Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13457 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

2. Add § 100.122 to read as follows: 

§ 100.122 Fran Schnarr Open Water 

Championships, Huntington Bay, New York. 

(a) Regulated area. All navigable 

waters of Huntington Bay, NY within 

100 yards of any swimmer or safety craft 

on the race course bounded by the 

following points: Start/Finish at 

approximate location 40°54′26′′ N 

073°24′29′′ W, East Turn at approximate 

location 40°54′45′′ N 073°23′37′′ W and 

a West Turn at approximate location 

40°54′31′′ N 073°25′21′′ W. 

(b) Definitions. The following 

definitions apply to this section: 

Designated On-scene Patrol Personnel, 

means any commissioned, warrant or 

petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard 

operating Coast Guard vessels who have 

been authorized to act on the behalf of 

the Captain of the Port Long Island 

Sound. 

(c) Special local regulations. (1) No 

person or vessel may approach or 

remain within 100 yards of any 

swimmer or safety craft within the 

regulated area during the enforcement 

period of this regulation unless they are 

officially participating in the Fran 

Schnarr Open Water Championships 

event or are otherwise authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Long Island Sound 

or by Designated On-scene Patrol 

Personnel. 

(2) All persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions from Coast 

Guard Captain of the Port or the 

Designated On-scene Patrol Personnel. 

The Designated On-scene Patrol 

Personnel may delay, modify, or cancel 

the swim event as conditions or 

circumstances require. 

(3) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast 

Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing 

light or other means, the operator of the 

vessel must proceed as directed. 

(4) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter the regulated area within 100 

yards of a swimmer or safety craft may 

request permission to enter from the 

designated on scene patrol personnel by 

contacting them on VHF–16 or by a 

request to the Captain of the Port Long 

Island Sound via phone at (203) 468– 

4401. 

(d) Enforcement Period. This rule is 

enforced on a specified day each July to 

be determined on an annual basis. 

Notification of the specific date, times 

and enforcement of the special local 

regulation will be made via a Notice of 

Enforcement in the Federal Register, 

separate marine broadcasts and local 

notice to mariners. 

Dated: February 11, 2010. 

Daniel A. Ronan, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Long Island Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6159 Filed 3–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ARCHITECTURAL AND 

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS 

COMPLIANCE BOARD 

36 CFR Parts 1191, 1193, and 1194 

[Docket No. 2010–1] 

RIN 3014–AA37 

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 

Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings 

and Facilities; Telecommunications 

Act Accessibility Guidelines; 

Electronic and Information Technology 

Accessibility Standards 

AGENCY: Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (Access Board) is issuing this 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) to begin the 

process of updating its standards for 

electronic and information technology 

and its Telecommunications Act 

Accessibility Guidelines. At the same 

time, the Board is proposing to revise its 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

Accessibility Guidelines to address 

access to self-service machines used for 

ticketing, check-in or check-out, seat 

selection, boarding passes, or ordering 

food in restaurants and cafeterias. The 

Board has developed draft standards 

and guidelines for these purposes. The 

draft text (draft) is available on the 

Board’s Web site (http://www.accessboard.gov/508.htm). The Board invites 

the public to review and comment on all 

aspects of this draft, including the 

advantages and disadvantages of draft 

provisions, the organizational approach 

to presenting the standards and 

guidelines, alternative policies to those 

contained in the draft, and information 

on benefits and costs. After reviewing 

the comments received in response to 

this advance notice and draft, the Board 

will issue a proposed rule followed by 

a final rule. 

DATES: Comments should be received by 

June 21, 2010. The Board will hold a 

public hearing to provide an additional 

opportunity for comment. The hearing 

will take place on March 25, 2010 from 

9 a.m. to noon in conjunction with the 

25th Annual International Technology & 

Persons With Disabilities Conference. It 

will be held at the Manchester Grand 

Hyatt Hotel, Elizabeth Ballroom, One 

Market Place, San Diego, CA 92101. To 

pre-register to testify please contact 

Kathy Johnson at (202) 272–0041 or 

Johnson@access-board.gov. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number 2010–1 or 

RIN number 3014–AA37, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: ictrule@access-board.gov. 

Include docket number 2010–1 or RIN 

number 3014–AA37 in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Fax: 202–272–0081. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Office of Technical and Informational 

Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street, 

NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 

20004–1111. 

All comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Creagan, Office of Technical and 

Information Services, Access Board, 

1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000, 

Washington, DC 20004–1111. 

Telephone number: 202–272–0016 

(voice); 202–272–0082 (TTY). Electronic 

mail address: creagan@accessboard.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 8, 1996, the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 was 

enacted. Section 255 of the Act requires 

manufacturers to ensure that 

telecommunications equipment or 

customer premises equipment are 

designed, developed, and fabricated to 

be accessible to and usable by 

individuals with disabilities when it is 

readily achievable to do so; readily 

achievable means easily 

accomplishable, without much 

difficulty or expense. The Access Board 

was given the responsibility for 

developing accessibility guidelines for 

telecommunications equipment and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
13458 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

customer premises equipment in 

conjunction with the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC). 

The Board was also instructed to review 

and update the guidelines periodically. 

The Board published the guidelines on 

February 3, 1998. 63 FR 5608 (February 

3, 1998); 36 CFR part 1193. The 

guidelines were based on 

recommendations from a 

Telecommunications Access Advisory 

Committee that the Board had created. 

On August 7, 1998, the Workforce 

Investment Act of 1998, which includes 

the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 

1998, was signed into law. Section 508 

of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments 

requires that when Federal departments 

or agencies develop, procure, maintain, 

or use electronic and information 

technology, they must ensure that the 

technology is accessible to people with 

disabilities, unless an undue burden 

would be imposed on the department or 

agency. Section 508 required the Access 

Board to publish standards setting forth 

a definition of electronic and 

information technology and technical 

and functional performance criteria for 

such technology. The Board was also 

required to periodically review and, as 

appropriate, amend the standards to 

reflect technological advances or 

changes in electronic and information 

technology. The Board published the 

standards on December 21, 2000. 65 FR 

80500 (December 21, 2000); 36 CFR part 

1194. The standards were based on 

recommendations from an Electronic 

and Information Technology Access 

Advisory Committee that the Board had 

created to assist it in developing the 

standards. 

Since the Board issued the 

Telecommunications Act Accessibility 

Guidelines (guidelines) and the 

Electronic and Information Technology 

Accessibility Standards (standards), 

technology has changed. Additionally, 

several organizations have asked the 

Board to update its standards so they are 

harmonized with efforts taking place 

around the globe. The 

telecommunications provisions in the 

standards are based on and are 

consistent with the telecommunications 

provisions in the guidelines. Therefore, 

the Board has decided to update and 

revise the standards and the guidelines 

together to address changes in 

technology and to make both documents 

more consistent. Through this update, 

the Board is addressing new technology 

and seeks to harmonize, to the extent 

possible, its criteria with other 

standards and guidelines in order to 

improve accessibility and facilitate 

compliance. 

In addition, the Board is proposing to 

amend the Americans with Disabilities 

Act Guidelines (ADAAG) to address 

access to self-service machines used for 

ticketing, check-in or check-out, seat 

selection, boarding passes, or ordering 

food in restaurants and cafeterias. In 

2006, the National Council on Disability 

released a report, NCD Position Paper 

on Access to Airline Self-Service Kiosk 

Systems, which recommended that 

accessibility provisions from ADAAG or 

the section 508 standards be 

incorporated into an updated Air Carrier 

Access Act regulation for accessible 

design applicable to both proprietary 

and common-use self-service kiosk 

systems (http://www.ncd.gov/ 

newsroom/publications/2006/ 

kiosk.htm). In May 2008 the Department 

of Transportation amended its Air 

Carrier Access Act rules to apply to 

foreign carriers but decided to defer 

action on kiosks and noted that the 

Access Board has work under way that 

could affect kiosks. 73 FR 27614 (May 

13, 2008). 

