Information and Communication 

Technology (ICT) Standards and 

Guidelines

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

February 2015

36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194

RIN 3014-AA37

U.S. Access Board
ii
Table of Contents

Preamble........................................................................................................................ 7

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments.................................................... 8

II. Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 8

Purpose and Legal Authority ................................................................................ 8

Summary of Key Provisions................................................................................ 11

Summary of Preliminary Regulatory Analysis..................................................... 13

III. Statutory Background ........................................................................................ 15

IV. Rulemaking History ........................................................................................... 16

A. Existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines (1998-2000) ......................... 16

B. Advisory Committee and Final Report (2006-2008)................................... 16

C. First Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2010).............................. 17

D. Second Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2011 ANPRM)........... 18

E. 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues ............................................. 19

F. Harmonization with European Activities .................................................... 33

V. Major Issues ....................................................................................................... 37

A. Electronic Content ..................................................................................... 38

B. WCAG 2.0 Incorporation by Reference ..................................................... 41

C. Functional Performance Criteria ................................................................ 47

D. Real-Time Text .......................................................................................... 55

E. Assistive Technology................................................................................. 57

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis .............................................................................. 59

A. Introduction................................................................................................ 59

B. 508 Standards: Application and Scoping................................................... 60

C. 255 Guidelines: Application and Scoping .................................................. 77

D. Functional Performance Criteria and Technical Requirements.................. 85

VII. Effective Date ................................................................................................. 127

VIII. Regulatory Process Matters .......................................................................... 128

A. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (Executive Order 12866) .......... 128

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act ......................................................................... 136

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism ........................................................ 144

D. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

144

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ............................................................. 144

F. Paperwork Reduction Act ........................................................................ 145
4

G. Availability of Materials Incorporated by Reference................................. 147

List of Subjects ................................................................................................. 150

PART 1193 [REMOVED].................................................................................. 151

PART 1194 – INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) 

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES .................................................................... 151

Appendix A to Part 1194 – Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: Application and 

Scoping Requirements ............................................................................................. 153

508 CHAPTER 1: APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION.................................. 153

E101 General ................................................................................................... 153

E102 Referenced Standards ............................................................................ 153

E103 Definitions ............................................................................................... 156

508 CHAPTER 2: SCOPING REQUIREMENTS.................................................... 161

E201 Application............................................................................................... 161

E202 General Exceptions................................................................................. 161

E203 Access to Functionality............................................................................ 163

E204 Functional Performance Criteria.............................................................. 164

E205 Content.................................................................................................... 164

E206 Hardware................................................................................................. 165

E207 Software.................................................................................................. 165

E208 Support Documentation and Services..................................................... 165

Appendix B to Part 1194 – Section 255 of the Communications Act: Application 

and Scoping Requirements...................................................................................... 167

255 CHAPTER 1: APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION.................................. 167

C101 General ................................................................................................... 167

C102 Referenced Standards ............................................................................ 167

C103 Definitions ............................................................................................... 170

255 CHAPTER 2: SCOPING REQUIREMENTS.................................................... 175

C201 Application .............................................................................................. 175

C202 Functional Performance Criteria ............................................................. 176

C203 Electronic Content................................................................................... 176

C204 Hardware ................................................................................................ 176

C205 Software.................................................................................................. 176

C206 Support Documentation and Services..................................................... 177

Appendix C to Part 1194 – Functional Performance Criteria and Technical 

Requirements ............................................................................................................ 179

CHAPTER 3: FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ................................... 179
301 General...................................................................................................... 179

302 Functional Performance Criteria................................................................ 179

CHAPTER 4: HARDWARE.................................................................................... 181

401 General...................................................................................................... 181

402 Closed Functionality .................................................................................. 181

403 Biometrics.................................................................................................. 182

404 Preservation of Information Provided for Accessibility............................... 183

405 Flashing..................................................................................................... 183

406 Standard Connections ............................................................................... 183

407 Operable Parts .......................................................................................... 183

408 Display Screens......................................................................................... 192

409 Transactional Outputs ............................................................................... 192

410 ICT with Two-Way Voice Communication.................................................. 193

411 Closed Caption Processing Technologies ................................................. 194

412 Audio Description Processing Technology ................................................ 195

413 User Controls for Captions and Audio Description .................................... 195

CHAPTER 5: SOFTWARE .................................................................................... 197

501 General...................................................................................................... 197

502 Interoperability with Assistive Technology ................................................. 197

503 Applications ............................................................................................... 199

504 Authoring Tools ......................................................................................... 200

CHAPTER 6: SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION AND SERVICES ........................... 203

601 General...................................................................................................... 203

602 Support Documentation............................................................................. 203

603 Support Services ....................................................................................... 204

7

PREAMBLE

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 [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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 ATBCB2015-0002. 

 E-mail: 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 website 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 
8

fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see 

www.accessboard.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Creagan, Access Board, 1331 F 

Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone: (202) 272-0016 

(voice) or (202) 272-0074 (TTY). E-mail 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-by-product approach used in the Access Board’s existing 508 Standards 

and 255 Guidelines. For example, since the existing 508 Standards were issued in 

2000, mobile phones moved from devices with voice-only capability, to so-called 
9

“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 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, websites, 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 
10

(255 Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements); 301-302 (Chapter 3: Functional Performance 

Criteria); 401-413 (Chapter 4: Hardware); 501-504 (Chapter 5: Software); and 601-603 

(Support Documentation and Services). 

Legal Authority for 508 Standards: Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

(hereafter, “Section 508”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794d, mandates that federal 

agencies “develop, procure, maintain, or use” ICT in a manner that ensures federal 

employees with disabilities have comparable access to and use of such information and 

data relative to other federal employees, unless doing so would impose an undue 

burden. The Rehabilitation Act also requires federal agencies to ensure that members 

of the public with disabilities have comparable access to publicly-available information 

and services unless doing so would impose an undue burden on the agency. In 

accordance with section 508(a)(2)(A), the Access Board must publish standards that 

define electronic and information technology along with the technical and functional 

performance criteria necessary for accessibility, and periodically review and amend the 

standards as appropriate. When the Access Board revises its existing 508 Standards 

(whether to keep up with technological changes or otherwise), the Rehabilitation Act 

mandates that, within six months, both the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR 

Council) and federal agencies incorporate these revised standards into their respective 

acquisition regulations and procurement policies and directives. Thus, with respect to 

procurement-related matters, the Access Board’s 508 Standards are not self-enforcing; 

rather, these standards become enforceable when adopted by the FAR Council and 

federal agencies. 

Legal Authority for 255 Guidelines: Section 255 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 

255 (hereafter, “Section 255”), requires telecommunications equipment and services to 

be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, where readily achievable. 

“Readily achievable” is defined in the statute as “easily accomplishable and able to be 

carried out without much difficulty or expense.” In determining whether an access 

feature is readily achievable, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which 

has exclusive authority over enforcement under Section 255, has directed 

telecommunications equipment manufacturers and service providers to weigh the 

nature and cost of that feature against the individual company’s overall financial 

resources, taking into account such factors as the type, size, and nature of its business 

operation. Under Section 255, the Access Board is required to develop guidelines for 

the accessibility of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment in 

conjunction with the FCC and to review and update the guidelines periodically. The 

FCC is responsible for enforcing Section 255 and issuing implementing regulations; it is 

not bound to adopt the Access Board’s guidelines as its own or to use them as 

minimum requirements. 
11

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 websites, 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 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 
12

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 realtime text (RTT) functionality wherever an ICT product provides real-time, two-way 

voice communication. RTT is defined in the proposed rule as text that is 

transmitted character by character as it is being typed. An RTT recipient can 

read a message while it is being written, without waiting for the message to be 

completed; this is different from other message technologies such as “short 

messaging service”, or SMS, which transmit the entire message only after typing 

is complete. This proposed requirement would have an impact on federal 

agencies as well as ICT providers, federal employees, and members of the 

public. 

B. Proposed 255 Guidelines

Given the trend toward convergence of technologies and ICT networks, the Access 

Board is updating the 255 Guidelines at the same time that it is updating the 508 

Standards. The existing guidelines include detailed requirements for the accessibility, 

usability, and compatibility of telecommunications equipment and customer premises 

equipment. For example, the guidelines require input, output, display, control, and 

mechanical functions to be accessible to individuals with disabilities. The compatibility 

requirements focus on the need for standard connectors, compatibility of controls with 

prosthetics, and TTY compatibility. The guidelines define “usable” as providing access 

to information about how to use a product, and direct that instructions, product 

information, documentation, and technical support for users with disabilities be 

functionally equivalent to that provided to individuals without disabilities. The proposed 

guidelines include many non-substantive revisions to the existing requirements for 

clarity along with a few important new provisions. Two notable proposed additions to 

the proposed 255 Guidelines are:

 Requirement for RTT functionality: Just as the proposed 508 Standards would 

require federal agencies to offer RTT functionality in certain ICT, the proposed 

255 Guidelines would require the manufacturers of telecommunications 

equipment to provide RTT functionality wherever a telecommunications product 

provides real-time, two-way voice communication. This proposed requirement 

would allow people who are deaf or hard of hearing to have faster and more 

natural conversations than the current text-messaging functionality. 

 Application of WCAG 2.0 to electronic documents: The proposed 255 Guidelines 

would preserve the current requirement that when a document is provided in a 

non-electronic format, alternate formats (such as large-print or braille) usable by 

individuals with vision impairments need to be provided. The proposed 

guidelines also would require documentation in electronic formats—including 

Web-based self-service support and electronic documents—to conform to all 

Level A and AA Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0 or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1). This 
13

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 website (www.access-board.gov ), as well 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 websites 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 

websites; 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 websites. 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. 
14

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 websites, 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 
15

telecommunications marketplace. As a consequence, for example, the Preliminary RIA 

thus neither quantifies nor monetizes potential compliance costs related to the proposed 

requirement that ICT providing real-time, two-way voice communication support RTT 

functionality. 

The Access Board welcomes comments on all aspects of the Preliminary RIA to 

improve the assumptions, methodology, and estimates of the incremental benefits and 

costs of the proposed rule. The full Preliminary RIA posted on the Board’s website 

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. 
16

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 website at www.access-board.gov/guidelines-andstandards/communications-and-it/about-the-telecommunications-act-guidelines/section255-guidelines. The Board’s 508 Standards, issued in 2000, 65 FR 80500 (Dec. 21, 

2000), are available at www.access-board.gov/guidelines-andstandards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/section-508-

standards. They were codified in 36 CFR Part 1193 and 36 CFR Part 1194, 

respectively. In this preamble, all citations to 36 CFR Part 1193 refer to the existing 255 

Guidelines in force since 1998, while all citations to 36 CFR Part 1194 refer to the 

existing 508 Standards in force since 2000. 

The existing 508 Standards require federal agencies to ensure that persons 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 
17

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 standardsetting 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-by-Section Analysis – 255 Guidelines: 

Application and Scoping – C103). The 2010 ANPRM was published in the Federal 

Register, 75 FR 13457 (March 22, 2010), and is available at www.accessboard.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. 
18

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 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 
19

structure and content. The 2011 ANPRM was published in the Federal Register, 76 FR 

76640 (Dec. 8, 2011), and is also available at www.access-board.gov/ ict2011anprm. 

2. Structure

In response to public comments on the 2010 ANPRM that the length and organization of 

the document made it unwieldy, the Board consolidated and streamlined provisions into 

six chapters (from ten), consolidated advisories, and reduced the page count from close 

to 100 to less than 50. The Board also removed scoping and application language from 

the chapters containing technical provisions and relocated them to new chapters 

applicable to Section 508 (508 Chapters 1 and 2) and Section 255 (255 Chapters 1 and 

2) respectively. We revised the overall structure of the functional performance criteria 

so that the provisions had parallel structure, and grouped technical requirements for 

similar functions together in the same chapter. To address inconsistencies in the 2010 

ANPRM, where some chapters focused on features of products and others addressed 

specific types of products, the Board standardized its approach by removing references 

to types of products while focusing instead on specific features of products. We also 

removed specific proposed requirements relating to Web and non-Web content, 

documents and user applications, and referenced WCAG 2.0 instead. 

3. Hearings and General Comments

Hearings were held in January 2012 in Washington, DC and in March 2012 in San 

Diego, CA. Additionally, ninety-one written comments were received in response to the 

2011 ANPRM. Comments came from industry, federal and state governments, foreign 

and domestic companies specializing in information technology, disability advocacy 

groups, manufacturers of hardware and software, trade associations and trade 

organizations, institutions of higher education and research, accessibility consultants, 

assistive technology industry and related organizations, and individual stakeholders who 

did not identify with any of these groups. 

In general, commenters continued to agree with our approach to address ICT 

accessibility by focusing on features, rather than discrete product types. Commenters 

supported the conciseness of the proposed provisions in the 2011 ANPRM, and asked 

for further streamlining where possible. Comments addressed a variety of other topics, 

which are discussed below in Section IV.E. (Rulemaking History – 2010 and 2011 

ANPRMs: Significant Issues), and Section V (Major Issues). 

E. 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues

In this section, the Board collectively reviews the principle issues from the 2010 ANPRM 

and 2011 ANPRM in consolidated fashion. 
20

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 
21

disseminated” to be vague and 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-bySection 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 website 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 “Webbased 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. 
22

As part of the 508 Standards refresh, the Advisory Committee recommended—and the 

Access Board agreed—that closer harmonization with WCAG 2.0 was necessary to 

promote greater accessibility. Consequently, in the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed 

to include most Level A and Level AA WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. However, rather 

than using the text of relevant portions of WCAG 2.0 verbatim, the Board restated those 

Success Criteria in mandatory language thought to be better suited for a regulatory 

environment. Comments to the 2010 ANPRM identified three major problems with that 

approach. First, many expressed concern that rephrasing WCAG 2.0’s Success Criteria 

would introduce discrepancies in, and fragmentation of, the 508 Standards. Second, 

other commenters feared that rephrasing of success criteria, rather than incorporating 

WCAG 2.0 by reference, would make dynamic linkages in the online version of WCAG 

2.0 to important supplementary information less available to the reader. These 

commenters emphasized the usefulness of the online in-context hypertext links to 

robust guidance materials as aids for understanding and applying the WCAG 2.0 

Success Criteria. Lastly, commenters found our division of provisions (including the 

many rephrased WCAG Success Criteria) into those respectively oriented towards 

either documents or software to be somewhat arbitrary and counterproductive. 

