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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10880 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 johnson@access-board.gov. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

The Regulations.gov ID for this docket is 

ATBCB–2015–0002. 

• Email: docket@access-board.gov. 

Include docket number ATBCB–2015– 

0002 in the subject line of the message. 

• Fax: 202–272–0081. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Office of Technical and Information 

Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street 

NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 

20004–1111. 

All comments, including any personal 

information provided, will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and be available 

for public viewing. 

The hearing locations are: 

1. San Diego, CA: Manchester Grand 

Hyatt Hotel (Mission Beach A & B, 3rd 

floor), One Market Place, San Diego, CA 

92101. 

2. Washington, DC: Access Board 

conference room, 1331 F Street NW., 

Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004. 

Witnesses can testify in person at the 

hearing in San Diego. Witnesses can 

testify in person or by telephone at the 

hearing in Washington, DC. Copies of 

the rule will not be available at the 

hearings. Call-in information and a 

communication access real-time 

translation (CART) web streaming link 

for the Washington, DC hearing will be 

posted on the Access Board’s Web site 

at http://www.access-board.gov/

ictrefresh. The hearings will be 

accessible to persons with disabilities. 

An assistive listening system, 

communication access real-time 

translation, and sign language 

interpreters will be provided. Persons 

attending the meetings are requested to 

refrain from using perfume, cologne, 

and other fragrances for the comfort of 

other participants (see www.access

board.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: 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-byproduct 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 publiclyavailable 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 selfenforcing; 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10882 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 realtime, 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 selfservice 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.accessboard.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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10883 

TABLE 1—ANNUALIZED VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS UNDER THE PROPOSED RULE, 2015–2024 

[In 2015 dollars] 

7% 

discount rate 

(in millions) 

3% 

discount rate 

(in millions) 

Monetized incremental benefits to federal agencies, members of the public with vision disabilities (under proposed 508 Standards) ............................................................................ $69.1 $67.5

Monetized incremental costs to federal agencies (under proposed 508 Standards) ............. $155.0 $146.8 

Monetized incremental costs to telecommunications equipment manufacturers (under proposed 255 Guidelines) ......................................................................................................... $10.6 $9.8 

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 globallyrecognized 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 realtime, 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-andstandards/communications-and-it/

about-the-telecommunications-actguidelines/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-thesection-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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10884 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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®), 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-bySection 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 nonWeb 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10886 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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, § 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 nonWeb 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10887 

1See, 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). 

2Pursuant to the Twenty-First Century 

Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 

2010, the FCC formed an Emergency Access 

Advisory Committee. In January 2012, the 

committee issued an ‘‘Emergency Access Advisory 

Committee (EAAC) Report and Recommendations.’’ 

In the report, the committee discussed a number of 

policy and technical recommendations. These 

recommendations cover both interim and future 

action in Emergency Communications (see http://

hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC312161A1.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. 

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-and-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. 

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

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10888 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 crossmanufacturer, 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 RTTrelated 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 realtime, 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 realtime 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!®Messenger 

and AOL Instant Messenger’s ‘‘RealTime 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 hardof-hearing employees with agencyprovided 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, nonRTT smartphones. 

Question 1. To realize the full 

potential benefits of the Section 508 

proposal to require RTT functionality 

wherever an ICT product provides realtime, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 (Sectionby-Section Analysis—Functional 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10890 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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: § 1194.3(c) 

(assistive technology at federal 

employees’ workstations); § 1194.3(d) 

(access to agency-owned ICT in public 

locations); and § 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 § 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 § 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 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 (Sectionby-Section—508 Standards: Application 

and Scoping—E202.3 and E202.4). 

9. Broadening of Documentation 

Requirement for Undue Burden 

Exception 

Section 1194.2(a)(2) of the existing 

508 Standards requires agencies to 

provide supporting documentation 

when determining that procurement of 

a compliant product would impose an 

undue burden. In the 2010 ANPRM, the 

Access Board proposed to broaden the 

undue burden documentation 

requirement so that it applied not only 

to ICT procurement, but also to other 

situations in which the 508 Standards 

applied—namely, the development, 

maintenance, or use of ICT. We did not 

receive any comments directly related to 

this approach, but did receive a few 

comments requesting clarification of the 

factors to be addressed in the 

determination of undue burden. In the 

2011 ANPRM, the Board retained the 

broadened scope of the undue burden 

documentation requirement, but 

clarified the factors to be applied in the 

undue burden calculus. We proposed 

that an agency would be required to 

consider the extent to which 

conformance would impose significant 

difficulty or expense in light of the 

resources available to the program or 

component for which the ICT is being 

procured, developed, maintained or 

used. Commenters generally supported 

this approach. 

In this NPRM, in proposed E202.5.2, 

the Board retains the undue burden 

documentation requirement as proposed 

in the 2011 ANPRM. This proposed 

provision is discussed in detail below in 

Section VI.B (Section-by-Section 

Analysis—508 Standards: Application 

and Scoping—E202.5.2). 

F. Harmonization With European 

Activities 

1. History 

In 2006, as noted above, the Access 

Board convened a Telecommunications 

and Electronic and Information 

Technology Advisory Committee to 

review and update the existing 

standards and guidelines. The Advisory 

Committee met from 2006 to 2008. Four 

of the forty-one members of the 

Advisory Committee were international 

stakeholders: the European 

Commission, Canada, Australia, and 

Japan. Among other issues, the Advisory 

Committee addressed harmonization of 

standards across markets and worked 

closely with standard-setting bodies in 

the United States and abroad. The 

Advisory Committee issued its final 

report in 2008. 

While the Access Board was in the 

process of updating its existing 508 

Standards and 255 Guidelines, a similar 

process began in Europe to create the 

first European set of ICT accessibility 

standards. As a result of the 2005 EU– 

US Economic Initiative, the Access 

Board and the European Commission 

began to work closely on the issue of 

Information and Communications 

Technology standards (See: http://

trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/

june/tradoc_127643.pdf). 

In 2005, the European Commission 

released Mandate 376, ‘‘Standardisation 

Mandate to CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI in 

Support of European Accessibility 

Requirements for Public Procurement of 

Products and Services in the ICT 

Domain’’ (http://www.ictsb.org/

Working_Groups/DATSCG/Documents/

M376.pdf). The Mandate required the 

three European standards 

organizations—European Committee for 

Standardization (CEN), European 

Committee for Electrotechnical 

Standardization (CENELEC) and 

European Telecommunications 

Standards Institute (ETSI)—to: 

inventory European and international 

accessibility requirements; provide an 

assessment of suitable testing and 

conformity schemes; and, develop a 

European accessibility standard for ICT 

products and services along with 

guidance and support material for 

public procurements including an 

online toolkit. 

In 2010, the Board released an 

ANPRM based on the 2008 TEITAC 

Report. We then published a second 

ANPRM in 2011 and took notice of the 

standardization work going on in 

Europe at the time, stating: 

[T]he Board is interested in harmonizing 

with standards efforts around the world in a 

timely way. Accordingly, the Board is now 

releasing this second Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (2011 ANPRM) to seek 

further public comment on specific questions 

and to harmonize with contemporaneous 

standardization efforts underway by the 

European Commission. 

In February 2013, the European 

Commission published its draft 

standard EN 301 549 V1.0.0 (2013–02), 

‘‘Accessibility requirements for public 

procurement of ICT products and 

services in Europe’’ (http://www.etsi.

org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/

301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v

010000c.pdf). The vote on the standard 

was completed in February 2014. The 

European Standard has been formally 

adopted by all three European standards 

organizations—CEN, CENELEC, and 

ETSI. The standards are now available 

to the target audience, government 

officials, who may use the standards as 

technical specifications or award 

criteria in public procurements of ICT 

products and services. The standard 

harmonizes and facilitates the public 

procurement of accessible ICT products 

and services within Europe. More 

information is available at: http://www.

mandate376.eu/ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10892 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Differences ICT NPRM (2014) EN 301 549 V1.1.1 (2014–02) 

Number of chapters. Note: EN 301 549 breaks 

out several sections as separate chapters 

which are combined in the ICT NPRM.