There have also been numerous 

settlement agreements and structured 

negotiations reached with various 

public accommodations on tactile point 

of sale devices (http://lflegal.com/ 

category/settlements/point-of-salesettlements/). With the proliferation of 

point of sale machines, kiosks, and 

other self-service machines, the Board 

has decided that in addition to updating 

the standards for electronic and 

information technology and the 

guidelines for telecommunications 

products, it should revise the Americans 

with Disabilities Act Accessibility 

Guidelines to address access to this new 

technology to ensure its accessibility for 

people with disabilities. The Board 

proposes to extend coverage to selfservice machines used for ticketing, 

check-in or check-out, seat selection, 

boarding passes, or ordering food in 

restaurants and cafeterias. This would 

include point of sale devices used to 

check-in or check-out products at retail 

establishments such as those addressed 

in the settlement agreements and 

structured negotiations as well as other 

self-service machines. 

To begin the process of updating the 

standards and guidelines, the Board 

formed the Telecommunications and 

Electronic and Information Technology 

Advisory Committee (TEITAC or 

Committee), to review the existing 

standards and guidelines and to 

recommend changes. The Committee 

met regularly from September 2006 to 

April 2008, and held numerous 

teleconferences in between meetings. 

The Committee’s 41 members 

comprised a broad cross-section of 

stakeholders, including representatives 

from industry, disability groups, 

standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and 

abroad, and government agencies. In 

their deliberations, Committee members 

addressed a range of issues, including 

new or convergent technologies, market 

forces, and international harmonization. 

Recognizing the importance of 

standardization across markets 

worldwide, the Committee coordinated 

its work with standard-setting bodies in 

the U.S. and abroad, such as the World 

Wide Web Consortium, and the 

Committee included representatives 

from the European Union, Canada, 

Australia, and Japan. 

On April 3, 2008 the Committee 

presented its report to the Board. The 

Committee’s report recommends 

detailed revisions to the Board’s section 

508 standards and Telecommunications 

Act accessibility guidelines. The 

Committee’s report is available on the 

Board’s website at http://www.accessboard.gov/sec508/refresh/report. 

The Board staff has been working 

with an ad hoc committee of Board 

members and staff from several Federal 

agencies to develop this notice and 

draft. The final version of the draft will 

ultimately replace the section 508 

standards, the Telecommunications Act 

accessibility guidelines, and make 

amendments to the Americans with 

Disabilities Act Accessibility 

Guidelines. In addition to agencies that 

are represented on the Board, staff from 

the Federal Communications 

Commission, Social Security 

Administration, Internal Revenue 

Service, and the Department of 

Homeland Security have been involved 

in the ad hoc committee’s work. 

The draft is available on the Board’s 

website at www.access-board.gov/ 

508.htm. At a later date, the Board will 

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

to update the standards and guidelines 

based on the input received in response 

to this advance notice and draft. The 

proposed rule will provide another 

opportunity for public comment. The 

Board will also prepare a regulatory 

assessment to accompany the proposed 

rule. To assist the Board in developing 

the regulatory assessment, the Board 

invites comments on the quantitative 

and qualitative benefits and costs 

associated with the changes proposed in 

the draft; the Board also asks 

commenters to provide information on 

the benefits and costs of alternative 

policies which they propose. The Board 

will finalize the standards and 

guidelines based on the comments 

received in response to the proposed 

rule. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13459 

Regulatory Approach 

The TEITAC sought to balance the 

need for detailed criteria with an 

approach that accommodates the 

dynamic and ever-evolving nature of the 

technologies covered. Many people, 

from product designers and engineers to 

procurers and end users, have called for 

clear delineation of what makes a 

product accessible for compliance 

purposes. However, the Committee 

determined that product-specific criteria 

will not keep pace with innovative 

trends and market forces which enhance 

the capabilities of products and blur 

their categorization. Convergent 

technologies, for example, support the 

growing demand for all-in-one products, 

such as mobile devices that offer voice 

and text communication, web browsing, 

and media players. 

The Committee’s report recommended 

a revised set of performance criteria that 

specify access capabilities for products 

generally. The Committee organized its 

recommendations to serve as a 

framework for updated technical 

specifications to address hardware, user 

interfaces and electronic content, audiovisual players, displays, and content, 

real-time voice communication, and 

authoring tools. Unlike the current 

standards, the committee’s 

recommendations are organized 

primarily by the features or capabilities 

of a product, instead of discreet product 

types. The recommendations contain 

advisory and background information 

on the performance and technical 

provisions, including references to 

related standards, and update defined 

terms and provisions covering 

documentation, support, and 

maintenance. The report also advises 

the Board on considerations for future 

updates, supplementary guidance 

materials and tools, compliance testing, 

and further research. 

Question 1: The Board developed the 

draft using the organizational approach 

recommended by the Committee in 

which the provisions are organized 

primarily by the features or capabilities 

of a product, instead of discrete product 

types. The Board seeks comments on the 

usability and effectiveness of this 

approach, as well as alternative 

organizational approaches. 

Question 2: The Board seeks input on 

what implementation time frames 

would be reasonable, specifically 

whether some provisions should have 

differing implementation dates. 

Structure of the Draft 

The draft contains revisions to the 

current standards and guidelines which 

the Board is considering. The revisions 

are largely based on the 

recommendations of the TEITAC report. 

Some provisions reflect changes to the 

TEITAC recommendations made by the 

Board, as noted in the detailed summary 

which follows. The draft also contains 

revisions that would amend provisions 

in the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) by 

applying requirements of the standards 

to self-service machines. The draft 

standards and guidelines share a 

common set of functional performance 

criteria (Chapter 2) and technical design 

criteria (Chapters 3–10), but have 

separate introductory chapters (Chapter 

1) which outline scoping, application, 

and definitions. Chapter 1 labeled, ‘‘508 

Chapter 1: Application and 

Administration’’ addresses products 

covered by Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act and its provisions are 

preceded by the letter ‘‘E’’; the other 

chapter 1 is labeled, ‘‘255 Chapter 1: 

Application and Administration’’ and 

addresses telecommunications 

equipment and customer premises 

equipment covered by the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its 

provisions are preceded by the letter 

‘‘C’’. 

Question 3: To improve usability, the 

Board titled each provision and located 

advisory notes next to the associated 

requirements. Are there any other 

format changes that will make the draft 

easier to use? 

The draft is substantially reorganized 

from the current standards and 

guidelines. Following the 

recommendations in the TEITAC report, 

the draft provisions have been organized 

in terms of functionality, rather than 

product categories. For example, the 

Board separated conversation 

functionality, including both voice and 

text (Chapter 9) from audio output 

functionality, such as alert indicators 

(Chapter 8). 

Question 4: The Board seeks feedback 

on the overall organization of the draft, 

especially how aspects of technology are 

addressed by the chapter organization. 

For example, should software (Chapter 

4) and electronic documents (Chapter 5) 

be combined? Or, should all 

requirements for audio output, 

including conversation functionality 

and status indicator sounds (Chapter 8), 

be combined with text messaging 

capability (Chapter 9) into one chapter? 

Major Changes From Current 

Requirements 

The draft addresses some issues 

which were not covered in the current 

standards or guidelines but were the 

subject of supplementary technical 

guidance. The draft does not seek to 

change the approach to these issues but 

instead makes them explicit. For 

example, the relationship between the 

functional performance criteria and the 

technical provisions is unchanged. 

However the draft text seeks to clarify 

(in Chapter 1) that a product may be 

deemed accessible if it meets all the 

technical provisions, even if the 

functional performance criteria are not 

completely met. 

The draft does not seek to 

substantively change the majority of 

requirements in the current standards or 

guidelines, consistent with the TEITAC 

report. However, some material is 

changed in the draft. For example, the 

draft contains significant revisions to 

the general exceptions. All substantive 

changes are explained in the Summary 

of Provisions below. One of the most 

significant changes being considered by 

the Board involves the application of 

the guidelines and standards to 

electronic content. The Board is 

proposing to cover electronic content of 

certain official communications by 

Federal agencies. Another significant 

change concerns coverage of self-service 

machines under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. 

Summary of Provisions 

This section provides an overview of 

the draft and highlights substantive 

revisions and updates from the TEITAC 

report, unless otherwise noted. The 

draft includes some non-substantive 

editorial changes to the TEITAC 

recommendations made by the Board 

that are not detailed in this discussion. 

In addition to the specific questions 

below corresponding to individual 

provisions, the Board seeks general 

comments on these provisions, 

including the extent to which they are 

necessary, their advantages and 

disadvantages, their quantitative and 

qualitative benefits and costs, and 

alternative policies. The Board also 

invites the public to identify any gaps 

in the draft guidelines and standards, 

and approaches to addressing such gaps. 

