative User Interfaces
    This section proposes to require that, when applications provide 
alternative user interfaces that function as assistive technology, such 
applications must use platform accessibility services (i.e., APIs). 
Examples of alternative user interfaces include on-screen keyboards for 
a single switch user, and screen reading software for a person who is 
blind. This proposed requirement would be new to the 508 Standards and 
255 Guidelines. It is included in this proposed rule to address the 
accessibility gap that would occur should developers of novel 
interfaces not consider their products to be assistive technology and, 
consequently, conclude they may ignore the requirements for 
interoperability with assistive technology (proposed 502). By 
clarifying that alternative user interfaces functioning as assistive 
technology need to satisfy interoperability requirements, the section 
aims to forestall the rare, but problematic, situation where there is a 
question about whether a product should be treated as assistive 
technology or another type of software.
503.4 User Controls for Captions and Audio Description
    This proposed section addresses the accessibility of on-screen 
controls for captioning and audio description. Specifically, this 
provision would require software displaying video with synchronized 
audio to locate user controls for closed captions and audio description 
at the same menu level as common user controls (i.e., volume, program 
selection), as set forth in two accompanying subsections (proposed 
503.4.1 and 503.4.2).
    These proposed requirements for accessibility of software-based on-
screen controls for captions and audio

[[Page 10927]]

description serve as a complement to the near-identical requirements 
for hardware-related controls in Chapter 4. See discussion above in 
Section VI.C (Section-by-Section Analysis--section 413 User Controls 
for Captions and Audio Description). These proposed requirements would 
be new to the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. The Advisory Committee 
recommended inclusion of these provisions to ensure that persons with 
hearing- and vision-related disabilities can find--and use--captioning 
and audio description controls. See TEITAC Report, Rec. 4-C.
503.4.1 Caption Controls
    This proposed section would require that, where video-capable 
software provides on-screen volume adjustment controls, such ICT must 
also have a control for closed captioning at the same menu level as the 
volume adjustment controls.
503.4.2 Audio Description Controls
    This proposed section would require that, where video-capable 
software provides on-screen controls for program selection, such 
software must have user controls for audio description at the same menu 
level as the volume or program selection controls.
504 Authoring Tools
    This is an introductory section.
504.1 General
    This section proposes requirements for software used to create or 
edit electronic content--which is generally referred to as authoring 
tools--to ensure the accessibility of this content. Specifically, 
authoring tools would be required to conform to accessibility 
requirements related to content creation and editing (504.2), prompts 
(504.3), and templates (504.4) to the extent supported by the 
destination format. Authoring tools include applications that allow 
users to develop new Web pages, edit video, or create electronic 
documents. Authoring tools can also be used to create and publish 
content for use with telecommunications products or services. One 
example of a telecommunications equipment-based authoring tool is an 
interactive voice response system (IVR) that uses software capable of 
creating content used to populate menu choices.
    These proposed requirements for authoring tools are new to the 508 
Standards and 255 Guidelines. The Advisory Committee discussed 
authoring tools and offered recommendations on certain provisions, but 
did not achieve consensus on others. See TEITAC Report, Part 7, Subpt. 
C, Rec. 7. Industry is already trending toward providing mainstream 
document creation tools that facilitate accessible output. For example, 
two mainstream authoring tools that support accessible document 
creation and accessibility checking tools are Adobe Acrobat[supreg] XI 
Pro and Microsoft[supreg] Office software products. Any cost increases 
for this requirement should be quite modest for products that already 
support accessibility. It is not uncommon for developers of niche 
products to first learn about Section 508 because their product exports 
reports to PDF, and government customers are likely to encounter end-
user complaints when such reports are inaccessible. In this way, while 
a particular authoring tool may be used only by a small number of 
people, its outputs--such as government reports--may be widely 
distributed to the public.
    Benefits of accessible content created or edited with authoring 
tools conforming to proposed 504.1 would accrue to a wide range of 
disabilities, and the costs associated with making such tools capable 
of producing accessible output are likely to be minimal. Developers 
already understand how to make electronic documents accessible in 
commonly used formats (i.e., HTML, PDF, MS-Word), and it is typically 
much less expensive to ``build in'' accessibility when an authoring 
tool is first developed as opposed to remediating after a product has 
been developed.
504.2 Content Creation or Editing
    This section proposes to require authoring tools to include at 
least one mode of operation for creating or editing content that 
conforms to WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria for all features and formats 
supported by the authoring tool. Additionally, authoring tools must 
provide users with the option of overriding information required for 
accessibility to provide flexibility during the authoring process. A 
proposed exception would exempt authoring tools from compliance when 
authoring tools are used to directly edit plain text source code (e.g., 
Emacs and Windows Notepad). This exception is needed because plain text 
is fundamentally limited in its ability to encode accessibility 
features.
504.2.1 Preservation of Accessibility Information in Format Conversion
    This section proposes that authoring tools, when converting content 
or saving content in multiple formats, must preserve information 
required for accessibility to the extent supported by the destination 
format. This proposed requirement is similar to Sec.  1194.23(j) in the 
existing 508 Standards. Because not all authoring tools support 
different file formats, this provision would only apply when such a 
tool provides a file conversion feature.
504.3 Prompts
    This proposed section would require authoring tools to proactively 
support the creation of accessible content by providing a mode of 
operation that prompts users--either during initial content creation or 
when content is saved--to create accessible content that conforms to 
all applicable Level A and AA Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0. This 
requirement is intended to ensure that users have access to 
accessibility features supported by their authoring tools.
504.4 Templates
    This proposed section would require that, where authoring tools 
provide templates, templates that facilitate the creation of accessible 
content conforming to all applicable WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA 
Success Criteria must be provided for a range of template uses. It is 
much easier to start with an accessible template as compared to adding 
accessibility features to otherwise finished content. Remediating 
accessibility problems after content development increases the cost and 
time necessary to produce accessible content.
Chapter 6: Support Documentation and Services
    Chapter 6 covers accessibility requirements for ICT support 
documentation and services. This section also would require support 
services such as help desks, call centers, training services, and 
automated self-service technical support systems that provide 
documentation to make available (in accessible formats) the 
documentation regarding accessibility and compatibility features. 
Support services would also be required to accommodate the 
communication needs of individuals with disabilities.
    The proposed requirements in this chapter are largely consistent 
with existing 508 Standards Sec.  1194.41 and existing 255 Guidelines 
Sec.  1193.33, but would enhance specifications, as discussed below, 
for certain types of support documentation and services. The Advisory 
Committee recommended inclusion of provisions on support documentation 
and services in the proposed rule. See TEITAC Report, Part 6, Subpt. D, 
Rec. 1.
601 General
    This is an introductory section.

[[Page 10928]]

601.1 Scope
    This section proposes that the technical requirements for support 
documentation and services in this chapter be applied where either (a) 
required by 508 Chapter 2 or 255 Chapter 2, or (b) where otherwise 
referenced in any other chapters.
602 Support Documentation
    This is an introductory section.
602.1 General
    This section proposes to require documentation supporting the use 
of ICT to conform to the requirements in the accompanying subsections 
concerning identification of accessibility and compatibility features 
(602.2), electronic support documentation (602.3), and alternate 
formats for non-electronic support documentation (602.4). These 
proposals for accessible support documentation are derived from 
Sec. Sec.  1194.41 and 1193.33 of the existing 508 Standards and 255 
Guidelines respectively, but the requirement that electronic 
documentation comply with WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1 would be new to both the 
standards and the guidelines. Requiring that comprehensive product 
information be available to users with disabilities is important 
because product installation and configuration can often impact its 
accessibility.
602.2 Accessibility and Compatibility Features
    This section provides specifications for ICT documentation in terms 
of accessibility and compatibility features that assist users with 
disabilities. Such documentation includes installation guides, user 
guides, online support, and manuals that describe features of a product 
and how it is used. All formats of documentation are covered, including 
printed and electronic documents, and Web-based product support pages.
    Proposed 602.2 would require documentation to identify, as well as 
explain how to use, accessibility features that are required by the 508 
Standards or 255 Guidelines. The requirements of this section derive 
from Sec. Sec.  1194.41(b) and 1193.33 of the existing 508 Standards 
and 255 Guidelines, respectively, and are essentially unchanged.
    This provision is proposed because some users with disabilities 
have complained about a lack of information available to help them 
understand the accessibility and compatibility features of some ICT. 
Documentation of accessibility features may include, for example, 
instructions on use of the voice guidance system of a multifunction 
office machine, or guidance on using software designed for 
compatibility with commonly used assistive technologies (such as screen 
readers, refreshable braille displays, and voice recognition software).
602.3 Electronic Support Documentation
    This section proposes to require documentation in electronic 
formats--including Web-based self-service support and electronic 
documents--to conform to all Level A and AA Success Criteria and 
Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1), which 
are each incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1. 
This proposal for accessible electronic support documentation is 
derived from Sec. Sec.  1194.41 and 1193.33 of the existing 508 
Standards and 255 Guidelines respectively, but the requirement that 
electronic documentation comply with WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1 would be new 
to both the standards and the guidelines. The purpose of this 
requirement is to ensure that support documentation is held to the same 
accessibility requirements as other types of covered content. The Board 
included similar provisions in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs, and received 
no adverse comments objecting to this approach.
    Question 34. The Board requests that telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers provide information on the costs associated with 
producing documentation on the accessible features of products in a 
format consistent with the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. Is it readily 
achievable to provide this information in an accessible format? If not, 
how would it be provided?
602.4 Alternate Formats for Non-Electronic Support Documentation
    This section proposes that, where documentation is provided in 
written (i.e., hard copy) format, such documentation must also be made 
available, upon request, in alternate formats usable by individuals who 
are blind or have low vision. This proposed requirement is taken from 
Sec. Sec.  1194.41(a) and 1193.33(a)(2) of the existing 508 Standards 
and 255 Guidelines, respectively, with minor editorial changes.
603 Support Services
    This is an introductory section.
603.1 General
    This section addresses the accessibility of ICT support services, 
such as help desks, call centers, training centers, and automated self-
service technical support. Such support services would be required to 
conform to the requirements concerning information on accessibility and 
compatibility features (603.2), as well as accommodation for the 
communication needs of persons with disabilities (603.3). These 
proposed requirements for accessible support services are drawn from 
Sec. Sec.  1194.41 and 1193.93 of the existing 508 Standards and 255 
Guidelines respectively, but have been revised--as supported by the 
Advisory Committee--to specify methods of delivery for support 
services. See TEITAC Report, Pt. 6, Subpt. D, Recs. 1.1-A & 1.2-A.
603.2 Information on Accessibility and Compatibility Features
    This proposed section complements the product documentation 
requirements in section 602 by proposing that ICT support services 
include information on the accessibility and compatibility features for 
which documentation is required under proposed 602.2.
603.3 Accommodation of Communication Needs
    This proposed section would permit compliant support services to be 
delivered through either of two methods: Directly to the user or 
through referral to a point of contact. This section also would require 
ICT support services to accommodate the communication needs of 
individuals with disabilities. The portion of this proposal relating to 
two specific methods for delivery of support services is based on 
existing 255 Guidelines Sec. Sec.  1193.33(a)(3) and 1193.33(b), and 
would be new to the 508 Standards. The portion of the proposal relating 
to accommodation of communication needs derives from Sec. Sec.  
1194.41(c) and 1193.33 of the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, 
respectively.

VII. Effective Date

    The Board is considering making the 508 Standards effective six 
months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, 
with one exception: Federal procurement of ICT products or services. A 
six-month delay in the effective date of the Access Board's final rule 
will provide federal agencies with an opportunity to more fully 
understand the updated 508 Standards. This action is consistent with 
the legislative intent underlying section 508 which provides a six-
month period between publication of the Board's standard and the 
incorporation of such standard in the Federal Acquisition Regulations. 
By

[[Page 10929]]

making the revised 508 Standards effective six months after publication 
in the Federal Register, they would go into effect at the same time as 
the FAR Council revisions to the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
    With respect to federal ICT contracts, the Board proposes deferring 
to the FAR Council for establishment of the date on which the revised 
508 Standards apply to new ICT-related contracts awarded after 
publication of the Council's final rule, as well as existing ICT 
contracts with award dates that precede that final rule.
    Question 35. The Board seeks comment on its proposed approach to 
making its revised 508 Standards effective six months after publication 
in the Federal Register, with the exception of federal ICT-related 
procurements. The Board also seeks comment on deferring to the FAR 
Council to establish the effective date for application of the revised 
508 Standards to ``new'' ICT contracts (i.e., contracts awarded after 
publication the FAR Council's final rule), as well as existing ICT 
contracts.
    With respect to Section 255, application of the Board's final 
revised 255 Guidelines to new telecommunications products and customer 
premises equipment designed, developed, and fabricated after their 
publication is a matter for the FCC to determine since the FCC has 
exclusive responsibility for enforcement of Section 255 and issuance of 
implementing regulations. Nonetheless, in keeping with the Board's past 
practice in promulgating the existing 255 Guidelines, see 63 FR 5608 
(Feb. 3, 1998), the Board proposes making the final revised 255 
Guidelines effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. 
Manufacturers of Section 255-covered telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment need not comply with the Board's revised 
255 Guidelines until incorporated into revised FCC regulations.

VIII. Regulatory Process Matters

A. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (Executive Order 12866)

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to propose or 
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits 
justify its costs; tailor the regulation to impose the least burden on 
society, consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; and in 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those 
approaches that maximize net benefits. Important goals of regulatory 
analysis are to (1) establish whether federal regulation is necessary 
and justified to achieve a market failure or other social goal and (2) 
demonstrate that a range of reasonably feasible regulatory alternatives 
have been considered and that the most efficient and effective 
alternative has been selected. Executive Order 13563 also recognizes 
that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where 
appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss 
qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, 
including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
    The Board contracted with an economic consulting firm, 
Econometrica, Inc. (Econometrica), to assess, among other things, 
whether the impact of the proposed rule would likely be economically 
``significant.'' Economic significance is defined as any regulatory 
action that is likely to result in ``an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, 
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safely, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities.''
    Econometrica prepared a preliminary regulatory impact analysis 
(Preliminary RIA). This Preliminary RIA determined, among other things, 
that the proposed rule is economically significant within the meaning 
of Executive Order 12866. Below we provide a summary of the preliminary 
RIA's methodology and results. A complete copy of this regulatory 
assessment is available on the Access Board's Web site (www.access-
board.gov), as well the federal government's online rulemaking portal 
(www.regulations.gov). Interested parties are encouraged to review the 
full Preliminary RIA, and to provide data and other information 
responsive to requests for comment posed separately in that document. 
Moreover, while the Board welcomes comments on any aspect of the 
Preliminary RIA, several areas on which the Board particularly seeks 
input are identified at the end of this section.
1. Summary of Results
    The focus of the Preliminary RIA is to define and, where possible, 
quantify and monetize the potential economic benefits and costs of the 
proposed Section 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. On the benefits 
side, the Preliminary RIA monetizes incremental benefits under the 
proposed 508 Standards attributable to: (a) Increased productivity of 
federal employees with certain disabilities who are expected to benefit 
from improved ICT accessibility; (b) time saved by members of the 
public with vision disabilities when using more accessible federal Web 
sites; and (c) reduced phone calls to federal agencies as members of 
the public with certain disabilities shift their inquiries and 
transactions online due to improved accessibility of federal Web sites. 
The Preliminary RIA, for analytical purposes, defines the beneficiary 
population as persons with vision, hearing, and speech disabilities, as 
well as those with manipulation, reach, or strength limitations. The 
Preliminary RIA does not formally quantify or monetize benefits 
accruing from the proposed 255 Guidelines due to insufficient data and 
methodological constraints.
    From the cost perspective, the Preliminary RIA monetizes likely 
incremental compliance costs under both the proposed 508 Standards and 
255 Guidelines. Monetizable costs under the 508 Standards are expected 
to be incurred by federal agencies, contractors, and vendors in five 
broad areas: policy development; employee training; development of 
accessible ICT; evaluation of ICT; and, development of accessible 
electronic content. With respect to the 255 Guidelines, the Preliminary 
RIA monetizes the likely costs to telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers of ensuring that their respective Web sites and 
electronic support documentation conform to accessibility requirements. 
Insufficient data were available to assess incremental costs related to 
other new requirements in the proposed 255 Guidelines, including 
support for real-time text (RTT) functionality.
    Table 4 below summarizes the results from the Preliminary RIA with 
respect to the likely monetized benefits and costs, on an annualized 
basis, from the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. All 
monetized benefits and costs are incremental to the applicable 
baseline, and were estimated for a 10-year time horizon using discount 
rates of 7 and 3 percent.