6 .......................................................................

Chapter 1—Application and Administration .....

...........................................................................

Chapter 2—Scoping 

Requirements ...................................................

Chapter 3—Functional Performance Criteria ...

13. 

Chapter 2—References. 

Chapter 3—Definitions and Abbreviations. 

Chapter 1—Scope. 

Chapter 10—Documents. 

Chapter 4—Functional Performance Criteria. 

Chapter 4—Hardware ...................................... Chapter 5—Generic 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—Software ........................................ Chapter 9—Web content. 

........................................................................... Chapter 11—Non-Web software. 

Chapter 6—Support Documentation and Services.Chapter 12—Documentation and support 

services. 

Unique chapters ................................................. No comparable chapter .................................... 13—Relay and Emergency Services. 

• Incorporated by reference (Sections E207.2 

and C205.2).

Annex A—Copy of WCAG 2.0. 

• Similar comparisons are found in the 

TEITAC Report.

Annex B—Charts showing relationships between requirements and functional performance criteria. 

• Not within the scope of Section 508 or Section 255; Section 508 compliance is determined by each federal agency.Annex C—Determination of Compliance. 

• Not within the scope of Section 508 or Section 255.

• Most similar to ‘‘303 Changes in Level’’ 

from the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

Section 8.3.2 Clear floor space. 

Section 8.3.2.1 Change in level. 

Section 8.3.2.2 Operating area. 

Differing treatment of similar concepts .............. Section 410.6 Real-Time Text Functionality 

Discussed more fully.

Section 6.3 Real-time text (RTT) functionality 

Discussed more fully. 

410.8 Video Communication Discussed 

more fully.

6.6 Video Communication Discussed more 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10893 

3An 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. 

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, § 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

The central principle underlying the 

accessibility requirement for publicfacing 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10894 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10895 

4OMB 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. 

eight formal authorized translations. In 

addition, the European Commission 

references WCAG 2.0 in EN 301 549. 

Second, incorporation by reference of 

WCAG 2.0 is consistent with section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note), as well as Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A–119, Federal Participation in 

the Development and Use of Voluntary 

Consensus Standards and in Conformity 

Assessment Activities (1998), which 

direct agencies to use voluntary 

consensus standards in lieu of 

government-unique standards except 

where inconsistent with law or 

otherwise impractical. See http://www.

whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119.4

Third, our approach is consistent with 

that being taken by another federal 

agency addressing a similar topic, 

namely the Department of 

Transportation’s recent final rule 

addressing, among other things, the 

accessibility of air carrier and ticket 

agent Web sites. See Nondiscrimination 

on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, 

78 FR 67882 (Nov. 12, 2013). 

Fourth, incorporation of WCAG 2.0 

directly serves the best interests of 

Americans with disabilities because it 

will help accelerate the spread of Web 

accessibility. The accessibility of the 

Web is essential to enable the 

participation of individuals with 

disabilities in today’s information 

society. 

2. Justification for Applying WCAG 2.0 

to Non-Web ICT 

The Access Board is proposing to 

require not only Web content to 

conform to the Level A and Level AA 

Success Criteria and Conformance 

Requirements in WCAG 2.0—an 

approach with which commenters to the 

2010 and 2011 ANPRMs unanimously 

agreed—but also software and non-Web 

documents. Several commenters to the 

2011 ANRPM were critical of this 

approach, and questioned the propriety 

of applying WCAG 2.0 to non-Web ICT. 

For the reasons noted below, the Board 

believes that applying WCAG 2.0 

outside the web browser environment 

not only ensures greater accessibility for 

persons with disabilities, but also 

minimizes the incremental burden on 

regulated entities by simplifying 

compliance through incorporation of a 

technologically-neutral consensus 

standard. 

Because WCAG 2.0 was written to be 

technology neutral, the language and 

phrasing of the Success Criteria can be 

applied to any technology found on the 

Web. Since most file types are found on 

the Web and much software is now 

Web-enabled, it is reasonable to utilize 

WCAG 2.0 to evaluate off-line 

documents and software interfaces with 

straightforward substitution of terms to 

address this new application. This 

approach has the potential to 

significantly simplify accessibility 

conformance and assessment. 

We find support for our approach 

from two other sources, namely the 

European Commission’s 

Standardization Mandate M 376 (M376) 

of March 2012 and the World Wide Web 

Consortium’s WCAG2ICT Task Force 

(‘‘Task Force’’). The W3C formed the 

Task Force in June 2012 in part to 

address reservations, expressed by some 

of the commenters to our 2011 ANPRM, 

about applying the criteria for accessible 

Web content to off-line documents and 

software. W3C invited participation 

from subject-matter experts from around 

the world, including representatives of 

federal agencies and others who had 

concerns with our approach. The Task 

Force’s final consensus report provides 

guidance concerning application of 

WCAG 2.0 to non-Web ICT, specifically 

non-Web documents and software. See 

W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, WSC 

Working Group Note—Guidance on 

Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web 

Information and Communications 

Technologies (Sept. 5, 2013), available 

at http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/. 

The Task Force analyzed each of the 

WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria to determine 

their suitability for application to nonWeb 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 nonWeb 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 nonWeb 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10896 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 plugins 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 selfcontained 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®) 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.accessboard.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 WebSpecific 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 § 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 § 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10897 

5 General Services Admin., Section 508 

Frequently Asked Questions 11 (Jan. 2014) 

(response to Question B.2.ii), available at http://

section508.gov/Section508_FAQs.. 

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 § 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 § 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,’’ textonly pages could not provide equivalent 

information or functionality for all but 

the most trivial Web content. The 

WCAG requirement for a conforming 

alternate version significantly exceeds 

the expectations for text only pages. 

Question 7. A Web page can conform 

to WCAG 2.0 either by satisfying all 

success criteria under one of the levels 

of conformance or by providing a 

conforming alternate version. WCAG 2.0 

always permits the use of conforming 

alternate versions. Are there any 

concerns that unrestricted use of 

conforming alternate versions of Web 

pages may lead to the unnecessary 

development of separate Web sites or 

unequal services for individuals with 

disabilities? Should the Board restrict 

the use of conforming alternate versions 

beyond the explicit requirements of 

WCAG 2.0? The Board requests that 

responses be provided in the context of 

the WCAG definition for conforming 

alternate versions (>http://w3.org/TR/

WCAG20/<#conforming-alternateversiondef). Commenters should review 

the guidance material as to why 

conforming alternate versions are 

permitted (>http://w3.org/TR/

UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/

conformance.html<#uc-whypermithead). 

We propose to delete § 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 § 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 § 1194.21) 

relating to software applications. 

Because WCAG 2.0 applies directly to 

applets, plug-ins, and Web applications, 

§ 1194.22(m) is redundant. 

Lastly, the Board proposes to delete 

§ 1194.24(e) of the existing 508 

Standards, which requires that the nonpermanent 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

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10898 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 endto-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 §§ 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 (§ 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 

§§ 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 § 1193.41(g)) and operations 

with limited cognitive skills (255 

Guidelines § 1193.41(i)). There is a 

technical provision in the existing 508 

Standards that corresponds to 255 

Guidelines § 1193.41(g) requiring the 

operation of ICT without timedependent controls (508 Standards 

§ 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 (§ 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-bySection Analysis—Application and 

Scoping). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10899 

Table 3 below provides a provisionby-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 § 1194.31 (in the middle 

column of the table) and existing 255 

Guidelines § 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 by reference) and 302 Existing 508 Standards Existing 255 Guidelines 

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.

§ 1194.31 (a) At least one mode of operation 

and information retrieval that does not require user vision shall be provided, or support for assistive technology used by people 

who or blind or visually impaired shall be 

provided.

§ 1193.41(a) Operable without vision. Provide 

at least one mode 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 that reduces the 

field of vision required, and one mode that 

allows user control of contrast.

§ 1194.31 (b) At least one mode of operation 

and information retrieval that does not require visual acuity greater than 20/70 shall 

be provided in audio and enlarged print output working together or independently, or 

support for assistive technology used by 

people who or visually impaired shall be 

provided.