508 Chapter 1: Application and 

Administration 

The draft contains provisions for 

information and communication 

technology for Federal departments and 

agencies, including the U.S. Postal 

Service, as set forth in Section 508 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

General Requirement (E102) 

The draft standards would be applied 

by Federal agencies so that employees 

and members of the public with 

disabilities have access to and use of 

electronic and information technology 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
13460 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

that is comparable to the level of access 

and usability available to persons 

without disabilities unless it would be 

an undue burden to do so. The Board 

added this provision to clarify these 

responsibilities. This would not change 

the scope or application of the 

standards. 

Application (E103) 

This section covers application of the 

standards to information and 

communication technology procured, 

developed, maintained, or used by or on 

behalf of Federal agencies. The phrase 

‘‘or on behalf of agencies’’ has been 

added to cover technologies used by 

contractors under a contract with a 

Federal agency. A citation to the statute 

has been added to this provision. 

Coverage of agencies is unchanged; 

however, the draft provision seeks to 

provide more detail regarding which 

agencies are covered. The term 

‘‘Information and Communication 

Technology (ICT),’’ as defined in section 

E111, encompasses both electronic and 

information technology covered by 

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act 

and telecommunications products 

covered by Section 255 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 

Committee recommended use of the 

broader term ICT for convenience and 

clarity since the technical requirements 

and functional performance criteria 

apply under both laws and since the 

term ICT is widely used by most other 

countries. 

Electronic Content (E103.3.1) 

The amendments to the Rehabilitation 

Act require that when developing, 

procuring, maintaining, or using 

electronic and information technology, 

each Federal department or agency shall 

ensure, unless an undue burden would 

be imposed on the department or 

agency, that electronic and information 

technology allows (regardless of the 

type of medium) individuals with 

disabilities to have access to and use of 

information and data that is comparable 

to the access to and use of the 

information and data by others without 

disabilities (see 29 U.S.C. 794d 

(a)(1)(A)). The current standards do not 

adequately address what is meant by 

comparable access to information and 

data. There has been much confusion 

over whether and how such electronic 

content is addressed. 

The draft contains a new provision 

which the Board is considering to 

address access to electronic content of 

certain official communications by 

Federal agencies or agency 

representatives. This draft requirement 

would apply to electronic content 

regardless of the method of transmission 

or storage but is limited to official 

agency communications. ‘‘Official 

communication’’ refers specifically to 

communication by a Federal agency to 

employees that contains information 

necessary for those employees to 

perform their job functions and 

information relevant to enjoyment of the 

benefits and privileges of employment 

or to communication by a Federal 

agency to members of the general public 

that contains information necessary for 

the conduct of official business with the 

agency. Examples of such electronic 

content may include email messages, 

Word documents, and other types and 

formats. The current standards address 

access to some types of electronic 

content, such as web pages, forms, and 

video productions. A definition of 

‘‘content,’’ is included in section E111. 

Question 5: The draft requirement 

which the Board is considering for 

access to electronic content in the draft 

is limited to certain official 

communications by Federal agencies. 

Other types of communications and 

electronic content are not addressed. 

The Board seeks comment on this draft 

requirement and what other types of 

content including social media (i.e., 

YouTube and Twitter) should be 

addressed and the benefits and costs of 

extending coverage to other forms of 

electronic content. The Board is 

interested in comments from agencies 

about how this provision could be 

implemented across large and diverse 

institutions. How should attachments to 

official email messages be handled? The 

Board is also interested in information 

on the benefits and costs associated 

with this change, particularly from 

Federal agencies. How should this 

provision apply to records requested 

from the National Archives and Records 

Administration who is prohibited from 

altering archival records? 

Undue Burden (E104) 

Consistent with the Committee’s 

recommendations, this section in the 

draft is substantively unchanged from 

the current standards. 

General Exceptions (E105) 

The current standards contain six 

exceptions. In the draft, two of the 

exceptions are retained unchanged: The 

prohibition against requiring 

fundamental alteration in the nature of 

a product or components; and the 

statutory exception for products whose 

function, operation, or use involves 

national security or cryptological 

activities. Another exception concerning 

ICT acquired by a contractor incidental 

to a contract has been relocated to the 

application section which contains a 

provision specific to Federal contracts 

(E103.4.2). 

The Board is considering removing 

three exceptions in the current 

standards: 

• One exception stated that assistive 

technology need not be provided at all 

workstations for all Federal employees 

(1194.3(c)). The current standards 

require that ICT either be directly 

accessible or compatible with assistive 

technology. Since the standards do not 

require the provision of assistive 

technology at each work station, the 

Board considers this exception 

unnecessary. 

• The second exception states that 

where agencies provide information and 

data to the public through accessible 

ICT, the accessible ICT need only be 

provided at the intended public location 

(1194.3(d)). The Board is considering 

removing this exception from the 

standards because no provision in the 

standards requires accessible ICT in 

more than one location. Since these 

exceptions are contained in the statute, 

their removal from the standards will 

not impact application. 

• A third exception states that 

products located in spaces used only by 

service personnel for maintenance and 

repair need not be accessible. The Board 

believes this provision is unnecessary 

since most functions can be accessed 

remotely. 

Question 6: The Board seeks comment 

on removing these exceptions and the 

impact of removing them, including the 

benefits and costs associated with 

removing them. Should the exception 

concerning ICT acquired by a contractor 

incidental to a contract be repeated in 

this section and in section E103.4.2? 

Equivalent Facilitation (E106) 

This section is substantively 

unchanged from the current standards. 

WCAG 2.0 Harmonization (E107) 

The Committee recommended that the 

Board seek to harmonize the standards 

with the World Wide Web Consortium 

(W3C) Web Content Accessibility 

Guidelines 2.0 once they were finalized. 

The Web Content Accessibility 

Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 was published 

as a W3C recommendation on December 

11, 2008; about 8 months after the 

Committee provided its report to the 

Board. The Board is considering that 

web pages, as defined by WCAG 2.0, 

which are Level AA conformant, be 

deemed to be in conformance with the 

provisions noted in the draft. 

Question 7: The Board seeks comment 

on this approach to harmonization with 

WCAG 2.0 including suggestions for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13461 

alternative approaches to achieving 

harmonization, and comments on the 

benefits and costs associated with the 

Board’s approach. 

Best Meets (E108) 

This section is substantively 

unchanged from the current standards. 

Provision of Support Services and 

Materials (E109) 

The Board is considering requiring 

agencies to provide alternate methods of 

communication through help desks and 

technical support services and to 

provide support services and materials 

in alternate formats. Chapter 10 of the 

technical requirements specifies the 

types of information to be provided, 

such as descriptions of the builtinaccessibility features of a product and 

information about operation of features 

that can be accessed from the keyboard. 

Definitions (E111) 

The draft contains a number of new 

definitions. Most defined terms derive 

either from the Committee report or 

from the WCAG 2.0. Consistent with the 

Committee’s report, the draft seeks to 

minimize deviations from industry 

usage and understanding of defined 

terms to ensure consistency with 

industry standards and best practices. 

The draft uses the term ‘‘Information 

and Communication Technology, (ICT)’’ 

to refer to both telecommunications 

products covered by Section 255 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 and to 

electronic and information technology 

covered by Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act. The Board has 

defined this term to include existing 

definitions of ‘‘electronic and 

information technology’’ and 

‘‘telecommunications products’’ in the 

current standards and guidelines. The 

definition is intended to encompass a 

wide expanse of products and the 

functions for which they are used. 

Question 8: The Board is interested in 

comment on the definition of 

Information and Communication 

Technology. 

Referenced Standards or Guidelines 

(E112) 

Other standards and guidelines 

referenced in this draft are based on 

recommendations from the Committee. 

The intent is to promote testability and 

usability of the draft provisions. 

255 Chapter 1: Application and 

Administration 

This chapter covers application of the 

draft to telecommunications and 

interconnected Voice over Internet 

Protocol (VoIP) products and Customer 

Premises Equipment (CPE) covered by 

Section 255 of the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996. It applies to manufacturers 

of telecommunications equipment or 

customer premises equipment and 

requires products to be designed, 

developed, and fabricated to be 

accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities when it is readily 

achievable to do so; readily achievable 

means easily accomplishable, without 

much difficulty or expense. 