In response to these comments, the Access Board substantially revised the approach to 

WCAG 2.0 in the 2011 ANPRM. We proposed to require all covered content to conform 

to WCAG 2.0, which would be incorporated by reference in the proposed 508 

Standards. 

Commenters generally voiced strong support for the Board’s decision to incorporate by 

reference WCAG 2.0 and apply it to all types of covered ICT, rather than simply seeking 

harmonization between WCAG 2.0 and the proposed rule. While commenters 

expressed concern as to how closely WCAG 2.0 would apply to some types of content, 

they generally supported the concept of expanding the application of WCAG 2.0 to all 

types of Web and non-Web ICT. A few commenters, including representatives of the 

software industry, also suggested that the rule allow for compliance with any 

subsequent and, as yet unpublished, revisions to WCAG 2.0 by the W3C. 

Some commenters, on the other hand, requested that the Board return to its previous 

approach in the 2010 ANPRM, rather than incorporate WCAG 2.0 by reference. Most of 

these commenters believed that this approach would make the Board’s rule easier to 

use because the necessary text would be contained in a single document. Some of 

these commenters also asserted that the structure of WCAG 2.0 is confusing and 

makes it difficult to separate the normative and non-normative portions. 

In this NPRM, the Board is retaining the Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and 

Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 for all ICT subject to Sections 508 and 255, 

including documents and software. The Board also proposes, as in the 2011 ANPRM, 

to incorporate WCAG 2.0 by reference, rather than restating its requirements in the 

proposed rule. Incorporating the WCAG Success Criteria verbatim in the rule would be 

unhelpful because they are best understood within the context of the original source 

materials. WCAG 2.0 incorporates context-sensitive hypertext links to supporting 

advisory materials. The two core linked resources are Understanding WCAG 2.0 and 
23

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 

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 

 

1

See, e.g., 1 C.F.R. § 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).
24

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 textbased system for communicating within a voice communication system. Since then, 

technology has greatly advanced to the point where, in addition to TTYs, multiple textbased 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 
25

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 

functionality. The Board also proposed prescriptive standards for RTT (e.g., 

transmission delay, error rates), as well as interoperability requirements. For 

interoperability with PSTN, the Board proposed (as did the Advisory Committee) use of 

the TIA 825-A (Baudot) standard. For ICT interoperating with VoIP products or systems 

using SIP, the Board did not propose a specific standard; instead, the Board proposed 

that such products or systems support transmission of RTT conforming to a “commonly 

used cross-manufacturer, non-proprietary standard.” The Board considered referencing 

RFC 4103, but elected not to do so because, at that time, it was not thought to be a 

referenceable standard. 

Commenters responding to the RTT-related proposals in the 2010 ANPRM generally 

supported RTT, but offered mixed views on the Board’s proposed technical 

specifications. Commenters representing people with disabilities strongly supported 

inclusion of RTT functionality requirements in the proposed rule. They emphasized, 

among other things, that RTT represented a major advance by allowing persons with 

hearing- or speech-related disabilities to communicate through real-time text on 

mainstream devices, rather than having to use special and expensive devices (such as 

TTYs). They were critical, however, of the Board’s decision not to incorporate a specific 

VoIP-related interoperability standard. Commenters representing people with 

disabilities (and also academia) urged the Board to adopt RFC 4103 for RTT 

 

2

Pursuant to the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, the FCC 

formed an Emergency Access Advisory Committee. In January 2012, the committee issued an 

“Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC) Report and Recommendations.” In the report, the 

committee discussed a number of policy and technical recommendations. These recommendations cover 

both interim and future action in Emergency Communications (see 

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312161A1.doc). In Appendix C to the report, the 

committee recommended that terminals offering real-time text conversation support ITU-T 

Recommendation T.140 and that text conversation be provided according to RFC 4103.
26

interoperating with VoIP using SIP, and provided information to support its use as a 

referenceable standard. Commenters from industry, on the other hand, encouraged the 

Board to take a cautious approach to RTT. They believed that, while RTT technology 

held promise as a major improvement in text communication (particularly in emergency 

situations), it was not sufficiently mature at that time to warrant adoption of a particular 

interoperability standard—including RFC 4103—for Internet-based calls. Commenters 

also objected to the proposed character and transmission delay rates as being overly 

prescriptive, thus potentially restricting the development of future technologies. (No 

commenters took issue with the Board’s proposal to incorporate TIA 825-A as the 

standard for interoperability with PSTN.) 

Based on these comments, in the 2011 ANPRM, the Board proposed to retain the 

references to the TIA 825-A standard for TTY signals on the PSTN, and to add a 

requirement for conformance with the RFC 4103 standard for VoIP products or systems 

using SIP. We did not retain the provisions specifying character and transmission delay 

rates. Overall, commenters largely supported the Board’s revisions to RTT-related 

requirements in the 2011 ANPRM. However, several commenters representing industry 

and a local government agency asserted that RTT was not sufficiently mature or 

deployed widely enough to be useful. Some commenters also identified other 

standards aside from RFC 4103 that were currently in use (e.g., XMPP and XEP-0301) 

and could serve to facilitate RTT for Internet-based calls. 

In this NPRM, the Board proposes to require that, where ICT provides real-time, twoway voice communication, such ICT must also support RTT functionality. Proposed 

410.6 would require features capable of text generation to be compatible with real-time 

voice communication used on a network. ICT would be required to interoperate either 

within its own closed system or outside a network. For example, a closed 

communication system, such as within a federal agency, would be required to 

interoperate with either the publicly switched telephone network (PSTN) or Voice over 

Internet Protocol (VoIP) products or systems to support the transmission of real-time 

text. The Board believes that RTT is sufficiently mature as a technology (and has 

sufficiently proliferated in the current ICT marketplace) to warrant coverage in the 

proposed rule. For example, real-time instant messaging programs—such as 

Yahoo!®Messenger and AOL Instant Messenger’s “Real-Time IM” —have, in the past, 

used proprietary protocols that were very similar to SIP. 

Where federal agencies provide their employees with smartphones or similar 

technology, this NPRM would require such ICT to have the potential to communicate 

using RTT. The Board does not, however, thereby intend to require that all phone users 

(with or without disabilities) communicate using RTT in all circumstances. Similar to 

several other proposed accessibility features in the proposed rule, RTT must only be 

enabled and used when needed to ensure comparable access and use of ICT by 

persons with hearing disabilities. For example, federal managers will need to make 

clear that, when deaf or hard-of-hearing employees with agency-provided smartphones 

use RTT, coworkers without disabilities using agency smartphones will also need the 

RTT feature on their respective phones enabled. Such an approach ensures that 

communications among deaf and hearing coworkers are equally effective as voice 
27

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 RTTenabled 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 RTTenabled 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 governmentissued, non-RTT smartphones. 

Question 1. To realize the full potential benefits of the Section 508 proposal to require 

RTT functionality wherever an ICT product provides real-time, two-way voice 

communication, federal managers would need to direct their employees to keep the 

RTT features on their phones enabled when needed to accommodate employees with 

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?
28

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 socalled “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 
29

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 programlevel accessibility information mainstream operating systems and software must make 

available to assistive technology. The Board also proposed to require assistive 

technology to use this accessibility information to achieve interoperability. Commenters 

generally applauded the Board’s proposed refresh of the interoperability requirements 

for mainstream operating systems and software, and viewed these requirements as a 

big step forward. Assistive technology vendors and trade organizations, however, 

uniformly objected to the imposition of requirements on assistive technology. They

expressed a need to be wholly unconstrained to best serve consumers. They also 

expressed concern that accessibility services varied widely from platform to platform, 

and were often insufficient to support necessary features of their assistive technology 

products. All other commenter groups—including individuals with disabilities and the 

mainstream IT industry—advocated maintaining the minimal requirements for assistive 

technology included in the ANPRMs. 

In this NPRM, the Board proposes to retain, with minimal changes, the technical 

interoperability requirements for mainstream operating systems and software from the 

prior ANPRMs. The Board also found commenters’ arguments for inclusion of minimal 

requirements for assistive technology to be compelling. Accordingly, the Board has also 

retained the proposal requiring assistive technology to use the basic set of accessibility 

information provided by operating systems and software to achieve interoperability. We 

discuss these issues in further detail below in Section V.E (Major Issues – Assistive 

Technology), and Section VI.D (Section-by-Section Analysis – Functional Performance 

Criteria and Technical Requirements – 502 and 401). 
30

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. 
31

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. 
32

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 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 (Section-by-Section 

- 508 Standards: Application and Scoping - E202.3 and E202.4). 

9. Broadening of Documentation Requirement for Undue Burden Exception

Section 1194.2 (a) (2) of the existing 508 Standards requires agencies to provide 

supporting documentation when determining that procurement of a compliant product 

would impose an undue burden. In the 2010 ANPRM, the Access Board proposed to 

broaden the undue burden documentation requirement so that it applied not only to ICT 

procurement, but also to other situations in which the 508 Standards applied—namely, 

the development, maintenance, or use of ICT. We did not receive any comments 

directly related to this approach, but did receive a few comments requesting clarification 
33

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. 
34

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_301549v0

10000c.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/

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: 
35

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 13

Chapter 1 – Application and 

Administration

Chapter 2 – References

Chapter 3 – Definitions and 

Abbreviations 

Chapter 2 – Scoping 

Requirements

Chapter 1– Scope

Chapter 10 – Documents 

Chapter 3 – Functional 

Performance Criteria

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
36

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

 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 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, 
37

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 
38

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 websites (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 public-facing content is 

the notion that federal agencies must ensure equal access to electronic information that 

they themselves directly make available to the general public by posting on a public 

fora. So, for example, if a federal agency posts a PDF version of a recent settlement 

agreement on its website 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 website (or, alternatively, on a social media site hosted by 

 

3

An analogous provision in proposed C203.1 would require telecommunications equipment 

manufacturers to make content integral to the use of ICT conform to WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1. 
39

a third party), the agency would also be required to ensure that that electronic 

information complied with accessibility requirements in proposed E205.2 for publicfacing 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 website. 

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 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. 
40

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 website. 

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 website 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 
41

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 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 websites. 

 

4 OMB is in the process of updating Circular A-119. See Request for Comments on a Proposed Revision 

of OMB Circular No. A–119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus 

Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, 79 FR 8207 (proposed Feb. 11, 2014). In its request 

for comment, OMB stated: “The revised Circular would maintain a strong preference for using voluntary 

consensus standards in Federal regulation and procurement. It would also acknowledge, however, that 

there may be some standards not developed using a consensus-driven process that are in use in the 

market—particularly in the information technology space—and that may be relevant (and necessary) in 

meeting agency missions and priorities.
42

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 subjectmatter experts from around the world, including representatives of federal agencies and 

others who had concerns with our approach. The Task Force’s final consensus report 

provides guidance concerning application of WCAG 2.0 to non-Web ICT, specifically 

non-Web documents and software. See W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, WSC 

Working Group Note - Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and 

Communications Technologies (Sept. 5, 2013), available at 

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

The Task Force analyzed each of the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria to determine their 

suitability for application to non-Web content. There are thirty-eight Level A and Level 

AA Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0. The Task Force found that the majority of Success 

Criteria from WCAG 2.0 can be applied to non-Web documents and software with no, or 
43

only minimal, changes. Specifically, twenty-six Success Criteria do not include any 

Web-related terms and, therefore, can be applied directly as written and as described in 

the “Intent” sections of the most current version of “Understanding WCAG 2.0.” 

Thirteen of these twenty-six can be applied without any additional notes. The other 

thirteen also can be applied as written, but the Task Force provided additional 

informative notes in its report for the sake of clarity. 

Of the remaining twelve Success Criteria, the Task Force found that eight of them can 

be applied as written when certain Web-specific terms or phrases like “Web page” are 

replaced with non-Web terms or phrases like “non-Web documents and software.” 

Additional notes are provided in the Task Force report to assist in the application of 

these Success Criteria to non-Web ICT. One example is Success Criterion 2.4.5 

Multiple Ways. The Task Force noted that, when applied to the non-Web environment, 

this criterion requires that there be more than one way to locate a document (or 

software program) within a set of documents or programs. For mobile devices, this 

criterion could be satisfied by an operating system that makes files locatable by 

directory and search functions—features that are nearly ubiquitous among mobile 

operating systems in use today. 

Another example is Success Criterion 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation. For this criterion, 

the Task Force noted that application to the non-Web environment would require 

consistency among navigational elements when such elements were repeated within 

sets of documents or software programs. To be conformant, navigational elements 

would be required to occur in the same relative order each time they are presented. It is 

unlikely that authors would provide navigation elements for a set of related documents 

and then present them differently from document to document, thereby defeating their 

purpose. 

The Task Force’s report also notes that applying the success criteria in WCAG 2.0 to 

non-Web ICT with closed functionality proves problematic when a success criterion 

assumes the presence of assistive technologies, since closed functionality—by 

definition—does not allow attachment or use of assistive technology. This might occur, 

for example, when an eBook allows assistive technologies to access all of the user 

interface controls of the eBook program (open functionality), but does not allow such 

technologies to access the actual content of books (closed functionality). The Task 

Force identified 14 success criteria for which compliance might prove challenging for 

developers of ICT products with closed functionality. We propose to resolve this issue 

by exempting ICT with closed functionality from certain WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria, in 

conjunction with the addition of requirements specific to such products in Chapter 402, 

Closed Functionality. 