§ 1193.41 (b) Operable with low vision and 

limited or no hearing. Provide at least one 

mode that permits operation by users with 

visual acuity between 20/70 and 20/200, 

without relying on audio output. 

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..

No criteria for users without perception of 

color.

§ 1193.41 (c) Operable with little or no color 

perception. Provide at least one mode that 

does not require user color perception. 

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.

§ 1194.31 (c) At least one mode of operation 

and information retrieval that does not require user hearing shall be provided, or 

support for assistive technology used by 

people who are deaf or hard of hearing 

shall be provided.

§ 1193.41 (d) Operable without hearing. Provide at least one mode that does not require user auditory perception. 

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.

§ 1194.31 (d) Where audio information is important for the use of a product, at least one 

mode of operation and information retrieval 

shall be provided in an enhanced auditory 

fashion, or support for assistive hearing devices shall be provided.

Operable with low vision and limited or no 

hearing. Provide at least one mode that permits operation by users with visual acuity 

between 20/70 and 20/200, without relying 

on audio output. 

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.

§ 1194.31 (e) At least one mode of operation 

and information retrieval that does not require user speech shall be provided, or support for assistive technology used by people 

with disabilities shall be provided.

§ 1193.41(h) Operable without speech. Provide at least one mode 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.

§ 1194.31 (f) At least one mode of operation 

and information retrieval that does not require fine motor control or simultaneous actions and that is operable with limited reach 

and strength shall be provided.

§ 1193.41 (e) Operable with limited manual 

dexterity. Provide at least one mode that 

does not require user fine motor control or 

simultaneous actions. 

302.8 With Limited Reach or 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.

........................................................................... § 1193.41 (f) Operable with limited reach and 

strength. Provide at least one mode that is 

operable 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 allowed to adjust the 

time limit before encountering it over a 

wide range that is at least ten times the 

length of the default setting; or 

§ 1194.22 (p) When a timed response is required, the user shall be alerted and given 

sufficient time to indicate more time is required.

§ 1193.41 (g) Operable without time-dependent controls. Provide at least one mode that 

does not require a response time. Alternatively, a response time may be required if 

it can be by-passed or adjusted by the user 

over a wide range. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10900 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF THE FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA IN THE NPRM AND EXISTING 508 STANDARDS AND

255 GUIDELINES—Continued 

Proposed Sections E207.2 and C205.2 (incorporating WCAG 2.0 by reference) and 302 Existing 508 Standards Existing 255 Guidelines 

• 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, scrolling: For any moving, blinking or scrolling information that 

(1) starts automatically, (2) lasts more 

than five seconds, and (3) is presented 

in parallel with other content, there is a 

mechanism for the user to pause, stop, 

or hide it unless the movement, blinking, 

or scrolling is part of an activity where it 

is essential; and 

§ 1194.22 (h) When animation is displayed, 

the information shall be displayable in at 

least one non-animated presentation mode 

at the option of the user.

§ 1193.43 (c) Access to moving text. Provide 

moving text in at least one static presentation mode at the option of the user. 

• 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 provisions ............................ § 1193.41 (i) 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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 realtime text protocols, including RFC 4103. 

It allows immediate conversational text 

through mobile phone text messaging 

and mainstream instant messaging. For 

more information on the benefits of 

XEP–0301, see http://www.realjabber.

org/xep/xep-0301.html. 

Yet despite its potential benefits, the 

Board cannot incorporate XEP–0301 

until it becomes a final standard. 

However, should the XEP–0301 

standard be finalized before publication 

of the final rule, the Board plans to 

incorporate it by reference as an 

alternative technology to support 

transmission of RTT when 

interoperating with VoIP products or 

systems using XMPP. RFC 4103 would, 

in any event, be retained for ICT 

interoperating with VoIP products or 

systems using SIP technology. 

Question 8. If the XEP–0301 standard 

is finalized, the Board is considering 

incorporating it by reference as an 

alternative standard for XMPP networks. 

We seek comment on the benefits, costs, 

and possible drawbacks associated with 

referencing this standard in addition to 

the RFC 4103 standard. 

The European standard, EN 301 549 

would allow the use of multiple 

standards for RTT. As discussed in 4.6, 

Harmonization with European Activities 

above, EN 301 549 lists several 

standards for RTT, as well as an 

unspecified ‘‘common specification’’ for 

RTT. The common specification must 

indicate a method for indicating loss of 

corruption of characters. The Board 

seeks comment on whether other 

standards should be incorporated by 

reference. The other standards are: 

• ITU–T v.18, Recommendation ITU– 

T V.18 (2000) ‘‘Operational and 

interworking requirements for DCEs 

operating in the text telephone mode’’ 

(see EN 301 549 6.3.3(a)). This 

Recommendation specifies features to 

be incorporated in data carrier 

equipment intended for use in, or 

communicating with, text telephones 

primarily used by people who are deaf 

or hard of hearing. 

• IP Multimedia Sub-System (IMS) 

protocols specified in TS 126 114, TS 

122 173, and TS 134 229 (see EN 301 

549 6.3.3(c)). ETSI TS 126 114, 

Universal Mobile Telecommunications 

System (which was referenced in the 

EAAC Report and Recommendation 

noted previously in Section IV.F.2) 

supports a ‘‘total communication’’ 

approach by establishing a minimum set 

of codecs and transport protocols that 

must be supported by all elements in 

the IMS system for video, real-time text, 

audio, and high definition (HD) audio. 

As noted previously, the Board decided 

not to require standards for video, 

audio, or HD audio in this proposed rule 

beyond the technical requirements set 

forth in proposed 410 (ICT with TwoWay 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 § 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 

§§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10902 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

6Advisory 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. 

7The ‘‘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. 

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

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). 

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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 §§ 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 § 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10904 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 crossreference within the standards to all 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 1194.1, as well as usage of the term 

throughout this NPRM. 

The term ‘‘audio description’’ is used 

in existing 508 Standards § 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 

§§ 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 § 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 § 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: 

§§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 1194.3(b), 

and the Board’s approach is discussed 

in greater detail above in Section IV.E.8 

(Rulemaking History—2010 and 2011 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10907 

8 Department of Justice, Section 508 Report to the 

President and Congress: Accessibility of Federal 

Electronic and Information Technology (Sept. 

2012), available at: http://www.ada.gov/508/508_

Report.htm. 

ANPRMs: Significant Issues—Revisions 

to Exceptions under 508 Standards). 

E202.4 Functions Located in 

Maintenance or Monitoring Spaces 

This section proposes to revise 

§ 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 

§§ 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 

§ 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 § 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

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 § 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 § 1194.2(b). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10908 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 publicfacing 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 publicfacing 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 agencysponsored 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 nonpublic 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 

§ 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: §§ 1193.41(i) and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10910 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 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. (Sectionby-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 §§ 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-bySection 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 nonweb 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 Sectionby-Section Analysis of the proposed 508 

Standards. See Section VI.B (Section-bySection 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 crossreference 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 

§ 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,’’ ‘‘realtime 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. (Sectionby-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 

§§ 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 § 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10912 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

access to all functionality of ICT where 

readily achievable. This provision is 

consistent with existing 255 Guidelines 

§ 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 § 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 § 1193.23(a) of the existing 255 

Guidelines. We have not, however, 

retained § 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 

§ 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 hardwarerelated 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10913 

Chapter 6. This proposed requirement is 

from the existing 255 Guidelines 

§ 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 

§ 1194.31(a) and 255 Guidelines 

§ 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 § 1194.31(b) and existing 255 

Guidelines § 1193.41(b). Existing 508 

Standards § 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 § 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 

§§ 1194.25(g) and 1194.21(i), existing 

255 Guidelines § 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 

§ 1194.31(c) and existing 255 Guidelines 

§ 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 § 1194.31(e) and existing 255 

Guidelines § 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 § 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 §§ 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 § 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 

§§ 1193.41(e) and (f)). Because these 

conditions do not necessarily exist 

together, their respective accessibility 

solutions are best presented separately. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10914 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 §§ 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 §§ 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 § 1193.41(a) (requiring 

telecommunications products be 

operable without vision), the productby-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—selfservice 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 selfcontained, 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 highresolution 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 § 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 nonprivate 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 

§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10916 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

9See, e.g., Graham Harding, et al., Photic- and 

Pattern-Induced Seizures: Expert Consensus of the 

Epilepsy Foundation of America Working Group, 46 

Epilepsia 1426 (2005); Arnold Wilkins, et al., 

Characterizing the Patterned Images That 

Precipitate Seizures and Optimizing Guidelines to 

Prevent Them, 46 Epilepsia 1212 (2005); see also 

Ofcom, Guidance Notes Section 2: Harm & Offence 

for Licensees on Flashing Images and Regular 

Patterns in Television (Issue Ten: July 2012), 

available at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/

binaries/broadcast/guidance/831193/section2.pdf; 

Information about Photosensitive Seizure Disorders, 

Trace Research & Development Center (June 2009), 

http://trace. wisc. edu/peat/photosensitive.php. 