General Requirement (C102) 

This draft provision is substantially 

unchanged from the current guidelines 

and the Committee recommendations; 

the draft provision applies to 

manufacturers of telecommunications 

products. 

Application (C103) 

The draft provisions apply to 

telecommunications products and 

interconnected VoIP products and CPE. 

This section now specifically references 

interconnected VoIP products, 

consistent with Federal Communication 

Commission regulations. An advisory 

note provides examples of covered 

technologies, such as instant messaging 

that supports real-time conversation in 

other modes, and products beyond those 

typically thought of as communications 

devices, such as web interfaces used to 

access functions in VoIP systems. 

Direct Accessibility (C103.4) 

This draft provision is updated yet 

consistent with the current guidelines 

which require telecommunications 

equipment and CPE to be directly 

accessible when it is readily achievable 

to do so. 

Compatibility Design (C103.4.1) 

This draft provision is similar to the 

current guidelines which require 

telecommunications equipment and 

CPE to be compatible with peripheral 

devices and specialized customer 

premises equipment when it is readily 

achievable to do so. 

Prohibited Reduction of Accessibility 

(C103.5) 

This draft provision is substantially 

unchanged from the current guidelines. 

Information, Documentation, and 

Training (C104) 

This draft provision is substantially 

unchanged from the current guidelines 

and would require manufacturers to 

provide access to information, 

documentation, and training to their 

customers. This may be done through 

help desks and support services and 

shall include alternate methods of 

communication. Chapter 10 of the 

technical requirements specifies the 

types of information to be provided, 

such as descriptions of the built-in 

accessibility features of a product and 

information about operation of features 

that can be accessed from the keyboard. 

Equivalent Facilitation (C105) 

This section is substantively 

unchanged from the current guidelines. 

WCAG 2.0 Harmonization (C106) 

The Committee recommended that the 

Board harmonize its rule with the World 

Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web 

Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 

once they were finalized. The Web 

Content Accessibility Guidelines 

(WCAG) 2.0 was published as a W3C 

recommendation on December 11, 2008. 

The Board is considering that web 

pages, as defined by WCAG 2.0, which 

are Level AA conformant, shall be 

deemed to be in conformance with the 

provisions noted in the draft. 

Product Design, Development, and 

Evaluation (C107) 

This section is substantially 

consistent with the current guidelines 

which require manufacturers to evaluate 

the accessibility, usability, and 

compatibility of telecommunications 

products and CPE. It has been revised to 

include references to VoIP and other 

technologies. 

Definitions (C109) 

The draft contains a number of new 

definitions. Most defined terms derive 

either from the Committee report or 

WCAG 2.0. Consistent with the 

Committee’s report, the draft minimizes 

deviations from industry usage and 

understanding of defined terms to 

ensure consistency with industry 

standards and best practices. The 

definition of ‘‘Interconnected Voice over 

Internet Protocol (VoIP) Service’’ derives 

from FCC regulations and was included 

in the Committee report. 

Question 9: The Board is interested in 

comment on the proposed definitions. 

Referenced Standards or Guidelines 

(E110) 

The external standards and guidelines 

referenced in the draft are based on 

recommendations from the Committee. 

The intent is to promote testability and 

usability of the provisions of this part. 

Chapter 2: Functional Performance 

Criteria 

Functional Performance Criteria (202) 

This draft provision is consistent with 

the recommendation of the Committee 

to retain all existing functional 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
13462 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

performance criteria and to add a 

provision that addresses color vision 

deficits and a provision to minimize 

photosensitive seizure triggers. The 

Committee and the Board felt it was 

important that functional performance 

criteria map to technical specifications. 

Question 10: The Board is interested 

in comment on how the functional 

performance criteria should be 

implemented in relation to the technical 

provisions. Does the approach discussed 

in E103.5 and C103.6, as a statement of 

current practice, clarify or confuse the 

issue? If the approach is confusing, how 

could it be made less confusing? 

General (202.1) 

The current standards require 

products to have at least one mode of 

operation and information retrieval that 

meets the functional performance 

criteria. More and more products are 

now multi-functional. For example, 

many devices allow users to make 

telephone calls, send text messages, and 

access the Internet. In recognition of this 

growing multi-functionality of covered 

products, the Board is considering 

requiring that each mode of operation of 

a product meet the functional 

performance criteria. 

Without Vision (202.2) 

This provision is substantially 

unchanged from the current standards 

and the Committee report, except for the 

use of the term ‘‘non-visual access.’’ 

With Limited Vision (202.3) 

This provision addresses access to at 

least one mode of operation for users 

with limited vision. The Board is 

considering revising the current 

specification to require that ICT meet 

the needs of a greater range of users. The 

current standards require an accessible 

mode that accommodates visual acuity 

up to 20/70. The Board is considering 

increasing the covered range to 20/200, 

which is the legal definition of 

blindness so that more people have the 

option to use a visual-based mode 

instead of non-visual accessible modes. 

Question 11: The Board is interested 

in comment on whether and the extent 

to which this change will sufficiently 

improve access for people with limited 

vision and the benefits and costs 

associated with this change. 

Without Perception of Color (202.4) 

The Committee’s report recommended 

the addition of a provision specifying 

that functionality not be based on the 

ability to perceive color. This is 

consistent with the technical provisions 

in the current standards that prohibit 

relying on color alone as the sole means 

of indicating status or function. 

Question 12: The Board is interested 

in comment on this proposed new 

provision, including information on the 

benefits and costs associated with this 

addition. 

Without Hearing (202.5) 

This draft provision is substantially 

consistent with the current standards 

and the Committee report. 

With Limited Hearing (202.6) 

This provision seeks to address access 

for users with limited hearing. The 

current standards stipulate that at least 

one mode be provided in ‘‘an enhanced 

auditory fashion.’’ The provision the 

Board is considering would require that 

any auditory features, where provided, 

include at least one mode of operation 

that improves clarity, reduces 

background noise, or allows control of 

volume. The Board included this change 

to make the requirement more specific. 

The Committee considered such a 

change but did not recommend specific 

language. 

Question 13: The Board is interested 

in comment on the proposed change to 

improve access for individuals with 

hearing impairments, including 

information on the benefits and costs 

associated with this change. 

Without Speech (202.7) 

This provision is substantially 

unchanged from the current standards 

and the Committee report. 

With Limited Manipulation (202.8) and 

With Limited Reach and Strength 

(202.9) 

These draft provisions are consistent 

with a provision in the current 

standards but the Board has separated 

them into two distinct provisions. The 

Board is considering making this change 

to address issues of fine motor control 

or simultaneous actions apart from the 

reach ranges or strength necessary to 

access and operate controls. These 

provisions are consistent with technical 

specifications addressing reach ranges 

and operable parts. 

Without Physical Contact (202.10) 

This is a new provision the Board is 

considering adding due to the 

significant population of users who are 

unable to make contact with a product, 

as well as the many types of technology 

now available that do not require 

physical contact, such as Bluetooth and 

wireless connectivity. The Committee 

considered, but did not reach 

consensus, on adding such a 

requirement. The wording of the 

provision derives from that considered 

by the Committee. 

Question 14: The Board is interested 

in comment on the proposed new 

provision to improve access for 

individuals who are unable to make 

contact with a product, including 

information on the benefits and costs 

associated with this change. 

Minimize Photosensitive Seizure 

Triggers (202.11) 

This is a new provision which the 

Board is considering adding to address 

hazards posed to people with 

photosensitive epilepsy. The Board 

added this provision as a functional 

criterion for consistency with technical 

specifications for flashing (306). 

Question 15: The Board is seeking 

comment on whether cognitive 

disabilities are sufficiently addressed in 

the functional performance provisions 

and seeks suggestions on how the 

requirements might better address the 

accessibility needs of individuals with 

cognitive disabilities. 

Chapter 3: Common Functionality 

This chapter covers those common 

features of information and 

communication technology which are 

found across a variety of platforms, 

formats, and media. The draft 

requirements of this chapter which the 

Board is considering derive from 

provisions for self-contained closed 

products and desktop and portable 

computers in the current standards. The 

Board organized this chapter to cover all 

technical requirements that address 

elements or functionality common to 

ICT. These requirements apply generally 

to all types of ICT. 