[[Page 10930]]



   Table 4--Annualized Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs Under the
          Proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, 2015-2024
                            [In 2015 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             7-Percent       3-Percent
                                           discount rate   discount rate
                                           (in millions)   (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Monetized Incremental Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits to federal agencies from                  $46.6           $45.3
 increased productivity by federal
 employees with addressable disabilities
Benefits to individuals with vision                  2.4             2.3
 disabilities from improved federal
 website accessibility..................
Benefits to federal agencies from                   20.1            19.8
 reduced call volumes...................
                                         -------------------------------
    TOTAL Monetized Incremental Benefits            69.1            67.5
     *..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Monetized Incremental Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to federal agencies, contractors,            155.0           146.8
 and vendors:
    (a) In-house........................            80.6            76.3
    (b) Procured ICT....................            74.4            70.5
Costs to telecommunications equipment               10.6             9.8
 manufacturers for accessible support...
                                         -------------------------------
    TOTAL Incremental Costs *...........           165.6           156.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(* Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.)

    It is also important to note that some potentially significant 
benefits and costs from the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines 
are not evaluated in the Preliminary RIA, either because they could not 
be quantified or monetized (due to lack of data or for other 
methodological reasons) or are inherently qualitative. These 
unquantified benefits and costs are described qualitatively below.
    Evaluation of the economic impact of the proposed Section 508 and 
255 requirements is, moreover, complicated by the rapid evolution of 
ICT devices, platforms, applications, and consensus standards. The 
benefits and costs of the proposed standards and guidelines ultimately 
depend not only on technologies that are currently available to achieve 
compliance, but also on emerging technologies that may provide more 
cost-effective ways in the future to ensure equal access to ICT for 
people with disabilities.
2. General Framework of Assessment
    Some of the main components of the Preliminary RIA's methodology 
are as follows:
    Estimating the beneficiary population: To estimate the number of 
federal employees and members of the public with disabilities who could 
potentially benefit from updated and improved ICT accessibility 
standards, the Preliminary RIA primarily draws from two data sources. 
Public data on federal workers with disabilities was obtained from the 
Office of Personnel Management. Data on the prevalence of various 
disabilities within the U.S population were obtained from the U.S. 
Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data 
set, which provides statistics on the non-institutionalized U.S. 
population.
    Identifying incremental changes in the proposed rule: To assess the 
potential incremental impact of the proposed rule, the Preliminary RIA 
identifies provisions in the proposed standards and guidelines that 
would likely increase compliance costs for covered entities (e.g., 
federal agencies, federal contractors, and manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment), as well as provisions that could be 
expected to reduce the amount of time and effort required for 
compliance relative to existing requirements.
    Developing baseline compliance costs: Estimates of ``baseline'' 
compliance costs to covered entities under the existing 508 Standards 
and 255 Guidelines are drawn from current spending levels for relevant 
ICT-related products, services, and personnel. For federal agencies, 
baseline compliance costs under Section 508 include both in-house ICT 
(e.g., policy development, employee training, development and 
remediation of Web sites and electronic documents to ensure 
accessibility under current standards), and procured ICT (e.g., 
procurement of Section 508-compliant hardware, software, services from 
federal contractors and vendors). For telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers, baseline costs under the existing 255 Guidelines are 
based on the monetized value of the estimated time manufacturers 
currently spend making support documentation accessible using estimates 
developed by the Access Board for the Paperwork Reduction Act. See 
Section VIII.F (Regulatory Process Matters--Paperwork Reduction Act).
    Monetizing expected incremental benefits and costs of the proposed 
508 Standards: The Preliminary RIA quantifies and monetizes the 
expected incremental benefits to federal agencies and members of the 
public with vision disabilities likely to benefit from the proposed 
standards. For persons with vision disabilities, benefit calculations 
are based on the value of time saved due to improved accessibility of 
federal Web sites. Benefits to federal agencies are assessed based on 
the monetized value of reduced call volumes and increased productivity 
of employees with disabilities owing to ICT accessibility improvements. 
Compliance costs for federal agencies are classified as either one-time 
or annual, and are assessed based on various fixed percentages of 
baseline costs depending on the nature of the cost component at issue 
(e.g., Web site remediation, employee training, development of 
accessible electronic content). Incremental costs and benefits are 
calculated relative to the applicable baseline over a 10-year analysis 
period from 2015 through 2024.
    Monetizing expected incremental costs of the proposed 255 
Guidelines: The Preliminary RIA quantifies and monetizes the expected 
incremental costs to manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment (CPE) of complying with new requirements in 
the proposed guidelines related to accessible electronic support 
documentation. Benefits attributable to new or updated requirements in 
the proposed 255 Guidelines--such as the

[[Page 10931]]

value of improved accessibility for persons with disabilities or cost 
savings to telecommunications equipment manufacturers-- were not 
evaluated due to insufficient data and the methodological complexity of 
``mapping'' proposed new requirements to particular cost elements in a 
dynamic and evolving telecommunications marketplace. Compliance costs 
to telecommunications equipment manufacturers and CPE are classified as 
either one-time or annual, and are assessed based on various fixed 
percentages of baseline costs for development of accessible support 
documentation depending on firm size. Incremental costs are calculated 
relative to the baseline over a 10-year analysis period from 2015 
through 2024.
    Describing unquantifiable costs and benefits: For benefits and 
costs that could be neither quantified nor monetized, the Preliminary 
RIA qualitatively describes, and assesses the significance of, such 
costs and benefits.
3. Baseline Compliance Costs
    The total costs that federal agencies, vendors, and contractors 
incur to comply with the current 508 Standards are estimated at $2.0 
billion annually. This amount represents about 2 percent of annual ICT 
spending, which is estimated at $80 billion to $120 billion, depending 
on which products and services are included in the total. Baseline 
costs for telecommunications equipment manufacturers to conform to the 
current 255 Guidelines related to product documentation and user 
support are estimated at $114 million annually. Taken all together, the 
overall baseline compliance costs are therefore estimated at $2.1 
billion annually.
4. Benefits of the Proposed Rule
    Overall, results from the Preliminary RIA demonstrate that the 
proposed 508 Standards will likely have substantial monetizable 
benefits to federal agencies and persons with disabilities. As shown in 
Table 4 above, the annualized value of monetized benefits from these 
proposed standards is estimated to be $69.1 million over the 10-year 
analysis period (assuming a 7 percent discount rate). In calculating 
these monetized benefits, the Preliminary RIA makes the following 
assumptions: (a) One-half of the recurring annual benefits derived from 
accessible ICT would be realized in the first year of implementation; 
and (b) the number of individuals with disabilities who visit federal 
agency Web sites will increase every year, but a constant proportion of 
those individuals will visit such Web sites every year.
    It is also important to note that the proposed rule is expected to 
generate significant benefits that were not evaluated in the 
Preliminary RIA, either because they could not be quantified or 
monetized (due to lack of data or for other methodological reasons) or 
are inherently qualitative. Estimating the economic impact of a civil 
rights-based regulatory initiative in an area--and marketplace--as 
dynamic as ICT is a complex and difficult task. Some of these 
unquantified (or inherently unquantifiable) benefits of the proposed 
508 Standards are listed in Table 5 below. The fact that these benefits 
could not be formally assessed in this Preliminary RIA should not 
diminish their importance or value.

           Table 5--Unquantified Benefits of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time savings by people with hearing, cognitive, speech, and manual
 dexterity or motor impairments from improved federal Web sites.
Improved accessibility of electronic documents on federal Web sites for
 persons with addressable disabilities, particularly PDFs and videos.
Increased employment of individuals with disabilities.
Increased ability of individuals with disabilities to obtain information
 on federal agency Web sites and conduct transactions electronically.
Greater independence for individuals with disabilities to access
 information and services on federal agency Web sites without
 assistance.
More civic engagement by individuals with disabilities due to improved
 access to information and services on federal agency Web sites.
Increased ability of persons with hearing impairments to have faster and
 more natural conversation with real-time text than is possible with
 current text-messaging systems.
Increased ability of individuals with disabilities to evaluate,
 purchase, and make full use of telecommunications products due to
 increased accessibility of support documentation and services.
Increased ability of individuals without disabilities to access
 information and conduct their business electronically when they face
 situational limitations (in a noisy place, in a low-bandwidth
 environment, or in bright sunlight).
Potential cost savings to federal agencies due to reduced levels of in-
 person visits and mail correspondence.
Larger pool of ICT developers and content creators with accessibility
 knowledge and skills, providing more choice to federal agencies due to
 use of internationally recognized, industry-driven standards.
Potential cost savings to manufacturers of telecommunications and CPE,
 state and local governments, and non-profit entities, as
 internationally harmonized standards reduce costs for ICT manufacturers
 and allow them to sell a single line of accessible products and
 services across all types of markets.
Intrinsic existence value that individuals both with and without
 disabilities derive from the non-discrimination and equity values
 served by Sections 508 and 255.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Costs of the Proposed Rule
    The Preliminary RIA shows that the proposed standards and 
guidelines will likely increase compliance costs substantially when 
first implemented, but will thereafter result in only a small 
percentage increase in recurring annual costs in later years. Overall, 
the Preliminary RIA estimates that the total incremental cost of the 
proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines is expected to be $165.6 
million on an annualized basis over the 10-year analysis period, based 
on a 7 percent discount rate (see Table 4 above).
    The Preliminary RIA does not, however, quantify and monetize all 
potential compliance costs arising from the proposed rule--due 
primarily to insufficient data or for other methodological limitations. 
The impact of the proposed 255 Guidelines on telecommunications 
equipment manufacturers is, as the Preliminary RIA notes, particularly 
difficult to quantify. (Information on the impact of the proposed 
guidelines was solicited unsuccessfully in both the 2010 and 2011 
ANPRMs.) Some of these unquantified costs of the proposed 508 Standards 
and 255 Guidelines are listed in Table 6 below.

[[Page 10932]]



            Table 6--Unquantified Costs of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible increase in federal government expenditures to provide
 accommodations if the government hires more people with addressable
 disabilities.
Possible decrease in the amount or variety of electronic content
 produced, as government seeks to reduce Section 508 compliance costs.
Potential costs to state and local governments and non-profit
 organizations that may be required to make electronic content
 accessible in order to do businesses with federal agencies.
Costs to ICT manufacturers of developing and producing hardware and
 telecommunications products that comply with proposed requirements.
Costs to telecommunications firms to implement and support real-time
 text on telecommunications devices with text display capabilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, incremental cost estimates in the Preliminary RIA do 
not reflect other potentially influential factors that may occur over 
time--such as future changes in the fiscal environment and its effect 
on ICT budgets, the impact of recent government-wide initiatives to 
manage ICT more strategically, efforts to harmonize standards for a 
global ICT market, and trends in technological innovation.
6. Conclusion
    While the Preliminary RIA estimates that incremental costs, as 
assessed and monetized in the assessment, exceed the monetized benefits 
of the proposed rule, this finding represents only a piece of the 
regulatory story. Today, though ICT is now woven into the very fabric 
of everyday life, millions of Americans with disabilities often find 
themselves unable to use--or use effectively--computers, mobile 
devices, federal agency Web sites, or electronic content. The Board's 
existing standards and guidelines are greatly in need of a ``refresh'' 
to keep up with technological changes over the past fifteen years. The 
Board expects this proposed rule to be a major step toward ensuring 
that ICT is more accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities--both in the federal workplace and society generally. 
Indeed, much--if not most--of the benefits expected to accrue from the 
proposed rule are difficult if not impossible to quantify or monetize, 
including: greater social equality, human dignity, and fairness. These 
are all values that, under Executive Order 13563,\13\ may properly be 
considered in the benefit-cost calculus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See also Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 
(2003); Office of Management and Budget, Regulatory Impact Analysis: 
A Primer 3 (2011), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/regpol/circular-a-4_regulatory-impact-analysis-a-primer.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, American companies that manufacture telecommunications 
equipment and ICT-related products would likely derive significant 
benefits from the harmonized accessibility standards. Given the 
relative lack of existing national and globally-recognized standards 
for accessibility of mobile technologies, telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers would greatly benefit from harmonization of the 255 
Guidelines with consensus standards. Similar benefits would likely 
accrue more generally to all ICT-related products as a result of 
harmonization. These manufacturers would earn return on investments in 
accessibility technology, remain competitive in the global marketplace, 
and achieve economies of scale created by wider use of nationally and 
internationally recognized technical standards.
    Accordingly, when considering all unquantified benefits and costs, 
the Access Board, along with its consulting economic firm 
(Econometrica), jointly conclude that the benefits of the proposed 
update of the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines justify its costs.
    The Access Board welcomes comments on any aspect of the Preliminary 
RIA to improve the assumptions, methodology, and estimates of the 
incremental benefits and costs (baseline and incremental) of the 
proposed rule. The full Preliminary RIA sets forth numerous regulatory 
assessment-related questions or areas for public comment. In addition, 
the Board provides below several additional questions on which it seeks 
input:
    Question 36. The Board requests information from telecommunications 
equipment manufacturers concerning expected one-time and ongoing costs 
associated with implementation of the proposed technical requirements 
related to support for real-time text (RTT) functionality. Please be as 
specific as possible. The Board is also interested in hearing from 
other stakeholders--particularly persons with disabilities--about the 
nature and scope of benefits provided by RTT in emergency and non-
emergency settings. How might the Board quantify or monetize such 
benefits?
    Question 37. The Board requests information from telecommunications 
equipment manufacturers concerning potential benefits that would accrue 
from harmonization of technical requirements in the proposed rule with 
national and international consensus standards? Both cost savings data 
and qualitative information are requested.
    Question 38. The proposed rule would, among other things, require 
federal agency Web sites and electronic content to conform to WCAG 2.0 
or PDF/UA-1. Do federal agencies believe that the Preliminary RIA 
adequately captures their potential costs to comply with these 
requirements? If not, how might the analysis be improved? Are there 
significant cost elements missing from the Preliminary RIA? Please be 
as specific as possible.
    Question 39. The Preliminary RIA does not monetize benefits for 
persons with non-vision disabilities due to a lack of data on which to 
base estimated time savings. The Board requests data and other 
information on the likely time savings for persons with hearing, motor 
or dexterity, speech, or cognitive disabilities from using accessible 
Web sites as compared to Web sites with low accessibility. Are there 
empirical research studies from which time savings estimates may be 
derived?
    Question 40. The Board also seeks information from persons with 
disabilities who would benefit from improved accessibility of federal 
agency Web sites. How frequently do they visit federal agency Web 
sites, and for what duration and purposes? Are there other suggested 
methods of quantifying benefits accruing from accessible agency Web 
sites other than (or in addition to) monetizing time savings? To the 
extent that benefits from accessible agency Web sites cannot be 
quantified, the Board welcomes examples of personal or anecdotal 
experience that illustrate the value of improved accessibility of 
federal Web sites.
    Question 41. In addition to the questions for public comment posed 
in the Preliminary RIA and elsewhere in this NPRM, the Board is 
interested in hearing from the public more generally with information 
that would aid analysis of the costs and benefits of individual 
requirements in the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines at the final rule 
stage. Is there a better way than the methodology used in the 
Preliminary RIA to ``map'' the incremental costs and benefits of 
particular technical and functional