§ 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 nonproprietary 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 §§ 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 onesecond 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 §§ 1194.21(k), 1194.22(j), and 

1194.25(i), and is similar to § 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

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 

§ 1194.26(d) of the existing 508 

Standards and § 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 §§ 1194.21 and 1194.25, 

along with § 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 §§ 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®

and iPad®. 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 § 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 

§§ 1194.23(k)(1), 1194.25(c), and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 § 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 §§ 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 

§ 1193.41(g), and closely corresponds to 

existing 508 Standards §§ 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 

§§ 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 § 1195.25(g), and is 

consistent with 255 Guidelines 

§ 1193.41(c). The use of color is also 

addressed in existing 508 Standards 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§§ 1194.23(k)(2), 1194.25(c), and 

1194.26(b), and is consistent with 

existing 255 Guidelines §§ 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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10918 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 onscreen 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 shareduse 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 § 1194.25(j), 

which applies side reach requirements 

to ICT that is ‘‘freestanding, nonportable, 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 §§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10920 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

10See 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. 

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 § 1194.23(f) and existing 255 

Guidelines § 1193.43(e). The Advisory 

Committee recommended that the Board 

adopt the FCC’s volume gain 

requirements for landline ICT with twoway 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 § 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. 

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 §§ 1194.23(h) and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 § 1194.23(i) and 255 

Guidelines § 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—RealTime 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-theboard 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 crossmanufacturer, 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 §§ 1194.23(c)– 

(e), as well as existing 255 Guidelines 

§§ 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 realVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:28 Feb 26, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP2.SGM 27FEP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10922 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 1194.23(a) 

and 255 Guidelines § 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 

§ 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 performancebased 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 

§§ 1194.23(j) and 1194.24(a), and 

existing 255 Guidelines § 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 § 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? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10923 

11See 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. 

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 onscreen 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. 

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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10924 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 softwarebased 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 § 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 § 1194.21(b) of the 

existing 508 Standards against 

disrupting or disabling accessibility 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 § 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 §§ 1194.22(g) and 

1194.22(h) of the existing 508 

Standards. A similar requirement is set 

forth in WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 1.3.1 

Info and Relationships. See W3C, 

Understanding SC 1.3.1, Understanding 

WCAG 2.0 (Sept. 16, 2014), http://www.

w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDINGWCAG20/content-structure-separationprogrammatic.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 

§ 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 §§ 1194.21(l) and 1194.22(n) in the 

existing 508 Standards, though it is 

broader in scope since, unlike these 

current requirements, its coverage 

extends beyond forms. A similar 

requirement is set forth in WCAG 2.0 

Success Criteria 1.3.1 Info and 

Relationships. See W3C, Understanding 

SC 1.3.1, Understanding WCAG 2.0 

(Sept. 16, 2014), http://www.w3.org/TR/ 

UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/contentstructure-separationprogrammatic.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 §§ 1194.21(l) and 1194.22(n). 

In addition, in response to existing 508 

Standards § 1194.21(d), current industry 

practice is to ensure that any parentchild 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10926 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

502.3.6 Text 

This section proposes that the content 

of text objects, text attributes, and onscreen 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 § 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 § 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 § 1194.21(d), but more 

explicitly requires that changes to onscreen 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® 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 § 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® Flash®

Platform, Oracle® 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 visionrelated 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® XI Pro and Microsoft® 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, MSWord), 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 § 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 selfservice 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 § 1194.41 and 

existing 255 Guidelines § 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10928 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 NonElectronic 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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.accessboard.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 realtime 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10930 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—ANNUALIZED VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS UNDER THE PROPOSED 508 STANDARDS AND 255 

GUIDELINES, 2015–2024 

[In 2015 dollars] 

7-Percent 

discount rate 

(in millions) 

3-Percent 

discount rate 

(in millions) 

Monetized Incremental Benefits 

Benefits to federal agencies from increased productivity by federal employees with addressable disabilities ..... $46.6 $45.3 

Benefits to individuals with vision disabilities from improved federal website accessibility .................................... 2.4 2.3 

Benefits to federal agencies from reduced call volumes ........................................................................................ 20.1 19.8 

TOTAL Monetized Incremental Benefits * ........................................................................................................ 69.1 67.5 

Monetized Incremental Costs 

Costs to federal agencies, contractors, and vendors: 155.0 146.8 

(a) In-house ...................................................................................................................................................... 80.6 76.3 

(b) Procured ICT ............................................................................................................................................... 74.4 70.5 

Costs to telecommunications equipment manufacturers for accessible support .................................................... 10.6 9.8 

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 noninstitutionalized 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 inhouse 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10932 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

13See also Office of Management and Budget, 

Circular A–4 (2003); Office of Management and 

Budget, Regulatory Impact Analysis: A Primer 3 

(2011), available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/regpol/circular-a-4_

regulatory-impact-analysis-a-primer.pdf. 

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. 

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 globallyrecognized 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 nonemergency 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10933 

14See 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). 

15Examples 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. 

16The U.S. Census Bureau provides detailed 

information on the National Industry Classification 

System on the agency’s Web site. See U.S. Census 

Bureau, Introduction to NAICS, http://www.census.

gov/eos/www/naics/. 

17SBA 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). 

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. 

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 muchneeded ‘‘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

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

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10934 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

18 Dept. of Transportation, Nondiscrimination on 

the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility 

of Web sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports, 

78 FR 67882 (Nov. 12, 2013); Econometrica, Inc., 

Final Regulatory Analysis on the Final Rule on 

Accessible Kiosks and Web sites (Oct. 23, 2013), 

available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#

!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2011-0177-0108; see 

also Preliminary RIA, Sections 6.3, 8.11. 

TABLE 7—SMALL BUSINESSES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED 255 GUIDELINES

NAICS code Industry title SBA size standard Number of 

firms 

Number of 

small firms 

334210 ............................................ Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing.1,000 or fewer employees ............. 263 242 

334220 ............................................ Radio and Television Broadcasting 

and Wireless Communications 

Equipment Manufacturing.

750 or fewer employees ................ 730 675 

334111 ............................................ Electronic Computer Manufacturing 1,000 or fewer employees ............. 391 374 

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 selfservice 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). 

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 perfirm one-time costs under the proposed 

guidelines are assumed to be $25,000. 