Closed Functionality (302) 

The Board is considering this draft 

provision to require that ICT with 

closed functionality be usable by people 

with disabilities without requiring 

assistive technology other than personal 

headsets. The current standards address 

this only in relation to self-contained 

closed products. The Committee 

recommended this change since closed 

functionality is not product or function 

specific and may be found in many 

contexts, due to either design or policy 

considerations. For example, selfcontained closed products such as 

kiosks may be closed due to design, 

while software applications may have 

certain limitations imposed on 

functionality due to policy 

considerations, such as maintaining 

security. 

Question 16: The Board is interested 

in comments on how closed 

functionality is covered in the draft. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13463 

Should other means of assistive 

technology besides personal headsets be 

permitted to provide access to ICT with 

closed functionality? 

Biometrics (303) 

The Committee recommended that the 

current requirements for biometric 

identification be expanded to allow for 

alternate forms of user identification or 

control which may be either biometric 

or non-biometric. The requirement for a 

non-biometric form of user 

identification or control is retained. The 

Board is considering a requirement for 

an alternate biometric that uses 

dissimilar characteristics to the default 

biometric. 

Preservation of Information Provided for 

Accessibility (304) 

This draft provision is substantially 

unchanged from the current standards 

and the Committee recommendations. 

Color (305) 

This draft provision is substantially 

unchanged from the current 

requirements and the Committee 

recommendations. 

Flashing (306) 

In this draft provision the Board is 

considering specifying a maximum 3- 

per-second flash rate for ICT light 

flashes. This differs from the current 

standards which specify that ‘‘products 

shall be designed to avoid causing the 

screen to flicker with a frequency 

greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.’’ 

The Committee recommended this 

change because the current provision is 

too restrictive in prohibiting flashing 

within a certain range with no 

consideration for the size of the flashing 

area. The provision is consistent with 

WCAG 2.0. 

Operable Parts (307) 

In this draft provision the Board is 

considering addressing controls and 

keys, tactile discernability, key repeat 

and adjustability functions, nonmechanical controls, and accessible 

reach ranges. The Board is considering 

revising the provision to reference 

specifications for reach ranges in the 

Board’s Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) and Architectural Barriers Act 

(ABA) Accessibility Guidelines for 

buildings and facilities, which address 

both forward and side reach ranges, 

since some products may require a 

variety of approaches. The current 

standards only specify side reach 

ranges. The ADA and ABA guidelines 

specify a maximum side reach height 

that is lower than the maximum height 

specified in the current standards (48 

inches maximum instead of 54 inches). 

This would eliminate any potential 

conflict between the ICT requirements 

and the ADA and ABA accessibility 

guidelines. 

Chapter 4: Platforms, Applications, and 

Interactive Content 

General (401) 

This chapter provides technical 

requirements for platforms, 

applications, and interactive content. 

The Board separated these requirements 

from those for static electronic 

documents (Chapter 5). These 

provisions are harmonized with WCAG 

2.0. 

Non-Text Content (402) 

In this draft section the Board is 

considering providing technical 

requirements for non-text content, 

including audio and visual content and 

CAPTCHA (Completely Automated 

Public Turing Test to tell Computers 

and Humans Apart). It references 

specifications for non-text content in 

Chapter 5 and requirements for audio 

and video content in Chapter 6. 

Specifications for all other types of 

interactive content are contained in this 

chapter. 

Distinguishable Content (403) 

In this section the Board is 

considering new requirements to 

address the difficulties persons with 

hearing loss or low vision may 

experience in distinguishing between 

foreground and background content, 

whether that content is audio 

(background music to an audio track of 

speakers) or text. These draft 

requirements are based on 

recommendations from the Committee. 

The Board is also considering adding a 

provision for resizable text for 

consistency with WCAG 2.0. 

Keyboard Operation (404) 

This draft section is substantively 

unchanged from the current standards 

and is consistent with recommendations 

from the Committee. 

Time Limits (405) 

This draft section is substantively 

unchanged from the current standards 

and is consistent with recommendations 

from the Committee. 

Navigation (406) 

In this draft section the Board is 

considering addressing navigation and 

includes substantive changes from the 

current standards and the Committee’s 

recommendations. A provision to 

bypass blocks of content (406.2), 

consistent with the current standards 

was recommended for deletion in the 

Committee report. The Board is 

considering retaining this provision for 

consistency with WCAG 2.0. The Board 

is also considering adding a provision 

on focus order (406.3) for the same 

reason, and a new provision covering 

multiple ways to locate content (406.4), 

which was recommended by the 

Committee. 

Question 17: The draft includes three 

provisions (406.2, 406.3, and 406.4) not 

included in the Committee report but 

that are consistent with WCAG 2.0. Are 

these provisions important enough for 

end-users to be included for the sake of 

harmonization with other standards? 

The Board seeks comment on the 

benefits and costs of these additions. 

Predictability (407), Input Assistance 

(408), User Preferences (409), and 

Interoperability With Assistive 

Technology (410) 

These draft sections are substantively 

unchanged from the current standards 

and are consistent with 

recommendations from the Committee. 

Compatible Technologies (411) 

This draft section is consistent with 

the current standards and contains 

provisions that are closely adapted from 

provisions the Committee considered 

but did not reach consensus on. 

Assistive Technology Function (412) 

The Board is considering a new 

requirement that closely reflects 

recommendations the Committee 

considered but did not agree on. The 

Board added this provision because it 

believes it is important to address how 

applications use platform accessibility 

services to make information about 

components programmatically 

determinable. 

Question 18: The draft includes a 

requirement for ICT which provides an 

assistive technology function. Should 

the requirements apply to assistive 

technology? The Board seeks comment 

on the benefits and costs on including 

explicit requirements for assistive 

technology. 

Authoring Tools (413) 

In this new section the Board is 

considering requiring that for all formats 

supported by an authoring tool, the 

authoring tool must provide a mode of 

operation that supports the creation of 

electronic documents that conform to 

the ICT accessibility requirements. The 

Committee recommended that authoring 

tools be required to support the ability 

to improve the accessibility of content. 

Question 19: Do the proposed 

provisions for authoring tools reflect 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
13464 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

features that many authoring tools 

already provide? If not, could such 

features be added to authoring tools 

relatively easily? The Board seeks 

comment on the benefits and costs of 

including such requirements for 

authoring tools. 

Chapter 5: Electronic Documents 

The Board is considering separating 

requirements that generally apply to 

non-interactive content (Chapter 5) from 

those that generally apply to interactive 

interfaces (Chapter 4). Chapter 5 covers 

access to electronic documents which 

contain mostly static, read-only, noninteractive electronic content. Electronic 

content covered by this chapter includes 

most non-paper documents and web 

content, regardless of format. Examples 

include word processing files (such as 

Word and WordPerfect), Portable 

Document Format (PDF), presentations 

(such as Power Point), spreadsheets 

(such as Excel), and simple web pages 

not containing embedded objects (such 

as Flash, Silverlight, or Air). All of these 

elements are covered in this chapter. In 

addition, electronic documents may also 

contain some modest interactive 

components such as hypertext links, 

buttons, and form elements or fields. 

These common elements are covered in 

this chapter as well. The draft 

provisions of this chapter derive from 

requirements in the current standards 

for web-based intranet and internet 

information and applications. Whereas 

the current standards focus on webbased documents, this chapter would 

apply to a wide range of content 

formats. 

Question 20: The Board seeks 

comment on whether there is a better 

way to distinguish between 

requirements for software applications 

covered by Chapter 4 and electronic 

documents covered by Chapter 5. 

Non-Text Content (502) 

This provision is consistent with the 

current standards but provides more 

detail on what constitutes a ‘‘text 

equivalent’’ for many common 

situations. 

Adaptable Presentation of Content (503) 

In this section the Board is 

considering addressing adaptable 

presentation of content, including 

features which allow content to be 

presented in different ways without 

losing or changing information or the 

structure of the content, such as contrast 

options for viewing websites. Other 

elements of presentation include the 

ability to programmatically determine 

the information, structure, and 

relationships implied by visual or 

auditory formatting. When a screen 

reader reads content, the presentation 

format of the content changes, but the 

information provided and the structure 

or relationships of the content do not. 