By incorporating WCAG 2.0 by reference, the proposed standards would provide a 

single set of requirements for websites, documents, and software. WCAG 2.0 

addresses new technologies and is responsive to the fact that the characteristics of 

products (e.g., native browser behavior and plug-ins and applets) have converged over 

time. Today, there are fewer distinctions among product categories, and some are 

outdated. For example, modern smartphones include: software applications and 
44

operating systems, Web-based intranet and Internet information and applications, and 

video and multimedia products. Additionally, smartphones are portable computers, 

telecommunications products, and self-contained closed products. New requirements in 

WCAG 2.0 also address gaps in the existing 508 Standards. Examples include: a 

requirement for a logical reading order, the ability to resize text, and the ability to turn off 

background audio that might interfere with comprehension and screen reading software. 

3. Comparison of WCAG 2.0 to Existing 508 Standards

While the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria build on the heritage of the existing 508 

Standards, they are generally more explicit than the standards. Careful attention was 

given during their development to ensure that the Success Criteria are written as 

objectively testable requirements. In addition, unlike the existing 508 Standards, WCAG 

2.0 is written in a technologically neutral fashion, which makes it directly applicable to a 

wide range of content types and formats. 

For example, operability of ICT through keyboards (or alternate keyboard devices) is 

often critical to accessibility. Persons who are blind or who have limited vision often use 

screen readers to navigate Web pages using only the keyboard. Keyboard operability is 

also essential for many individuals with motor impairments who use alternate 

keyboards, or input devices that act as keyboard emulators when accessing ICT 

because they find mouse pointing to be cumbersome or impossible. Keyboard 

emulators include voice recognition software, sip-and-puff software, and on-screen 

keyboards. The existing 508 Standards envision keyboard operability from both 

software and Web-based information or applications, but such requirements were not 

necessarily explicit. Section 1194.21(a) expressly mandates that, when software is 

designed to run on a keyboard, all product functions must generally be executable 

through a keyboard. With respect to Web-based information and applications, the 508 

Standards are not so explicit. At the time these standards were promulgated, Web 

pages created with HyperText Markup Language (HTML®) 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 
45

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 website at www.access-board.gov/wcag2-

508. In this table, the Board has identified WCAG 2.0 success criteria as either 

“substantially equivalent” or “new” relative to the existing 508 Standards. Identification 

of a WCAG 2.0 success criterion as “new” indicates that it has no corresponding 

provision in the existing 508 Standards; rather, it addresses a deficiency with the 

existing 508 Standards as identified by the developers of WCAG. In most cases, 

agencies with Section 508 compliance testing processes have adapted their procedures 

to address these accessibility concerns. 

In sum, there are 38 WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA Success Criteria. After careful 

comparison of these success criteria to the existing 508 Standards, the Access Board 

deems 22 success criteria to be substantially equivalent in substance to our existing 

standards. The Board estimates that agencies with content that meets this group of 

existing 508 Standards will incur no or minimal costs by virtue of incorporation of WCAG 

2.0 into our proposed rule. For the remaining 16 success criteria the Board deems to 

be new, it is anticipated that agencies would, to a greater or lesser extent (depending on 

the content and criteria at issue), incur some costs when implementing WCAG 2.0. 

Question 6. The Board seeks comment on the extent that the proposed incorporation of 

WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria would result in new costs or benefits. 

We have characterized the majority of success criteria as “substantially equivalent” to 

requirements under the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines and request 

comment as to the accuracy of this characterization. 

4. Proposed Updates to Other Web-Specific Provisions in Existing 508 

Standards

Along with the incorporation by reference of WCAG 2.0, the Board also proposes to 

update six provisions in the existing 508 Standards related to Web content to account 

for technological changes or their respective obsolescence. These six provisions for 

which the Board proposes deletion or replacement are as follows:

We propose to replace § 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 
46

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 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 textonly Web pages under certain circumstances, because incorporation of WCAG 2.0 

success criteria renders this provision obsolete. While WCAG 2.0 does permit 

“conforming alternate versions,” text-only pages could not provide equivalent 

information or functionality for all but the most trivial Web content. The WCAG 

requirement for a conforming alternate version significantly exceeds the expectations for 

text only pages. 

Question 7. A Web page can conform to WCAG 2.0 either by satisfying all success 

criteria under one of the levels of conformance or by providing a conforming alternate 

version. WCAG 2.0 always permits the use of conforming alternate versions. Are there 

any concerns that unrestricted use of conforming alternate versions of Web pages may 

lead to the unnecessary development of separate Web sites or unequal services for 

individuals with disabilities? Should the Board restrict the use of conforming alternate 

versions beyond the explicit requirements of WCAG 2.0? The Board requests that 

responses be provided in the context of the WCAG definition for conforming alternate 

versions (>http://w3.org/TR/WCAG20/<#conforming-alternate-versiondef). Commenters 

should review the guidance material as to why conforming alternate versions are 

permitted (>http://w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html<#ucwhypermit-head). 

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 
47

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 non-permanent display or presentation of alternate text presentation or 

audio descriptions be user-selectable. Section 1194.24(e) essentially duplicates 

requirements for video and multimedia products already set forth in other provision in 

the same section (i.e., subsections (c) and (d)). The provision for user selectable 

closed captions and audio description restates existing practice, so it is unnecessary. 

C. Functional Performance Criteria

The functional performance criteria are outcome-based provisions that address barriers 

to using ICT by individuals with certain disabilities, such as those related to vision, 

hearing, color blindness, speech, and manual dexterity. Both the existing 508 

Standards and 255 Guidelines provide functional performance criteria. However, the 

existing 508 Standards do not expressly define the relationship between its functional 

performance criteria and technical requirements. To address this gap, the Board 

proposes to clarify when application of the functional performance criteria in the 508 

Standards is required. (We are not proposing to change the application of the functional 

performance criteria in the 255 Guidelines.) The Board also proposes, in this NPRM, to 

update several functional performance criteria in Chapter 3 to refine some criteria and to 

make editorial changes necessitated by revisions elsewhere in the proposed rule. 

1. Application of Functional Performance Criteria: 508 Standards

Section 1194.31 of the existing 508 Standards, which sets forth six specific functional 

performance criteria, does not specify when federal agencies and other covered entities 

should or must apply these criteria. As described in the preamble to the final rule for the 

existing standards:

This section [1194.31] provides functional performance criteria for overall 

product evaluation and for technologies or components for which there is 

no specific requirement under other sections. These criteria are also 

intended to ensure that the individual accessible components work 

together to create an accessible product. (65 FR 80519 (Dec. 21, 2000))

Over the ensuing years, some have raised questions about application of the functional 

performance criteria in the existing 508 Standards. The General Services 

Administration’s IT Accessibility and Workforce (GSA/ITAW)—which is the federal 

government’s principal coordinator for Section 508 implementation—provides the 

following information in a “Q &A” format concerning application of the functional 

performance criteria:

How should an agency proceed in identifying “applicable" technical 

provisions in Subparts B [technical provisions], C [functional performance 

criteria], and D [information, documentation, and support] of the Access 
48

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 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 

 

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.
49

not subject to objective testing. As one commenter from the IT industry noted: “[A] 

supplier cannot guarantee that the functional performance criteria have been met unless 

the supplier controls all the components of the end-to-end solution.”

In this NPRM, the Board heeds the concerns of industry groups and effectively returns 

to our original proposal whereby the functional performance criteria in the 508 

Standards apply only in two specific circumstances—when there are “gaps” in the 

technical requirements and when evaluating equivalent facilitation. Specifically, 

agencies would be required to apply the functional criteria as follows. First, where the 

proposed requirements in Chapter 4 for hardware and Chapter 5 for software do not 

address one or more of the features of ICT, sections E204.1 and C202.1 would require 

the features that are not addressed in those chapters to conform to the functional 

performance criteria in Chapter 3. This is consistent with the GSA/ITAW’s 

recommended approach under the existing 508 Standards. It is also consistent with §§ 

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 
50

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 time-dependent 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-by-Section Analysis - Application and Scoping). 

Table 3 below provides a provision-by-provision summary of how the proposed rule 

would revise the existing functional performance criteria by comparing the criteria in 

proposed 302 (in the left-hand column of the table) to its counterparts in existing 508 

Standards § 1194.31 (in the middle column of the table) and existing 255 Guidelines § 

1193.41 (in the right-hand column of the table). 
51

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. 
52

Proposed Sections E207.2 

and C205.2 (incorporating 

WCAG 2.0 by reference) 

and 302

Existing 508 Standards Existing 255 

Guidelines

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.
53

Proposed Sections E207.2 

and C205.2 (incorporating 

WCAG 2.0 by reference) 

and 302

Existing 508 Standards Existing 255 

Guidelines

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

• 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.

§ 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.
54

Proposed Sections E207.2 

and C205.2 (incorporating 

WCAG 2.0 by reference) 

and 302

Existing 508 Standards Existing 255 

Guidelines

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

• 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 autoupdating is part of an activity 

where it is essential.

§ 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.

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. 
55

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, multiparty 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, 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 inband 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 
56

of real-time text with minimal delays; it supports message editing in real-time; and, it has 

reliable real-time text delivery. It can be used for multiple users and allows alternate 

optional presentations of real-time text, including split screen or other layouts. The 

standard also allows use within gateways to interoperate with other real-time text 

protocols, including RFC 4103. It allows immediate conversational text through mobile 

phone text messaging and mainstream instant messaging. For more information on the 

benefits of XEP-0301, see http://www.realjabber.org/xep/xep-0301.html. 

Yet despite its potential benefits, the Board cannot incorporate XEP-0301 until it 

becomes a final standard. However, should the XEP-0301 standard be finalized before 

publication of the final rule, the Board plans to incorporate it by reference as an 

alternative technology to support transmission of RTT when interoperating with VoIP 

products or systems using XMPP. RFC 4103 would, in any event, be retained for ICT 

interoperating with VoIP products or systems using SIP technology. 

Question 8. If the XEP-0301 standard is finalized, the Board is considering 

incorporating it by reference as an alternative standard for XMPP networks. We seek 

comment on the benefits, costs, and possible drawbacks associated with referencing 

this standard in addition to the RFC 4103 standard.

The European standard, EN 301 549 would allow the use of multiple standards for RTT. 

As discussed in 4.6, Harmonization with European Activities above, EN 301 549 lists 

several standards for RTT, as well as an unspecified “common specification” for RTT. 

The common specification must indicate a method for indicating loss of corruption of 

characters. The Board seeks comment on whether other standards should be 

incorporated by reference. The other standards are:

 ITU-T v.18, Recommendation ITU-T V.18 (2000) “Operational and interworking 

requirements for DCEs operating in the text telephone mode” (see EN 301 549 

6.3.3(a)). This Recommendation specifies features to be incorporated in data 

carrier equipment intended for use in, or communicating with, text telephones 

primarily used by people who are deaf or hard of hearing. 

 IP Multimedia Sub-System (IMS) protocols specified in TS 126 114, TS 122 173, 

and TS 134 229 (see EN 301 549 6.3.3(c)). ETSI TS 126 114, Universal Mobile 

Telecommunications System (which was referenced in the EAAC Report and 

Recommendation noted previously in Section IV.F.2) supports a “total 

communication” approach by establishing a minimum set of codecs and transport 

protocols that must be supported by all elements in the IMS system for video, 

real-time text, audio, and high definition (HD) audio. As noted previously, the 

Board decided not to require standards for video, audio, or HD audio in this 

proposed rule beyond the technical requirements set forth in proposed 410 (ICT 

with Two-Way Voice Communication). Both the ETSI TS 122 173 and ETSI TS 

134 229 standards are still under development, and, therefore, cannot be 

referenced at this time.
57

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 
58

sufficiently proactive in spelling out the accessibility features 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). 
59

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 

 

6

Advisory sections and figures that illustrate the technical requirements are available on the Internet at: 

www.access-board.gov. The advisory sections provide guidance only and do not contain mandatory 

requirements.
60

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: 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-bysection 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.

 

7

The “C” prefix for Section 255-specific requirements is a shorthand reference to “communications” in 

ICT, while the “E” prefix for requirements exclusive to the 508 Standards derives from “electronic” in the 

former regulatory term, E&IT. 
61

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.
62

E102.1 Incorporation by Reference

This section lists the technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standardsetting 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 
63

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 website 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 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.
64

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. 
65

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, 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.
66

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 
67

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 
68

provide definitions for key terms used in the proposed standards, reflect technological 

advances since promulgation of the existing 508 Standards, and aid stakeholder 

understanding. These new terms are described below.

The term “508 Standards” is defined in order to provide consistent cross-reference 

within the standards to all 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.
69

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.
70

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 website 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 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).
71

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 
72

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 nonprocurement 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 

 

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.
73

meets these standards consistent with its business needs. This section would 

editorially revise existing 508 Standards § 1194.2(b). 

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.
74

E203.2 Agency Business Needs

This section proposes that, when agencies procure, develop, maintain or use ICT, they 

must identify the business needs of individuals with disabilities affecting vision, hearing, 

color perception, speech, dexterity, strength, or reach, in order to determine how such 

users will perform the functions supported by such ICT. The provision would also 

require agencies to assess how the ICT will be installed, configured, and maintained to 

support users with disabilities. The list of disabilities in this provision parallels the 

functional performance criteria proposed in Chapter 3.

The Board intends, through this provision, to reinforce the fundamental principle that 

agencies have an affirmative, continuing obligation under Section 508 to maintain the 

accessibility of ICT. While this is not a new requirement under Section 508, it is not 

expressly addressed in the existing 508 Standards. The Board proposes to include this 

section in response to many concerns raised over the years about the requirements 

under Section 508 to maintain ICT accessibility over time. Proposed 203.2 would make 

clear, for example, that agencies have an affirmative duty to ensure that when an 

accessible operating system is updated, the current or an updated version of screen 

reading software is compatible with the updated operating system.

E204 Functional Performance Criteria

This is an introductory section.

E204.1 General

This section proposes that, when the technical provisions of Chapter 4 and 5 do not 

address one or more features of ICT, any unaddressed features must conform to the 

Functional Performance Criteria specified in Chapter 3. This proposed section is 

consistent with current agency practice. The Functional Performance Criteria, and the 

manner in which they are to be used in evaluating equivalent facilitation under proposed 

E101.2, is discussed in Section IV.E.3 (Rulemaking History – 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs: 

Significant Issues – Relationship between Functional Performance Criteria and 

Technical Provisions), and Section V.C (Major Issues - Functional Performance 

Criteria).

E205 Content

This is an introductory section. 

E205.1 General

This section proposes that public-facing content, along with eight specific categories of 

non-public facing content, must conform to proposed E205. In turn, proposed E205 

requires conformance to the Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance 

Requirements specified for Web pages in WCAG 2.0 or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1), both 

of which are incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1. An 
75

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 website can be associated with 

descriptive identification using HTML. Photos attached to an email could have the text 

alternative provided in the body of the email. Similarly, there are commonly available 

methods for displaying caption text so that it is synchronized with MPEG-4 multimedia.

E205.2 Public Facing

This section proposes that all public-facing content must meet the accessibility 

requirements in E205.4, which, in turn, requires conformance to WCAG 2.0 Level A and 

Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified for Web pages or, 

where applicable, ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1). Public-facing content subject to this 

provision would include, for example: agency websites; electronic documents, images 

or video posted on agency websites; 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 website, 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 
76

(b) falls within one or more of eight categories of communication. The eight proposed 

categories are: (1) emergency notifications; (2) initial or final decisions adjudicating 

administrative claims or proceedings; (3) internal or external program or policy 

announcements; (4) notices of benefits, program eligibility, employment opportunities or 

personnel actions; (5) formal acknowledgements or receipts; (6) questionnaires or 

surveys; (7) templates or forms; and (8) educational or training materials.

While there is no express exception for draft content in E205.3, the Board expects that 

drafts, by their very nature, would typically fall outside the scope of agency official 

communications covered by this section. Generally speaking, only final documents and 

other electronic materials that are ready for dissemination to their intended audience 

would qualify as the type of content covered by categories 1 through 8. Draft content 

would, however, fall within the ambit of proposed E205.3 (and, therefore, be required to 

conform to WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1) when an agency intends a draft to be “final” in the 

sense that it is being formally disseminated or published for input or comment by its 

intended audience. For example, if any agency task force is seeking to improve 

agency-wide telecommuting policies and circulates a draft policy memorandum by email 

to the office of human resources for review, neither the email nor draft memorandum 

would be covered under proposed E205.3. However, if instead, the agency task force 

had completed its draft policy on telecommuting and circulated the draft policy as an 

email attachment sent to all agency employees soliciting their input and comments, then 

both the email and attached draft policy memorandum—regardless of format (e.g., word 

processing document, PDF)—would be covered by this section and, accordingly, need 

to satisfy the accessibility requirements in E205.4.

Proposed E205.3 also provides an exception for non-public facing content maintained 

by NARA for archival purposes even if such content otherwise falls into one of the 

foregoing eight categories. Such electronic records would not need to conform to the 

accessibility requirements in proposed E205.4 so long as they remained non-public 

facing. The Board intends the scope of this exception to be limited, and anticipates that 

it will extend only to non-public facing electronic materials administered or maintained 

by NARA in compliance with federal recordkeeping statutes and implementing 

regulations. 

E206 Hardware

This is an introductory section.

E206.1 General 

This section proposes that components of ICT that are hardware, and transmit 

information or have a user interface, must conform to the applicable provisions of 

Chapter 4.

One hardware provision in the existing 508 Standards that has not been retained in the 

proposed rule is § 1194.23(a). This section has two parts. First, it requires 

telecommunications products that provide voice communication to provide a standard 
77

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 
78

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 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. (Section-by-Section 

Analysis – 508 Standards: Application and Scoping – E206.1).

255 Chapter 1: Application and Administration

This chapter proposes general requirements reflecting the purpose of the 255 

Guidelines (C101.1). It lists referenced standards and where they may be obtained 

(C102), and provides definitions of terms used in the proposed 255 Guidelines (C103). 
79

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 
80

exact equivalents. This section would also provide that each system be used 

independently of the other. This proposed section is new to the 255 Guidelines, and 

would clarify dimensions stated in the text of the guidelines or referenced standards.

C102 Referenced Standards

This section identifies the consensus standards that would be incorporated by reference 

in the proposed 255 Guidelines. The section also proposes that, where there is a 

difference between a provision of the proposed 255 Guidelines and a referenced 

standard, the provision of the 255 Guidelines would take precedence.

Incorporation by reference of these standards would be an improvement from the 

existing 255 Guidelines, which contain no referenced standards. The Advisory 

Committee strongly recommended the adoption of specific accessibility consensus 

standards in order to promote harmonization. The adoption of consensus standards 

results in a more unified regulatory environment in which all participants benefit from 

clarity and simplicity.

The standards listed in proposed C102 would apply to ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines 

to the extent that it is readily achievable to do so. The Board is proposing to incorporate 

by reference the same standards as those incorporated in the proposed 508 Standards. 

For a discussion of these standards, see Section VI.B (Section-by-Section Analysis –

508 Standards: Application and Scoping – E102).

As noted above, one of the standards proposed for incorporation is WCAG 2.0. As 

applied telecommunications equipment, this would require manufacturers to conform to 

WCAG 2.0 when providing electronic content integral to the use of their equipment 

(under proposed C203.1), a user interface (under proposed C205.2), or support 

documentation (under proposed C206.1 and 602.3). This would include, for example, 

consumer manuals for telecommunications equipment posted on manufacturer 

websites, online registration forms, and interactive consumer support interfaces. A 

similar provision was proposed in the 2011 ANPRM. Commenters strongly supported 

incorporation of WCAG 2.0 to web content, but some telecommunications industry 

groups objected to application of this standard outside the web environment. The 

Board’s bases for applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT is detailed above in the Major 

Issues section. See Section V.B.2 (Major Issues – WCAG 2.0 Incorporation by 

Reference – Justification for Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web ICT). 

Question 15. The Access Board requests data or other information from 

telecommunications equipment manufacturers regarding the potential costs and 

benefits of incorporating WCAG 2.0 by reference and applying its success criteria to 

both web and non-web environments. What difficulties, if any, do telecommunications 

equipment manufacturers foresee in applying WCAG 2.0 outside the web environment? 

Does the WCAG2ICT Task Force’s final report provide sufficient guidance concerning 

application of WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT? If not, what additional guidance would 

telecommunications equipment manufacturers find helpful? 
81

C103 Defined Terms

This section sets forth definitions of terms used in, or integral to, the proposed 255 

Guidelines. Some of the definitions have been carried over in whole or in part from the 

existing 255 Guidelines, while others represent terms that are new to these guidelines. 

Proposed C103 would include nearly all of the same defined terms in the proposed 508 

Standards, with the exception of one term (i.e., “agency”) that has no application in the 

guidelines. We also propose to revise or delete several definitions from the existing 255 

Guidelines. Highlighted below are notable changes to, or deletion of, defined terms in 

the existing 255 Guidelines. For a complete discussion of all defined terms, see Section 

VI.B. (Section-by-Section Analysis – 508 Standards: Application and Scoping – E103.4).

As with the proposed 508 Standards, the Board proposes to replace the term “electronic 

and information technology (E&IT)”—which appears in both the existing 255 Guidelines 

and the 508 Standards—with “information and communication technology (ICT).” The 

scope and application of the term “ICT” are discussed in detail in the Section-by-Section 

Analysis of the proposed 508 Standards. See Section VI.B (Section-by-Section 

Analysis – 508 Standards: Application and Scoping). We note here that ICT is a broad 

term that encompasses not only information technology and other electronic systems 

and processes covered by the 508 Standards, but also telecommunications equipment 

and customer premises equipment subject to the 255 Guidelines. The term “ICT,” 

moreover, embraces not only telecommunications equipment, but also its related 

software and electronic content.

We also propose to revise definitions for “customer premises equipment” (CPE) and 

“specialized customer premises equipment” found in the existing 255 Guidelines to be 

consistent with current FCC regulations implementing Section 255 of the 

Communications Act. (See 47 C.F.R. Part 14 (2013)).

Additionally, the Board proposes to add several terms that would be new to the 255 

Guidelines. As with the proposed 255 Guidelines, these newly defined terms are being 

proposed to reflect, among other things, new terminology used in the proposed 

guidelines or technological changes. One proposed new term is “255 Guidelines.” This 

term is newly defined in order to provide consistent cross-reference within the 

guidelines to all chapters that apply to Section 255-covered manufacturers of 

telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, namely: 255 

Chapters 1 and 2 (36 CFR Part 1194, Appendix B), and Chapters 3 through 6 (36 CFR 

Part 1194, Appendix C). This definition is consistent with proposed § 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 
82

Section VI.B. (Section-by-Section Analysis – 508 Standards: Application and Scoping –

E103.4). 

Lastly, proposed C103.4 would exclude several terms that are defined in the existing 

255 Guidelines. These terms are not included in this proposed rule because either the 

proposed technical requirement associated with the term sufficiently conveys its 

meaning (i.e., “accessible,” “readily achievable,” “alternate formats,” “manufacturer,” and 

“telecommunications equipment”), or the term is not used in the proposed 255 

Guidelines (i.e., “agency,” “alternate methods,” “peripheral devices,” and “product”).

255 Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements

This chapter proposes scoping for requirements applicable to telecommunications 

equipment manufacturers in the design, development, or fabrication of covered ICT that 

is newly released, upgraded, or substantially changed from an earlier version or 

model—that is, the types of ICT that would be required to conform to the proposed 

functional performance criteria and technical requirements in the 255 Guidelines, as 

well as the conditions under which these provisions would apply. 

Proposed 255 Chapter 2 would differ substantially from its counterpart chapter in the 

proposed 508 Standards due to the exclusion of several provisions that are inapplicable 

in the context of Section 255. 255 Chapter 2 also simplifies and reorganizes provisions 

in existing 255 Guidelines §§ 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.
83

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 

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 
84

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). 
85

When these five provisions are applicable in the proposed 508 Standards, the exception 

for commercial non-availability would apply (under proposed E202.6.2), thereby 

requiring a federal agency to provide a user with disabilities access to, and use of, 

information by an alternative means that meets his or her identified needs.

Question 16. Is telecommunications equipment covered by Section 255 sufficiently 

unique to warrant exemption from the five hardware-related accessibility requirements 

listed in proposed C204.1? Should exceptions from other hardware requirements be 

added, or, conversely, should any of these five proposed exceptions be removed?

C205 Software

This is an introductory section.

C205.1 General

This section proposes that, where components of ICT transmit information or have a 

user interface, they must conform to the applicable provisions in Chapter 5 (Software). 

C205.2 WCAG Conformance

This section proposes that specified components of covered ICT—namely, user 

interface components, platform content, and application content—must conform to Level 

A and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements specified for Web 

pages in WCAG 2.0, which is incorporated by reference in Chapter 1. This requirement 

is new to the 255 Guidelines. In the Major Issues section above, the Board discusses 

the benefits of, and issues attendant to, incorporation of WCAG 2.0 into the 255 

Guidelines and 508 Standards. See Section V.B (Major Issues – WCAG 2.0 

Incorporation by Reference). 

C206 Support Documentation and Services

This is an introductory section.

C206.1 General

This section proposes to require that where support documentation or services are 

provided, they must conform to the proposed provisions of 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, 
86

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 
87

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
88

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. 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 Webbased 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 
89

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 product-by-product based 

structure of the guidelines results in a multiplicity of accessibility requirements. This 

proposed rule aims to address this problem by taking a functional approach across 

technologies, as well as by adding clarity and detail as to what accessible means. For 

these reasons, the proposed rule is not expected to impose material new costs on 

manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment.

With respect to an increasingly ubiquitous type of ICT hardware—self-service 

transaction machines—the Board has worked collaboratively with the Departments of 

Justice (DOJ) and Transportation (DOT) to develop a common set of technical 

requirements that could be referenced and scoped by these agencies in their respective 

rulemaking initiatives. While each agency has different regulatory authority, self-service 

transaction machines can be found in a variety of settings, and the accessibility barriers 

are generally common across these settings. In late 2013, DOT published a final rule 

implementing the Air Carrier Access Act that addresses accessibility standards for 

airline websites and automated kiosks located at domestic airports. See 78 FR 67882 

(Nov. 12, 2013). The DOT requirements for automated kiosks are consistent with 

existing 508 Standards for self-contained, closed products. In 2010, DOJ published an 

ANPRM to solicit public comment on accessibility requirements under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act for furniture and equipment. See 75 FR 43452 (July 26, 2010). 

Such requirements would cover, among other things, kiosks, interactive transaction 

machines, and point-of-sale devices. In a future rulemaking, the Board may update the 

ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines to harmonize those guidelines with the proposed 

508 Standards and the 255 Guidelines, once finalized.

401 General

This is an introductory section.

401.1 Scope

This section proposes that the technical requirements for hardware in Chapter 4 be 

applied where (a) required by 508 Chapter 2 or 255 Chapter 2, or (b) where referenced 

by other requirements. Assistive technology hardware would be excepted from 

conformance with this chapter. This exception is proposed in response to public 

comments to the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs that sought clarification on this point. 

Commenters expressed the concern that, should this scoping section be read as 

obligating assistive technology hardware to meet the requirements of this chapter, some 

assistive technology would not be able to serve its function. For example, people with 

very low muscle tone might use a specialized membrane keyboard that is completely 

flat, with no tactilely discernible separation between the keys, because it is the most 

optimal input device for them. This type of specialized keyboard, however, would not be 

permitted under proposed 407.3, which addresses tactilely discernible input controls. In 
90

light of the specialized nature of assistive technology, the Board proposes it be 

excepted from the technical requirements in this chapter.

402 Closed Functionality

This is an introductory section.

402.1 General

This section proposes to require ICT with closed functionality to be operable without 

requiring the user to attach or install assistive technology, with the exception of personal 

headsets or other audio couplers. This provision is needed because, when ICT has 

closed functionality, the end user typically does not have the option of installing or 

attaching assistive technology. Closed functionality can also apply to the platform user 

interface. This is sometimes referred to as “firmware” because it has a software aspect, 

but is not alterable by the end-user and the user interface is necessarily tied to the 

hardware platform. The proposed technical requirements for software (Chapter 5) do 

not specifically address closed functionality, except for the interoperability of software 

and assistive technology. 

Components of ICT subject to the 255 Guidelines would be excepted from the 

requirements of this section (see C204.1 Exception) because such telecommunications 

equipment typically has closed functionality. For example, it is often impossible to 

attach or install assistive technology, such as a specialized keyboard.

Variable message signs (VMS) frequently are installed in federal buildings and facilities 

to provide information about ongoing events. Some VMS also convey information 

relevant to emergencies. VMS with closed functionality would be covered by this 

section. The Board is currently unaware of any VMS technology that provides audible 

output. However, there is one voluntary consensus standard addressing accessibility of 

VMS with respect to the needs of persons with low vision. The most recent edition of 

the International Code Council (ICC)’s “Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities” 

(ICC A117.1-2009) contains specifications for making high-resolution and low-resolution 

VMS more accessible to people with low vision. For low-resolution signs, these 

requirements address signage characters (e.g., case, style, height, width, stroke width, 

and spacing), as well as other characteristics relating to height above 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.
91

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
92

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 non-private listening. An exception also 

provides that ICT conforming to 410.2, which addresses volume gain for ICT with twoway 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 
93

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 § 1194.25(d) of the 508 Standards, but would be new to 

the 255 Guidelines. 

404 Preservation of Information Provided for Accessibility

This is an introductory section.

404.1 General

This section proposes to prohibit ICT that transmits or converts information or 

communication from removing non-proprietary information provided for accessibility or, 

if the non-proprietary information or communication is removed, this section would 

require that it be restored upon delivery. For example, a video or multimedia 

presentation with closed captioning would be required to retain the caption encoding, or, 

if removed in transmission, then restore such encoding upon delivery. This provision 

closely models §§ 1194.23(j) and 1193.37 of the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, 

respectively.

405 Flashing

This is an introductory section. 

405.1 General

This section proposes that, where ICT emits lights in flashes, there can be no more than 

three flashes in any one-second period. An exception would allow small flashes not 

exceeding the general flash and red flash thresholds defined in Success Criterion 2.3.1 

of WCAG 2.0 because such flashes do not pose seizure risks to users. This 

requirement is based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee. This 

proposed section closely corresponds to existing 508 Standards §§ 1194.21(k), 
94

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 nonproprietary 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 

 

9 See, e.g., Graham Harding e 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.
95

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 
96

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 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
97

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.
98

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, individuals using a speech output mode must be afforded 

the same degree of privacy as those using a display screen. The proposed requirement 

would be new to both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. ATMs and Fare Vending 

Machines, as addressed in the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines (36 CFR Part 

1191, Appendix D, section 707.4), typically support compliance with this requirement by 

providing a handset or audio jack. Additionally, this proposed section would prohibit 

screens from automatically going blank when the speech function is engaged. Many 

people with low vision use speech output to supplement or reinforce on-screen prompts. 

Consequently, automatically blanking the screen would render the ICT less accessible 

to these users. Provision of an option for users to blank the screen, however, may be 

helpful to individuals who desire greater privacy.

407.11 Keys, Tickets, and Fare Cards

This section would require that, when kiosks or other ICT provide a key, ticket, or fare 

card, those objects have a tactilely discernible orientation, if orientation is important to 

the object’s further use. This requirement would be new to the 508 Standards and 255 
99

Guidelines, and is intended to address the needs of individuals with visual impairments. 

This section is identical to the recently issued final rule by the Department of 

Transportation concerning the accessibility of tickets and boarding passes issued by 

shared-use automated kiosks at airport facilities. See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. 

Airports, 78 FR 67882 (Nov. 12, 2013) (to be codified at 49 CFR Part 27). ICT subject 

to the 255 Guidelines would be expressly exempted from the requirements of this 

section (by proposed C204.1 Exception) because telecommunications equipment does 

not typically issue keys, tickets, or fare cards. 

407.12 Reach Height

This section proposes requirements for the height of side and forward reaches that 

would enable persons using wheelchairs or other mobility aids to reach and operate at 

least one of each type of operable part. This proposed section would apply only to ICT 

that is stationary. By “stationary,” the Board means that the ICT, once put in place, is 

not intended to be relocated for routine use. Proposed 407.12 parallels existing 508 

Standards § 1194.25(j), which applies side reach requirements to ICT that is 

“freestanding, non-portable, and intended to be used in one location.” We are 

proposing to use the term “stationary” to address concerns that the word “freestanding” 

implies an independent supporting structure that may not always be in place, such as 

with a multifunction printer specifically designed for table-top or desk-top use. 

Specifically, this section would establish requirements for position (i.e., vertical 

reference plane), forward reach, and side reach. This section proposes maximum and 

minimum reach heights for either forward (over the lap) or side reaches to stationary 

ICT. Existing 508 Standards § 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. 
100

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.
101

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, 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).
102

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.
103

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 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? 
104

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 selfservice 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
105

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 two-way voice communication.

In July 2013, the FCC issued a request for comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by 

a telecommunications industry group requesting that the agency revise its hearing aid 

compatibility volume control gain requirements for analog and digital telephones.10 The 

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) petition urged the Commission to issue 

a notice of proposed rulemaking to, among other things, update its Part 68 rule to 

incorporate the most recent TIA standard for hearing aid compatibility volume control on 

telephones: ANSI/TIA-4965, Receive Volume Control Requirements for Digital and 

Analog Wireline Handset Terminals (2012). 28 FCC Rcd. at 10338-39. At present, the 

Commission’s regulation at § 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/TIA4965 (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 §§ 

 

10 See Request for Comment on Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Telecommunications Industry 

Association Regarding Hearing Aid Compatibility Volume Control Requirements, 28 FCC Rcd. 10338 

(July 19, 2013) (TIA Petition). The comment period on this petition closed in September 2013. Id. 
106

1194.23(h) and 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 VoIPbased 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 
107

delivers a more interactive, conversational communication experience compared to 

standard text messaging. It also provides superior speed and reliability in emergency 

situations. Furthermore, RTT permits the user to communicate using mainstream 

devices—such as mobile phones—rather than having to use specialized and expensive 

devices (such as TTYs). See discussion above in Section IV.E.4 (Rulemaking History –

2010 and 2011 ANPRMs: Significant Issues – Coverage of Real-Time Text), and 

Section V.D (Major Issues – Real-Time Text).

Proposed 410.6 would require that, where ICT supports real-time voice communication, 

it must also support RTT functionality. Subsections of this proposed provision would, in 

turn, establish technical requirements for display, text generation, and interoperability. 

Importantly, proposed 410.6 would not mandate that all ICT provide RTT functionality. 

Rather, only those ICT that already have real-time voice communication capabilities 

would be required to support RTT functions. In this way, the Board’s approach to 

requirements for RTT in the proposed rule mirrors the approach taken in the existing 

508 Standards and 255 Guidelines toward TTY compatibility. Neither the existing 

standards and guidelines nor the proposed rule establish an across-the-board 

command that telecommunications equipment or devices “build in” text capability. 

Instead, both sets of rules simply require that, when such equipment or devices offer 

voice communication functions, they must also ensure compatibility with certain types of 

text communication (i.e., TTY and RTT) by supporting use of specified 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 multiline 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, nonproprietary consensus standards depending on the nature of the system with which it is 

exchanging information—namely, a traditional telephone network or Internet-based 

telephony. 
108

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 real-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.
109

410.8 Video Communication

This section proposes that ICT with real-time video functionality must ensure that the 

quality of the video is sufficient to support communication through sign language. This 

proposed section would be new to both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. The

Advisory Committee recommended that the Board include a provision requiring ICT 

used to transmit video communications in real-time to meet certain specifications for 

video quality and fluidity (i.e., speed, data stream, and latency). See TEITAC Report, 

Part 6. Subpt. C, Rec. 6-E. 

The Board’s proposals relating to the requisite quality of real-time video 

communications have received mixed reviews from commenters. In the 2010 ANPRM, 

the Board proposed specifications for the quality of real-time video communication that 

largely mirrored the Advisory Committee’s recommendation. Many commenters 

expressed support for the general concept of a video quality requirement as important 

for ensuring the accessibility of a means of communication, which, for persons who are 

deaf or hard of hearing, is the functional equivalent of voice communication. Some 

commenters, on the other hand, were critical of the Board’s proposed technical 

specifications as overly prescriptive or unsupported by research. In light of such 

concerns, in the 2011 ANPRM, the Board simply proposed—as here in this proposed 

rule—that the quality of video must be sufficient to support sign language 

communication. Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM, while again generally supportive of 

the effort to ensure real-time video communications were usable by persons with 

hearing impairments, largely took issue with the proposal’s lack of testable measures.

While the Board is mindful of commenters’ criticisms to the 2011 ANPRM’s 

performance-based standard for video quality of real-time video functionality, the Board 

has nonetheless retained this standard in this proposed rule. This provision would 

cover video communication via the web on dedicated videophones, as well as 

commonly used ICT such as smartphones. We are not aware of standards or 

specifications for video quality that would provide testable and achievable metrics to 

assess the quality and transmission of real-time video communications. However, 

technologies—as well as standards development—have progressed greatly in recent 

years. We welcome public comment on technological improvements or useful metrics 

relating to real-time video communication developed since the 2011 ANPRM. 

Question 27. Does the performance-based standard in proposed 410.8 ensure that 

video quality would be sufficient to support a real-time video conversation in which one 

or more parties use sign language? If not, are there standards for video quality or 

transmission that would better implement the accessibility goal of this proposed 

requirement? Would it be readily achievable for manufacturers of telecommunications 

equipment to comply with section 410.8? 

411 Closed Caption Processing Technologies

This is an introductory section.
110

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 passthrough 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. 
111

Question 29. Would compliance with section 412 be readily achievable for 

manufacturers of mobile telecommunications equipment?

412.1.1 Digital Television Tuners

This section proposes that, where audio description is played through a digital television 

tuner, that such tuner conform to Part 5 of the ATSC A/53 Digital Television Standard 

(incorporated by reference in 508 Chapter 1 and 255 Chapter 1). The provision then 

goes on to require that tuners provide processing for audio description when encoded 

as a Visually Impaired (VI) associated audio service. This is the industry-wide accepted 

method for delivery of audio description content and the means to identify audio as a VI 

associated audio service.

413 User Controls for Captions and Audio Description

This is an introductory section.

413.1 General

This proposed section addresses the accessibility of controls for captioning and audio 

description on devices used to watch video programming, including analog and digital 

televisions, tuners, personal video display devices, converter boxes, and computer 

equipment. Specifically, this provision would require hardware displaying video with 

synchronized audio to locate user controls for closed captions and audio description in 

specified locations of equal prominence to common user controls (i.e., volume and 

program selection), as set forth in two accompanying subsections (proposed 413.1.1 

and 413.1.2). An exception would be provided for devices for personal use when 

closed captions and audio description can be enabled through system-wide platform 

settings. This exception is proposed in recognition of the fact that the small size of most 

mobile devices would make compliance particularly challenging. 

The requirements in proposed 413.1 would be new to the 508 Standards and the 255 

Guidelines. The Advisory Committee recommended inclusion of this provision to 

ensure that persons with hearing- and vision-related disabilities can find—and use—

captioning and audio description controls. See TEITAC Report, Part 6, Subpt. C, Rec. 

4-C. (Complimentary provisions governing software-based on-screen controls for 

captions and audio description are addressed in proposed 503.4.) 

This proposed requirement, albeit with slightly different wording, was included in the 

2010 and 2011 ANPRMs. Comments from organizations representing persons with 

disabilities lauded this proposed requirement as a significant step toward improving the 

accessibility of captioning and audio description controls. These organizations 

characterized consumers with disabilities as having long struggled with varying methods 

among manufacturers for accessing such controls, describing them as typically more 

complex and less “user friendly” compared to the control of other core functions. They 

also noted that difficulties locating and using caption and audio description controls is of 

particular concern for persons with disabilities when in unfamiliar locations (e.g., 
112

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 TwentyFirst Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), Public Law 

No. 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 

 

11 See Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Programming Guides, 78 FR 77210 (Dec. 20, 2013); Report 

and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 12-108, 28 FCC Rcd. 17330 (Oct. 

31, 2013) (to be codified at 47 CFR pt. 79) (hereafter, FCC User Interface Accessibility Order).

12 “Digital apparatus,” as defined by the FCC, encompasses devices or software designed to receive or 

play back video programming that does not have built-in capacity to access cable programming or 

services. This term includes: televisions and computers that are not designed to be cable ready; 

removable media players; mobile devices (such as tablets and smartphones) without pre-installed 

applications to access cable; and, “video players and user interfaces of video applications, such as 

Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon, when such applications are pre-installed . . . by the manufacturer.” FCC User 

Interface Accessibility Order at ¶¶ 2, 39.
113

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). 

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 onscreen tool or menu, caption control requirements for this on-screen control would be 

governed by the software-based requirements in proposed 503.4.) 

Question 31. While the Board believes that proposed 413.1.1 would greatly benefit 

persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, we did not monetize the benefits or costs of 

providing caption controls on covered hardware. The Board seeks data and other 

information from the public in order to estimate the monetized costs and benefits of this 

proposal. For commenters who do not view this proposed requirement as beneficial, 

how should the accessibility barriers faced by individuals with hearing impairments who 

seek to locate and operate closed caption features be addressed? Commenters should 

provide concrete suggestions for improving proposed 413.1.1. 