Annual recurring maintenance costs are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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] 

Firm size 

Firms meeting 

SBA size 

standards 

Average 

one-time cost 

per firm 

Total one-time 

costs 

Average 

annual 

maintenance 

cost per firm 

Total annual 

maintenance 

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 midpoint 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 onetime 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] 

Firm size 

Firms meeting 

SBA size 

standards 

Average 

one-time cost 

per firm 

Total one-time 

costs 

Average 

annual 

maintenance 

cost per firm 

Total annual 

maintenance 

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] 

NAICS code Industry title 

Average 

annualized 

costs per 

small firm 

(7% discount 

rate) 

Average 

estimated 

per-firm 

annual 

receipts 

Ratio of 

average 

annualized 

per-firm costs/ 

per-firm 

eceipts 

(percent) 

334210 .......... Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing ............................................................... $28,782 $58,969,940 .049 

334220 .......... Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.28,782 46,860,776 .060 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10936 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 10—RATIO OF ANNUALIZED PER-FIRM COSTS TO RECEIPTS FOR SMALL FIRMS WITH 100 OR MORE EMPLOYEES— 

Continued 

[By NAICS code] 

NAICS code Industry title 

Average 

annualized 

costs per 

small firm 

(7% discount 

rate) 

Average 

estimated 

per-firm 

annual 

receipts 

Ratio of 

average 

annualized 

per-firm costs/ 

per-firm 

eceipts 

(percent) 

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] 

NAICS code Industry title 

Average 

annualized 

costs per 

small firm 

(7% discount 

rate) 

Average 

estimated 

per-firm 

annual 

receipts 

Ratio of 

average 

annualized 

per-firm costs/ 

per-firm 

receipts 

(percent) 

334210 .......... Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing ............................................................... $5,756 $58,969,940 .010 

334220 .......... Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.5,756 46,860,776 .010 

334111 .......... Electronic Computer Manufacturing ................................................................. 5,756 75,919,848 .008 

* Annual receipts based on data from the Small Business Administration, U.S. Small Business Administration, Firm Size Data—Statistics of 

U.S. Businesses (SUSB), https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/firm-size-data (last accessed Dec. 15, 2014). SUSB employer data is collected and produced by the U.S Census and contains, for each NAICS code such information as the number of firms, employment figures, estimated annual receipts, and annual payroll. 

The results of these average cost/

receipt analyses demonstrate that 

incremental costs of the proposed 255 

Guidelines for small businesses— 

whether larger or smaller than 100 

employees—are expected to be minimal 

relative to firm receipts. In no case 

would this ratio exceed about one-half 

of a percent, with ratios ranging from a 

low of 0.008 to a high of 0.049. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing 

analysis, the Board does not believe that 

the proposed 255 Guidelines are likely 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Question 42. The Board requests 

input from manufacturers of 

telecommunications equipment and 

customer premises equipment, as well 

as other interested parties, on the small 

business cost estimation methodology 

and assumptions used in this Initial 

RFA. The Board will use relevant 

information provided in public 

comments to determine whether or how 

to revise our estimates for the final 

regulatory flexibility analysis. 

Duplication with other federal rules. 

To the Board’s knowledge, there are no 

relevant federal rules that duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the proposed 

255 Guidelines. 

Description of significant alternatives 

to the proposed 255 Guidelines. In the 

Board’s view, there are no alternatives 

to the proposed guidelines that would 

accomplish the goal of meeting the 

access needs of individuals with 

disabilities, while taking into account 

compliance costs of manufacturers of 

telecommunications equipment and 

CPE. 

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

The proposed rule adheres to the 

fundamental federalism principles and 

policy making criteria in Executive 

Order 13132. The proposed 508 

Standards apply to the development, 

procurement, maintenance, or use of 

ICT by federal agencies. The proposed 

255 Guidelines apply to manufacturers 

of telecommunications equipment and 

customer premises equipment and 

require that equipment is designed, 

developed, and fabricated to be 

accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities, if it is readily 

achievable to do so. As such, the Board 

has determined that the proposed rule 

does not have federalism implications 

within the meaning of Executive Order 

13132. 

D. Executive Order 13609: Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609 serves to 

promote international regulatory 

cooperation and harmonization. The 

Access Board has tried to promote the 

principles of the executive order by 

making concerted efforts with a number 

of foreign governments throughout the 

development of the proposed 508 

Standards and 255 Guidelines. For 

example, the Board and the European 

Commission have made every effort to 

coordinate development of their 

respective ICT standards. This 

cooperation began with the 2005 EU–US 

Economic Initiative (http://trade.ec.

europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/june/

tradoc_127643.pdf) and continued 

through the work of the Access Board 

with representatives from the European 

Commission, Canada, Australia, and 

Japan serving on the 

Telecommunications and Electronic and 

Information Technology Advisory 

Committee which informed the 

proposed 508 Standards and 255 

Guidelines. In our view, the proposed 

508 Standards and 255 Guidelines are 

the product of the Board’s coordination 

with international regulatory partners, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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

Section of proposed rule Number of respondents Annual number of responses per respondent 

Average 

response time 

(hours) 

Estimated 

annual burden 

(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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10938 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

19Office of the Federal Register, Incorporation by 

Reference, 79 FR 66267 (Nov. 7, 2014) (to be 

codified at 1 CFR part 51). 

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 nonelectronic 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 Sectionby-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

In keeping with these new obligations 

for materials proposed for incorporation 

by reference, the Access Board provides 

below: (a) Information on the public 

availability of these ten standards (or, 

alternatively, how Access Board staff 

attempted to secure the availability of 

these materials to the public at no cost 

or reduced cost, if not already publicly 

available free of charge by the standards 

development organization); and (b) 

summaries of the materials to be 

incorporated by reference. In addition to 

the information provided below relating 

to public availability, a copy of each 

referenced standard is available for 

inspection at our agency’s office, 1331 F 

Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 

20004. 

ANSI/HFES 200.2 (2008) Human 

Factors Engineering of Software User 

Interfaces—Part 2: Accessibility 

(referenced in: E102.2, C102.2, 502.4). 

This standard provides design 

specifications for human-system 

software interfaces to increase 

accessibility for persons with 

disabilities. It covers the design of 

accessible software for people with a 

wide range of physical, sensory and 

cognitive abilities, including those with 

temporary disabilities and older adults. 

Availability: Copies of this standard 

may be obtained from Human Factors 

and Ergonomics Society (HFES), P.O. 

Box 1369, Santa Monica, CA 90406– 

1369. This standard is also available for 

purchase on the HFES Web site (http:// 

www.hfes.org). Additionally, HFES has 

agreed to make a read-only copy of this 

standard available during the comment 

period upon request. 

ANSI/IEEE C63.19–2011 American 

National Standard for Methods of 

Measurement of Compatibility between 

Wireless Communications Devices and 

Hearing Aids (see E102.3, C102.3, 

410.4.1). This standard provides a 

uniform method of measurement for 

compatibility between hearing aids and 

wireless communications devices. 

Availability: Copies of this standard 

may be obtained from the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

(IEEE), 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, P.O. 

Box 3014, Los Alamitos, CA 90720– 

1264. This standard is also available for 

purchase on the IEEE Web site (http:// 

www.ieee.org). IEEE has also agreed to 

make a read-only version of this 

standard available on the organization’s 

Web site during the comment period. 

A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 

5: 2010 AC–3 Audio System 

Characteristics (2010) (see E102.4, 

C102.4, 412.1.1). The standard for 

digital television provides the system 

characteristics for advanced television 

systems. The document and its 

normative parts provide detailed 

specification of system parameters. Part 

5 provides the audio system 

characteristics and normative 

specifications. It includes the Visually 

Impaired (VI) associated service, which 

is a complete program mix containing 

music, effects, dialogue and a narrative 

description of the picture content. ATSC 

also publishes a companion technical 

assistance guide for its television 

standard. Availability: Copies of this 

standard may be obtained from the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10939 

Advanced Television Systems 

Committee (ATSC), 1776 K Street NW., 

Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006–2304. 

Free copies of A/53 Digital Television 

Standard are available online at the 

organization’s Web site: (http://www.

atsc.org/cms/standards/a53/a_53-Part5-2010.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 Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP) packets. 

RTT is used alone or in connection with 

other conversational modalities to form 

multimedia conversation services. RTT 

in multimedia conversation sessions is 

sent character-by-character as soon as it 

is available, or with a small delay for 

buffering. Availability: Free copies of 

this standard are available online at the 

Internet Engineering Task Force’s Web 

site (http://www.rfc-base.org/txt/rfc4103.txt). 