For example, columns in a table should 

still be distinguishable from rows, 

separate paragraphs of information 

should still be separate, and the 

arrangement of the content should still 

be apparent. This draft section contains 

specifications based on the current 

standards for data tables, scripts, and 

forms, but includes new provisions for 

logically correct reading sequence and 

sensory characteristics. 

Distinguishable Presentation of Text 

Content (504) 

This draft section is based on 

requirements in the current standards 

for web-based intranet and internet 

information and applications but 

includes new specifications for contrast 

and text enlargement. The Committee 

recommended contrast ratios for text 

and images of text of at least 4.5:1. The 

draft includes a requirement that text be 

easily resizable for consistency with 

WCAG 2.0 which the Board is 

considering. 

Navigation and Orientation (505) 

In this draft section the Board is 

considering addressing navigation and 

orientation and stems from the current 

standards but includes new 

requirements regarding link purpose in 

context, headings, and labels. The draft 

contains new requirements which the 

Board is considering which state that 

the purpose of each link shall be 

determinable from the link text alone, or 

from the link text together with it’s 

programmatically determined link text, 

unless the author intends the purpose of 

the link to be ambiguous. The reason for 

this requirement is to allow users to 

understand the purpose of each link so 

they can determine whether they want 

to follow the link. In addition, the 

Committee report included an advisory 

note recommending that specifications 

for document titles (505.2) apply not 

just to frames, as in the current 

standards, but broadly to all document 

types. The Board also has included this 

provision as a requirement for greater 

consistency with WCAG 2.0. 

Readability (506) 

This draft provision which the Board 

is considering is new and requires that 

the language of documents and changes 

in language be identified. It is consistent 

with WCAG 2.0. 

Input Assistance (507) 

This draft provision is consistent with 

requirements in the current standards 

for web based forms but has been 

revised to apply to all types of forms. 

Compatible Technologies (508) 

In this new draft section the Board is 

considering requiring that content using 

mark up languages, such as XML or 

HTML, use that language according to 

specification when creating electronic 

content so that user agents, such as 

assistive technology like screen readers, 

will be able to properly interpret and 

read the content. The Committee noted 

that a screen reader may be unable to 

properly interpret content which has 

been improperly coded, so this 

provision is intended to address that 

issue. The Committee recommended 

this addition as an advisory (nonmandatory) provision, but the Board is 

considering the addition as a 

requirement to better harmonize the 

draft with WCAG 2.0. 

Chapter 6: Synchronized Media Content 

and Players 

Chapter 6 addresses audio and visual 

electronic content as well as players of 

that content. Other forms of electronic 

content are addressed in Chapter 4 

(Platforms, Applications, and Interactive 

Content) and Chapter 5 (Electronic 

Documents). In order to address the 

broader range of content now in use, 

references to ‘‘multimedia video’’ have 

been replaced by the term 

‘‘synchronized media,’’ as recommended 

by the Committee. The Board recognizes 

that while much of the draft maintains 

a functional approach to the 

requirements, Chapters 6 through 9 

adopt a more product oriented 

approach. 

Question 21: The Board seeks 

comment on whether this proposed 

approach is successful in making the 

document more understandable and 

useful. The Board welcomes alternatives 

to this organizational approach. 

Video or Audio Content With Interactive 

Elements (602) 

This is a new provision which the 

Board is considering to address 

technology that allows users to interact 

with video or audio content. It was 

recommended by the Committee to 

address a new development in 

technology that occurred after the 

current standards were issued. 

Captions and Transcripts for Audio 

Content (603) 

This draft provision is derived 

substantively from the current standards 

but has been reorganized for clarity. It 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13465 

distinguishes pre-recorded content from 

real-time content and audio-only 

content from synchronized media. 

Question 22: The Board is interested 

in comments on whether there is a 

voluntary consensus standard which 

could address some issues related to 

captioning quality, such as the degree of 

synchronization required and an 

allowable error rate. 

Video Description and Transcripts for 

Video Content (604) 

The term ‘‘video description’’ was 

recommended by the Committee to 

replace the term ‘‘audio description.’’ 

Video description is used to refer to the 

process whereby visual content is made 

accessible by the insertion of verbal or 

auditory description of on-screen 

visuals intended to describe important 

visual details. ‘‘Video description’’ is the 

preferred terminology. 

This draft provision derives 

substantively from the current 

standards, but has been reorganized for 

clarity. It distinguishes pre-recorded 

content from real-time content and 

visual-only content from synchronized 

media. 

The Board is considering adding a 

new provision on multiple visual areas 

of focus to address a problem 

experienced by persons with disabilities 

when there are multiple, simultaneous 

sources of information and data being 

provided on-screen. People with 

disabilities may miss some of the 

information displayed simultaneously 

on a screen, when some, but not all, of 

the information is described. A typical 

example is text on screen that states the 

name and title of the person speaking, 

but the text is not included in the main 

audio output. This provision is intended 

to address that concern. 

The Board departed from a Committee 

recommendation for video description 

of pre-recorded content by keeping it as 

an unconditional requirement, 

consistent with the current standards. 

The Committee recommended an option 

for providing a text description of video 

content where space is not available in 

the main program for synchronized 

video descriptions. However, new 

technology for ‘‘extended description’’ 

may support conformance to this 

provision without fundamentally 

altering pre-recorded synchronized 

media. Extended description allows 

users to pause a video to listen to a 

description and resume playing the 

video. 

Caption Processing Technology (605) 

This draft provision addresses 

technologies that display and process 

captions and is distinct from provisions 

for caption content (603). The 

Committee recognized that current 

audio visual players and displays may 

be separate components of a larger 

system. 

Video Description Processing 

Technology (606) 

This draft provision addresses 

technologies that play and process video 

descriptions and is distinct from 

requirements for video description of 

content (604). It is substantively 

consistent with the current standards 

but specifies distinct provisions to be 

followed for both analog signal tuners 

and digital television tuners. 

User Controls for Captions and Video 

Description (607) 

This draft provision covers user 

controls for captions as well as video 

descriptions and differs from the current 

standards which only address video 

description controls and are not as 

comprehensive in scope. As 

recommended by the Committee, this 

provision addresses on-screen menus, a 

new technology not addressed by the 

current standards. 

Audio Track and Volume Control (608) 

This is a new provision being 

considered by the Board to address the 

issue of background audio as a barrier 

to understanding speech in video 

content. It reflects the new digital 

television standard that allows 

separating audio content into separate 

tracks. Rather than applying a 

requirement on content authoring, this 

provision requires ICT that displays and 

processes synchronized media to allow 

user adjustment and selection for multichannel videos. 

Question 23: The Board seeks 

comment on any impact this approach 

may have on manufacturers of hardware 

or software for audio video players. 

Chapter 7: Hardware Aspects of ICT 

This chapter covers those features of 

ICT relating to hardware. The 

requirements of this chapter derive from 

provisions for self contained closed 

products, desktop and portable 

computers, and telecommunication 

products in the current standards, as 

well as provisions for output, display, 

and control functions in the guidelines. 

The Committee sought to cover all 

requirements specifically related to 

hardware in one chapter. 

Reach Ranges for Installed or FreeStanding ICT (702) 

The Committee recommended that 

specifications for reach ranges in the 

current ADA and ABA Accessibility 

Guidelines, which address both forward 

and side reach ranges, be referenced due 

to technologies that may require a 

variety of approaches. This is a change 

from the current standards which only 

addressed side reach ranges. In 

addition, the ADA and ABA 

Accessibility Guidelines specify a 

maximum side reach height that is 

lower than the maximum height 

specified in the current standards (48 

inches maximum instead of 54 inches). 

Standard Connections (703) 

This provision derives from the 

Committee report and current standards 

and addresses reach ranges for freestanding ICT. The Board is considering 

modifying the provision by replacing 

references to ‘‘slots, ports and 

connectors,’’ with the term ‘‘connection 

points’’ which encompasses a wider 

variety of possible ways of connecting to 

devices, such as infrared and Bluetooth. 

Question 24: The Board seeks 

comment on whether this change in 

terminology is sufficient, or if it will 

result in any confusion or unintended 

implementation issues. Should this term 

be defined? 