[[Page 10933]]

requirements to various stakeholders? If so, how might the analysis be 
improved? Are there other suggested sources for unit cost data other 
than those cited in the Preliminary RIA?
7. Alternatives
    We considered two alternative approaches to updating the existing 
508 Standards and 255 Guidelines:
     In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed a set of 
requirements that were based on, but not identical to, the WCAG 2.0 
standards and other voluntary consensus standards. Comments received 
from the public indicated that this approach was potentially confusing, 
as federal agencies, contractors, and vendors would have to make 
specific compliance determinations in cases where the language used in 
the proposed 508 Standards differed from that in the referenced 
standard.
     The Board also considered requiring ICT to comply with the 
full set of functional performance criteria, which state in general 
terms the features of ICT that ensure its accessibility to people with 
one or more of different types of disabilities. Comments indicated that 
this approach would make it difficult for ICT producers to be able to 
determine whether or not their products and services were compliant 
with the proposed 508 Standards.
    Based on the public feedback on the two policy alternatives, we 
determined that the clearest and most cost-effective way to set out the 
proposed accessibility requirements was to identify and reference 
existing, voluntary consensus standards directly, wherever possible.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended (5 U.S.C. 
601-612) requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their 
rulemakings on small entities.\14\ Section 603 of the RFA requires 
agencies to prepare and make available for public comment an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of proposed rules 
on small entities. Because the proposed 255 Guidelines regulate non-
federal entities (e.g., telecommunications equipment manufacturers), 
these guidelines fall within the purview of the RFA. The proposed 508 
Standards, on the other hand, directly regulate only federal entities 
that are not covered by the RFA. Accordingly, the Access Board 
evaluates here only the impact of the proposed 255 Guidelines on small 
entities. The Board provides below an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (Initial RFA) for these proposed guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See also Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.); E.O. 13272, 67 FR 53,461 (Aug. 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of the reasons why the Access Board is considering 
regulatory action. Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 255), as amended, requires telecommunication equipment to be 
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, where 
readily achievable. The Access Board is statutorily responsible for 
developing accessibility guidelines for telecommunications equipment 
and customer premises equipment (CPE). The Access Board is also 
required to review and update the guidelines periodically. The Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC), however, is solely responsible for 
issuing implementing regulations and enforcing Section 255. The FCC is 
not bound to adopt the Access Board's guidelines as its own or to use 
them as minimum standards.
    In 1998, the Board issued the existing 255 Guidelines (36 CFR part 
1193). Since then, telecommunications technology and commercial markets 
have changed dramatically, along with the usage of telecommunications 
equipment. Given these tremendous changes, the Board is proposing to 
update the 255 Guidelines.
    Objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule. The Board's 
proposed 255 Guidelines would provide a much-needed ``refresh'' of the 
existing 255 Guidelines, and, thereby, better support the access needs 
of individuals with disabilities, while also taking into account 
incremental compliance costs to covered manufacturers of CPE and 
telecommunications equipment. The proposed guidelines would be 
applicable only to new products to the extent that compliance is 
readily achievable; they would not require retrofitting of existing 
equipment or retooling. Manufacturers may consider costs and available 
resources when determining whether, and the extent to which, compliance 
is required.
    Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which 
the proposed rule will apply. The proposed 255 Guidelines cover 
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and CPE, as well as the 
manufacturers of equipment that functions as telecommunications and 
CPE.\15\ The Board used publicly available data from the Office of 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) to estimate the 
number of small businesses that may be affected by the proposed 
guidelines. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
is the standard used by federal statistical agencies in classifying 
business establishments.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Examples of CPE include wireline and wireless telephones or 
computers when employed on the premises of a person to originate, 
route, or terminate telecommunications (e.g., Internet telephony, 
interconnected VoIP). Only a computer with a modem can function as 
telecommunications equipment and only the modem functions are 
associated with telecommunications. Therefore, the requirements of 
the proposed rule apply only to the modem functions and incidental 
functions required for turning the computer on and launching the 
telecommunications programs. All other functions of the computer not 
related to telecommunications would not be covered, such as word 
processing or file searching or video conferencing.
    \16\ The U.S. Census Bureau provides detailed information on the 
National Industry Classification System on the agency's Web site. 
See U.S. Census Bureau, Introduction to NAICS, https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the number of small businesses potentially subject to 
the proposed 255 Guidelines, the Board reviewed NAICS industry 
classifications and SBA small business size standards. The Board 
determined that three NAICS-based industry classifications may be 
subject to the proposed 255 Guidelines. These industry categories and 
their accompanying six-digit NAICS codes are: (a) NAICS Code 334210--
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing; (b) NACIS Code 334220--Radio and 
Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing; and (c) NACIS Code 334111--Electronic and Computer 
Manufacturing. The Board then matched these three NAICS classifications 
with SBA small business size standards (based on number of employees) 
to determine the number of small business within each of the respective 
classifications.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ SBA provides, on its Web site, small business size 
standards for each NAICS code, as well as firm size information 
based on census data. See, e.g., U.S. Small Business Administration, 
Table of Small Business Size Standards, https://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards (last accessed Dec. 15, 2014); Office 
of Advocacy, SBA, Firm Size Data, https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/firm-size-data (last accessed Dec. 15, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 7 below provides the potential number of small businesses, 
based on SBA size standards, for each of the three types of equipment 
manufacturers (by NACIS code) that may be affected by the proposed 255 
Guidelines.

[[Page 10934]]



                  Table 7--Small Businesses Potentially Affected by the Proposed 255 Guidelines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Number of       Number of
            NAICS code                  Industry title       SBA size standard         firms        small firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334210............................  Telephone Apparatus    1,000 or fewer                    263             242
                                     Manufacturing.         employees.
334220............................  Radio and Television   750 or fewer                      730             675
                                     Broadcasting and       employees.
                                     Wireless
                                     Communications
                                     Equipment
                                     Manufacturing.
334111............................  Electronic Computer    1,000 or fewer                    391             374
                                     Manufacturing.         employees.
                                                                                 -------------------------------
    TOTAL.........................  .....................  .....................           1,384           1,291
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A few notes are in order about the foregoing estimates of the 
number of small firms potentially affected by the 255 Guidelines. 
First, because all telephone equipment is covered by Section 255, all 
entities included in the telephone apparatus manufacturing category 
(334210) are necessarily subject to the guidelines. However, not all 
entities in the remaining two industry categories (334220 and 334111) 
are covered by the proposed guidelines because many of these entities 
may manufacture only equipment that falls outside the scope of Section 
255. For example, only radio and broadcasting equipment that meets the 
statutory definition of telecommunications (that is, ``the 
transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of 
information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or 
content of the information as sent and received''), is covered by the 
proposed guidelines. Also, computers lacking modems or Internet 
telephony software are not covered by the proposed guidelines. However, 
the Board lacks quantitative information to differentiate regulated 
from non-regulated manufacturing firms within these two NAICS 
categories, as well as to determine how many of the ``small 
businesses'' in each NAICS category are subject to the proposed 
guidelines. The number of small entities listed in Table 7 that may be 
affected by the proposed 255 Guidelines should, therefore, be 
considered an upper-bound estimate.
    Second, given that manufacturers of telecommunications equipment 
and CPE must comply with Section 255 only to the extent such compliance 
is ``readily achievable'' (i.e., easily accomplishable and able to be 
carried out without much difficulty or expense), there will likely be 
some small firms for which compliance with the proposed guidelines will 
prove too difficult or expensive. This is not a new proposition. Under 
both the existing guidelines and current FCC regulations, compliance 
for manufacturing firms of all sizes is limited by the readily 
achievable exception, though such exception necessarily applies with 
greater frequency to smaller entities. (See 36 CFR 1193.21; 47 CFR 
6.3(g)). The Board also understands that many small firms in the three 
NAICS categories listed above serve as partners or suppliers to larger 
firms that provide a full range of products and services. For these 
reasons, the Board assumes that many small firms identified in Table 
7--particularly those with fewer than 20 employees--likely would not 
incur new costs under the proposed 255 Guidelines. Accordingly, the 
mid-point estimate for the number of small businesses that may be 
affected by the proposed 255 Guidelines is assumed to be small firms 
that meet the SBA size standards and employ twenty or more workers.
    Description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
compliance requirements for small entities. As discussed above, the 
proposed 255 Guidelines contain many requirements that are similar to 
the existing guidelines. There are, however, two new proposed 
requirements that would apply to manufacturers of telecommunications 
equipment and CPE: 410.6 (real-time text functionality) and 602.3 
(electronic support documentation). These two new requirements would 
potentially impose new costs on small manufacturing firms.
    Regarding real time text (RTT) requirements under proposed 410.6, 
the Board lacks quantitative cost information. We requested information 
on RTT costs in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs, but did not receive specific 
cost data. Accordingly, we cannot, at this time, quantify or monetize 
the potential cost impact of the proposed RTT requirements in the 255 
Guidelines. The Board does, however, seek comment on how to estimate 
the cost impact of the RTT requirements on small businesses subject to 
the 255 Guidelines so that we may use such information to prepare, as 
needed, a final regulatory flexibility analysis.
    With respect to the new obligation in proposed 602.3 for Section 
255-covered manufacturers to ensure the accessibility of electronic 
support documentation (such as web-based self-service support and 
electronic manuals), the Preliminary RIA develops estimated incremental 
costs, heavily relying on the cost methodology used by the Department 
of Transportation (DOT) in the regulatory assessment of its recent 
final rule requiring, among other things, airlines to make their Web 
sites accessible to persons with disabilities.\18\ (See Section 
VIII.A--Regulatory Process Matters--Preliminary Regulatory Impact 
Analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Dept. of Transportation, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 
Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of Web sites and Automated 
Kiosks at U.S. Airports, 78 FR 67882 (Nov. 12, 2013); Econometrica, 
Inc., Final Regulatory Analysis on the Final Rule on Accessible 
Kiosks and Web sites (Oct. 23, 2013), available at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2011-0177-0108; see 
also Preliminary RIA, Sections 6.3, 8.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the methodology and estimates used in the Preliminary RIA, 
the Board's Initial RFA assesses potential compliance costs for small 
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and CPE based on 
estimated (a) one-time costs to create accessible electronic support 
documentation and Web sites, and (2) recurring, annual maintenance 
costs. One-time costs are assumed to be spread equally over the first 
two years (i.e., half of covered firms realizing costs in the first 
year, and the other half in year two), with annual maintenance costs 
incurred thereafter for the remainder of the 10-year regulatory 
horizon. Estimated compliance costs are based on firm size. For small 
businesses with 100 or more employees, average one-time costs are 
assumed to be $125,000 for bringing their respective support 
documentation and Web sites into compliance with the proposed 255 
Guidelines. For firms with fewer than 100 employees, average per-firm 
one-time costs under the proposed guidelines are assumed to be $25,000. 
Annual recurring maintenance costs are

[[Page 10935]]

estimated as twenty percent of one-time costs regardless of firm size.
    Using these cost assumptions, the Initial RFA evaluates the 
monetary impact of the proposed 255 Guidelines from three perspectives. 
The first scenario uses the upper-bound estimate for small businesses 
that may be affected by the proposed guidelines (i.e., all small firms 
meeting SBA size standards) to assess total one-time and annual 
maintenance costs across all affected industry categories. These costs, 
which should be considered an upper-bound estimate, are reflected 
below:

    Table 8--Estimated Incremental Costs for Small Manufacturing Firms Subject to the Proposed 255 Guidelines
                                             [Scenario 1--all firms]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Average
                                   Firms meeting   Average  one-  Total one-time      annual       Total annual
            Firm size                SBA size     time cost  per       costs        maintenance     maintenance
                                     standards         firm                        cost per firm       costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 or more employees...........             124        $125,000     $15,500,000         $25,000      $3,100,000
99 or fewer employees...........           1,167          25,000      29,175,000           5,000       5,835,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           1,291  ..............      44,675,000  ..............       8,935,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, to reflect the reality that compliance may not be readily 
achievable for the smallest firms (and, as well, the fact that such 
firms often serve as suppliers to larger firms and thus may not be 
covered by Section 255), the second scenario uses the mid-point 
estimate for small businesses that may be affected by the proposed 
guidelines (i.e., small firms that meet the SBA size standards and have 
twenty or more employees) to assess total one-time and annual 
maintenance costs across all industry categories. These costs, which 
should be considered a mid-point estimate, are reflected below:

    Table 9--Estimated Incremental Costs for Small Manufacturing Firms Subject to the Proposed 255 Guidelines
                                  [Scenario 2--firms with 20 or more employees]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Firms meeting   Average one-                   Average annual   Total annual
            Firm size                SBA size      time cost per  Total one-time    maintenance     maintenance
                                     standards         firm            costs       cost per firm       costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 or more employees...........             124        $125,000     $15,500,000         $25,000      $3,100,000
20-99 employees.................             278          25,000       6,950,000           5,000       1,390,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................             402  ..............      22,450,000  ..............       4,490,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, to assess the magnitude of potential compliance costs for 
small businesses under the proposed 255 Guidelines relative to annual 
receipts, the third scenario evaluates the ratio of average annualized 
costs per-firm to average receipts per firm for each of the three NAICS 
codes. Average annualized costs represent the per-firm stream of 
estimated one-time and recurring annual costs over the 10-year 
regulatory horizon at a 7 percent discount rate. Annualized costs are 
assumed to be consistent across the three NAICS codes for each of the 
two studied small firm sizes (i.e., more or less than 100 employees) 
because the Board does not have NAICS code-based data differentiating 
receipts by firm size. Annual estimated average per-firm receipts for 
each NAICS code, in turn, are derived from publicly-available SBA data. 
The ratio of average per-firm annualized costs and annual per-firm 
receipts is then calculated for each NACIS code and firm size, with the 
resulting percentage serving as a metric to evaluate the relative 
economic significance of compliance costs to small businesses under the 
proposed 255 Guidelines.
    The results are presented below in two separate tables by the size 
(in terms of number of employees) of small firms covered by Section 
255.