ISO 14289–1 (PDF/UA–1) Document 

management applications—Electronic 

document file format enhancement for 

accessibility—Part 1: Use of ISO 32000– 

1 (2014) (see E102.6, C102.6, E205.1, 

602.3.1). This standard is the consensus 

international specification for accessible 

PDF. PDF/UA–1 provides a technical, 

interoperable standard for the authoring, 

remediation and validation of PDF 

content to ensure accessibility for 

people with disabilities who use 

assistive technology, such as screen 

readers, screen magnifiers, joysticks and 

other technologies used to navigate and 

read electronic content. Availability: 

Copies of this standard may be obtained 

from the International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), ISO Central 

Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 

56—CH–1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. 

This standard is also available for 

purchase on the ISO Web site (http://

www.iso.org). Access Board staff is in 

discussion with ISO about making a 

read-only version of this standard 

available on the organization’s Web site 

during the comment period. Please 

consult the Access Board Web site for 

updates on the availability of this 

standard during the comment period. 

ITU–T Recommendation G.722: Series 

G: Transmission Systems and Media, 

Digital Systems and Networks Digital 

Terminal Equipments [sic]—Coding of 

voice and audio signals, 7 kHz AudioCoding within 64 Kbits/s (September 

2012) (see E102.7.1, C102.7.1, 410.5). 

This standard specifies a coder-decoder 

program that provides 7 kHz wideband 

audio at data rates from 48, 56, and 64 

kbits/s. Availability: This standard may 

be obtained from the International 

Telecommunication Union, 

Telecommunications Standardization 

Sector (ITU–T), Place des Nations CH– 

1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland. Free 

copies of ITU–T Recommendation G.72 

are available online at the organization’s 

Web site (http://www.itu.int/rec/T-RECG.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/TREC-E.161-200102-I/en). 

TIA 825–A, A Frequency Shift Keyed 

Modem for Use on the Public Switched 

Telephone Network (2003) (see 

E102.8.1, C102.8.1, 410.6.3.1). This 

standard is a specification for TTY 

signals on the public switched 

telephone network interface. 

Availability: Copies of this standard, 

which is published by the 

Telecommunications Industry 

Association (TIA), may be obtained from 

the IHS Standard Store (IHS), 15 

Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 

80112. This standard is also available 

for purchase on the IHS Web site 

(https://www.global.ihs.com). 

Additionally, TIA has agreed to make a 

read-only version of this standard 

available, upon request, through TIA’s 

Web site (www.tiaonline.org) during the 

comment period. 

TIA 1083 Telephone Terminal 

Equipment Handset Magnetic 

Measurement Procedures and 

Performance Requirements (2007) (see 

E102.8.2, C102.8.2, 410.4.2). This 

standard defines measurement 

procedures and performance 

requirements for the handset generated 

audio band magnetic noise of wire line 

telephones, including digital cordless 

telephones. Availability: Copies of this 

standard, which is published by the 

Telecommunications Industry 

Association (TIA), may be obtained from 

the IHS Standard Store (IHS), 15 

Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 

80112. This standard is also available 

for purchase on the IHS Web site 

(https://www.global.ihs.com). 

Additionally, TIA has also agreed to 

make a read-only version of this 

standard available, upon request, 

through TIA’s Web site 

(www.tiaonline.org) during the comment 

period. 

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 

(WCAG) 2.0, W3C Recommendation 

(December 2008) (see E102.9, C102.9, 

E205.1, E207.2, 405.1 Exception, 501.1 

Exception 1, 504.2, 504.3, 504.4, 

602.3.1). WCAG 2.0, published by the 

W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C), 

specifies success criteria and 

requirements to make Web content more 

accessible to all users, including 

persons with disabilities. The W3C Web 

site also provides online technical 

assistance materials linked to each 

success criteria and technical 

requirement. Availability: Copies of this 

standard may be obtained from the W3C 

Web Accessibility Initiative, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

32 Vassar Street, Room 32–G515, 

Cambridge, MA 02139. Free copies of 

WCAG 2.0, and its related technical 

assistance materials, are available online 

at W3C’s Web site (http://www.w3.org/ 

TR/WCAG20). 

List of Subjects 

36 CFR Part 1193 

Communications, Communications 

equipment, Individuals with 

disabilities, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Telecommunications. 

36 CFR Part 1194 

Civil rights, Communications, 

Communications equipment, Computer 

technology, Electronic products, 

Government employees, Government 

procurement, Individuals with 

disabilities, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Telecommunications. 

David M. Capozzi, 

Executive Director. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, under the authority of 47 

U.S.C. 255(e), the Board proposes to 

amend 36 CFR chapter XI, as follows: 

PART 1193 [REMOVED] 

■ 1. Remove part 1193. 

■ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10940 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

§ 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. 

§ 1194.2 Guidelines for Section 255 of the 

Communications Act. 

The guidelines for 

telecommunications equipment and 

customer premises equipment covered 

by Section 255 of the Communications 

Act are set forth in Appendices B and 

C to this part. 

Appendix A to Part 1194—Section 508 

of the Rehabilitation Act: Application 

and Scoping Requirements 

508 CHAPTER 1: APPLICATION AND 

ADMINISTRATION 

E101 General 

E101.1 Purpose. These 508 Standards, 

which consist of 508 Chapters 1 and 2 

(Appendix A), along with Chapters 3 through 

6 (Appendix C), contain scoping and 

technical requirements for information and 

communication technology (ICT) that is 

accessible to and usable by individuals with 

disabilities. Compliance with these standards 

is mandatory for federal agencies subject to 

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d). 

E101.2 Equivalent Facilitation. The use of 

an alternative design or technology that 

results in substantially equivalent or greater 

accessibility and usability by individuals 

with disabilities than would be provided by 

conformance to one or more of the 

requirements in Chapters 4 and 5 of the 508 

Standards is permitted. The functional 

performance criteria in Chapter 3 shall be 

used to determine whether substantially 

equivalent or greater accessibility and 

usability is provided to individuals with 

disabilities. 

E101.3 Conventional Industry Tolerances. 

Dimensions are subject to conventional 

industry tolerances except where dimensions 

are stated as a range. 

E101.4 Units of Measurement. 

Measurements are stated in metric and U.S. 

customary units. The values stated in each 

system (metric and U.S. customary units) 

may not be exact equivalents, and each 

system shall be used independently of the 

other. 

E102 Referenced Standards 

E102.1 Incorporation by Reference. The 

specific editions of the standards and 

guidelines listed in E102 are incorporated by 

reference in the 508 Standards and are part 

of the requirements to the prescribed extent 

of each such reference. Where conflicts occur 

between the 508 Standards and the 

referenced standards, these standards apply. 

The Director of the Office of the Federal 

Register has approved the standards for 

incorporation by reference in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

Copies of the referenced standards may be 

inspected at the Access Board’s office, 1331 

F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 

20004. 

E102.2 American National Standards 

Institute/Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society (ANSI/HFES). Copies of the 

referenced standard may be obtained from 

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, P.O. 

Box 1369, Santa Monica, CA 90406–1369 

(http://www.hfes.org/Publications/Product

Detail.aspx?Id=76). 

ANSI/HFES 200.2 Human Factors 

Engineering of Software User Interfaces — 

Part 2: Accessibility, (2008), IBR proposed for 

Section 502.4. 

E102.3 American National Standards 

Institute/Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers (ANSI/IEEE). Copies of 

the referenced standard may be obtained 

from the Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers, 10662 Los Vaqueros 

Circle, P.O. Box 3014, Los Alamitos, CA 

90720–1264 (http://www.ieee.org). 

ANSI/IEEE C63.19–2011 American 

National Standard for Methods of 

Measurement of Compatibility between 

Wireless Communications Devices and 

Hearing Aids, Committee C63— 

Electromagnetic Compatibility, May 27, 2011, 

IBR proposed for Section 410.4.1. 

E102.4 Advanced Television Systems 

Committee (ATSC). Copies of the referenced 

standard may be obtained from the Advanced 

Television Systems Committee, 1776 K Street 

NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006–2304 

(http://www.atsc.org). 

A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5: 

AC–3 Audio System Characteristics, (2010), 

IBR proposed for Section 412.1.1. 

E102.5 Internet Engineering Task Force 

(IETF). Copies of the referenced standard 

may be obtained from the Internet 

Engineering Task Force (http://www.ietf.org). 