Text, Images of Text, and Symbols for 

Product Use (704) 

This is a new provision that would 

require that when text, images of text, 

and symbols are provided on hardware 

for product use, they must provide one 

mode of operation which provides the 

same information in electronic format, 

unless an exception applies. Without 

the addition of a provision to make the 

information available electronically, 

someone who is blind would not be able 

to independently read information on 

the bottom of products such as symbols 

describing various ports on a portable 

computer. In addition, text, images of 

text, and symbols must conform to 

minimum requirements for size and 

contrast ratio. This provision was 

recommended by the Committee. The 

Board added measurement 

specifications on text attributes, derived 

from the ADA and ABA Accessibility 

Guidelines. 

Chapter 8: Audio Output From 

Hardware 

Following recommendations from the 

Committee to orient requirements to 

functions of products, the Board has 

organized criteria for audio output 

functionality into a separate chapter. As 

structured, this chapter is a departure 

from the current standards and 

guidelines which located volume 

control provisions in separate sections 

associated with different product types. 

The provisions of this chapter address 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
13466 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the audio output functionality of 

products such as telephones and 

information kiosks, as well as media 

products, such as portable music 

players. 

Interactive ICT Within Reach (802) 

This draft provision being considered 

by the Board applies to those products 

that have audio output, are adjustable 

by the user, and are within the reach of 

the user, such as telephones and 

information kiosks. Consistent with a 

Committee recommendation for audio 

connection, this provision requires 

products with audio output to provide 

a means of listening through a handset, 

jack, or connection adaptor. It would 

also require that features be provided to 

control volume through hardware such 

as jacks and speakers, as well as 

software controls for audio. 

ICT Typically Held to the Ear (803) 

The Board is considering this 

provision to address requirements for 

volume gain in products with audio 

output (either two way voice 

communication or one way audio 

output), that are typically held to the 

ear. It specifies a minimum adjustable 

gain level of 18 dB, with a baseline to 

ensure measurability and consistency 

among products. These specifications 

differ from the current standards and 

guidelines (which require a gain 

adjustable up to a minimum of 20 dB 

but do not specify a baseline). In 

addition, the provision differs from the 

recommendation of the Committee. 

The Committee recommended 

harmonization with the current FCC 

Part 68 regulation, which requires a gain 

adjustable up to a minimum of 18 dB 

gain for analog telephones and a 15 dB 

minimum gain for other telephones. 

However, FCC Part 68 specifies 12 dB as 

an allowable minimum gain. The Board 

is concerned that a product designed 

with a 12 dB or 15 dB minimum gain 

will not sufficiently meet the needs of 

individuals with hearing impairments. 

This section also includes 

requirements for incremental volume 

control and automatic reset that are 

consistent with the current standards 

and guidelines. An exception for reset 

manual override was added at the 

recommendation of the Committee and 

is consistent with FCC policy (see FCC 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 

01–578, March 5, 2001; http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ 

attachmatch/DA-01-578A1.doc). The 

requirements specified in the FCC 

Memorandum Opinion and Order have 

been included in the draft. 

Requirements for magnetic coupling 

and minimized interference (803.5) are 

also included in this section and are 

consistent with the standards and 

guidelines. The Board departed from the 

recommendations of the Committee by 

including a requirement for magnetic 

coupling to apply to headsets because 

they are part of telecommunications 

products. The draft extends the 

minimized interference requirement to 

ICT that may not necessarily be used for 

telecommunications, such as wands 

used for listening to museum audio 

tours. 

Question 25: The Board is interested 

in comment on these provisions, 

including information on the benefits 

and costs associated with the proposed 

requirement for volume gain. In 

addition, the Board seeks comment on 

whether the specified volume gain for 

cellular and landline telephones should 

be consistent since the amplification 

needs of people who are hard of hearing 

are the same for both products. 

ICT Not Typically Held to the Ear (804) 

This section addresses volume gain, 

incremental volume control, and 

automatic reset in products that are not 

typically held to the ear. The Board 

departed from Committee 

recommendations and did not 

differentiate requirements for products 

designed for personal use, such as 

speaker telephones, from products 

designed for communal use, such as 

information transaction machines. 

Chapter 9: Conversation Functionality 

and Controls 

This chapter addresses products that 

support a telecommunications 

conversation, whether it is in an audio, 

text, or video format. 

Real-Time Text Functionality (902) 

This section contains detailed 

specifications being considered by the 

Board for real-time text (RTT) and for 

hardware and software systems that 

support its functionality. Products 

covered include terminals, such as 

telephones, as well as pass-through 

products, including routers. These 

specifications are based on 

recommendations from the Committee 

and are considerably more 

comprehensive than those of the current 

standards and guidelines that only 

address TTY text. 

The Board considered referencing the 

RFC–4103 standard for VoIP systems 

that connect to other VoIP systems using 

session initiation protocol (SIP). (RFC is 

otherwise known as the Request for 

Comments—a series of Internet 

standards and protocols distributed by 

the Internet Assigned Numbers 

Authority; see http:// 

datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4103/). 

However, since the RFC–4103 was not 

developed through a standards 

development organization, the Board 

did not include a reference to it in this 

draft. 

Question 26: Is there a similar 

standard to the RFC–4103 standard that 

has been published by a standards 

development organization that the 

Board could reference? 

Voice Mail, Messaging, Auto-Attendant, 

Conferencing and Interactive Voice 

Response (903) 

This provision corresponds to 

specifications in the current standards 

for interactive voice response TTY 

compatibility but also applies to other 

real time text. The Committee 

recommended that this provision 

reference G.711 specifications for audio 

intelligibility in the ITU–T Standard 

(International Telecommunication 

Union Telecommunication 

Standardization Sector). Instead, the 

Board has chosen to reference the G.722 

standard which provides greater 

accessibility through superior clarity. As 

recommended by the Committee, this 

section also includes a new provision 

for message and prompt navigation. 

Information About Call Status and 

Functions (904) 

This section addresses caller 

identification and similar functions and 

is substantially similar to specifications 

in the current standards. An advisory 

note clarifies other types of call status 

information covered. 

Video Communications Support (905) 

This is a new provision recommended 

by the Committee to require 

interoperable technology support for 

people who use sign language to 

communicate via telecommunications. 

It addresses signals as well as terminals 

and includes a provision that supports 

audio input and output. The Board 

enhanced specifications for video 

communication quality by adding 

requirements for data stream and 

display screens, including the provision 

of an alternate video display screen, and 

revised requirements for speed and 

resolution. In addition, the Board added 

a requirement for an indication of 

camera status for security reasons and 

specifications for end-user controls to 

help ensure privacy. At the 

recommendation of the Committee, the 

Board also included a provision to 

support a non-auditory alerting system. 

Question 27: The Board seeks 

comment on this requirement. Are the 

specifications for video quality 

sufficient to support accessibility? Are 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13467 

there other ways of addressing video 

communications that are less complex? 

Audio Clarity for Interconnected VoIP 

(906) 

This is a new section which the Board 

is considering that addresses the ability 

to enhance clarity in audio through 

VoIP systems. This requirement is based 

on a recommendation from the 

Committee report, but the Board has 

revised it to reference the G.722 

standard instead of the G.711 standard 

to provide greater accessibility. 

Alternate Alerting for VoIP Telephone 

Systems (907) 

As recommended by Committee, in 

this new section the Board is 

considering requiring that a signal be 

provided to indicate incoming calls on 

VoIP systems. This requirement can be 

met through either built-in or 

compatible signaler solutions. Advisory 

notes clarify sufficiency of audible and 

visual signaling technology. 

Question 28: The Board seeks 

comment on the requirement that a 

signal be provided on all incoming calls 

on VoIP systems. Should the 

requirement be limited, or should it 

apply to all such calls? Should this 

feature be selectable by the user? 

Chapter 10: ICT Support 

Documentation and ICT Support 

Services 

This chapter covers product support 

documentation and services and is 

largely consistent with requirements in 

the current standards and guidelines. 

The Board is considering new 

provisions to enhance specifications for 

documentation (1002) and support 

services (1003). 

ICT Support Documentation (1002) 

This section addresses documentation 

for accessibility features (1002.2) and 

provision of product documentation in 

alternate formats (1002.3). The overall 

requirements of this section remain 

substantively unchanged. 

Accessibility Documentation (1002.2) 

The Board is considering revising the 

provision for documentation to 

specifically require that product 

documentation address those features 

that support accessibility, including the 

capability to change settings, and those 

features that support compatibility with 

assistive technology (1002.2.2). This 

revision, as recommended by the 

Committee, represents a change from 

the current standards, which do not 

include such a requirement, and the 

guidelines, which require a description 

of the compatibility features of a 

product upon request. In addition, the 

Board included a new requirement that 

when product components are intended 

to be integrated as part of a system, 

information must be provided on how to 

configure the system to support 

accessibility (1002.2.3). 