       Table 10--Ratio of Annualized Per-Firm Costs to Receipts for Small Firms With 100 or More Employees
                                                 [By NAICS code]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Ratio of
                                                                      Average                         average
                                                                    annualized        Average     annualized per-
          NAICS code                     Industry title              costs per    estimated per-    firm costs/
                                                                  small firm (7%    firm annual      per-firm
                                                                  discount rate)     receipts         eceipts
                                                                                                     (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334210.......................  Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing         $28,782     $58,969,940            .049
334220.......................  Radio and Television Broadcasting          28,782      46,860,776            .060
                                and Wireless Communications
                                Equipment Manufacturing.

[[Page 10936]]

 
334111.......................  Electronic Computer Manufacturing          28,782      75,919,848            .038
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annual receipts based on data from the Small Business Administration, U.S. Small Business Administration, Firm
  Size Data--Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB), https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/firm-size-data (last accessed
  Dec. 15, 2014). SUSB employer data is collected and produced by the U.S Census and contains, for each NAICS
  code such information as the number of firms, employment figures, estimated annual receipts, and annual
  payroll.


      Table 11--Ratio of Annualized Per-Firm Costs to Receipts for Small Firms with Less Than 100 Employees
                                                 [By NAICS code]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Ratio of
                                                                      Average                         average
                                                                    annualized        Average     annualized per-
          NAICS code                     Industry title              costs per    estimated per-    firm costs/
                                                                  small firm (7%    firm annual      per-firm
                                                                  discount rate)     receipts        receipts
                                                                                                     (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334210.......................  Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing          $5,756     $58,969,940            .010
334220.......................  Radio and Television Broadcasting           5,756      46,860,776            .010
                                and Wireless Communications
                                Equipment Manufacturing.
334111.......................  Electronic Computer Manufacturing           5,756      75,919,848            .008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annual receipts based on data from the Small Business Administration, U.S. Small Business Administration, Firm
  Size Data--Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB), https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/firm-size-data (last accessed
  Dec. 15, 2014). SUSB employer data is collected and produced by the U.S Census and contains, for each NAICS
  code such information as the number of firms, employment figures, estimated annual receipts, and annual
  payroll.

    The results of these average cost/receipt analyses demonstrate that 
incremental costs of the proposed 255 Guidelines for small businesses--
whether larger or smaller than 100 employees--are expected to be 
minimal relative to firm receipts. In no case would this ratio exceed 
about one-half of a percent, with ratios ranging from a low of 0.008 to 
a high of 0.049. Accordingly, based on the foregoing analysis, the 
Board does not believe that the proposed 255 Guidelines are likely to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    Question 42. The Board requests input from manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, as well 
as other interested parties, on the small business cost estimation 
methodology and assumptions used in this Initial RFA. The Board will 
use relevant information provided in public comments to determine 
whether or how to revise our estimates for the final regulatory 
flexibility analysis.
    Duplication with other federal rules. To the Board's knowledge, 
there are no relevant federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with the proposed 255 Guidelines.
    Description of significant alternatives to the proposed 255 
Guidelines. In the Board's view, there are no alternatives to the 
proposed guidelines that would accomplish the goal of meeting the 
access needs of individuals with disabilities, while taking into 
account compliance costs of manufacturers of telecommunications 
equipment and CPE.

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The proposed rule adheres to the fundamental federalism principles 
and policy making criteria in Executive Order 13132. The proposed 508 
Standards apply to the development, procurement, maintenance, or use of 
ICT by federal agencies. The proposed 255 Guidelines apply to 
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment and require that equipment is designed, developed, and 
fabricated to be accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities, if it is readily achievable to do so. As such, the Board 
has determined that the proposed rule does not have federalism 
implications within the meaning of Executive Order 13132.

D. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609 serves to promote international regulatory 
cooperation and harmonization. The Access Board has tried to promote 
the principles of the executive order by making concerted efforts with 
a number of foreign governments throughout the development of the 
proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. For example, the Board and 
the European Commission have made every effort to coordinate 
development of their respective ICT standards. This cooperation began 
with the 2005 EU-US Economic Initiative (https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/june/tradoc_127643.pdf) and continued through the work 
of the Access Board with representatives from the European Commission, 
Canada, Australia, and Japan serving on the Telecommunications and 
Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee which informed 
the proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. In our view, the 
proposed 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines are the product of the 
Board's coordination with international regulatory partners,

[[Page 10937]]

which will ultimately help American companies better compete globally.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply to proposed or 
final rules that enforce constitutional rights of individuals or 
enforce statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of 
race, color, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability. The 
proposed 508 Standards are issued pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act. 
When federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and 
information technology, they are required to ensure that the electronic 
and information technology allows federal employees with disabilities 
to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to 
the access enjoyed by federal employees without disabilities, unless 
doing so would impose an undue burden on the agency. The statute also 
requires that members of the public with disabilities seeking 
information or services from a federal agency have access to and use of 
information and data that is comparable to that provided to other 
members of the public unless doing so would impose an undue burden on 
the agency. We have issued the proposed 255 Guidelines pursuant to 
Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934 which requires 
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment to ensure that the equipment is designed, developed, and 
fabricated to be accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities, if it is readily achievable to do so. Accordingly, an 
assessment of the effect of the proposed 508 Standards and 255 
Guidelines on state, local, and tribal governments is not required by 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) 
requires federal agencies to obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) before requesting or requiring a 
``collection of information'' from the public. As part of the PRA 
process, agencies are generally required to provide a 60-day notice in 
the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information 
to solicit, among other things, comment on the necessity of the 
information collection and its estimated burden. 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A). To comply with this requirement, the Board publishes 
here a notice of proposed collection of information in the proposed 255 
Guidelines.
    Proposed C206, along with several provisions in Chapter 6 (Support 
Documentation and Services), collectively obligate manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment to provide 
accessible support documentation and services, which constitute 
``collection of information'' under the PRA. More specifically, the 
proposed rule requires covered manufacturers, when providing support 
documentation and services, to ensure accessibility for individuals 
with disabilities with respect to four categories of information as 
follows: (1) Support documentation must list and explain how to use 
accessibility and compatibility features of telecommunications products 
(602.2); (2) electronic support documentation must conform to WCAG 2.0 
or PDF/UA-1 (602.3); (3) non-electronic support documentation in 
alternate formats (e.g., braille, large print), which is available upon 
request, must be usable by users with vision impairments (602.4); and 
(4) support services (e.g., help desks, call centers) must offer 
information on accessibility and compatibility features, as well as 
ensure a contact method that accommodates the communication needs of 
individuals with disabilities (603.2 and 603.3).
    These four proposed information collection requirements are 
generally similar to those under existing 255 Guidelines Sec.  1193.33, 
which were previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the PRA (OMB Control Number 3014-
0010), though compliance with WCAG 2.0 (or PDF/UA-1) is new. The newly 
proposed information collection is the requirement that 
telecommunications equipment manufacturers ensure that any electronic 
documentation (such as web-based self-service support or PDF user 
guides) provided to end users must meet specified accessibility 
standards (602.3).
    The Board estimates the annual burden on manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment for the 
four categories of information collection under the proposed rule as 
follows:

                        Table 12--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping and Documentation Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Average         Estimated
       Section of proposed rule           Number of        Annual number of       response time    annual burden
                                         respondents   responses per respondent      (hours)          (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 602.2........................           1,384  6.......................              1.5          12,456
Section 602.3........................           1,384  95% of 6................            300         2,366,640
Section 602.4........................           1,384  5% of 6.................             25            10,375
Section 603..........................           1,384  6.......................               .5           4,152
                                      ----------------                          --------------------------------
    Total............................  ..............  ........................  ...............       2,393,623
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates are based on the Board's experience with the 
current information collection requirements under the existing 255 
Guidelines, as well as public comment received in response to the 2010 
and 2011 ANPRMs. Highlighted below are the key assumptions used in the 
burden estimation calculus.
    Number of respondents. The number of manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment (1,384) is 
based on the number of firms assumed to be affected by the proposed 
rule using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 
See Section IV.B (Regulatory Process Matters--Regulatory Flexibility 
Act).
    Number of responses annually per manufacturer. The number of annual 
responses for each manufacturer (6) is based on the estimated number of 
new products released in 2013 according to the Consumer Electronic 
Association.
    Average response time.
     Section 602.2: The estimated response time assumes that 
documenting the accessibility and compatibility features will take 1.5 
hours for each new product.
     Section 602.3: The estimated response time assumes that 
development of accessible electronic support documentation will take 
300

[[Page 10938]]

hours for each new product. This estimate, in turn, is based on the 
assumption that each product will have, on average, 200 pages of 
electronic documentation, and that each page will require 1.5 hours of 
formatting and editing to comply with WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1, as 
applicable. With respect to the annual number of responses for each 
manufacturer, it is assumed that support documentation for nearly all 
new products will be provided in an electronic format given current 
trends in the telecommunications industry. Specifically, it is 
estimated that 95 percent of the six new products introduced annually 
by each manufacturer (7,889 products) will have electronic support 
documentation that must conform to proposed 602.3.
     Section 602.4: The estimated response time assumes that 
development of accessible non-electronic support documentation in 
alternate formats (e.g., braille, large print) will take 25 hours for 
each new product. With respect to the annual number of responses for 
each manufacturer, it is assumed that support documentation for only a 
few new products will have support documentation in a non-electronic 
format in recognition of the fact that most support documentation is 
now posted online or otherwise provided in electronic formats. Thus, it 
is assumed that only 5 percent of the six new products introduced 
annually by each manufacturer (415 products) will have non-electronic 
support documentation that must conform to proposed 602.4.
     Section 603: The estimated response time assumes that, for 
each new product in a given year, manufacturers will receive three 10-
minute telephone calls to support centers (or emails or chat-based 
interactions) from individuals with disabilities seeking information on 
the accessibility and compatibility features of these products.
    The Board seeks comment on the methods and assumptions used in 
estimating the annual burden associated with the information collection 
requirements in the proposed 255 Guidelines. Organizations and 
individual desiring to submit comments on this information collection 
requirements should direct them to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for the Access Board.
    The Board requests comments on these proposed collections of 
information in:
     Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information 
is necessary for the proper implementation of Section 255, including 
whether the information will have a practical use;
     Evaluating the accuracy of the Board's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
     Minimizing the burden of collection of information of 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting 
electronic submission of responses).
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information contained in these proposed guidelines between 30 and 60 
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect 
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect 
the deadline for the public to comment to the Board on the NPRM.

G. Availability of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    As noted previously in the Section-by-Section Analysis for proposed 
E102 and C102, the Access Board is proposing to incorporate by 
reference ten consensus standards in the 508 Standards and 255 
Guidelines. See Section VI.B (Section-by-Section Analysis--508 
Standards: Application and Scoping--E102) and Section VI.C (Section-by-
Section Analysis--255 Guidelines: Application and Scoping--C102). The 
Office of the Federal Register recently promulgated a final rule 
requiring federal agencies to provide additional information to the 
public in regulatory preambles for materials to be incorporated by 
reference.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Office of the Federal Register, Incorporation by Reference, 
79 FR 66267 (Nov. 7, 2014) (to be codified at 1 CFR part 51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In keeping with these new obligations for materials proposed for 
incorporation by reference, the Access Board provides below: (a) 
Information on the public availability of these ten standards (or, 
alternatively, how Access Board staff attempted to secure the 
availability of these materials to the public at no cost or reduced 
cost, if not already publicly available free of charge by the standards 
development organization); and (b) summaries of the materials to be 
incorporated by reference. In addition to the information provided 
below relating to public availability, a copy of each referenced 
standard is available for inspection at our agency's office, 1331 F 
Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004.
    ANSI/HFES 200.2 (2008) Human Factors Engineering of Software User 
Interfaces--Part 2: Accessibility (referenced in: E102.2, C102.2, 
502.4). This standard provides design specifications for human-system 
software interfaces to increase accessibility for persons with 
disabilities. It covers the design of accessible software for people 
with a wide range of physical, sensory and cognitive abilities, 
including those with temporary disabilities and older adults. 
Availability: Copies of this standard may be obtained from Human 
Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES), P.O. Box 1369, Santa Monica, CA 
90406-1369. This standard is also available for purchase on the HFES 
Web site (https://www.hfes.org). Additionally, HFES has agreed to make a 
read-only copy of this standard available during the comment period 
upon request.
    ANSI/IEEE C63.19-2011 American National Standard for Methods of 
Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices 
and Hearing Aids (see E102.3, C102.3, 410.4.1). This standard provides 
a uniform method of measurement for compatibility between hearing aids 
and wireless communications devices. Availability: Copies of this 
standard may be obtained from the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, P.O. Box 3014, 
Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1264. This standard is also available for 
purchase on the IEEE Web site (https://www.ieee.org). IEEE has also 
agreed to make a read-only version of this standard available on the 
organization's Web site during the comment period.
    A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5: 2010 AC-3 Audio System 
Characteristics (2010) (see E102.4, C102.4, 412.1.1). The standard for 
digital television provides the system characteristics for advanced 
television systems. The document and its normative parts provide 
detailed specification of system parameters. Part 5 provides the audio 
system characteristics and normative specifications. It includes the 
Visually Impaired (VI) associated service, which is a complete program 
mix containing music, effects, dialogue and a narrative description of 
the picture content. ATSC also publishes a companion technical 
assistance guide for its television standard. Availability: Copies of 
this standard may be obtained from the

[[Page 10939]]

Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), 1776 K Street NW., Suite 
200, Washington, DC 20006-2304. Free copies of A/53 Digital Television 
Standard are available online at the organization's Web site: (https://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a53/a_53-Part-5-2010.pdf).
    Request for Comment (RFC) 4103, Real-Time Transport Protocol 
Payload for Text Conversation (2005) (see E102.5, C102.5, 410.6.3.2). 
This standard establishes specifications for how to carry real-time 
text (RTT) conversation session contents in Real-time Transport 
Protocol (RTP) packets. RTT is used alone or in connection with other 
conversational modalities to form multimedia conversation services. RTT 
in multimedia conversation sessions is sent character-by-character as 
soon as it is available, or with a small delay for buffering. 
Availability: Free copies of this standard are available online at the 
Internet Engineering Task Force's Web site (https://www.rfc-base.org/txt/rfc-4103.txt).
    ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1) Document management applications--Electronic 
document file format enhancement for accessibility--Part 1: Use of ISO 
32000-1 (2014) (see E102.6, C102.6, E205.1, 602.3.1). This standard is 
the consensus international specification for accessible PDF. PDF/UA-1 
provides a technical, interoperable standard for the authoring, 
remediation and validation of PDF content to ensure accessibility for 
people with disabilities who use assistive technology, such as screen 
readers, screen magnifiers, joysticks and other technologies used to 
navigate and read electronic content. Availability: Copies of this 
standard may be obtained from the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO), ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-
Creuse, CP 56--CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. This standard is also 
available for purchase on the ISO Web site (https://www.iso.org). Access 
Board staff is in discussion with ISO about making a read-only version 
of this standard available on the organization's Web site during the 
comment period. Please consult the Access Board Web site for updates on 
the availability of this standard during the comment period.
    ITU-T Recommendation G.722: Series G: Transmission Systems and 
Media, Digital Systems and Networks Digital Terminal Equipments [sic]--
Coding of voice and audio signals, 7 kHz Audio-Coding within 64 Kbits/s 
(September 2012) (see E102.7.1, C102.7.1, 410.5). This standard 
specifies a coder-decoder program that provides 7 kHz wideband audio at 
data rates from 48, 56, and 64 kbits/s. Availability: This standard may 
be obtained from the International Telecommunication Union, 
Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T), Place des Nations 
CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland. Free copies of ITU-T Recommendation 
G.72 are available online at the organization's Web site (https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.722-201209-I/en).
    ITU-T Recommendation E.161: Arrangement of digits, letters and 
symbols on telephones and other devices that can be used for gaining 
access to a telephone network (February 2001) (see E102.7.2, C107.2, 
407.3.2). This standard defines the assignment of the basic 26 Latin 
letters (A to Z) to the 12-key telephone keypad. Availability: This 
standard may be obtained from ITU-T, Place des Nations CH-1211, Geneva 
20, Switzerland. Free copies of ITU-T Recommendation E.161 are 
available online at the organization's Web site (https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.161-200102-I/en).
    TIA 825-A, A Frequency Shift Keyed Modem for Use on the Public 
Switched Telephone Network (2003) (see E102.8.1, C102.8.1, 410.6.3.1). 
This standard is a specification for TTY signals on the public switched 
telephone network interface. Availability: Copies of this standard, 
which is published by the Telecommunications Industry Association 
(TIA), may be obtained from the IHS Standard Store (IHS), 15 Inverness 
Way East, Englewood, CO 80112. This standard is also available for 
purchase on the IHS Web site (https://www.global.ihs.com). 
Additionally, TIA has agreed to make a read-only version of this 
standard available, upon request, through TIA's Web site 
(www.tiaonline.org) during the comment period.
    TIA 1083 Telephone Terminal Equipment Handset Magnetic Measurement 
Procedures and Performance Requirements (2007) (see E102.8.2, C102.8.2, 
410.4.2). This standard defines measurement procedures and performance 
requirements for the handset generated audio band magnetic noise of 
wire line telephones, including digital cordless telephones. 
Availability: Copies of this standard, which is published by the 
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), may be obtained from the 
IHS Standard Store (IHS), 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112. 
This standard is also available for purchase on the IHS Web site 
(https://www.global.ihs.com). Additionally, TIA has also agreed to make 
a read-only version of this standard available, upon request, through 
TIA's Web site (www.tiaonline.org) during the comment period.
    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, W3C Recommendation 
(December 2008) (see E102.9, C102.9, E205.1, E207.2, 405.1 Exception, 
501.1 Exception 1, 504.2, 504.3, 504.4, 602.3.1). WCAG 2.0, published 
by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C), specifies success 
criteria and requirements to make Web content more accessible to all 
users, including persons with disabilities. The W3C Web site also 
provides online technical assistance materials linked to each success 
criteria and technical requirement. Availability: Copies of this 
standard may be obtained from the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 32 Vassar Street, Room 32-G515, 
Cambridge, MA 02139. Free copies of WCAG 2.0, and its related technical 
assistance materials, are available online at W3C's Web site (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20).

List of Subjects

36 CFR Part 1193

    Communications, Communications equipment, Individuals with 
disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Telecommunications.

36 CFR Part 1194

    Civil rights, Communications, Communications equipment, Computer 
technology, Electronic products, Government employees, Government 
procurement, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telecommunications.

David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 47 
U.S.C. 255(e), the Board proposes to amend 36 CFR chapter XI, as 
follows:

PART 1193 [REMOVED]

0
1. Remove part 1193.
0
2. Revise part 1194 to read as follows:

PART 1194--INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) STANDARDS 
AND GUIDELINES

Sec.
1194.1 Standards for Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
1194.2 Guidelines for Section 255 of the Communications Act.
Appendix A to Part 1194--Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: 
Application and Scoping Requirements

[[Page 10940]]

Appendix B to Part 1194--Section 255 of the Communications Act: 
Application and Scoping Requirements
Appendix C to Part 1194--Technical Requirements

     Authority:  29 U.S.C. 794d, 47 U.S.C. 255.


Sec.  1194.1  Standards for Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

    The standards for information and communication technology 
developed, procured, maintained, or used by federal agencies covered by 
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act are set forth in Appendices A and 
C to this part.


Sec.  1194.2  Guidelines for Section 255 of the Communications Act.

    The guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer 
premises equipment covered by Section 255 of the Communications Act are 
set forth in Appendices B and C to this part.

Appendix A to Part 1194--Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: 
Application and Scoping Requirements

508 CHAPTER 1: APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION

E101 General

    E101.1 Purpose. These 508 Standards, which consist of 508 
Chapters 1 and 2 (Appendix A), along with Chapters 3 through 6 
(Appendix C), contain scoping and technical requirements for 
information and communication technology (ICT) that is accessible to 
and usable by individuals with disabilities. Compliance with these 
standards is mandatory for federal agencies subject to Section 508 
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d).
    E101.2 Equivalent Facilitation. The use of an alternative design 
or technology that results in substantially equivalent or greater 
accessibility and usability by individuals with disabilities than 
would be provided by conformance to one or more of the requirements 
in Chapters 4 and 5 of the 508 Standards is permitted. The 
functional performance criteria in Chapter 3 shall be used to 
determine whether substantially equivalent or greater accessibility 
and usability is provided to individuals with disabilities.
    E101.3 Conventional Industry Tolerances. Dimensions are subject 
to conventional industry tolerances except where dimensions are 
stated as a range.
    E101.4 Units of Measurement. Measurements are stated in metric 
and U.S. customary units. The values stated in each system (metric 
and U.S. customary units) may not be exact equivalents, and each 
system shall be used independently of the other.

E102 Referenced Standards

    E102.1 Incorporation by Reference. The specific editions of the 
standards and guidelines listed in E102 are incorporated by 
reference in the 508 Standards and are part of the requirements to 
the prescribed extent of each such reference. Where conflicts occur 
between the 508 Standards and the referenced standards, these 
standards apply. The Director of the Office of the Federal Register 
has approved the standards for incorporation by reference in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the 
referenced standards may be inspected at the Access Board's office, 
1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004.
    E102.2 American National Standards Institute/Human Factors and 
Ergonomics Society (ANSI/HFES). Copies of the referenced standard 
may be obtained from Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, P.O. Box 
1369, Santa Monica, CA 90406-1369 (https://www.hfes.org/Publications/ProductDetail.aspx?Id=76).
    ANSI/HFES 200.2 Human Factors Engineering of Software User 
Interfaces -- Part 2: Accessibility, (2008), IBR proposed for 
Section 502.4.
    E102.3 American National Standards Institute/Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (ANSI/IEEE). Copies of the 
referenced standard may be obtained from the Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers, 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, P.O. Box 3014, 
Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1264 (https://www.ieee.org).
    ANSI/IEEE C63.19-2011 American National Standard for Methods of 
Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices 
and Hearing Aids, Committee C63--Electromagnetic Compatibility, May 
27, 2011, IBR proposed for Section 410.4.1.
    E102.4 Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC). Copies of 
the referenced standard may be obtained from the Advanced Television 
Systems Committee, 1776 K Street NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 
20006-2304 (https://www.atsc.org).
    A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5: AC-3 Audio System 
Characteristics, (2010), IBR proposed for Section 412.1.1.
    E102.5 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Copies of the 
referenced standard may be obtained from the Internet Engineering 
Task Force (https://www.ietf.org).
    Request for Comments (RFC) 4103, Real-time Transport Protocol 
(RTP) Payload for Text Conversation (2005), G. Hellstrom, Omnitor 
AB, and P. Jones, Cisco Systems, IBR proposed for Section 410.6.3.2.
    E102.6 International Standards Organization (ISO). Copies of the 
referenced standards may be obtained from International Organization 
for Standardization, ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-
Creuse, CP 56--CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland (https://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=54564).
    ISO 14289-1 Document management applications--Electronic 
document file format enhancement for accessibility--Part 1: Use of 
ISO 32000-1 (PDF/UA-1), Technical Committee ISO/TC 171, Document 
Management Applications, Subcommittee SC 2, Application Issues, 
(2014), IBR proposed for Sections E205.1 and 602.3.1.
    E102.7 International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications 
Standardization Sector (ITU-T). Copies of the referenced standards 
may be obtained from the International Telecommunication Union, 
Telecommunications Standardization Sector, Place des Nations CH-
1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland (https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T).
    E102.7.1 ITU-T Recommendation G.722: General Aspects of Digital 
Transmission Systems, Terminal Components, 7 kHz Audio-Coding within 
64 Kbits/s, (September 2012), IBR proposed for Section 410.5.
    E102.7.2 ITU-T Recommendation E.161: Arrangement of digits, 
letters and symbols on telephones and other devices that can be used 
for gaining access to a telephone network, ITU-T Study Group 2, 
(February 2001), IBR proposed for Section 407.3.2.
    E102.8 Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). Copies of 
the referenced standards, published by the Telecommunications 
Industry Association, may be obtained from IHS, 15 Inverness Way 
East, Englewood, CO 80112 (https://global.ihs.com).
    E102.8.1 TIA 825-A A Frequency Shift Keyed Modem for Use on the 
Public Switched Telephone Network, (2003), IBR proposed for Section 
410.6.3.1.
    E102.8.2 TIA 1083 Telephone Terminal Equipment Handset Magnetic 
Measurement Procedures and Performance Requirements, (March 2007), 
IBR proposed for Section 410.4.2.
    E102.9 Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C). Copies of the referenced 
guidelines may be obtained from the W3C Web Accessibility 
Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 32 Vassar Street, 
Room 32-G515, Cambridge, MA 02139 (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20).
    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, W3C 
Recommendation, December 2008, IBR proposed for Sections E205.1, 
E207.2, 405.1 Exception, 501.1 Exception 1, 504.2, 504.3, 504.4, and 
602.3.1.

E103 Definitions

    E103.1 Terms Defined in Referenced Standards. Terms defined in 
referenced standards and not defined in E103.4 shall have the 
meaning as defined in the referenced standards.
    E103.2 Undefined Terms. Any term not defined in E103.4 or in 
referenced standards shall be given its ordinarily accepted meaning 
in the sense that the context implies.
    E103.3 Interchangeability. Words, terms, and phrases used in the 
singular include the plural and those used in the plural include the 
singular.
    E103.4 Defined Terms. For the purpose of the 508 Standards, the 
terms defined in E103.4 have the indicated meaning.
    508 Standards. The standards for ICT developed, procured, 
maintained, or used by agencies subject to Section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act as set forth in 508 Chapters 1 and 2 (36 CFR part 
1194, Appendix A), and Chapters 3 through 6 (36 CFR part 1194, 
Appendix C).
    Agency. Any agency or department of the United States as defined 
in 44 U.S.C. 3502, and the United States Postal Service.
    Application. Software designed to perform, or to help the user 
to perform, a specific task or tasks.
    Assistive Technology (AT). Any item, piece of equipment, or 
product system, whether

[[Page 10941]]

acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is used to 
increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of 
individuals with disabilities.
    Audio Description. Narration added to the soundtrack to describe 
important visual details that cannot be understood from the main 
soundtrack alone. Audio description is a means to inform individuals 
who are blind or who have low vision about visual content essential 
for comprehension. Audio description of video provides information 
about actions, characters, scene changes, on-screen text, and other 
visual content. Audio description supplements the regular audio 
track of a program. Audio description is usually added during 
existing pauses in dialogue. Audio description is also called 
``video description'' and ``descriptive narration''.
    Authoring Tool. Any software, or collection of software 
components, that can be used by authors, alone or collaboratively, 
to create or modify content for use by others, including other 
authors.
    Closed Functionality. Characteristics that limit functionality 
or prevent a user from attaching or installing assistive technology. 
Examples of ICT with closed functionality are self-service machines, 
information kiosks, set-top boxes, fax machines, calculators, and 
computers that are locked down so that users may not adjust settings 
due to a policy such as Desktop Core Configuration.
    Content. Electronic information and data, as well as the 
encoding that defines its structure, presentation, and interactions.
    Hardware. A tangible device, equipment, or physical component of 
ICT, such as telephones, computers, multifunction copy machines, and 
keyboards.
    Information technology. Shall have the same meaning as the term 
``information technology'' set forth in 40 U.S.C. 11101(6).
    Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Information 
technology and other equipment, systems, technologies, or processes, 
for which the principal function is the creation, manipulation, 
storage, display, receipt, or transmission of electronic data and 
information, as well as any associated content. Examples of ICT 
include, but are not limited to: Computers and peripheral equipment; 
information kiosks and transaction machines; telecommunications 
equipment; customer premises equipment; multifunction office 
machines; software; applications; Web sites; videos; and, electronic 
documents.
    Keyboard. A set of systematically arranged alphanumeric keys or 
a control that generates alphanumeric input by which a machine or 
device is operated. A keyboard includes tactilely discernible keys 
used in conjunction with the alphanumeric keys if their function 
maps to keys on the keyboard interfaces.
    Label. Text, or a component with a text alternative, that is 
presented to a user to identify content. A label is presented to all 
users, whereas a name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive 
technology. In many cases, the name and the label are the same.
    Menu. A set of selectable options.
    Name. Text by which software can identify a component to the 
user. A name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology, 
whereas a label is presented to all users. In many cases, the label 
and the name are the same. Name is unrelated to the name attribute 
in HTML.
    Operable Part. A component of ICT used to activate, deactivate, 
or adjust the ICT.
    Platform Accessibility Services. Services provided by a platform 
enabling interoperability with assistive technology. Examples are 
Application Programming Interfaces (API) and the Document Object 
Model (DOM).
    Platform Software. Software that interacts with hardware, or 
provides services for other software. Platform software may run or 
host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software 
or hardware layers. A single software component may have both 
platform and non-platform aspects. Examples of platforms are: 
Desktop operating systems; embedded operating systems, including 
mobile systems; Web browsers; plug-ins to Web browsers that render a 
particular media or format; and sets of components that allow other 
applications to execute, such as applications which support macros 
or scripting.
    Programmatically Determinable. Ability to be determined by 
software from author-supplied data that is provided in a way that 
different user agents, including assistive technologies, can extract 
and present the information to users in different modalities.
    Public Facing. Content made available by an agency to members of 
the general public. Examples include, but are not limited to, an 
agency Web site, blog post, or social media pages.
    Real-Time Text (RTT). Communications using the transmission of 
text by which characters are transmitted by a terminal as they are 
typed. Real-time text is used for conversational purposes. Real-time 
text also may be used in voicemail, interactive voice response 
systems, and other similar applications.
    Software. Programs, procedures, rules and related data and 
documentation that direct the use and operation of ICT and instruct 
it to perform a given task or function.
    Telecommunications. The signal transmission, between or among 
points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, 
without change in the form or content of the information as sent and 
received.
    Terminal. Device or software with which the end user directly 
interacts and that provides the user interface. For some systems, 
the software that provides the user interface may reside on more 
than one device such as a telephone and a server.
    Text. A sequence of characters that can be programmatically 
determined and that expresses something in human language.
    TTY. Equipment that enables interactive text based 
communications through the transmission of frequency-shift-keying 
audio tones across the public switched telephone network. TTYs 
include devices for real-time text communications and voice and text 
intermixed communications. Examples of intermixed communications are 
voice carry over and hearing carry over. One example of a TTY is a 
computer with TTY emulating software and modem.
    Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). A technology that provides 
real-time voice communications. VoIP requires a broadband connection 
from the user's location and customer premises equipment compatible 
with Internet protocol.

508 Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements

E201 Application

    E201.1 Scope. ICT that is procured, developed, maintained, or 
used by agencies shall conform to the 508 Standards.

E202 General Exceptions

    E202.1 General. ICT shall be exempt from compliance with the 508 
Standards to the extent specified by E202.
    E202.2 National Security Systems. The 508 standards do not apply 
to ICT operated by agencies as part of a national security system, 
as defined by 40 U.S.C. 11103(a).
    E202.3 Federal Contracts. ICT acquired by a contractor 
incidental to a contract shall not be required to conform to the 508 
Standards.
    E202.4 ICT Functions Located in Maintenance or Monitoring 
Spaces. Where status indicators and operable parts for ICT functions 
are located in spaces that are frequented only by service personnel 
for maintenance, repair, or occasional monitoring of equipment, such 
status indicators and operable parts shall not be required to 
conform to the 508 Standards.
    E202.5 Undue Burden or Fundamental Alteration. Where an agency 
determines in accordance with E202.5 that conformance to 
requirements in the 508 Standards would impose an undue burden or 
would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the ICT, 
conformance shall be required only to the extent that it does not 
impose an undue burden or result in a fundamental alteration in the 
nature of the ICT.
    E202.5.1 Basis for a Determination of Undue Burden. In 
determining whether conformance to requirements in the 508 Standards 
would impose an undue burden on the agency, the agency shall 
consider the extent to which conformance would impose significant 
difficulty or expense considering the agency resources available to 
the program or component for which the ICT is to be procured, 
developed, maintained, or used.
    E202.5.2 Required Documentation. The responsible agency official 
shall document in writing the basis for determining that conformance 
to requirements in the 508 Standards constitute an undue burden on 
the agency, or would result in a fundamental alteration in the 
nature of the ICT. The documentation shall include an explanation of 
why and to what extent compliance with applicable requirements would 
create an undue burden or result in a fundamental alteration in the 
nature of the ICT.
    E202.5.3 Alternative Means. Where conformance to one or more 
requirements in the 508 Standards imposes an undue burden or a 
fundamental alteration in the nature of the ICT, the agency shall 
provide individuals with disabilities access to and use of 
information and data by an alternative means that meets identified 
needs.
    E202.6 Best Meets. Where ICT conforming to one or more 
requirements in

[[Page 10942]]

the 508 Standards is not commercially available, the agency shall 
procure the product that best meets the 508 Standards consistent 
with the agency's business needs.
    E202.6.1 Required Documentation. The responsible agency official 
shall document in writing: (a) The nonavailability of conforming 
ICT, including a description of market research performed and which 
provisions cannot be met, and (b) the basis for determining that the 
ICT to be procured best meets the requirements in the 508 Standards 
consistent with the agency's business needs.
    E202.6.2 Alternative Means. Where ICT that fully conforms to the 
508 Standards is not commercially available, the agency shall 
provide individuals with disabilities access to and use of 
information and data by an alternative means that meets identified 
needs.

E203 Access to Functionality

    E203.1 General. Agencies shall ensure that all functionality of 
ICT is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, 
either directly or by supporting the use of assistive technology, 
and shall comply with E203. In providing access to all functionality 
of ICT, agencies shall ensure the following:
    a. That federal employees with disabilities have access to and 
use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use 
by federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities; and
    b. That members of the public with disabilities who are seeking 
information or data from a federal agency have access to and use of 
information and data that is comparable to that provided to members 
of the public who are not individuals with disabilities.
    E203.2 Agency Business Needs. When agencies procure, develop, 
maintain or use ICT they shall identify the business needs of users 
with disabilities affecting vision, hearing, color perception, 
speech, dexterity, strength, or reach to determine:
    a. How users with disabilities will perform the functions 
supported by the ICT; and
    b. How the ICT will be installed, configured, and maintained to 
support users with disabilities.

E204 Functional Performance Criteria

    E204.1 General. Where the requirements in Chapters 4 and 5 do 
not address one or more features of ICT, the features not addressed 
shall conform to the Functional Performance Criteria specified in 
Chapter 3.

E205 Content

    E205.1 General. Content shall comply with E205.
    E205.2 Public Facing. Content that is public facing shall 
conform to the accessibility requirements specified in E205.4.
    E205.3 Agency Official Communication. Content that is not public 
facing shall conform to the accessibility requirements specified in 
E205.4 when such content constitutes official business, and is 
communicated by an agency through one or more of the following:
    1. An emergency notification;
    2. An initial or final decision adjudicating an administrative 
claim or proceeding;
    3. An internal or external program or policy announcement;
    4. A notice of benefits, program eligibility, employment 
opportunity, or personnel action;
    5. A formal acknowledgement or receipt;
    6. A questionnaire or survey;
    7. A template or form; or
    8. Educational or training materials.
    EXCEPTION: Records maintained by the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to federal recordkeeping 
statutes shall not be required to conform to the 508 Standards 
unless public facing.
    E205.4 Accessibility Standards. Content shall conform to Level A 
and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified 
for Web pages in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1) 
or, where applicable, ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1) (incorporated by 
reference in Chapter 1).

E206 Hardware

    E206.1 General. Where components of ICT are hardware and 
transmit information or have a user interface, such components shall 
conform to applicable requirements in Chapter 4.

E207 Software

    E207.1 General. Where components of ICT are software and 
transmit information or have a user interface, such components shall 
conform to E207 and applicable requirements in Chapter 5.
    E207.2 WCAG Conformance. User interface components, as well as 
the content of platforms and applications, shall conform to Level A 
and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified 
for Web pages in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1).

E208 Support Documentation and Services

    E208.1 General. Where an agency provides support documentation 
or services for ICT, such documentation and services shall conform 
to the requirements in Chapter 6.

Appendix B to Part 1194--Section 255 of the Communications Act: 
Application and Scoping Requirements

255 Chapter 1: Application and Administration

C101 General

    C101.1 Purpose. These 255 Guidelines, which consist of 255 
Chapters 1 and 2 (Appendix B), along with Chapters 3 through 6 
(Appendix C), contain scoping and technical requirements for the 
design, development, and fabrication of telecommunications equipment 
and customer premises equipment, and related software, content, and 
support documentation and services, to ensure their accessibility to 
and usability by individuals with disabilities. These 255 Guidelines 
are to be applied to the extent required by regulations issued by 
the Federal Communications Commission under Section 255 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 255).
    C101.2 Equivalent Facilitation. The use of an alternative design 
or technology that results in substantially equivalent or greater 
accessibility and usability by individuals with disabilities than 
would be provided by conformance to one or more of the requirements 
in Chapters 4 and 5 of the 255 Guidelines is permitted. The 
functional performance criteria in Chapter 3 shall be used to 
determine whether substantially equivalent or greater accessibility 
and usability is provided to individuals with disabilities.
    C101.3 Conventional Industry Tolerances. Dimensions are subject 
to conventional industry tolerances except where dimensions are 
stated as a range.
    C101.4 Units of Measurement. Measurements are stated in metric 
and U.S. customary units. The values stated in each system (metric 
and U.S. customary units) may not be exact equivalents, and each 
system shall be used independently of the other.

C102 Referenced Standards

    C102.1 Incorporation by Reference. The specific editions of the 
standards and guidelines listed in C102 are incorporated by 
reference in the 255 Guidelines and are part of the requirements to 
the prescribed extent of each such reference. Where conflicts occur 
between the 255 Guidelines and the referenced standards, these 
guidelines apply. The Director of the Office of Federal Register has 
approved the standards for incorporation by reference in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the referenced 
standards may be inspected at the Access Board's office, 1331 F 
Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004.
    C102.2 American National Standards Institute/Human Factors and 
Ergonomics Society (ANSI/HFES). Copies of the referenced standard 
may be obtained from Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, P.O. Box 
1369, Santa Monica, CA 90406-1369 (https://www.hfes.org/Publications/ProductDetail.aspx?Id=76).
    ANSI/HFES 200.2 Human Factors Engineering of Software User 
Interfaces--Part 2: Accessibility, (2008), IBR proposed for Section 
502.4.
    C102.3 American National Standards Institute/Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (ANSI/IEEE). Copies of the 
referenced standard may be obtained from the Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers, 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, P.O. Box 3014, 
Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1264 (https://www.ieee.org).
    ANSI/IEEE C63.19-2011 American National Standard for Methods of 
Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices 
and Hearing Aids, Committee C63--Electromagnetic Compatibility, May 
27, 2011, IBR proposed for Section 410.4.1.
    C102.4 Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC). Copies of 
the referenced standard may be obtained from the Advanced Television 
Systems Committee, 1776 K Street NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 
20006-2304 (https://www.atsc.org).

[[Page 10943]]

    A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5: AC-3 Audio System 
Characteristics, (2010), IBR proposed for Section 412.1.1.
    C102.5 IETF.--Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Copies of 
the referenced standard may be obtained from the Internet 
Engineering Task Force (https://www.ietf.org).
    Request for Comments (RFC) 4103, Real-time Transport Protocol 
(RTP) Payload for Text Conversation (2005), G. Hellstrom, Omnitor 
AB, and P. Jones, Cisco Systems, IBR proposed for Section 410.6.3.2.
    C102.6 International Standards Organization (ISO). Copies of the 
referenced standards, may be obtained from International 
Organization for Standardization, ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de 
la Voie-Creuse, CP 56--CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland (https://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=54564).
    ISO 14289-1 Document management applications--Electronic 
document file format enhancement for accessibility--Part 1: Use of 
ISO 32000-1 (PDF/UA-1), Technical Committee ISO/TC 171, Document 
Management Applications, Subcommittee SC 2, Application Issues, 
(2014), IBR proposed for Sections E205.1 and 602.3.1.
    C102.7 International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications 
Standardization Sector (ITU-T). Copies of the referenced standards 
may be obtained from the International Telecommunication Union, 
Telecommunications Standardization Sector, Place des Nations CH-
1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland (https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T).
    C102.7.1 ITU-T--Recommendation G.722: General Aspects of Digital 
Transmission Systems, Terminal Components, 7 kHz Audio-Coding within 
64 Kbits/s, (September 2012), IBR proposed for Section 410.5.
    C102.7.2 ITU-T--Recommendation E.161: Arrangement of digits, 
letters and symbols on telephones and other devices that can be used 
for gaining access to a telephone network, ITU-T Study Group 2, 
(February 2001), IBR proposed for Section 407.3.2.
    C102.8 Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). Copies of 
the referenced standards, published by the Telecommunications 
Industry Association, may be obtained from IHS, 15 Inverness Way 
East, Englewood, CO 80112 (https://global.ihs.com).
    C102.8.1 TIA 825-A--A Frequency Shift Keyed Modem for Use on the 
Public Switched Telephone Network, (2003), IBR proposed for Section 
410.6.3.1.
    C102.8.2 TIA 1083--Telephone Terminal Equipment Handset Magnetic 
Measurement Procedures and Performance Requirements, (March 2007), 
IBR proposed for Section 410.4.2.
    C102.9 Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C). Copies of the referenced 
guidelines may be obtained from the W3C Web Accessibility 
Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 32 Vassar Street, 
Room 32-G515, Cambridge, MA 02139 (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20).
    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, W3C 
Recommendation, December 2008, IBR proposed for Sections E205.1, 
E207.2, 405.1 Exception, 501.1 Exception 1, 504.2, 504.3, 504.4, and 
602.3.1.

C103 Definitions

    C103.1 Terms Defined in Referenced Standards. Terms defined in 
referenced standards and not defined in C103.4 shall have the 
meaning as defined in the referenced standards.
    C103.2 Undefined Terms. Any term not defined in C103.4 or in 
referenced standards shall be given its ordinarily accepted meaning 
in the sense that the context implies.
    C103.3 Interchangeability. Words, terms, and phrases used in the 
singular include the plural and those used in the plural include the 
singular.
    C103.4 Defined Terms. For the purpose of the 255 Guidelines, the 
terms defined in C103.4 have the indicated meaning.
    255 Guidelines. The guidelines for telecommunications equipment 
and customer premises equipment covered by Section 255 of the 
Communications Act as set forth in 255 Chapters 1 and 2 (36 CFR part 
1194, Appendix B), and Chapters 3 through 6 (36 CFR part 1193, 
Appendix C).
    Application. Software designed to perform, or to help the user 
perform, a specific task or tasks.
    Assistive Technology (AT). Any item, piece of equipment, or 
product system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or 
customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve 
functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.
    Audio Description. Narration added to the soundtrack to describe 
important visual details that cannot be understood from the main 
soundtrack alone. Audio description is a means to inform individuals 
who are blind or who have low vision about visual content essential 
for comprehension. Audio description of video provides information 
about actions, characters, scene changes, on-screen text, and other 
visual content. Audio description supplements the regular audio 
track of a program. Audio description is usually added during 
existing pauses in dialogue. Audio description is also called 
``video description'' and ``descriptive narration.''
    Authoring Tool. Any software, or collection of software 
components, that can be used by authors, alone or collaboratively, 
to create or modify content for use by others, including other 
authors.
    Closed Functionality. Characteristics that limit functionality 
or prevent a user from attaching or installing assistive technology. 
Examples of ICT with closed functionality are self-service machines, 
information kiosks, set-top boxes, fax machines, calculators, and 
computers that are locked down so that users may not adjust settings 
due to a policy such as Desktop Core Configuration.
    Content. Electronic information and data, as well as the 
encoding that defines its structure, presentation, and interactions.
    Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). Equipment used on the 
premises of a person (other than a carrier) to originate, route, or 
terminate telecommunications or interconnected VoIP service. 
Examples of CPE are telephones, routers, switches, residential 
gateways, set-top boxes, fixed mobile convergence products, home 
networking adaptors and Internet access gateways which enable 
consumers to access communications service providers' services and 
distribute them around their house via a Local Access Network (LAN).
    Hardware. A tangible device, equipment, or physical component of 
ICT, such as telephones, computers, multifunction copy machines, and 
keyboards.
    Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Information 
technology and other equipment, systems, technologies, or processes, 
for which the principal function is the creation, manipulation, 
storage, display, receipt, or transmission of electronic data and 
information, as well as any associated content. Examples of ICT 
include, but are not limited to: Computers and peripheral equipment; 
information kiosks and transaction machines; telecommunications 
equipment; customer premises equipment; multifunction office 
machines; software; applications; Web sites; videos; and, electronic 
documents.
    Keyboard. A set of systematically arranged alphanumeric keys or 
a control that generates alphanumeric input by which a machine or 
device is operated. A keyboard includes tactilely discernible keys 
used in conjunction with the alphanumeric keys if their function 
maps to keys on the keyboard interfaces.
    Label. Text, or a component with a text alternative, that is 
presented to a user to identify content. A label is presented to all 
users, whereas a name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive 
technology. In many cases, the name and the label are the same.
    Menu. A set of selectable options.
    Name. Text by which software can identify a component to the 
user. A name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology, 
whereas a label is presented to all users. In many cases, the label 
and the name are the same. Name is unrelated to the name attribute 
in HTML.
    Operable Part. A component of ICT used to activate, deactivate, 
or adjust the ICT.
    Platform Accessibility Services. Services provided by a platform 
enabling interoperability with assistive technology. Examples are 
Application Programming Interfaces (API) and the Document Object 
Model (DOM).
    Platform Software. Software that interacts with hardware, or 
provides services for other software. Platform software may run or 
host other software, and may isolate them from underlying software 
or hardware layers. A single software component may have both 
platform and non-platform aspects. Examples of platforms are: 
Desktop operating systems; embedded operating systems, including 
mobile systems; Web browsers; plug-ins to Web browsers that render a 
particular media or format; and sets of components that allow other 
applications to execute, such as applications which support macros 
or scripting.
    Programmatically Determinable. Ability to be determined by 
software from author-supplied data that is provided in a way that 
different user agents, including assistive technologies, can extract 
and present the information to users in different modalities.
    Real-Time Text (RTT). Communications using the transmission of 
text by which

[[Page 10944]]

characters are transmitted by a terminal as they are typed. Real-
time text is used for conversational purposes. Real-time text also 
may be used in voicemail, interactive voice response systems, and 
other similar applications.
    Software. Programs, procedures, rules and related data and 
documentation that direct the use and operation of ICT and instruct 
it to perform a given task or function.
    Specialized Customer Premises Equipment. Assistive technology 
used by individuals with disabilities to originate, route, or 
terminate telecommunications or interconnected VoIP service. 
Examples are TTYs and amplified telephones.
    Telecommunications. The signal transmission between or among 
points specified by the user of information and of the user's 
choosing without change in the form or content of the information as 
sent and received.
    Telecommunications Equipment. Equipment, other than customer 
premises equipment, used by a carrier to provide telecommunications 
services, and includes software integral to such equipment 
(including upgrades).
    Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturer. A manufacturer of ICT 
that is telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment.
    Terminal. Device or software with which the end user directly 
interacts and that provides the user interface. For some systems, 
the software that provides the user interface may reside on more 
than one device such as a telephone and a server.
    Text. A sequence of characters that can be programmatically 
determined and that expresses something in human language.
    TTY. Equipment that enables interactive text based 
communications through the transmission of frequency-shift-keying 
audio tones across the public switched telephone network. TTYs 
include devices for real-time text communications and voice and text 
intermixed communications. Examples of intermixed communications are 
voice carry over and hearing carry over. One example of a TTY is a 
computer with TTY emulating software and modem.
    Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). A technology that provides 
real-time voice communications. VoIP requires a broadband connection 
from the user's location and customer premises equipment compatible 
with Internet protocol.

255 Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements

C201 Application

    C201.1 Scope. Manufacturers of telecommunications equipment 
shall comply with the requirements in the 255 Guidelines applicable 
to such equipment when newly released, upgraded, or substantially 
changed from an earlier version or model. Manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment shall also conform to the requirements 
in the 255 Guidelines for software, content, and support 
documentation and services where associated with the use of such 
equipment.
    C201.2 Readily Achievable. When a telecommunications equipment 
manufacturer determines that conformance to one or more requirements 
in Chapter 4 (Hardware) or Chapter 5 (Software) would not be readily 
achievable, it shall ensure that the equipment or software is 
compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer 
premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to 
the extent readily achievable.
    C201.3 Access to Functionality. Telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers shall ensure that ICT is accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities by providing direct access to all 
functionality of ICT. Where telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers can demonstrate that it is not readily achievable for 
ICT to provide direct access to all functionality, ICT shall support 
the use of assistive technology and specialized customer premises 
equipment where readily achievable.
    C201.4 Prohibited Reduction of Accessibility, Usability, and 
Compatibility. No change shall be undertaken that decreases, or has 
the effect of decreasing, the net accessibility, usability, or 
compatibility of ICT.
    EXCEPTION: Discontinuation of a product shall not be prohibited.
    C201.5 Design, Development, and Fabrication. Telecommunications 
equipment manufacturers shall evaluate the accessibility, usability, 
and interoperability of ICT during its product design, development, 
and fabrication.

C202 Functional Performance Criteria

    C202.1 General. Where the requirements in Chapters 4 and 5 do 
not address one or more features of ICT, the features not addressed 
shall conform to the Functional Performance Criteria specified in 
Chapter 3.

C203 Electronic Content

    C203.1 General. Regardless of the medium or the method of 
transmission and storage, electronic content integral to the use of 
ICT shall conform to Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and 
Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages in WCAG 2.0 
(incorporated by reference in Chapter 1) or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1) 
(incorporated by reference in Chapter 1).

C204 Hardware

    C204.1 General. Where components of ICT are hardware, and 
transmit information or have a user interface, those components 
shall conform to applicable requirements in Chapter 4.
    EXCEPTION: Components of ICT shall not be required to conform to 
402, 407.11, 407.12, 408, and 409.

C205 Software

    C205.1 General. Where components of ICT are software and 
transmit information or have a user interface, those components 
shall conform to C205 and applicable requirements in Chapter 5.
    C205.2 WCAG Conformance. User interface components and content 
of platforms and applications shall conform to Level A and Level AA 
Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified for Web 
pages in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1).

C206 Support Documentation and Services

    C206.1 General. Where support documentation and services are 
provided for ICT, telecommunications equipment manufacturers shall 
provide such documentation and services in conformance with Chapter 
6, upon request and at no additional charge.

Appendix C to Part 1194--Functional Performance Criteria and Technical 
Requirements

Chapter 3: Functional Performance Criteria

301 General

    301.1 Scope. The requirements of Chapter 3 shall apply to ICT 
where required by 508 Chapter 2 (Scoping Requirements), 255 Chapter 
2 (Scoping Requirements), and where otherwise referenced in any 
other chapter of the 508 Standards or 255 Guidelines.

302 Functional Performance Criteria

    302.1 Without Vision. Where a visual mode of operation is 
provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of operation that does 
not require user vision.
    302.2 With Limited Vision. Where a visual mode of operation is 
provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of operation that 
magnifies, one mode that reduces the field of vision required, and 
one mode that allows user control of contrast.
    302.3 Without Perception of Color. Where a visual mode of 
operation is provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of 
operation that does not require user perception of color.
    302.4 Without Hearing. Where an auditory mode of operation is 
provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of operation that does 
not require user hearing.
    302.5 With Limited Hearing. Where an auditory mode of operation 
is provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of operation that 
improves clarity, one mode that reduces background noise, and one 
mode that allows user control of volume.
    302.6 Without Speech. Where a spoken mode of operation is 
provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of operation that does 
not require user speech.
    302.7 With Limited Manipulation. Where a manual mode of 
operation is provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of 
operation that does not require fine motor control or operation of 
more than one control at the same time.
    302.8 With Limited Reach and Strength. Where a manual mode of 
operation is provided, ICT shall provide at least one mode of 
operation that is operable with limited reach and limited strength.

Chapter 4: Hardware

401 General

    401.1 Scope. The requirements of Chapter 4 shall apply to ICT 
that is hardware where required by 508 Chapter 2 (Scoping 
Requirements), 255 Chapter 2 (Scoping Requirements), and where 
otherwise referenced in any other chapter of the 508 Standards or 
255 Guidelines.
    EXCEPTION: Hardware that is assistive technology shall not be 
required to conform to the requirements of this chapter.

[[Page 10945]]

402 Closed Functionality

    402.1 General. Except for personal headsets and other audio 
couplers, closed functionality of ICT shall be operable without 
requiring the user to attach or install assistive technology and 
shall conform to 402.
    402.2 Speech-Output Enabled. ICT with a display screen shall be 
speech-output enabled. Operating instructions and orientation, 
visible transaction prompts, user input verification, error 
messages, and all displayed information for full use shall be 
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision 
impairments. Speech output shall be delivered through a mechanism 
that is readily available to all users, including, but not limited 
to, an industry standard connector or a telephone handset. Speech 
shall be recorded or digitized human, or synthesized. Speech output 
shall be coordinated with information displayed on the screen.
    EXCEPTIONS: 1. Audible tones shall be permitted instead of 
speech where the content of user input is not displayed as entered 
for security purposes, including, but not limited to, asterisks 
representing personal identification numbers. 2. Advertisements and 
other similar information shall not be required to be audible unless 
conveying information necessary for the transaction being conducted.
    402.2.1 User Control. Speech output for any single function 
shall be automatically interrupted when a transaction is selected. 
Speech output shall be capable of being repeated and paused.
    402.2.2 Braille Instructions. Where speech output is required by 
402.2, braille instructions for initiating the speech mode of 
operation shall be provided. Braille shall conform to 36 CFR part 
1191, Appendix D, Section 703.3.
    402.3 Volume. ICT that delivers sound, including speech required 
by 402.2, shall provide volume control and output amplification 
conforming to 402.3.
    EXCEPTION: ICT conforming to 410.2 shall not be required to 
conform to 402.3.
    402.3.1 Private Listening. Where ICT provides private listening, 
it shall provide a mode of operation for controlling the volume and 
a means for effective magnetic wireless coupling to hearing 
technologies.
    402.3.2 Non-private Listening. Where ICT provides non-private 
listening, incremental volume control shall be provided with output 
amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB. Where the ambient 
noise level of the environment is above 45 dB, a volume gain of at 
least 20 dB above the ambient level shall be user selectable. A 
function shall be provided to automatically reset the volume to the 
default level after every use.
    402.4 Characters. At least one mode of characters displayed on 
the screen shall be in a sans serif font. Where ICT does not provide 
a screen enlargement feature, characters shall be \3/16\ inch (4.8 
mm) high minimum based on the uppercase letter ``I''. Characters 
shall contrast with their background with either light characters on 
a dark background or dark characters on a light background.

403 Biometrics

    403.1 General. Biometrics shall not be the only means for user 
identification or control.
    EXCEPTION: Where at least two biometric options that use 
different biological characteristics are provided, ICT shall be 
permitted to use biometrics as the only means for user 
identification or control.

404 Preservation of Information Provided for Accessibility

    404.1 General. ICT that transmits or converts information or 
communication shall not remove non-proprietary information provided 
for accessibility or shall restore it upon delivery.

405 Flashing

    405.1 General. Where ICT emits lights in flashes, there shall be 
no more than three flashes in any one-second period.
    EXCEPTION: Flashes that do not exceed the general flash and red 
flash thresholds defined in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in 
Chapter 1) are not required to conform to 405.

406 Standard Connections

    406.1 General. Where data connections used for input and output 
are provided, at least one of each type of connection shall conform 
to industry standard non-proprietary formats.

407 Operable Parts

    407.1 General. Where provided, operable parts of ICT shall 
conform to 407.
    407.2 Contrast. Where provided, keys and controls shall contrast 
visually from background surfaces. Characters and symbols shall 
contrast visually from background surfaces with either light 
characters or symbols on a dark background or dark characters or 
symbols on a light background.
    407.3 Tactilely Discernible. At least one tactilely discernible 
input control shall be provided for each function and shall conform 
to 407.3.
    EXCEPTION: Devices for personal use with input controls that are 
audibly discernable without activation and operable by touch shall 
not be required to be tactilely discernible.
    407.3.1 Identification. Input controls shall be tactilely 
discernible without activation and operable by touch. Where 
provided, key surfaces outside active areas of the display screen 
shall be raised above surrounding surfaces.
    407.3.2 Alphabetic Keys. Where provided, individual alphabetic 
keys shall be arranged in a QWERTY keyboard layout and the ``F'' and 
``J'' keys shall be tactilely distinct from the other keys. Where 
the ICT provides an alphabetic overlay on numeric keys, the 
relationships between letters and digits shall conform to ITU-T 
Recommendation E.161 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1).
    407.3.3 Numeric Keys. Where provided, numeric keys shall be 
arranged in a 12-key ascending or descending keypad layout. The 
number five key shall be tactilely distinct from the other keys.
    407.4 Key Repeat. Where a keyboard with key repeat is provided, 
the delay before the key repeat feature is activated shall be fixed 
at, or adjustable to, 2 seconds minimum.
    407.5 Timed Response. Where a timed response is required, the 
user shall be alerted visually, as well as by touch or sound, and 
shall be given the opportunity to indicate that more time is needed.
    407.6 Status Indicators. Status indicators, including all 
locking or toggle controls or keys (e.g., Caps Lock and Num Lock 
keys), shall be discernible visually and by touch or sound.
    407.7 Color. Color coding shall not be used as the only means of 
conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, 
or distinguishing a visual element.
    407.8 Audio Signaling. Audio signaling shall not be used as the 
only means of conveying information, indicating an action, or 
prompting a response.
    407.9 Operation. At least one mode of operation shall be 
operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping, 
pinching, or twisting of the wrist. The force required to activate 
operable parts shall be 5 pounds (22.2 N) maximum.
    407.10 Privacy. The same degree of privacy of input and output 
shall be provided to all individuals. When speech output required by 
402.2 is enabled, the screen shall not blank automatically.
    407.11 Keys, Tickets, and Fare Cards. Where keys, tickets, or 
fare cards are provided, keys, tickets, and fare cards shall have an 
orientation that is tactilely discernible if orientation is 
important to further use of the key, ticket, or fare card.
    407.12 Reach Height. At least one of each type of operable part 
of stationary ICT shall be at a height conforming to 407.12.2 or 
407.12.3 according to its position established in 407.12.1 for a 
side reach or a forward reach.
    407.12.1 Vertical Reference Plane. Operable parts shall be 
positioned for a side reach or a forward reach determined with 
respect to a vertical reference plane. The vertical reference plane 
shall be located in conformance to 407.12.2 or 407.12.3.
    407.12.1.1 Vertical Plane for Side Reach. Where a side reach is 
provided, the vertical reference plane shall be 48 inches (1220 mm) 
long minimum.
    407.12.1.2 Vertical Plane for Forward Reach. Where a forward 
reach is provided, the vertical reference plane shall be 30 inches 
(760 mm) long minimum.
    407.12.2 Side Reach. Operable parts of ICT providing a side 
reach shall conform to 407.12.2.1 or 407.12.2.2. The vertical 
reference plane shall be centered on the operable part and placed at 
the leading edge of the maximum protrusion of the ICT within the 
length of the vertical reference plane. Where a side reach requires 
a reach over a portion of the ICT, the height of that portion of the 
ICT shall be 34 inches (865 mm) maximum.
    407.12.2.1 Unobstructed Side Reach. Where the operable part is 
located 10 inches (255 mm) or less beyond the vertical reference 
plane, the operable part shall be 48 inches (1220 mm) high maximum 
and 15 inches (380 mm) high minimum above the floor.
    407.12.2.2 Obstructed Side Reach. Where the operable part is 
located more than 10 inches (255 mm), but not more than 24 inches 
(610 mm), beyond the vertical

[[Page 10946]]

reference plane, the height of the operable part shall be 46 inches 
(1170 mm) high maximum and 15 inches (380 mm) high minimum above the 
floor. The operable part shall not be located more than 24 inches 
(610 mm) beyond the vertical reference plane.
    407.12.3 Forward Reach. Operable parts of ICT providing a 
forward reach shall conform to 407.12.3.1 or 407.12.3.2. The 
vertical reference plane shall be centered, and intersect with, the 
operable part. Where a forward reach allows a reach over a portion 
of the ICT, the height of that portion of the ICT shall be 34 inches 
(865 mm) maximum.
    407.12.3.1 Unobstructed Forward Reach. Where the operable part 
is located at the leading edge of the maximum protrusion within the 
length of the vertical reference plane of the ICT, the operable part 
shall be 48 inches (1220 mm) high maximum and 15 inches (380 mm) 
high minimum above the floor.
    407.12.3.2 Obstructed Forward Reach. Where the operable part is 
located beyond the leading edge of the maximum protrusion within the 
length of the vertical reference plane, the operable part shall 
conform to 407.12.3.2. The maximum allowable forward reach to an 
operable part shall be 25 inches (635 mm).
    407.12.3.2.1 Height. The height of the operable part shall 
conform to Table 407.12.3.2.1.

                Table 407.12.3.2.1--Operable Part Height
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Reach depth                     Operable part height
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 20 inches (510 mm)..............  48 inches (1220 mm) maximum
20 inches (510 mm) to 25 inches (635 mm)..  44 inches (1120 mm) maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    407.12.3.2.2 Knee and Toe Space. Knee and toe space under ICT 
shall be 27 inches (685 mm) high minimum, 25 inches (635 mm) deep 
maximum, and 30 inches (760 mm) wide minimum and shall be clear of 
obstructions.
    EXCEPTIONS: 1. Toe space shall be permitted to provide a clear 
height of 9 inches (230 mm) minimum above the floor and a clear 
depth of 6 inches (150 mm) maximum from the vertical reference plane 
toward the leading edge of the ICT. 2. At a depth of 6 inches (150 
mm) maximum from the vertical reference plane toward the leading 
edge of the ICT, space between 9 inches (230 mm) and 27 inches (685 
mm) minimum above the floor shall be permitted to reduce at a rate 
of 1 inch (25 mm) in depth for every 6 inches (150 mm) in height.

408 Display Screens

    408.1 General. Where stationary ICT provides one or more display 
screens, at least one of each type of display screen shall be 
visible from a point located 40 inches (1015 mm) above the floor 
space where the display screen is viewed.

409 Transactional Outputs

    409.1 General. Where transactional outputs are provided by ICT 
with speech output, the speech output shall audibly provide all 
information necessary to complete or verify a transaction.
    EXCEPTIONS: 1. Machine location, date and time of transaction, 
customer account number, and the machine identifier shall not be 
required to be audible. 2. Duplicative information shall not be 
required to be repeated where such information has already been 
presented audibly. 3. Itineraries, maps, checks, and other visual 
images shall not be required to be audible.

410 ICT With Two-Way Voice Communication

    410.1 General. ICT that provides two-way voice communication 
shall conform to 410.
    410.2 Volume Gain. Volume gain shall be provided and shall 
conform to 47 CFR 68.317.
    410.3 Magnetic Coupling. Where ICT delivers output by an audio 
transducer that is typically held up to the ear, ICT shall provide a 
means for effective magnetic wireless coupling to hearing 
technologies, such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, and assistive 
listening devices.
    410.4 Minimize Interference. ICT shall reduce interference with 
hearing technologies to the lowest possible level and shall conform 
to 410.4.
    410.4.1 Wireless Handsets. ICT in the form of wireless handsets 
shall conform to ANSI/IEEE C63.19-2011 (incorporated by reference in 
Chapter 1).
    410.4.2 Digital Wireline. ICT in the form of digital wireline 
devices shall conform to TIA 1083 (incorporated by reference in 
Chapter 1).
    410.5 Digital Encoding of Speech. ICT shall transmit and receive 
speech that is digitally encoded in the manner specified by ITU-T 
Recommendation G.722 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1) for 
encoding and storing audio information.
    EXCEPTION: Where ICT is a closed system, conformance to 
standards other than ITU-T Recommendation G.722 shall be permitted 
where equivalent or better acoustic performance is provided and 
where conversion to ITU-T Recommendation G.722 at the borders of the 
closed system is supported.
    410.6 Real-Time Text Functionality. Where ICT provides real-time 
voice communication, ICT shall support real-time text functionality 
and shall conform to 410.6.
    410.6.1 Display of Real-Time Text. Where provided, multi-line 
displays shall be compatible with real-time text systems used on the 
network.
    410.6.2 Text Generation. Where provided, features capable of 
text generation shall be compatible with real-time text systems used 
on the network.
    410.6.3 Interoperability. Where ICT interoperates outside of a 
closed system of which it is a part, or where ICT connects to other 
systems, ICT shall conform to 410.6.3.1 or 410.6.3.2.
    410.6.3.1 PSTN. Where ICT interoperates with the Public Switched 
Telephone Network (PSTN), real-time text shall conform to TIA 825-A 
(incorporated by reference in Chapter 1).
    410.6.3.2 VoIP Using SIP. Where ICT interoperates with Voice 
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) products or systems using Session 
Initiation Protocol (SIP), real-time text shall conform to RFC 4103 
(incorporated by reference in Chapter 1).
    410.6.4 Voice Mail, Auto-Attendant, and IVR Compatibility. Where 
provided, voice mail, auto-attendant, and interactive voice response 
telecommunications systems shall be compatible with real-time text 
that conforms to 410.6.3.
    410.6.5 HCO and VCO Support. Real-time voice communication shall 
permit users to intermix speech with the use of real-time text and 
shall support modes that are compatible with Hearing Carry Over 
(HCO) and Voice Carry Over (VCO).
    410.7 Caller ID. Where provided, caller identification and 
similar telecommunications functions shall be visible and audible.
    410.8 Video Communication. Where ICT provides real-time video 
functionality, the quality of the video shall be sufficient to 
support communication using sign language.

411 Closed Caption Processing Technologies

    411.1 General. Where ICT displays or processes video with 
synchronized audio, ICT shall conform to 411.1.1 or 411.1.2.
    411.1.1 Decoding of Closed Captions. Players and displays shall 
decode closed caption data and support display of captions.
    411.1.2 Pass-Through of Closed Caption Data. Cabling and 
ancillary equipment shall pass through caption data.

412 Audio Description Processing Technology

    412.1 General. Where ICT displays or processes video with 
synchronized audio, ICT shall provide a mode of operation that plays 
associated audio description.
    412.1.1 Digital Television Tuners. Where audio description is 
played through digital television tuners, the tuners shall conform 
to ATSC A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5 (2010) 
(incorporated by reference in Chapter 1). Digital television tuners 
shall provide processing of audio description when encoded as a 
Visually Impaired (VI) associated audio service that is provided as 
a complete program mix containing audio description according to the 
ATSC A/53 standard.

413 User Controls for Captions and Audio Description

    413.1 General. Where ICT displays video with synchronized audio, 
ICT shall provide user controls for closed captions and audio 
description conforming to 413.1.
    EXCEPTION: Devices for personal use where closed captions and 
audio description can be enabled through system-wide platform 
settings shall not be required to conform to 413.1.
    413.1.1 Caption Controls. ICT shall provide user controls for 
the selection of captions in at least one location that is 
comparable in prominence to the location of the user controls for 
volume.
    413.1.2 Audio Description Controls. ICT shall provide user 
controls for the selection of audio description in at least one 
location that is comparable in prominence to the

[[Page 10947]]

location of the user controls for program selection.

Chapter 5: Software

501 General

    501.1 Scope. The requirements of Chapter 5 shall apply to ICT 
software and applications where required by 508 Chapter 2 (Scoping 
Requirements), 255 Chapter 2 (Scoping Requirements), and where 
otherwise referenced in any other chapter of the 508 Standards or 
255 Guidelines.
    EXCEPTIONS: 1. Web applications that conform to all Level A and 
Level AA Success Criteria and all Conformance Requirements in WCAG 
2.0 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1) shall not be required 
to conform to 502 and 503. 2. Software that is assistive technology 
and that supports the accessibility services of the platform shall 
not be required to conform to the requirements in this chapter.

502 Interoperability With Assistive Technology

    502.1 General. Platforms, software tools provided by the 
platform developer, and applications, shall conform to 502.
    EXCEPTION: Platforms and applications that have closed 
functionality and that conform to 402 shall not be required to 
conform to 502.
    502.2 Documented Accessibility Features. Platforms and 
applications shall conform to 502.2.
    502.2.1 User Control of Accessibility Features. Platforms shall 
provide user control over platform features that are defined in the 
platform documentation as accessibility features.
    502.2.2 No Disruption of Accessibility Features. Applications 
shall not disrupt platform features that are defined in the platform 
documentation as accessibility features.
    502.3 Accessibility Services. Platforms and software tools 
provided by the platform developer shall provide a documented set of 
accessibility services that support applications running on the 
platform to interoperate with assistive technology and shall conform 
to 502.3. Applications that are also platforms shall expose the 
underlying platform accessibility services or implement other 
documented accessibility services.
    502.3.1 Object Information. The object role, state(s), boundary, 
name, and description shall be programmatically determinable. States 
that can be set by the user shall be capable of being set 
programmatically, including through assistive technology.
    502.3.2 Row, Column, and Headers. If an object is in a table, 
the occupied rows and columns, and any headers associated with those 
rows or columns, shall be programmatically determinable.
    502.3.3 Values. Any current value(s), and any set or range of 
allowable values associated with an object, shall be 
programmatically determinable. Values that can be set by the user 
shall be capable of being set programmatically, including through 
assistive technology.
    502.3.4 Label Relationships. Any relationship that a component 
has as a label for another component, or of being labeled by another 
component, shall be programmatically determinable.
    502.3.5 Hierarchical Relationships. Any hierarchical (parent-
child) relationship that a component has as a container for, or 
being contained by, another component shall be programmatically 
determinable.
    502.3.6 Text. The content of text objects, text attributes, and 
the boundary of text rendered to the screen, shall be 
programmatically determinable. Text that can be set by the user 
shall be capable of being set programmatically, including through 
assistive technology.
    502.3.7 Actions. A list of all actions that can be executed on 
an object shall be programmatically determinable. Applications shall 
allow assistive technology to programmatically execute available 
actions on objects.
    502.3.8 Focus Cursor. Applications shall expose information and 
mechanisms necessary to track and modify focus, text insertion 
point, and selection attributes of user interface components.
    502.3.9 Event Notification. Notification of events relevant to 
user interactions, including but not limited to, changes in the 
component's state(s), value, name, description, or boundary, shall 
be available to assistive technology.
    502.4 Platform Accessibility Features. Platforms and platform 
software shall conform to the requirements in ANSI/HFES 200.2, Human 
Factors Engineering of Software User Interfaces--Part 2: 
Accessibility (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1) listed below:
    1. Section 9.3.3 Enable sequential entry of multiple (chorded) 
keystrokes.
    2. Section 9.3.4 Provide adjustment of delay before key 
acceptance.
    3. Section 9.3.5 Provide adjustment of same-key double-strike 
acceptance.
    4. Section 10.6.7 Allow users to choose visual alternative for 
audio output.
    5. Section 10.6.8 Synchronize audio equivalents for visual 
events.
    6. Section 10.6.9 Provide speech output services.
    7. Section 10.7.1 Display any captions provided.

503 Applications

    503.1 General. Applications shall conform to 503.
    503.2 User Preferences. Applications shall permit user 
preferences from platform settings for color, contrast, font type, 
font size, and focus cursor.
    EXCEPTION: Applications that are designed to be isolated from 
their underlying platforms, including Web applications, shall not be 
required to conform to 503.2.
    503.3 Alternative User Interfaces. Where an application provides 
an alternative user interface that functions as assistive 
technology, the application shall use platform and other industry 
standard accessibility services.
    503.4 User Controls for Captions and Audio Description. Where 
ICT displays video with synchronized audio, ICT shall provide user 
controls for closed captions and audio description conforming to 
503.4.
    503.4.1 Caption Controls. Where user controls are provided for 
volume adjustment, ICT shall provide user controls for the selection 
of captions at the same menu level as the user controls for volume 
or program selection.
    503.4.2 Audio Description Controls. Where user controls are 
provided for program selection, ICT shall provide user controls for 
the selection of audio description at the same menu level as the 
user controls for volume or program selection.

504 Authoring Tools

    504.1 General. Where an application is an authoring tool, the 
application shall conform to 504 to the extent that information 
required for accessibility is supported by the destination format.
    504.2 Content Creation or Editing. Authoring tools shall provide 
a mode of operation to create or edit content that conforms to all 
Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and all Conformance 
Requirements in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1) 
for all features and formats supported by the authoring tool. 
Authoring tools shall permit authors the option of overriding 
information required for accessibility.
    EXCEPTION: Authoring tools shall not be required to conform to 
504.2 when used to directly edit plain text source code.
    504.2.1 Preservation of Information Provided for Accessibility 
in Format Conversion. Authoring tools shall, when converting content 
from one format to another or saving content in multiple formats, 
preserve the information required for accessibility to the extent 
that the information is supported by the destination format.
    504.3 Prompts. Authoring tools shall provide a mode of operation 
that prompts authors to create content that conforms to all Level A 
and Level AA Success Criteria and all Conformance Requirements in 
WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in Chapter 1). Authoring tools 
shall provide the option for prompts during initial content creation 
or when the content is saved.
    504.4 Templates. Where templates are provided, templates 
allowing content creation that conforms to all Level A and Level AA 
Success Criteria and all Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 
(incorporated by reference in Chapter 1) shall be provided for a 
range of template uses.

Chapter 6: Support Documentation and Services

601 General

    601.1 Scope. The technical requirements in Chapter 6 shall apply 
to ICT support documentation and services where required by 508 
Chapter 2 (Scoping Requirements), 255 Chapter 2 (Scoping 
Requirements), and where otherwise referenced in any other chapter 
of the 508 Standards or 255 Guidelines.

602 Support Documentation

    602.1 General. Documentation that supports the use of ICT shall 
conform to 602.
    602.2 Accessibility and Compatibility Features. Documentation 
shall list and

[[Page 10948]]

explain how to use the accessibility and compatibility features 
required by Chapters 4 and 5. Documentation shall include 
accessibility features that are built-in and accessibility features 
that provide compatibility with assistive technology.
    602.3 Electronic Support Documentation. Documentation in 
electronic format, including Web-based self-service support, shall 
conform to all Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and all 
Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in 
Chapter 1), or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1) (incorporated by reference in 
Chapter 1).
    602.4 Alternate Formats for Non-electronic Support 
Documentation. Alternate formats usable by individuals who are blind 
or have low vision shall be provided upon request for support 
documentation in non-electronic formats.

603 Support Services

    603.1 General. ICT support services including, but not limited 
to, help desks, call centers, training services, and automated self-
service technical support, shall conform to 603.
    603.2 Information on Accessibility and Compatibility Features. 
ICT support services shall include information on the accessibility 
and compatibility features required by 602.2.
    603.3 Accommodation of Communication Needs. Support services 
shall be provided directly to the user or through a referral to a 
point of contact. Such ICT support services shall accommodate the 
communication needs of individuals with disabilities.

[FR Doc. 2015-03467 Filed 2-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P