Request for Comments (RFC) 4103, Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for 

Text Conversation (2005), G. Hellstrom, 

Omnitor AB, and P. Jones, Cisco Systems, 

IBR proposed for Section 410.6.3.2. 

E102.6 International Standards 

Organization (ISO). Copies of the referenced 

standards may be obtained from International 

Organization for Standardization, ISO Central 

Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56— 

CH–1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland (http://

www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm

?csnumber=54564). 

ISO 14289–1 Document management 

applications—Electronic document file 

format enhancement for accessibility—Part 1: 

Use of ISO 32000–1 (PDF/UA–1), Technical 

Committee ISO/TC 171, Document 

Management Applications, Subcommittee SC 

2, Application Issues, (2014), IBR proposed 

for Sections E205.1 and 602.3.1. 

E102.7 International Telecommunications 

Union Telecommunications Standardization 

Sector (ITU–T). Copies of the referenced 

standards may be obtained from the 

International Telecommunication Union, 

Telecommunications Standardization Sector, 

Place des Nations CH–1211, Geneva 20, 

Switzerland (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T). 

E102.7.1 ITU–T Recommendation G.722: 

General Aspects of Digital Transmission 

Systems, Terminal Components, 7 kHz 

Audio-Coding within 64 Kbits/s, (September 

2012), IBR proposed for Section 410.5. 

E102.7.2 ITU–T Recommendation E.161: 

Arrangement of digits, letters and symbols on 

telephones and other devices that can be 

used for gaining access to a telephone 

network, ITU–T Study Group 2, (February 

2001), IBR proposed for Section 407.3.2. 

E102.8 Telecommunications Industry 

Association (TIA). Copies of the referenced 

standards, published by the 

Telecommunications Industry Association, 

may be obtained from IHS, 15 Inverness Way 

East, Englewood, CO 80112 (http://

global.ihs.com). 

E102.8.1 TIA 825–A A Frequency Shift 

Keyed Modem for Use on the Public 

Switched Telephone Network, (2003), IBR 

proposed for Section 410.6.3.1. 

E102.8.2 TIA 1083 Telephone Terminal 

Equipment Handset Magnetic Measurement 

Procedures and Performance Requirements, 

(March 2007), IBR proposed for Section 

410.4.2. 

E102.9 Worldwide Web Consortium 

(W3C). Copies of the referenced guidelines 

may be obtained from the W3C Web 

Accessibility Initiative, Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology, 32 Vassar Street, 

Room 32–G515, Cambridge, MA 02139 

(http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20). 

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 

(WCAG) 2.0, W3C Recommendation, 

December 2008, IBR proposed for Sections 

E205.1, E207.2, 405.1 Exception, 501.1 

Exception 1, 504.2, 504.3, 504.4, and 602.3.1. 

E103 Definitions 

E103.1 Terms Defined in Referenced 

Standards. Terms defined in referenced 

standards and not defined in E103.4 shall 

have the meaning as defined in the 

referenced standards. 

E103.2 Undefined Terms. Any term not 

defined in E103.4 or in referenced standards 

shall be given its ordinarily accepted 

meaning in the sense that the context 

implies. 

E103.3 Interchangeability. Words, terms, 

and phrases used in the singular include the 

plural and those used in the plural include 

the singular. 

E103.4 Defined Terms. For the purpose of 

the 508 Standards, the terms defined in 

E103.4 have the indicated meaning. 

508 Standards. The standards for ICT 

developed, procured, maintained, or used by 

agencies subject to Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act as set forth in 508 

Chapters 1 and 2 (36 CFR part 1194, 

Appendix A), and Chapters 3 through 6 (36 

CFR part 1194, Appendix C). 

Agency. Any agency or department of the 

United States as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502, 

and the United States Postal Service. 

Application. Software designed to perform, 

or to help the user to perform, a specific task 

or tasks. 

Assistive Technology (AT). Any item, piece 

of equipment, or product system, whether 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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, onscreen 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 authorsupplied 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10942 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the 508 Standards is not commercially 

available, the agency shall procure the 

product that best meets the 508 Standards 

consistent with the agency’s business needs. 

E202.6.1 Required Documentation. The 

responsible agency official shall document in 

writing: (a) The nonavailability of 

conforming ICT, including a description of 

market research performed and which 

provisions cannot be met, and (b) the basis 

for determining that the ICT to be procured 

best meets the requirements in the 508 

Standards consistent with the agency’s 

business needs. 

E202.6.2 Alternative Means. Where ICT 

that fully conforms to the 508 Standards is 

not commercially available, the agency shall 

provide individuals with disabilities access 

to and use of information and data by an 

alternative means that meets identified 

needs. 

E203 Access to Functionality 

E203.1 General. Agencies shall ensure 

that all functionality of ICT is accessible to 

and usable by individuals with disabilities, 

either directly or by supporting the use of 

assistive technology, and shall comply with 

E203. In providing access to all functionality 

of ICT, agencies shall ensure the following: 

a. That federal employees with disabilities 

have access to and use of information and 

data that is comparable to the access and use 

by federal employees who are not individuals 

with disabilities; and 

b. That members of the public with 

disabilities who are seeking information or 

data from a federal agency have access to and 

use of information and data that is 

comparable to that provided to members of 

the public who are not individuals with 

disabilities. 

E203.2 Agency Business Needs. When 

agencies procure, develop, maintain or use 

ICT they shall identify the business needs of 

users with disabilities affecting vision, 

hearing, color perception, speech, dexterity, 

strength, or reach to determine: 

a. How users with disabilities will perform 

the functions supported by the ICT; and 

b. How the ICT will be installed, 

configured, and maintained to support users 

with disabilities. 

E204 Functional Performance Criteria 

E204.1 General. Where the requirements 

in Chapters 4 and 5 do not address one or 

more features of ICT, the features not 

addressed shall conform to the Functional 

Performance Criteria specified in Chapter 3. 

E205 Content 

E205.1 General. Content shall comply 

with E205. 

E205.2 Public Facing. Content that is 

public facing shall conform to the 

accessibility requirements specified in 

E205.4. 

E205.3 Agency Official Communication. 

Content that is not public facing shall 

conform to the accessibility requirements 

specified in E205.4 when such content 

constitutes official business, and is 

communicated by an agency through one or 

more of the following: 

1. An emergency notification; 

2. An initial or final decision adjudicating 

an administrative claim or proceeding; 

3. An internal or external program or 

policy announcement; 

4. A notice of benefits, program eligibility, 

employment opportunity, or personnel 

action; 

5. A formal acknowledgement or receipt; 

6. A questionnaire or survey; 

7. A template or form; or 

8. Educational or training materials. 

EXCEPTION: Records maintained by the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) pursuant to federal 

recordkeeping statutes shall not be required 

to conform to the 508 Standards unless 

public facing. 

E205.4 Accessibility Standards. Content 

shall conform to Level A and Level AA 

Success Criteria and Conformance 

Requirements specified for Web pages in 

WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference in 

Chapter 1) or, where applicable, ISO 14289– 

1 (PDF/UA–1) (incorporated by reference in 

Chapter 1). 

E206 Hardware 

E206.1 General. Where components of 

ICT are hardware and transmit information or 

have a user interface, such components shall 

conform to applicable requirements in 

Chapter 4. 

E207 Software 

E207.1 General. Where components of 

ICT are software and transmit information or 

have a user interface, such components shall 

conform to E207 and applicable requirements 

in Chapter 5. 

E207.2 WCAG Conformance. User 

interface components, as well as the content 

of platforms and applications, shall conform 

to Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and 

Conformance Requirements specified for 

Web pages in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by 

reference in Chapter 1). 

E208 Support Documentation and Services 

E208.1 General. Where an agency 

provides support documentation or services 

for ICT, such documentation and services 

shall conform to the requirements in Chapter 

6. 

Appendix B to Part 1194—Section 255 

of the Communications Act: 

Application and Scoping Requirements 

255 Chapter 1: Application and 

Administration 

C101 General 

C101.1 Purpose. These 255 Guidelines, 

which consist of 255 Chapters 1 and 2 

(Appendix B), along with Chapters 3 through 

6 (Appendix C), contain scoping and 

technical requirements for the design, 

development, and fabrication of 

telecommunications equipment and 

customer premises equipment, and related 

software, content, and support 

documentation and services, to ensure their 

accessibility to and usability by individuals 

with disabilities. These 255 Guidelines are to 

be applied to the extent required by 

regulations issued by the Federal 

Communications Commission under Section 

255 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (47 U.S.C. 255). 

C101.2 Equivalent Facilitation. The use of 

an alternative design or technology that 

results in substantially equivalent or greater 

accessibility and usability by individuals 

with disabilities than would be provided by 

conformance to one or more of the 

requirements in Chapters 4 and 5 of the 255 

Guidelines is permitted. The functional 

performance criteria in Chapter 3 shall be 

used to determine whether substantially 

equivalent or greater accessibility and 

usability is provided to individuals with 

disabilities. 

C101.3 Conventional Industry 

Tolerances. Dimensions are subject to 

conventional industry tolerances except 

where dimensions are stated as a range. 

C101.4 Units of Measurement. 

Measurements are stated in metric and U.S. 

customary units. The values stated in each 

system (metric and U.S. customary units) 

may not be exact equivalents, and each 

system shall be used independently of the 

other. 

C102 Referenced Standards 

C102.1 Incorporation by Reference. The 

specific editions of the standards and 

guidelines listed in C102 are incorporated by 

reference in the 255 Guidelines and are part 

of the requirements to the prescribed extent 

of each such reference. Where conflicts occur 

between the 255 Guidelines and the 

referenced standards, these guidelines apply. 

The Director of the Office of Federal Register 

has approved the standards for incorporation 

by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the 

referenced standards may be inspected at the 

Access Board’s office, 1331 F Street NW., 

Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004. 

C102.2 American National Standards 

Institute/Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society (ANSI/HFES). Copies of the 

referenced standard may be obtained from 

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, P.O. 

Box 1369, Santa Monica, CA 90406–1369 

(http://www.hfes.org/Publications/Product

Detail.aspx?Id=76). 

ANSI/HFES 200.2 Human Factors 

Engineering of Software User Interfaces—Part 

2: Accessibility, (2008), IBR proposed for 

Section 502.4. 

C102.3 American National Standards 

Institute/Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers (ANSI/IEEE). Copies of 

the referenced standard may be obtained 

from the Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers, 10662 Los Vaqueros 

Circle, P.O. Box 3014, Los Alamitos, CA 

90720–1264 (http://www.ieee.org). 

ANSI/IEEE C63.19–2011 American 

National Standard for Methods of 

Measurement of Compatibility between 

Wireless Communications Devices and 

Hearing Aids, Committee C63— 

Electromagnetic Compatibility, May 27, 2011, 

IBR proposed for Section 410.4.1. 

C102.4 Advanced Television Systems 

Committee (ATSC). Copies of the referenced 

standard may be obtained from the Advanced 

Television Systems Committee, 1776 K Street 

NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006–2304 

(http://www.atsc.org). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10943 

A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5: 

AC–3 Audio System Characteristics, (2010), 

IBR proposed for Section 412.1.1. 

C102.5 IETF.—Internet Engineering Task 

Force (IETF). Copies of the referenced 

standard may be obtained from the Internet 

Engineering Task Force (http://www.ietf.org). 

Request for Comments (RFC) 4103, Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for 

Text Conversation (2005), G. Hellstrom, 

Omnitor AB, and P. Jones, Cisco Systems, 

IBR proposed for Section 410.6.3.2. 

C102.6 International Standards 

Organization (ISO). Copies of the referenced 

standards, may be obtained from 

International Organization for 

Standardization, ISO Central Secretariat, 1, 

ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56—CH–1211 

Geneva 20, Switzerland (http://www.iso.org/ 

iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=54564). 

ISO 14289–1 Document management 

applications—Electronic document file 

format enhancement for accessibility—Part 1: 

Use of ISO 32000–1 (PDF/UA–1), Technical 

Committee ISO/TC 171, Document 

Management Applications, Subcommittee SC 

2, Application Issues, (2014), IBR proposed 

for Sections E205.1 and 602.3.1. 

C102.7 International 

Telecommunications Union 

Telecommunications Standardization Sector 

(ITU–T). Copies of the referenced standards 

may be obtained from the International 

Telecommunication Union, 

Telecommunications Standardization Sector, 

Place des Nations CH–1211, Geneva 20, 

Switzerland (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T). 

C102.7.1 ITU–T—Recommendation 

G.722: General Aspects of Digital 

Transmission Systems, Terminal 

Components, 7 kHz Audio-Coding within 64 

Kbits/s, (September 2012), IBR proposed for 

Section 410.5. 

C102.7.2 ITU–T—Recommendation 

E.161: Arrangement of digits, letters and 

symbols on telephones and other devices that 

can be used for gaining access to a telephone 

network, ITU–T Study Group 2, (February 

2001), IBR proposed for Section 407.3.2. 

C102.8 Telecommunications Industry 

Association (TIA). Copies of the referenced 

standards, published by the 

Telecommunications Industry Association, 

may be obtained from IHS, 15 Inverness Way 

East, Englewood, CO 80112 (http://

global.ihs.com). 

C102.8.1 TIA 825–A—A Frequency Shift 

Keyed Modem for Use on the Public 

Switched Telephone Network, (2003), IBR 

proposed for Section 410.6.3.1. 

C102.8.2 TIA 1083—Telephone Terminal 

Equipment Handset Magnetic Measurement 

Procedures and Performance Requirements, 

(March 2007), IBR proposed for Section 

410.4.2. 

C102.9 Worldwide Web Consortium 

(W3C). Copies of the referenced guidelines 

may be obtained from the W3C Web 

Accessibility Initiative, Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology, 32 Vassar Street, 

Room 32–G515, Cambridge, MA 02139 

(http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20). 

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 

(WCAG) 2.0, W3C Recommendation, 

December 2008, IBR proposed for Sections 

E205.1, E207.2, 405.1 Exception, 501.1 

Exception 1, 504.2, 504.3, 504.4, and 602.3.1. 

C103 Definitions 

C103.1 Terms Defined in Referenced 

Standards. Terms defined in referenced 

standards and not defined in C103.4 shall 

have the meaning as defined in the 

referenced standards. 

C103.2 Undefined Terms. Any term not 

defined in C103.4 or in referenced standards 

shall be given its ordinarily accepted 

meaning in the sense that the context 

implies. 

C103.3 Interchangeability. Words, terms, 

and phrases used in the singular include the 

plural and those used in the plural include 

the singular. 

C103.4 Defined Terms. For the purpose of 

the 255 Guidelines, the terms defined in 

C103.4 have the indicated meaning. 

255 Guidelines. The guidelines for 

telecommunications equipment and 

customer premises equipment covered by 

Section 255 of the Communications Act as 

set forth in 255 Chapters 1 and 2 (36 CFR part 

1194, Appendix B), and Chapters 3 through 

6 (36 CFR part 1193, Appendix C). 

Application. Software designed to perform, 

or to help the user perform, a specific task 

or tasks. 

Assistive Technology (AT). Any item, piece 

of equipment, or product system, whether 

acquired commercially, modified, or 

customized, that is used to increase, 

maintain, or improve functional capabilities 

of individuals with disabilities. 

Audio Description. Narration added to the 

soundtrack to describe important visual 

details that cannot be understood from the 

main soundtrack alone. Audio description is 

a means to inform individuals who are blind 

or who have low vision about visual content 

essential for comprehension. Audio 

description of video provides information 

about actions, characters, scene changes, onscreen 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 authorsupplied 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10944 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10946 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10948 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 Nonelectronic Support Documentation. Alternate 

formats usable by individuals who are blind 

or have low vision shall be provided upon 

request for support documentation in nonelectronic formats. 

603 Support Services 

603.1 General. ICT support services 

including, but not limited to, help desks, call 

centers, training services, and automated selfservice 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2