413.1.2 Audio Description Controls
114

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 
115

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 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 
116

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 wellestablished 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 endusers 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.
117

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/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/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/content-structure-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 
118

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 parent-child relationship that components 

have to other components is programmatically exposed to assistive technology. This 

requirement closely parallels Success Criterion 1.3.1 in WCAG 2.0, but has greater 

specificity because software is more structured than Web content. 

502.3.6 Text 

This section proposes that the content of text objects, text attributes, and on-screen text 

boundaries be programmatically determinable. Additionally, text that can be set by the 

user would have to be capable of being set programmatically, including through 

assistive technology. This provision would be useful for a screen-reader user, for 

example, when filling in a field on a form. It would be quite frustrating to be able to 

navigate to a form field, and perhaps even read placeholder text in that field, but then 

not be able to enter text as needed. This provision corresponds to § 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 
119

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.
120

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 onscreen 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 description serve as a complement to the near-identical 

requirements for hardware-related controls in Chapter 4. See discussion above in 

Section VI.C (Section-by-Section Analysis – section 413 User Controls for Captions and 

Audio Description). These proposed requirements would be new to the 508 Standards 

and 255 Guidelines. The Advisory Committee recommended inclusion of these 

provisions to ensure that persons with hearing- and vision-related disabilities can find—

and use—captioning and audio description controls. See TEITAC Report, Rec. 4-C.

503.4.1 Caption Controls 

This proposed section would require that, where video-capable software provides onscreen volume adjustment controls, such ICT must also have a control for closed 

captioning at the same menu level as the volume adjustment controls.
121

503.4.2 Audio Description Controls

This proposed section would require that, where video-capable software provides onscreen 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, MS-Word), and it is typically much less 

expensive to “build in” accessibility when an authoring tool is first developed as opposed 

to remediating after a product has been developed. 
122

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 self-service technical support systems that 

provide documentation to make available (in accessible formats) the documentation 

regarding accessibility and compatibility features. Support services would also be 

required to accommodate the communication needs of individuals with disabilities.
123

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.

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.
124

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 Webbased 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 Non-Electronic Support Documentation 

This section proposes that, where documentation is provided in written (i.e., hard copy) 

format, such documentation must also be made available, upon request, in alternate 

formats usable by individuals who are blind or have low vision. This proposed 

requirement is taken from §§ 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). 
125

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. 

127

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 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 ICTrelated 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.
128

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 website (www.access-board.gov ), as 

well the federal government’s online rulemaking portal (www.regulations.gov). 

Interested parties are encouraged to review the full Preliminary RIA, and to provide data 

and other information responsive to requests for comment posed separately in that 

document. Moreover, while the Board welcomes comments on any aspect of the 

Preliminary RIA, several areas on which the Board particularly seeks input are identified 

at the end of this section. 

1. Summary of Results

The focus of the Preliminary RIA is to define and, where possible, quantify and 

monetize the potential economic benefits and costs of the proposed Section 508 

Standards and 255 Guidelines. On the benefits side, the Preliminary RIA monetizes 

incremental benefits under the proposed 508 Standards attributable to: (a) increased 

productivity of federal employees with certain disabilities who are expected to benefit 
129

from improved ICT accessibility; (b) time saved by members of the public with vision 

disabilities when using more accessible federal websites; 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 websites. 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 websites 

and electronic support documentation conform to accessibility requirements. 

Insufficient data were available to assess incremental costs related to other new 

requirements in the proposed 255 Guidelines, including support for real-time text (RTT) 

functionality. 

Table 4 below summarizes the results from the Preliminary RIA with respect to the likely 

monetized benefits and costs, on an annualized basis, from the proposed 508 

Standards and 255 Guidelines. All monetized benefits and costs are incremental to the 

applicable baseline, and were estimated for a 10-year time horizon using discount rates 

of 7 and 3 percent.

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
130

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 costeffective 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.
131

Developing baseline compliance costs: Estimates of “baseline” compliance costs to 

covered entities under the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines are drawn from 

current spending levels for relevant ICT-related products, services, and personnel. For 

federal agencies, baseline compliance costs under Section 508 include both in-house 

ICT (e.g., policy development, employee training, development and remediation of 

websites 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 websites. 

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., website 

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 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. 
132

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 websites will increase every year, but a constant proportion of those individuals 

will visit such websites 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 websites

Improved accessibility of electronic documents on federal websites 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 

websites and conduct transactions electronically

Greater independence for individuals with disabilities to access information and services 

on federal agency websites without assistance

More civic engagement by individuals with disabilities due to improved access to 
133

information and services on federal agency websites

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. 

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 
134

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 websites, 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 benefitcost 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. 

 

13 See also Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 (2003); Office of Management and Budget, 

Regulatory Impact Analysis: A Primer 3 (2011), available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/regpol/circular-a-4_regulatory-impact-analysisa-primer.pdf.
135

Accordingly, when considering all unquantified benefits and costs, the Access Board, 

along with its consulting economic firm (Econometrica), jointly conclude that the benefits 

of the proposed update of the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines justify its costs. 

The Access Board welcomes comments on any aspect of the Preliminary RIA to 

improve the assumptions, methodology, and estimates of the incremental benefits and 

costs (baseline and incremental) of the proposed rule. The full Preliminary RIA sets 

forth numerous regulatory assessment-related questions or areas for public comment. 

In addition, the Board provides below several additional questions on which it seeks 

input:

Question 36. The Board requests information from telecommunications equipment 

manufacturers concerning expected one-time and ongoing costs associated with 

implementation of the proposed technical requirements related to support for real-time 

text (RTT) functionality. Please be as specific as possible. The Board is also interested 

in hearing from other stakeholders —particularly persons with disabilities—about the 

nature and scope of benefits provided by RTT in emergency and non-emergency 

settings. How might the Board quantify or monetize such benefits? 

Question 37. The Board requests information from telecommunications equipment 

manufacturers concerning potential benefits that would accrue from harmonization of 

technical requirements in the proposed rule with national and international consensus 

standards? Both cost savings data and qualitative information are requested. 

Question 38. The proposed rule would, among other things, require federal agency 

websites 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 nonvision 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 

websites as compared to websites 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 websites. How frequently 

do they visit federal agency websites, and for what duration and purposes? Are there 

other suggested methods of quantifying benefits accruing from accessible agency 

websites other than (or in addition to) monetizing time savings? To the extent that 

benefits from accessible agency websites cannot be quantified, the Board welcomes 

examples of personal or anecdotal experience that illustrate the value of improved 

accessibility of federal websites.
136

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 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 

 

14 See also Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 

857 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); E.O. 13272, 67 FR 53,461 (Aug. 16, 2012).
137

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 much-needed “refresh” of the existing 255 Guidelines, and, 

thereby, better support the access needs of individuals with disabilities, while also 

taking into account incremental compliance costs to covered manufacturers of CPE and 

telecommunications equipment. The proposed guidelines would be applicable only to 

new products to the extent that compliance is readily achievable; they would not require 

retrofitting of existing equipment or retooling. Manufacturers may consider costs and 

available resources when determining whether, and the extent to which, compliance is 

required. 

Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will 

apply. The proposed 255 Guidelines cover manufacturers of telecommunications 

equipment and CPE, as well as the manufacturers of equipment that functions as 

telecommunications and CPE.15 The Board used publicly available data from the Office 

of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) to estimate the number of 

small businesses that may be affected by the proposed guidelines. The North American 

 

15 Examples of CPE include wireline and wireless telephones or computers when employed on the 

premises of a person to originate, route, or terminate telecommunications (e.g., Internet telephony, 

interconnected VoIP). Only a computer with a modem can function as telecommunications equipment 

and only the modem functions are associated with telecommunications. Therefore, the requirements of 

the proposed rule apply only to the modem functions and incidental functions required for turning the 

computer on and launching the telecommunications programs. All other functions of the computer not 

related to telecommunications would not be covered, such as word processing or file searching or video 

conferencing.
138

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.

 

16 The U.S. Census Bureau provides detailed information on the National Industry Classification System 

on the agency’s website. See U.S. Census Bureau, Introduction to NAICS, 

http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.

17 SBA provides, on its website, 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). 
139

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 
140

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, record keeping, and other compliance 

requirements for small entities. As discussed above, the proposed 255 Guidelines 

contain many requirements that are similar to the existing guidelines. There, are, 

however, two new proposed requirements that would apply to manufacturers of 

telecommunications equipment and CPE: 410.6 (real-time text functionality) and 602.3 

(electronic support documentation). These two new requirements would potentially 

impose new costs on small manufacturing firms.

Regarding real time text (RTT) requirements under proposed 410.6, the Board lacks 

quantitative cost information. We requested information on RTT costs in the 2010 and 

2011 ANPRMs, but did not receive specific cost data. Accordingly, we cannot, at this 

time, quantify or monetize the potential cost impact of the proposed RTT requirements 

in the 255 Guidelines. The Board does, however, seek comment on how to estimate 

the cost impact of the RTT requirements on small businesses subject to the 255 

Guidelines so that we may use such information to prepare, as needed, a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis.

With respect to the new obligation in proposed 602.3 for Section 255-covered 

manufacturers to ensure the accessibility of electronic support documentation (such as 

web-based self-service support and electronic manuals), the Preliminary RIA develops 

estimated incremental costs, heavily relying on the cost methodology used by the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) in the regulatory assessment of its recent final rule 

requiring, among other things, airlines to make their websites 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 websites, 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 

websites into compliance with the proposed 255 Guidelines. For firms with fewer than 

 

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.
141

100 employees, average per-firm one-time costs under the proposed guidelines are 

assumed to be $25,000. Annual recurring maintenance costs are 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 upperbound 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 onetime 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 1167 $25,000 $29,175,000 $5,000 $5,835,000

Total 1291 $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 one-time and annual maintenance costs across all industry categories. 

These costs, which should be considered a mid-point estimate, are reflected below: 

Table 9 - Estimated Incremental Costs for Small Manufacturing Firms Subject to the Proposed 255 

Guidelines (Scenario 2–Firms with 20 or More Employees)

Firm size

Firms 

meeting 

SBA size 

standards

Average 

one-time 

cost per 

firm

Total onetime 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
142

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 perfirm costs/Perfirm receipts 

(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

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.
143

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 perfirm costs/Perfirm 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.
144

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, 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 
145

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 webbased 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:
146

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 hours for each new 

product. This estimate, in turn, is based on the assumption that each product will 

have, on average, 200 pages of electronic documentation, and that each page 

will require 1.5 hours of formatting and editing to comply with WCAG 2.0 or 

PDF/UA-1, as applicable. With respect to the annual number of responses for 

each manufacturer, it is assumed that support documentation for nearly all new 

products will be provided in an electronic format given current trends in the 

telecommunications industry. Specifically, it is estimated that 95 percent of the 

six new products introduced annually by each manufacturer (7,889 products) will 

have electronic support documentation that must conform to proposed 602.3. 

 Section 602.4: The estimated response time assumes that development of 

accessible non-electronic support documentation in alternate formats (e.g., 

braille, large print) will take 25 hours for each new product. With respect to the 
147

annual number of responses for each manufacturer, it is assumed that support 

documentation for only a few new products will have support documentation in a 

non-electronic format in recognition of the fact that most support documentation 

is now posted online or otherwise provided in electronic formats. Thus, it is 

assumed that only 5 percent of the six new products introduced annually by each 

manufacturer (415 products) will have non-electronic support documentation that 

must conform to proposed 602.4.

 Section 603: The estimated response time assumes that, for each new product 

in a given year, manufacturers will receive three 10-minute telephone calls to 

support centers (or emails or chat-based interactions) from individuals with 

disabilities seeking information on the accessibility and compatibility features of 

these products.

The Board seeks comment on the methods and assumptions used in estimating the 

annual burden associated with the information collection requirements in the proposed 

255 Guidelines. Organizations and individual desiring to submit comments on this 

information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 

20503; Attention: Desk Officer for the Access Board. 

The Board requests comments on these proposed collections of information in:

 Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the 

proper implementation of Section 255, including whether the information will have 

a practical use;

 Evaluating the accuracy of the Board’s estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used;

 Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; 

and

 Minimizing the burden of collection of information of those who are to respond, 

including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology 

(e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained 

in these proposed guidelines between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document 

in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline 

for the public to comment to the Board on the NPRM.

G. Availability of Materials Incorporated by Reference

As noted previously in the Section-by-Section Analysis for proposed E102 and C102, 

the Access Board is proposing to incorporate by reference ten consensus standards in 
148

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 website 

(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 

website (http://www.ieee.org). IEEE has also agreed to make a read-only version of this 

standard available on the organization’s website 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 

 

19 Office of the Federal Register, Incorporation by Reference, 79 FR 66267 (Nov. 7, 2014) (to be codified 

at 1 CFR Part 51).
149

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 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 website: (http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a53/a_53-Part-5-2010.pdf).

Request for Comment (RFC) 4103, Real-Time Transport Protocol Payload for Text 

Conversation (2005) (see E102.5, C102.5, 410.6.3.2). This standard establishes 

specifications for how to carry real-time text (RTT) conversation session contents in 

Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) packets. RTT is used alone or in connection with 

other conversational modalities to form multimedia conversation services. RTT in 

multimedia conversation sessions is sent character-by-character as soon as it is 

available, or with a small delay for buffering. Availability: Free copies of this standard 

are available online at the Internet Engineering Task Force’s website (http://www.rfcbase.org/txt/rfc-4103.txt). 

ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1) Document management applications — Electronic document 

file format enhancement for accessibility — Part 1: Use of ISO 32000-1 (2014) (see 

E102.6, C102.6, E205.1, 602.3.1). This standard is the consensus international 

specification for accessible PDF. PDF/UA-1 provides a technical, interoperable 

standard for the authoring, remediation and validation of PDF content to ensure 

accessibility for people with disabilities who use assistive technology, such as screen 

readers, screen magnifiers, joysticks and other technologies used to navigate and read 

electronic content. Availability: Copies of this standard may be obtained from the 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de 

la Voie-Creuse, CP 56 - CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. This standard is also 

available for purchase on the ISO website (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 website during the comment period. Please consult the Access Board 

website for updates on the availability of this standard during the comment period.

ITU-T Recommendation G.722: Series G: Transmission Systems and Media, Digital 

Systems and Networks Digital Terminal Equipments [sic] – Coding of voice and audio 

signals, 7 kHz Audio-Coding within 64 Kbits/s (September 2012) (see E102.7.1, 

C102.7.1, 410.5). This standard specifies a coder-decoder program that provides 7 kHz 

wideband audio at data rates from 48, 56, and 64 kbits/s. Availability: This standard 

may be obtained from the International Telecommunication Union, Telecommunications 

Standardization Sector (ITU-T), Place des Nations CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland. 

Free copies of ITU-T Recommendation G.72 are available online at the organization’s 

website (http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.722-201209-I/en). 

ITU-T Recommendation E.161: Arrangement of digits, letters and symbols on 

telephones and other devices that can be used for gaining access to a telephone 

network (February 2001) (see E102.7.2, C107.2, 407.3.2). This standard defines the 

assignment of the basic 26 Latin letters (A to Z) to the 12-key telephone keypad. 
150

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 website (https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.161-200102-I/en). 

TIA 825-A, A Frequency Shift Keyed Modem for Use on the Public Switched Telephone 

Network (2003) (see E102.8.1, C102.8.1, 410.6.3.1). This standard is a specification for 

TTY signals on the public switched telephone network interface. Availability: Copies of 

this standard, which is published by the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), 

may be obtained from the IHS Standard Store (IHS), 15 Inverness Way East, 

Englewood, CO 80112. This standard is also available for purchase on the IHS 

website (https://www.global.ihs.com). Additionally, TIA has agreed to make a read-only 

version of this standard available, upon request, through TIA’s website 

(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 website (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 website (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 website 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 website 

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

List of Subjects

36 CFR Part 1193

Communications, Communications equipment, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
151

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, 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

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. 
152

Section 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. 
153

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 proposed the 

standards for incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

Part 51. Copies of the referenced standards may be inspected at the Access Board’s 

office, 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004.

E102.2 American National Standards Institute/ Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society (ANSI/HFES). Copies of the referenced standard may be obtained from Human 

Factors and Ergonomics Society, P.O. Box 1369, Santa Monica, CA 90406-1369 

(http://www.hfes.org/Publications/ProductDetail.aspx?Id=76). ANSI/HFES 200.2 
154

Human Factors Engineering of Software User Interfaces — Part 2: Accessibility, (2008), 

IBR proposed for Section 502.4.

Advisory E102.2 American National Standards Institute/Human Factors and 

Ergonomics Society (ANSI/HFES). ANSI/HFES 200.2 provides design specifications 

for human-system software interfaces to ensure that software is accessible to people 

with a wide range of physical, sensory, and cognitive abilities, including those with 

temporary disabilities and older adults. This publication is also available as ISO 9241-

171 Ergonomics of Human System Interaction, Part 171: Guidance on software 

accessibility.

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.

Advisory E102.3 American National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers (ANSI/IEEE). ANSI/IEEE C63.19-2011 provides a uniform 

method of measurement for compatibility between hearing aids and wireless 

communications devices.

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.

Advisory E102.4 Advanced Television Systems Committee 

(ATSC). The A/53 Digital Television Standard provides the system 

characteristics for advanced television systems. The document and its 

normative parts provide detailed specification of the parameters of the 

system. 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 to the use of its television standard.

E102.5 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Copies of the referenced standard 

may be obtained from the Internet Engineering Task Force (http://www.ietf.org).

Request for Comments (RFC) 4103, Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for 

Text Conversation (2005), G. Hellstrom, Omnitor AB, and P. Jones, Cisco Systems, IBR 

proposed for Section 410.6.3.2.
155

Advisory E102.5 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). This standard describes 

how to carry real time text conversation session contents in Real-time Transport 

Protocol (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. Real time text in multimedia 

conversation sessions is sent character-by-character as soon as it is available, or with a 

small delay for buffering.

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.

Advisory E102.6 International Standards Organization (ISO). Formally known as 

ISO 14289-1:2014, PDF/UA-1 (Portable Document Format, Universal Accessibility), this 

is the International Standard for accessible PDF. PDF/UA 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, and joysticks to navigate and read electronic 

content.

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.
156

Advisory E102.7 International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications 

Standardization Sector (ITU-T). G.722 is an ITU-T standard describing how to encode 

and compress wideband audio and decode it for playback. The G.722 coder-decoder 

program provides 7 kHz wideband audio at data rates from 48, 56, and 64 kbits/s. It is 

useful for voice over IP applications, where it provides high quality audio for video 

conferencing and PC-to-PC calls placed via VoIP services. E.161 defines the 

assignment of the basic 26 Latin letters (A to Z) to the 12-key telephone keypad.

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.

Advisory E102.8 Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). TIA 825-A is the 

standard for TTY signals on the public switched telephone network interface 

(PSTN). TIA 1083 defines measurement procedures and performance requirements for 

the handset generated audio band magnetic noise of wire line telephones, including 

digital cordless telephones.

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.

Advisory E102.9 Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C). Web Content Accessibility 

Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 offers a series of recommendations to make web content more 

accessible to all users, including persons with disabilities.

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.
157

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 acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, 

maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.

Audio Description. Narration added to the soundtrack to describe important visual 

details that cannot be understood from the main soundtrack alone. Audio 

description is a means to inform individuals who are blind or who have low vision 

about visual content essential for comprehension. Audio description of video 

provides information about actions, characters, scene changes, on-screen text, 

and other visual content. Audio description supplements the regular audio track of 

a program. Audio description is usually added during existing pauses in dialogue. 

Audio description is also called “video description” and “descriptive narration”.

Authoring Tool. Any software, or collection of software components, that can be 

used by authors, alone or collaboratively, to create or modify content for use by 

others, including other authors.

Closed Functionality. Characteristics that limit functionality or prevent a user from 

attaching or installing assistive technology. Examples of ICT with closed 

functionality are self-service machines, information kiosks, set-top boxes, fax 

machines, calculators, and computers that are locked down so that users may not 

adjust settings due to a policy such as Desktop Core Configuration.

Content. Electronic information and data, as well as the encoding that defines its 

structure, presentation, and interactions.

Hardware. A tangible device, equipment, or physical component of ICT, such as 

telephones, computers, multifunction copy machines, and keyboards.

Information technology. Shall have the same meaning as the term “information 

technology” set forth in 40 U.S.C. 11101(6).
158

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; websites; 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.
159

Public Facing. Content made available by an agency to members of the general 

public. Examples include, but are not limited to, an agency website, 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.

161

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.

Advisory E201.1 Scope. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794d) 

applies to federal departments and agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service. The 

term “agency” is defined in Section E103 to include the United States Postal Service 

and other federal agencies and departments as specified in 44 U.S.C. 3502. That 

section of the U.S.C. defines “agency” to mean any executive department, military 

department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other 

establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive 

Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency, but does not include (a) 

the General Accounting Office; (b) Federal Election Commission; (c) the governments of 

the District of Columbia and of the territories and possessions of the United States, and 

their various subdivisions; or (d) Government-owned contractor-operated facilities, 

including laboratories engaged in national defense research and production activities.

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).

Advisory E202.2 National Security Systems. The term National Security System 

means any telecommunication, or information system operated by the United States 

government, the function, operation, or use of which involves: intelligence activities; 

cryptologic activities related to national security; command and control of military forces; 

equipment that is an integral part of a weapon or weapons system; or systems which 

are critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions. Systems that are 

critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions do not include systems 

that are used for routine administrative and business applications. Examples of routine 

administrative and business applications are payroll, finance, logistics, and personnel 

management applications. Routine administrative and business applications are 

covered by this document.
162

E202.3 Federal Contracts. ICT acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract shall 

not be required to conform to the 508 Standards.

Advisory E202.3 Federal Contracts. ICT that is incidental to a contract includes 

materials which are, themselves, not deliverables under the contract. For example, if a 

contractor is permitted to use money from a contract to acquire a laptop which is used 

to help create the deliverable for the project, the laptop, itself, is considered incidental to 

the contract since it is not part of the deliverable.

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.

Advisory E202.4 Functions Located in Maintenance or Monitoring Spaces. When 

indicators and operable parts for ICT functions are located in maintenance or monitoring 

spaces but they are operated remotely, the remote controls or interfaces would also not 

be permitted this exception unless they are also are located in a maintenance or 

monitoring space.

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.
163

Advisory E202.5 Undue Burden or Fundamental Alteration. A determination by an 

agency that conformance to a particular provision would result in an undue burden or a 

fundamental alteration in the nature of the ICT does not exempt the ICT in its 

entirety. The agency is required to ensure conformance of ICT to those provisions that 

do not result in an undue burden or a fundamental alteration in the nature of the ICT.

E202.6 Best Meets. Where ICT conforming to one or more requirements in 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.

Advisory E202.6 Best Meets. This exception only applies when a product meeting the 

provisions of this document is not commercially available. This document does not 

require agencies to procure ICT that is not needed by the agencies to perform their 

mission.

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.

Advisory E202.6.1 Required Documentation. The Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) sets forth the documentation requirements for a determination 

of commercial non-availability by federal agencies subject to 508 requirements.

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.

Advisory E202.6.2 Alternative Means. Nothing in this document obviates or 

limits the requirements of other sections of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. An agency still may still have a duty under Sections 501 and 504 to 

provide access to information and data to individuals with disabilities. Some 

individuals may require accommodations even when using ICT that fully 

conforms to the provisions of this document.

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
164

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.

Advisory E203.2 Agency Business Needs. An assistive technology needs 

assessment is an example of how an agency might analyze how a user performs the 

functions supported by the ICT. Set-up of assistive technology is an example of 

installation and configuration to support use by people with disabilities. User training is 

an example of a resource that helps maintain the ability of users with disabilities to use 

ICT.

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.
165

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.

Advisory E205.3 Agency Official Communication - Exception. Materials submitted 

to NARA as public records are not required to conform to the provisions of this 

document even if they are of a type listed in E205.3. However, all agencies are 

encouraged to do what they can to preserve aspects of documents that contribute to 

their accessibility, such as structure and formatting.

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).

Advisory E207.2 WCAG Conformance. WCAG is written to be technology 

neutral. While oriented towards web pages which are defined as being delivered using 

HTTP, the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements can be applied 

to non-web documents, user interface components, and the content of platforms and 

applications. Guidance can be found at: http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict.

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.

167

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 proposed 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 
168

Factors and Ergonomics Society, P.O. Box 1369, Santa Monica, CA 90406-1369 

(http://www.hfes.org/Publications/ProductDetail.aspx?Id=76).

ANSI/HFES 200.2 Human Factors Engineering of Software User Interfaces — Part 2: 

Accessibility, (2008), IBR proposed for Section 502.4.

Advisory C102.2 American National Standards Institute/Human Factors and 

Ergonomics Society (ANSI/HFES). ANSI/HFES 200.2 provides design specifications 

for human-system software interfaces to ensure that software is accessible to people 

with a wide range of physical, sensory, and cognitive abilities, including those with 

temporary disabilities and older adults. This publication is also available as ISO 9241-

171 Ergonomics of Human System Interaction, Part 171: Guidance on software 

accessibility.

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.

Advisory C102.3 American National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers (ANSI/IEEE). ANSI/IEEE C63.19-2011 provides a uniform 

method of measurement for compatibility between hearing aids and wireless 

communications devices.

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).

A/53 Digital Television Standard, Part 5: AC-3 Audio System Characteristics, (2010), 

IBR proposed for Section 412.1.1.

Advisory C102.4 Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC). The A/53 

Digital Television Standard provides the system characteristics for advanced television 

systems. The document and its normative parts provide detailed specification of the 

parameters of the system. 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 to the use of its television standard.

C102.5 IETF. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Copies of the referenced 

standard may be obtained from the Internet Engineering Task Force 

(http://www.ietf.org). Request for Comments (RFC) 4103, Real-time Transport 
169

Protocol (RTP) Payload for Text Conversation (2005), G. Hellstrom, Omnitor AB, and P. 

Jones, Cisco Systems, IBR proposed for Section 410.6.3.2.

Advisory C102.5 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). This standard describes 

how to carry real time text conversation session contents in Real-time Transport 

Protocol (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. Real time text in multimedia 

conversation sessions is sent character-by-character as soon as it is available, or with a 

small delay for buffering.

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.

Advisory C102.6 International Standards Organization (ISO). Formally known as 

ISO 14289-1:2014, PDF/UA-1 (Portable Document Format, Universal Accessibility), this 

is the International Standard for accessible PDF. PDF/UA 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, and joysticks to navigate and read electronic 

content.

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.
170

Advisory C102.7 International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications 

Standardization Sector (ITU-T). G.722 is an ITU-T standard describing how to encode 

and compress wideband audio and decode it for playback. The G.722 coder-decoder 

program provides 7 kHz wideband audio at data rates from 48, 56, and 64 kbits/s. It is 

useful for voice over IP applications, where it provides high quality audio for video 

conferencing and PC-to-PC calls placed via VoIP services. E.161 defines the 

assignment of the basic 26 Latin letters (A to Z) to the 12-key telephone keypad.

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.

Advisory E102.8 Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). TIA 825-A is the 

standard for TTY signals on the public switched telephone network interface 

(PSTN). TIA 1083 defines measurement procedures and performance requirements for 

the handset generated audio band magnetic noise of wire line telephones, including 

digital cordless telephones.

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.

Advisory C102.9 Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C). Web Content Accessibility 

Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 offers a series of recommendations to make web content more 

accessible to all users, including persons with disabilities.

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.
171

C103.3 Interchangeability. Words, terms, and phrases used in the singular include the 

plural and those used in the plural include the singular.

C103.4 Defined Terms. For the purpose of the 255 Guidelines, the terms defined in 

C103.4 have the indicated meaning.

255 Guidelines. The guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer 

premises equipment covered by Section 255 of the Communications Act as set 

forth in 255 Chapters 1 and 2 (36 CFR Part 1194, Appendix B), and Chapters 3 

through 6 (36 CFR Part 1193, Appendix C).

Application. Software designed to perform, or to help the user perform, a specific 

task or tasks.

Assistive Technology (AT). Any item, piece of equipment, or product system, 

whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, 

maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.

Audio Description. Narration added to the soundtrack to describe important visual 

details that cannot be understood from the main soundtrack alone. Audio 

description is a means to inform individuals who are blind or who have low vision 

about visual content essential for comprehension. Audio description of video 

provides information about actions, characters, scene changes, on-screen text, 

and other visual content. Audio description supplements the regular audio track of 

a program. Audio description is usually added during existing pauses in dialogue. 

Audio description is also called “video description” and “descriptive narration.”

Authoring Tool. Any software, or collection of software components, that can be 

used by authors, alone or collaboratively, to create or modify content for use by 

others, including other authors.

Closed Functionality. Characteristics that limit functionality or prevent a user from 

attaching or installing assistive technology. Examples of ICT with closed 

functionality are self-service machines, information kiosks, set-top boxes, fax 

machines, calculators, and computers that are locked down so that users may not 

adjust settings due to a policy such as Desktop Core Configuration.

Content. Electronic information and data, as well as the encoding that defines its 

structure, presentation, and interactions.

Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). Equipment used on the premises of a 

person (other than a carrier) to originate, route, or terminate telecommunications 

or interconnected VoIP service. Examples of CPE are telephones, routers, 

switches, residential gateways, set-top boxes, fixed mobile convergence products, 

home networking adaptors and Internet access gateways which enable 

consumers to access communications service providers’ services and distribute 

them around their house via a Local Access Network (LAN).
172

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; websites; 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.
173

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. 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.

175

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.

Advisory C201.1 Scope. Existing telecommunications equipment that undergoes 

minor changes that do not affect functionality is not required to conform to the 

provisions of these guidelines.

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.

Advisory C201.2 Readily Achievable. A determination by a telecommunications 

equipment manufacturer that it is not readily achievable for ICT to conform to a certain 

provision does not exempt the ICT in its entirety from coverage under these guidelines. 

ICT must conform to those provisions that are readily achievable.

In determining whether compliance is readily achievable, telecommunications 

manufacturers should consider the following factors: the nature and cost of the action 

needed to provide accessibility or compatibility; the overall resources of the 

telecommunications manufacturer, including financial resources, technical expertise, 

component supply sources, equipment, or personnel; the overall financial resources of 

any parent corporation or entity, to the extent such resources are available to the 

telecommunications manufacturer; and, whether the accessibility solution results in a 

fundamental alteration in the nature of the product.

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.

Advisory C201.3 Access to Functionality. Built-in direct access to functionality is 

required when readily achievable. Otherwise, compatibility with assistive technology 

and specialized customer premises equipment is required when readily achievable.
176

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.

Advisory C201.5 Design, Development, and Fabrication. Conducting market 

research, and holding product design testing and trials that include individuals with 

disabilities, are examples of ways to meet this requirement.

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).

Advisory C203.1 General. WCAG is written to be technology neutral. While oriented 

towards web pages which are defined as being delivered using HTTP, the WCAG 2.0 

Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements can be applied to all electronic 

content. Guidance can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict.

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.
177

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).

Advisory C205.2 WCAG Conformance. WCAG is written to be technology 

neutral. While oriented towards web pages which are defined as being delivered using 

HTTP, the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements can be applied 

to non-web documents, user interface components, and the content of platforms and 

applications. Guidance can be found at: http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict.

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.

179

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.

181

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.

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.

Advisory 402.1 General. Self-service machines, information kiosks, set-top boxes, 

and devices like most copiers, fax machines, and calculators have closed functionality 

because, by design, these products preclude the user from adding peripherals or 

software. ICT also may have closed functionality in practice even though the 

manufacturer did not design or develop it to be closed. Computers with security 

restrictions that prevent end users from adjusting settings or adding assistive 

technology have closed functionality.

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.
182

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.

Advisory 402.3.1 Private Listening. A handset that is hearing aid compatible and has 

a volume control would meet the requirements of this section.

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.

Advisory 403.1 General - Exception. Biometrics use biological characteristics for user 

identification or control. Examples include: fingerprints, retinal or iris patterns, voice, 

facial features, and blood vessel patterns in the hand. Biometrics restricted to a single 

biological characteristic pose a significant barrier to individuals who do not possess that 

biological characteristic. Biometric methods based on dissimilar biological 

characteristics increase the likelihood that individuals possess at least one of the 

specified characteristics. Examples of biometrics that rely upon dissimilar biological 

characteristics are voice recognition and face recognition. Examples of biometrics that 

rely upon similar biological characteristics are scans that use either thumb or index 

finger prints. Allowing use of an identification card for authentication is an example of a 

non-biometric alternative.
183

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.

Advisory 404.1 General. This provision applies to conversion techniques, such as 

encoding, signal compression, and format transformation. Examples of ICT that might 

encode, compress, or transform information include firewalls, routers, and 

gateways. This provision does not require the addition or translation of information, 

simply its preservation. For example, this provision would not require an agency to 

change voice mail into text.

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.

Advisory 406.1 General. The intent of this provision is to ensure compatibility with 

assistive technology by requiring the use of standard connections on ICT. Examples of 

data connections include expansion slots, ports, and connectors for cables. Industry 

standard non-proprietary formats include wireless connections to ICT, such as infrared 

(IR) and Bluetooth. Power cord connections are not data connections used for input 

and output.

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.
184

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.

Advisory 407.3.3 Numeric Keys. A telephone keypad and a keypad on a computer 

keyboard differ in one significant feature, ascending versus descending numerical order 

of the layout. Some keypads will have a double width zero key and decimal key instead 

of the asterisk and pound signs found on a telephone keypad. These examples 

conform to this provision.

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.
185

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.

Advisory 407.10 Privacy. Under most circumstances, it is not necessary to blank the 

screen when the audio output is in use in order to ensure users with disabilities have a 

comparable degree of privacy. However, where screen blanking would be useful, the 

option to blank the screen must be under the control of the user.

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.

Advisory 407.11 Keys, Tickets, and Fare Cards. Examples of keys include electronic 

machine-readable pass cards and identification badges. Examples of ways to make 

orientation tactilely discernible include braille labels, off-center holes, and a notched 

corner.

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.

Advisory 407.12 Reach Height. This provision allows operable parts of ICT to be 

designed to be reached by a person seated in a wheelchair from a forward or side 

position, depending upon the design. For additional information on forward and side 

reaches, see 28 CFR Part 1191 Appendix D.

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.
186

Figure 407.12.1

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 
187

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.

Figure 407.12.2.1

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 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.
188

Figure 407.12.2.2

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.

Figure 407.12.3.1
189

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).

Figure 407.12.3.2

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
190

Figure 407.12.3.2.1

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.

Figure 407.12.3.2.2
191

Figure 407.12.3.2.2 Exception 1

Figure 407.12.3.2.2 Exception 2
192

Figure 407.12.3.2.2 with both Exceptions applied

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.
193

Advisory 409.1 General. The information necessary to complete or verify a transaction 

depends on the nature of the transaction and the type of machine. Receipts, tickets, 

and similar transactional output usually are printed, but this is not always the case. For 

example, an event ticket might be transferred to a smart phone or PDA. Regardless of 

the delivery method, the ICT must convey audibly the information necessary to 

complete and verify a transaction.

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.

Advisory 410.5 Digital Encoding of Speech - Exception. One example of a closed 

system is a telephone network that enables calls to be placed between buildings and 

departments under the control of one entity, but is not used to receive or make outside 

calls.

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.
194

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).

Advisory 410.6.5 HCO and VCO Support. This provision supports the use of 

simultaneous text and speech in two-way communication, including telecommunications 

relay service. HCO allows a person with a speech disability to type their side of a 

conversation which is read by the other party and to listen directly to their voice. VCO 

allows a person who is deaf or hard of hearing to read conversation that is typed by the 

other party and to speak directly to them. HCO and VCO may be facilitated by a 

telecommunications relay service communication assistant.

410.7 Caller ID. Where provided, caller identification and similar telecommunications 

functions shall be visible and audible.

Advisory 410.7 Caller ID. Examples of functions addressed by this 

requirement include messages waiting, duration of call in progress, dialing 

directory, wireless signal strength, and battery power.

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.
195

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 location of the user controls for program selection.

197

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.

Advisory 501.1 Scope. Software includes platforms, applications, and 

firmware. Firmware is read-only memory (ROM) based software that is sometimes 

distinguished from software and hardware. Examples of platforms are: desktop 

operating systems; embedded operating systems, including mobile; 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. Applications may be web-based or client-side software. Examples 

of applications are: email clients; word processors; help desk systems; content 

management systems; e-learning courseware; and terminal emulation.

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 
198

applications running on the platform to interoperate withassistive 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:
199

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.

Advisory 503.2 User Preferences. This provision applies to applications that are 

platforms. One example of an application that is also a platform is a web browser.

EXCEPTION: Applications that are designed to be isolated from their underlying 

platforms, including Web applications, shall not be required to conform to 503.2.

Advisory 503.2 User Preferences - Exception. One example of an 

application that is designed to be isolated from its underlying platform is a 

media player that is restricted from having access to the desktop operating 

system.

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.
200

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.

Advisory 504.1 General. One example of an authoring tool is a web 

application that allows users to create new web pages. Another example 

is an application for editing video. Authoring tools can also be used to 

create and publish content for use with telecommunications products or 

services. One example of a telecommunications authoring tool is an 

interactive voice response system (IVR) that includes software for the 

creation of content used to populate menu choices. These requirements 

for authoring tools enable this content to be accessible.

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.

Advisory 504.2 Content Creation or Editing. Content is the information and sensory 

experience to be communicated to the user through software, including code or markup 

that defines the content’s structure, presentation, and interactions.

EXCEPTION: Authoring tools shall not be required to conform to 504.2 when used 

to directly edit plain text source code.

Advisory 504.2 Content Creation or Editing - Exception. Examples of authoring 

tools that are only plain text editors include Emacs and Windows Notepad. This 

exception also applies to more sophisticated tools when they are used in plain text 

mode.

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.

Advisory 504.2.1 Preservation of Information Provided for Accessibility in Format 

Conversion. One example of how accessibility information is preserved occurs when 

HTML is exported from a word processor. In this case, alternative text associated with 

embedded images follows the native word processing format to the HTML source 

code. By controlling the accessibility information in the destination format, the author 

can ensure consistent use of that information in both formats.

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 
201

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.

Advisory 504.3 Prompts. Prompts do not need to be provided for every component in 

the content. Intrusive or overused prompts can decrease usability. Examples of 

prompts that are activated when the content is near completion are automated checks 

and wizards.

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.

203

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.

Advisory 602.1 General. Examples of documentation that supports ICT are installation 

guides, user guides, and manuals that describe the features of a product and how it is 

used. Documentation may take the form of stand-alone documents or be integrated into 

products as on-line or context-sensitive help.

602.2 Accessibility and Compatibility Features. Documentation shall list and 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.

Advisory 602.2 Accessibility and Compatibility Features. One example of an 

accessibility feature is the ability to access commands and navigate using the 

keyboard. Voice recognition software, screen readers, and alternative keyboards rely 

upon keyboard control for accessible and efficient operation. Keyboard navigation 

includes support for the following: cursor keys (up, down, left and right arrows), tab and 

shift-tab (to cycle through fields), enter or spacebar (to select or activate), hot keys, 

macros, and other keyboard acceleration mechanisms.   

Where ICT components are designed to be part of an integrated system, this provision 

requires that the documentation explains how to configure the system to support 

accessibility. For example, the documentation for a DVD player and multimedia 

projector is required to explain how to configure the DVD player and projector to support 

the display of closed captions.

602.3 Electronic Support Documentation. Documentation in electronic format, 

including Web-based self-service support, shall conform to all Level A and Level AA 

Success Criteria and all Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by 

reference in Chapter 1), or ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1) (incorporated by reference in 

Chapter 1).

602.4 Alternate Formats for Non-electronic Support Documentation. Alternate 

formats usable by individuals who are blind or have low vision shall be provided upon 

request for support documentation in non-electronic formats.
204

Advisory 602.4 Alternate Formats for Non-electronic Support 

Documentation. Examples of alternate formats are electronic versions of hard copy, 

braille, large print and audio files. None of the alternate formats listed are accessible to 

all users who are blind or have low vision.

603 Support Services

603.1 General. ICT support services including, but not limited to, help desks, call 

centers, training services, and automated self-service technical support, shall conform 

to 603.

603.2 Information on Accessibility and Compatibility Features. ICT support 

services shall include information on the accessibility and compatibility features required 

by 602.2.

Advisory 603.2 Information on Accessibility and Compatibility Features. A best 

practice is for ICT support services to provide training programs about the following 

topics: accessibility requirements for individuals with disabilities; methods of 

communication used by individuals with disabilities; assistive technology commonly 

used with ICT products; designing for accessibility; solutions for accessibility and 

compatibility of ICT with assistive technology; accessible document creation and 

remediation; ICT product assessment; user testing; the use of people-first language; 

and sensitivity training.

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.

Advisory 603.3 Accommodation of Communication Needs. The Federal 

Communications Commission maintains a list of contact information for 

telecommunications service providers and manufacturers of telecommunications 

products that can be useful when support services are provided through a 

referral. Examples of accommodations are qualified sign language interpreters, 

assistive listening systems, TTYs, real time captioning, and telecommunications relay 

services. Telecommunication relay services can be TTY, speech-to-speech, and video 

relay service.  A best practice is for help desk and other ICT support services to use a 

variety of communication technologies. Examples of such communication technologies 

include Internet posting (such as message boards and website blogs), telephones, 

email, fax, postal mail, texting, and instant messaging.