Question 29: The Board seeks 

comment on the benefits and costs of 

the increased requirements for 

documentation. 

The Board is also considering adding 

a new provision that would require that 

documentation be provided on all 

features using only the keyboard 

(1002.2.4). This includes information on 

available keyboard commands and 

keyboard navigation. The Committee 

discussed this change, but did not 

achieve consensus on it. 

Alternate Formats (1002.3) 

This provision requires that product 

documentation be made available in 

alternate formats. It has been revised to 

require that alternate formats meet 

relevant specifications for electronic 

documents in Chapter 5. 

ICT Support Services (1003) 

This section addresses access to 

product support services where 

provided, such as help desks and 

technical support services. It has been 

revised, as recommended by the 

Committee to require that help desk and 

technical support services provide 

information on ICT accessibility features 

through a referral to a point of contact, 

and that information on a contact 

method be provided (1003.2.2). The 

Board clarified the requirement that 

help desks and technical support 

services shall provide information and 

training on ICT accessibility features 

directly to the end user, where 

appropriate (1003.2.1). The current 

standards only generally require that 

support services accommodate the 

communication needs of end-users with 

disabilities, while the guidelines require 

provision of contact information for 

manufacturers of telecommunications 

products. 

The requirement that help desk and 

technical support services provide 

alternate methods of communication 

(1003.2) is consistent with the 

provisions in the current standards and 

guidelines. Documentation on ICT 

accessibility features must be provided 

by help desks and technical support 

services in alternate formats upon 

request. In addition, alternate methods 

of communication, such as in-person 

and remote communication is required. 

Amendments to the Americans With 

Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines 

Automatic Teller Machines, Fare 

Machines, and Self-Service Machines 

(220) 

As part of this advance notice, the 

Board proposes to supplement 

provisions in its ADA Accessibility 

Guidelines (ADAAG) to address access 

to self-service machines used for 

ticketing, check-in or check-out, seat 

selection, boarding passes, or ordering 

food in restaurants and cafeterias. 

The Board maintains similar 

guidelines under the Architectural 

Barriers Act (ABA) which applies to 

facilities that are federally funded. Since 

the section 508 standards apply to ICT 

in the Federal sector, corresponding 

changes to the ABA guidelines are not 

considered necessary. ADAAG already 

addresses access to automated teller 

machines (ATMs) and to fare vending 

machines and provides scoping 

requirements (section 220) and 

technical specifications (section 707) for 

such devices. In its update of ADAAG 

in 2004, the Board considered 

supplementing these provisions to cover 

other types of interactive transaction 

machines (ITMs). The Board opted to 

defer action at that time to monitor the 

application of the section 508 standards 

to ITMs in the Federal sector. 

In the draft, the Board is considering 

extending coverage of ADAAG section 

220 beyond ATMs and fare vending 

machines to other kinds of self-service 

machines. The ADAAG changes being 

considered by the Board would apply 

relevant requirements of the section 508 

standards to these types of machines but 

would not change existing requirements 

for ATMs or fare vending machines. The 

provision references chapters 3 through 

9 of the standards. 

The changes being considered by the 

Board would supplement ADAAG 220 

to specifically cover self-service 

machines used for ticketing, check-in or 

check-out, seat selection, boarding 

passes, or ordering food in restaurants 

and cafeterias (220.2). Two exceptions 

are being considered. One exception 

notes that self-service machines are not 

required to comply with sections 302; 

409–412; 503.1–503.3; 506; 508; 703; 

802.2.3; and 802.2.4 of the draft. These 

provisions generally address 

requirements for products to 

interoperate with assistive technology 

and therefore are not appropriate for 

self-service machines. A second 

exception exempts drive-up only selfservice machines. 

Question 30: The Board seeks 

comment from users and manufacturers 

of self-service machines on their 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
13468 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

experiences in using or designing 

accessible machines and the benefits 

and costs associated with the proposed 

requirements. 

Impact on Small Entities 

The Board is interested in receiving 

comments on the potential impact of 

this rule on small entities pursuant to 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). In 

particular, the Board is seeking input on 

the numbers of small entities that may 

be impacted by this rulemaking, and the 

potential compliance costs to these 

small entities. Section 601 of the RFA 

defines small entities as small 

businesses (defined by the U.S. Small 

Business Administration), small not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions with a 

population of less than 50,000. The 

Board is also seeking comment on any 

significant alternatives that can 

minimize the economic impact of this 

rulemaking on small entities while 

accomplishing the Board’s objectives. 

Question 31: The Board is interested 

in comment on the impact on small 

entities of the provisions implementing 

section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act for 

technology procured, developed, 

maintained, or used by or on behalf of 

Federal agencies. The phrase ‘‘or on 

behalf of agencies’’ covers technologies 

used by contractors under a contract 

with a Federal agency. How many 

contractors and subcontractors would be 

considered small entities under the SBA 

small business size standards? What 

types of compliance costs will these 

contractors and subcontractors face in 

developing the technologies covered by 

section 508? For example, will small 

contractors and subcontractors face 

capital costs for equipment, or hiring 

professional expertise or extra staff to 

comply with the requirements? Will the 

cost of implementation create a 

competitive disadvantage for small 

contractors versus large contractors? 

(i.e., will a small contractor become less 

likely to win a Federal contract based on 

price?) Should the Board establish 

different compliance or reporting 

requirements for small contractors and 

subcontractors? Does the Board need to 

clarify or simplify the compliance 

requirements for small contractors or 

exempt certain small contractors from 

these requirements? 

Question 32: The Board is interested 

in comment on the impact on small 

entities (manufacturers of 

telecommunications products) of the 

provisions implementing section 255 of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 

How many manufacturers of 

telecommunications products would be 

considered small entities, particularly 

with the application of this rule to 

interconnected VoIP products? What 

types of compliance costs will small 

manufacturers face? The Board is 

interested in small business estimates 

for services required by this rule such as 

providing access to information, 

documentation, and training of 

customers (for example through help 

desks and support services). Will this 

section require extra technology, 

professional expertise or extra staff? Are 

there alternative ways that small 

manufacturers can provide information 

and training at lower costs? Should the 

Board establish different compliance or 

reporting requirements for small 

manufacturers? 

Question 33: The Board is interested 

in comment on the impact on small 

entities (places of public 

accommodations and state and local 

government entities) of the provisions 

for self-service machines under the 

Americans With Disabilities Act. How 

many and what types of small entities 

utilize self-service machines, and what 

types of machines do they use? How 

many small manufacturers make these 

types of machines? How many of the 

small entities that use or manufacture 

self-service machines have machines 

that are accessible? How much will it 

cost to develop and produce the 

technology that would meet the 

proposed provisions? Should the Board 

establish different compliance 

requirements for small entities to have 

accessible machines? Does the Board 

need to clarify or simplify the 

requirements for small entities or 

exempt certain types of machines from 

these requirements? 

The Board will hold a public hearing 

to provide an opportunity for comment. 

The hearing will take place on March 

25, 2010 from 9 a.m. to Noon in 

conjunction with the 25th Annual 

International Technology & Persons 

with Disabilities Conference. It will be 

held at the Manchester Grand Hyatt 

Hotel, Elizabeth Ballroom, One Market 

Place, San Diego, CA 92101. The 

hearing location is accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. Sign 

language interpreters and real-time 

captioning will be provided. For the 

comfort of other participants, persons 

attending the hearing are requested to 

refrain from using perfume, cologne, 

and other fragrances. To pre-register to 

testify please contact Kathy Johnson at 

(202) 272–0041 or Johnson@accessboard.gov. 

David M. Capozzi, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6245 Filed 3–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0080; FRL–9128–7] 

Disapproval of California State 

Implementation Plan Revisions, 

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution 

Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a revision to the Monterey 

Bay Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (MBAPCD) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). This revision concerns opacity 

standards related to multiple pollutants, 

including particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from several different types of 

sources, ranging from fugitive dust to 

gas turbine generators. We are proposing 

action on a local rule that regulates 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

April 21, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0080, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http:// 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS