76640 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

§ 117.647 Saginaw River. 

(a) The draws of the Lake State 

Railway Bridge, mile 3.10, and the 

Central Michigan Railroad Bridge, mile 

4.94, both in Bay City, shall open on 

signal; except that from January 1 

through March 31, the draws shall open 

on signal if at least 12 hours advance 

notice is provided. 

(b) The draws of the Independence 

Bridge, mile 3.88, Liberty Street Bridge, 

mile 4.99, Veterans Memorial Bridge, 

mile 5.60, and Lafayette Street Bridge, 

mile 6.78, all in Bay City, shall open on 

signal, except as follows: 

(1) From April 15 through November 

1, between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 

7 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

federal holidays, the draws of the 

Independence and Veterans Memorial 

Bridges need open for the passage of 

recreational vessels only from three 

minutes before to three minutes after the 

hour and half-hour, and the Liberty 

Street and Lafayette Street bridges need 

open for the passage of recreational 

vessels only from three minutes before 

to three minutes after the quarter-hour 

and three-quarter hour. 

(2) From January 1 through March 31, 

the draws of these bridges shall open on 

signal if at least 12 hours advance notice 

is provided. 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 9, 2011. 

M.N. Parks, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31456 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0959] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers 

Alternate Route), Belle Chasse, LA 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 

Correction. 

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register 

published on December 2, 2011, the 

Coast Guard placed the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway (Algiers Alternate Route), 

Belle Chasse, LA. That publication 

contained an error in the ‘‘Discussion of 

Proposed Rule’’ section stating an 

incorrect date of the Test Deviation 

issued in conjunction with the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. The Test 

Deviation is scheduled to commence on 

December 15, 2011 vice the December 

19, 2011 date published in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. The Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking should reflect the 

correct date of December 15, 2011. This 

error does not impact the Test 

Deviation. 

DATES: This correction is effective 

December 8, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this correction, 

contact Erin Anderson, Office of 

Regulations and Administrative Law, 

telephone (202) 372–3849, email 

erin.w.anderson@uscg.mil. For 

information about the original 

regulation, contact Donna Gagliano, 

Coast Guard; telephone (504) 671–2128, 

email Donna.Gagliano@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Vol. 

76, No. 232, USCG 2011–0959, 

appearing on page 75507 in the issue of 

Friday, December 2, 2011, the following 

correction is made: 

1. On page 75507, in the first column, 

in the one place that ‘‘December 19, 

2011’’ appears, remove ‘‘December 19, 

2011’’ and replace with ‘‘December 15, 

2011’’. 

Dated: December 2, 2011. 

Kathryn Sinniger, 

Chief, Office of Regulations and 

Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31454 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ARCHITECTURAL AND 

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS 

COMPLIANCE BOARD 

36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194 

[Docket No. 2011–07] 

RIN 3014–AA37 

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 

second Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) to continue the 

process of updating its standards for 

electronic and information technology, 

which apply to federal agencies, and its 

guidelines for telecommunications 

accessibility, which apply to 

telecommunications manufacturers. The 

text of the proposed standards and 

guidelines under consideration by the 

Board is available on the Board’s Web 

site (http://www.access-board.gov/508.

htm). The Board invites the public to 

review and comment on all aspects of 

this notice and the proposed text, 

including the advantages and 

disadvantages of provisions, the 

organizational approach to presenting 

the standards and guidelines, alternative 

policies to those presented, and 

information on benefits and costs. After 

reviewing the comments received in 

response to this advance notice, the 

Board plans to issue a proposed rule 

seeking further public comment 

followed by a final rule. 

DATES: Comments should be received by 

March 7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number 2011–07 or 

RIN number 3014–AA37, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Regulations.gov Docket ID is ATBCB– 

2011–0007. 

• Email: ictrule@access-board.gov. 

Include docket number 2011–07 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 Information 

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: 

Timothy 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) 272–0074 (TTY). 

Electronic mail address: creagan@

access-board.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Regulatory History 

The (Section 508) Electronic and 

Information Technology Accessibility 

Standards (standards) were issued in 

December 2000, 65 FR 80500 (December 

21, 2000). The (Section 255) 

Telecommunications Act Accessibility 

Guidelines (guidelines) for 

telecommunications equipment and 

customer premises equipment were 

issued in February 1998, 63 FR 5608 

(February 3, 1998). The standards 

require that when developing, 

procuring, maintaining, or using 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76641 

electronic and information technology, 

each federal department or agency must 

ensure, unless an undue burden would 

be imposed on the department or 

agency, that electronic and information 

technology (regardless of the type of 

medium) allows 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. The standards include a 

definition of electronic and information 

technology, and technical and 

functional performance criteria for such 

technology. The Section 255 guidelines 

require telecommunications 

manufacturers to ensure that 

telecommunications equipment and 

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. The term 

readily achievable is defined in the 

guidelines as easily accomplishable, 

without much difficulty or expense. 

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794 (d) 

(Section 508) and the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 

U.S.C. 153, 255 (Section 255) require 

that the Access Board periodically 

review and, as appropriate, amend the 

standards and guidelines to reflect 

technological advances or changes in 

electronic and information technology 

or in telecommunications equipment 

and customer premises equipment. 

Once revised, the Board’s standards and 

guidelines are made enforceable by 

other federal agencies. Section 508(a)(3) 

of the Rehabilitation Act provides that 

within 6 months after the Access Board 

revises its standards the Federal 

Acquisition Regulatory Council shall 

revise the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation and each appropriate federal 

department or agency shall revise their 

procurement policies and directives, as 

necessary, to incorporate the revisions. 

Under Section 255 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, the 

Federal Communications Commission 

has the authority to adopt regulations 

implementing Section 255 including 

adopting rules consistent with the 

Access Board’s guidelines. 

Since the Board first issued the 

guidelines and the standards, 

technology has evolved and changed. 

Therefore, the Board decided to update 

and revise the guidelines and the 

standards together to address changes in 

technology and to make both documents 

consistent. The Board formed the 

Telecommunications and Electronic and 

Information Technology Advisory 

Committee (TEITAC) in 2006 to review 

the existing guidelines and standards 

and to recommend changes. TEITAC’s 

41 members comprised a broad crosssection of stakeholders. The 

stakeholders included representatives 

from industry, disability groups, 

standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and 

abroad, and government agencies. 

TEITAC also included representatives 

from the European Commission, 

Canada, Australia, and Japan. TEITAC 

recognized the importance of 

standardization across markets 

worldwide. It coordinated its work with 

standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and 

abroad, such as the World Wide Web 

Consortium (W3C). TEITAC members 

addressed a range of issues, including 

new or convergent technologies, market 

forces, and international harmonization. 

On April 3, 2008, TEITAC presented 

its report to the Board. The report 

recommended revisions to the Board’s 

Section 508 standards and Section 255 

guidelines. The report is available on 

the Board’s Web site at http://www.

access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/ 

report/. 

The Board developed an Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2010 

ANPRM) based on the TEITAC report. 

The ANPRM was published in the 

Federal Register in March 2010, 75 FR 

13457 (March 22, 2010). The Board held 

two public hearings and received 384 

comments on the 2010 ANPRM. This 

2011 ANPRM is based on a review of 

those comments. 

The 2010 ANPRM also included a 

proposal to amend the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility 

Guidelines to extend coverage of the 

guidelines to a variety of self-service 

transaction machines not previously 

covered by the guidelines. The Board 

plans to address this subject at a future 

date and has not included a proposal in 

this ANPRM to address such machines 

subject to the ADA. 

II. Structure of the 2010 ANPRM 

The 2010 ANPRM contained 

proposed updates under consideration 

by the Board to the requirements for 

Section 508 and Section 255 and was 

organized into eleven chapters. The first 

two chapters were separate introductory 

chapters (508 chapter 1 and 255 chapter 

1) outlining scoping, application, and 

definitions unique to each law. The 

remainder of the chapters comprised a 

common set of requirements. The 

ANPRM used the term ‘‘Information and 

Communication Technology’’ (ICT), 

recommended by TEITAC to describe 

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. The new term which was 

defined in E111 and C109 is consistent 

with terms previously included in the 

standards and guidelines but it more 

accurately describes covered features of 

electronic and information technology, 

telecommunications and VoIP products, 

and CPE. The term ICT is widely used 

in the public sector and by most other 

countries. The functional performance 

criteria and technical requirements set 

forth in the 2010 ANPRM were intended 

to apply to ICT subject to either the 

Rehabilitation Act or the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996. 

508 Chapter 1 contained purpose and 

application provisions for Section 508 

and explained how those provisions are 

applied to ICT subject to Section 508. 

The chapter explained how the 

provisions implement the requirement 

under Section 508 that federal agencies 

must ensure that the technology is 

accessible to people with disabilities, 

unless an undue burden would be 

imposed on the department or agency. 

The meaning of the term ‘‘undue 

burden’’ remains unchanged. Consistent 

with Section 1194.4 of the standards, 

undue burden means significant 

difficulty or expense to the agency after 

considering all the agency resources 

available to the program or component 

for which the product is being 

developed, procured, maintained, or 

used. 

255 Chapter 1 contained purpose and 

application provisions for Section 255 

and how that is applied to 

telecommunications and interconnected 

VoIP products and CPE subject to 

Section 255. The chapter explained how 

the provisions implement the 

requirement under Section 255 that 

telecommunications manufacturers 

must ensure that telecommunications 

equipment and 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. An action 

that is ‘‘readily achievable’’ can be 

easily accomplished by a manufacturer 

without much difficulty or expense. 

Chapter 2 included functional 

performance criteria requiring ICT to 

provide access to all functionality in at 

least one of each of the eleven specified 

modes. 

Chapter 3 contained technical 

requirements applicable to features of 

ICT that are found across a variety of 

platforms, formats, and media. Chapters 

4, 5, and 6 all contained technical 

requirements closely adapted from the 

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 

(WCAG) 2.0 Success Criteria which 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76642 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

were rephrased in mandatory language. 

Chapter 4 addressed platforms, 

applications, interactive content, and 

applications. Chapter 5 covered access 

to electronic documents and common 

interactive elements found in electronic 

content and Chapter 6 addressed access 

to audio and visual electronic content 

and to players of that content. Chapter 

7 addressed hardware aspects of ICT, 

such as standard connections and reach 

ranges. Chapter 8 addressed ICT that has 

audio output functionality when that 

output is necessary to inform, alert, or 

transmit information or data. Chapter 9 

addressed ICT that supports a real time 

simultaneous conversation. This 

conversation may be in an audio, text, 

or video format. Chapter 10 covered 

product support documentation and 

services. 

III. Summary of Public Comments to 

the 2010 ANPRM 

Three hundred eighty-four comments 

were received 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 concerned 

individuals who did not identify with 

any of these groups. 

In general, commenters agreed with 

the Board’s approach to address the 

accessibility features of ICT and not 

discrete product types. The commenters 

also expressed strong support for the 

decision to follow the TEITAC 

recommendation to require 

harmonization with WCAG 2.0. In 

addition they strongly supported the 

Board’s efforts to update the standards 

to address current technology. However, 

they raised concerns about the overall 

length of the document and its 

organization. Many commenters stated 

that it was unwieldy and difficult to use 

at close to 100 pages. They reported that 

the organization of the material did not 

add to their understanding of how to 

apply the requirements. They indicated 

that the relationship of the chapters to 

one another was unclear because every 

chapter seemed to use the term ICT 

differently, based on the functions 

addressed by the chapter. Commenters 

noted that some chapters focused on 

functional features of accessibility and 

others addressed specific types of 

technology. They found that this 

inconsistency within the document 

made reading and comprehension 

difficult. 

Commenters from industry and 

government criticized the approach 

taken for harmonization with WCAG 

2.0. The rephrasing of Success Criteria 

from WCAG 2.0 into regulatory language 

introduced subtle changes that called 

into question the suitability of the 

wealth of guidance material developed 

specifically for WCAG 2.0. Commenters 

in general were confused about how the 

Board distinguished between software 

and documents. Commenters were also 

confused about the emphasis given to 

some topics, which were addressed over 

an entire chapter, while other equally 

complex topics were addressed in a 

group of provisions. Many commenters 

also indicated that the use of advisories 

throughout the document was unclear 

and inconsistent, because some 

provisions had extensive advisories 

while others had none. Government and 

industry information technology 

professionals raised concerns about how 

some of the provisions could be 

implemented so that they could 

successfully determine if ICT is 

conformant. Persons responsible for 

procurements, as well as commenters 

representing individuals with 

disabilities questioned how 

conformance with provisions 

guaranteed actual access to and use of 

information and data by individuals 

with disabilities. 

Most commenters wanted clarification 

of the Board’s approach to covering 

electronic content. In addition, many 

commenters asked for a clearer 

explanation of the relationship of the 

functional performance criteria to the 

technical requirements. In general, 

commenters criticized the provisions for 

closed functionality for a lack of 

substance which made the provisions 

vague and confusing. Overall, 

commenters generally favored the 

Board’s approach to streamlining the 

exceptions to the technical and 

functional performance criteria. 

However, a significant number of 

commenters from government and 

industry strongly opposed removing the 

maintenance spaces exception for ICT 

located in spaces frequented only by 

service or maintenance personnel. Other 

commenters, many from government, 

expressed confusion over the 

reorganization of the ‘‘incidental to a 

contract’’ exception as a subset of a 

provision on federal contracts. 

IV. Access Board Response to Public 

Comments 

Upon reviewing the comments, the 

Board sees that the 2010 ANPRM 

needed major revisions in terms of both 

structure and content. The Board also 

recognizes the need to obtain more 

guidance on certain issues from those 

affected by the requirements. At the 

same time, the 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. 

V. Differences Between the 2010 

ANPRM and the 2011 ANPRM 

A. Structural Changes in the 2011 

ANPRM 

The Board has made significant 

changes in response to public comments 

to the 2010 ANPRM. The 2011 ANPRM 

is more concise than the 2010 ANPRM. 

It has six chapters instead of ten. The 

Board consolidated and streamlined 

provisions and consolidated advisories. 

The Board also removed scoping and 

application language from the chapters 

containing technical provisions and 

relocated them to new chapters at the 

beginning of the document. In addition, 

in response to concerns about an 

uneven approach taken in the 2010 

ANPRM, where some chapters focused 

on features of products and others 

addressed specific types of products, the 

Board standardized the approach by 

removing references to types of products 

while focusing instead on specific 

features of products. The Board revised 

the overall structure of the functional 

performance criteria so that the 

provisions have parallel structure. 

Further, the Board grouped technical 

requirements for similar functions 

together in the same chapter to improve 

readability and usability. The Board also 

removed specific requirements relating 

to web and non-web electronic content, 

documents and user applications and 

referenced WCAG 2.0 instead. This 

revised text is consistent with and 

reflects the public comments received. 

The Board focused on making this draft 

as accurate and succinct as possible to 

improve reader comprehension. 

B. Major Issues Identified and 

Addressed in the 2011 ANPRM 

1. Relationship Between Functional 

Performance Criteria and Technical 

Provisions 

In Section E103.5 of the 2010 ANPRM 

the Board proposed language to clarify 

the relationship between the functional 

performance criteria and the technical 

provisions. The Board deemed this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76643 

clarification to be warranted because the 

508 standards currently do not clearly 

specify when agencies must use the 

technical provisions and when they 

must use the functional performance 

criteria. Subsection E103.5.1 of the 2010 

ANPRM proposed that when an agency 

develops, procures, maintains, or uses 

ICT, it first must look to the technical 

provisions. If the technical provisions 

were fully satisfied, then the agency did 

not need to apply the functional 

performance criteria. Consequently, the 

2010 ANPRM gave the technical criteria 

greater weight than the functional 

performance criteria since the 

functional performance criteria were 

used only when the procurement needs 

of the agency were not fully met by the 

technical provisions. While the Board 

intended for the approach taken in the 

2010 ANPRM to reflect current practice, 

commenters objected to this approach, 

citing the concern that procurements 

that satisfy only the technical 

requirements do not necessarily provide 

access to information and data for 

individuals with disabilities. 

The Board appreciates this concern 

and has redefined the relationship 

between the functional performance 

criteria and the technical provisions in 

section E204 of the 2011 ANPRM so that 

ICT must conform to the functional 

performance criteria, even when 

technical provisions are met. This is a 

significant change from the 2010 

ANPRM, which did not require use of 

the functional performance criteria at all 

when the technical provisions fully 

addressed the product being procured. 

In subsection E101.2 of the 2011 

ANPRM the Board retains the approach 

from subsections E103.5.3 and E106 of 

the 2010 ANPRM of using the functional 

performance criteria to evaluate whether 

using the equivalent facilitation 

provision provides substantially 

equivalent or greater access to and use 

of a product for individuals with 

disabilities. A covered entity has the 

option to apply the concept of 

equivalent facilitation in order to 

achieve conformance with the intent of 

the technical requirements, provided 

that the alternative affords individuals 

with disabilities substantially 

equivalent or greater access than would 

result from compliance with the 

technical requirements. 

2. Functional Performance Criterion for 

Limited Vision 

In subsection 202.3 in the 2010 

ANPRM, the functional performance 

criterion for limited vision was changed 

to require a visual mode of operation 

which did not require visual acuity 

greater than 20/200 or a field of vision 

greater than 20 degrees. Commenters 

criticized this new approach as 

inadequate and technically incorrect. 

Organizations representing persons with 

disabilities disagreed with the 20/200 

requirement, stating that it did not 

sufficiently address the needs of users 

with severe low vision. Industry groups 

noted that the 20/200 requirement 

contradicted several technical 

requirements. Both groups indicated 

that the approach taken did not address 

features which could actually improve 

accessibility for persons with limited 

vision. In addition, as written, only one 

feature had to be provided for each 

mode of operation. Commenters stated 

that this approach was too limited. 

In subsection 302.2 in the 2011 

ANPRM the Board has made several 

changes to the functional performance 

criterion for limited vision in response 

to these comments. A functional 

approach which more closely addresses 

the needs of users with limited vision 

replaces the approach which specified a 

measurement for visual acuity. The 

functional performance provision for 

limited vision now requires that when 

a visual mode of operation is provided, 

ICT must 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. The provision also states that 

these modes must be supplied in the 

same ICT, but may be supplied either 

directly or through compatibility with 

assistive technology. 

3. Covered Electronic Content: Official 

Communications 

The 2010 ANPRM covered all 

electronic content used by agencies 

where it was an official communication 

by the agency to federal employees or to 

members of the public. This approach 

attempted to clarify the approach in the 

current Section 508 standards. Section 

508 requires that agencies ensure that 

individuals with disabilities have access 

to and use of information and data that 

is comparable to the access to and use 

of information and data by others 

without disabilities. Arguably, all 

electronic content developed, procured, 

maintained, or used by federal agencies 

is covered by the Section 508 standards 

because the standards do not limit the 

application of the requirements for 

access to and use of information and 

data to certain types of communication 

by an agency. Subsection E103.3.1 of the 

2010 ANPRM proposed to cover 

electronic content only to the extent that 

it was an official agency 

communication. Commenters, however, 

disagreed strongly with this approach 

because, in their view, all 

communications by an agency are in 

some way official business of the 

agency. Consequently, no electronic 

content would be exempt. They found 

this to be overbroad with considerable 

potential cost in relation to the benefit. 

Because this requirement potentially 

would cover all electronic content 

created by an agency, commenters 

feared that it would require each 

employee to be capable of creating 

accessible content for all of his or her 

communications. If all employees were 

required to produce accessible formats 

for all their work, commenters argued 

that employees would need 

considerable training. Commenters 

cautioned that this practice would 

consume a large portion of agency 

resources without necessarily resulting 

in more accessibility. 

In response, the Board proposes a 

more limited approach in section E205 

of the 2011 ANPRM. Coverage of 

electronic content is limited to nine 

specific categories of information 

communicated by agencies to 

employees or to members of the general 

public during the conduct of official 

agency business, as determined by the 

agency mission. Covered electronic 

content includes the following: content 

that is public facing; content that is 

broadly disseminated within the agency; 

letters adjudicating any cause within the 

jurisdiction of the agency; internal and 

external program and policy 

announcements; notices of benefits, 

forms, questionnaires and surveys; 

emergency notifications; formal 

acknowledgements; and educational 

and training materials. There are two 

exceptions to covered content: archival 

copies stored or retained solely for 

archival purposes to preserve an exact 

image of a hard copy, and draft versions 

of documents. 

4. Closed Functionality 

Section 302 of the 2010 ANPRM 

substituted the term ‘‘closed 

functionality’’ for ‘‘self-contained, 

closed products’’. The standards 

permitted ICT to have closed 

functionality and required it to be 

accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities without requiring the 

attachment of assistive technology. 

Commenters did not object to the new 

terminology of ‘‘closed functionality’’ 

but asked for more detail and clarity in 

the provisions. In section 402 of the 

2011 ANPRM, the Board now provides 

specific requirements for ICT with 

closed functionality to ensure that it is 

accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. These features include the 

requirement that ICT with closed 

functionality must be speech enabled. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76644 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Memorandum for Heads of Executive 

Departments and Agencies, Circular No. A–119 

Revised, February 10, 1998, http://www.

whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119. 

2Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to 

Web Accessibility (draft), W3C Web Accessibility 

Initiative, Education & Outreach Working Group, 

June 28, 2011, http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/

harmon.html. 

3Policies Relating to Web Accessibility, W3C 

WAI, August 25, 2006, http://www.w3.org/WAI/

Policy/. 

4World Wide Web Access: Disability 

Discrimination Act Advisory Notes, Australian 

Human Rights Commission, October 2010, http://

www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/

www_3/www_3.html. 

5Standard on Web Accessibility, Treasury Board 

of Canada Secretariat, August 1, 2011, http://www.

tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=

23601. 

6New Zealand Government Web Standards, 

Government Information Services, Department of 

Internal Affairs, November 15, 2011, http://

webstandards.govt.nz/standards/nzgws-2/. 

7European Accessibility Requirements for Public 

Procurement of Products and Services in the ICT 

Domain, European Commission (EC), November 2, 

2011, http://www.mandate376.eu/. 

The term ‘‘speech enabled’’ means 

speech output. These proposed 

requirements are derived from Section 

707, Automatic Teller Machines and 

Fare Machines, in the ADA and ABA 

Accessibility Guidelines and the 2010 

Department of Justice ADA Standards 

for Accessible Design. 

5. Exceptions: Maintenance Spaces and 

‘‘Incidental to a Contract’’ 

In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board 

reorganized the exceptions in the 

current standards and recommended 

deleting three of them as unnecessary. 

The three exceptions deleted by the 

Board were 36 CFR 1194.3(c) which 

stated that assistive technology need not 

be provided at all workstations for all 

federal employees; 36 CFR 1194.3(d) 

which provided 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; and 36 

CFR 1194.3(f), which stated that 

products located in spaces used only by 

service personnel for maintenance and 

repair need not be accessible. In an 

effort to simplify the wording, the Board 

rewrote the exception at 36 CFR 

1194.3(b) permitting ICT acquired by a 

contractor incidental to a contract to not 

be accessible. 

The Board received a number of 

comments about these proposed 

changes. Most commenters on this issue 

supported removing two of the three 

proposed exceptions. Only the proposed 

removal of the exception for ICT located 

in maintenance spaces generated 

negative comments. Commenters 

strongly objected to the Board’s 

assertion that many functions could be 

accessed remotely, noting that there 

were still many instances when some 

functions could only be performed in a 

maintenance space on an infrequent 

basis. They stated that functions related 

to maintenance, repair, or occasional 

monitoring of equipment should not be 

required to be accessible. The Board has 

restored this exception in subsection 

E202.4 of the 2011 ANPRM. The Board 

revised the language from the current 

Section 508 standard to make it clear 

that there are some functions which are 

only capable of being performed on-site 

in a maintenance space occupied solely 

by service personnel. These functions 

cannot be accessed remotely and 

include maintenance, repair, or 

occasional monitoring of equipment. 

The Board’s efforts at streamlining the 

exception for ICT purchased by a 

contractor ‘‘incidental to a contract’’ 

received many critical comments. The 

rewritten exception deleted the phrase 

‘‘incidental to a contract’’ and was 

relocated to a new section (E103.4.2) 

relating to federal contracts. 

Commenters expressed confusion as to 

the purpose of the new section and did 

not recognize the rewritten exception. 

One federal procurement official 

commented that the phrase ‘‘incidental 

to a contract’’ was more understandable 

and usable, particularly by contracting 

officials, who were most affected by this 

language. In response to comments, the 

Board has restored the original language 

from the current Section 508 standards 

in the 2011 ANPRM at subsection 

E202.3. 

6. WCAG 2.0 Incorporation by 

Reference Rather Than Harmonization 

In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board sought 

public comment on the 

recommendation of the TEITAC for 

international harmonization. The 2010 

ANPRM included most WCAG 2.0 Level 

A and Level AA Success Criteria but 

restated them in mandatory terms more 

appropriate for regulatory language. In 

the current 508 Standards, most of the 

provisions in 36 CFR 1194.22 mirror 

those of WCAG 1.0. The 2010 ANPRM 

(subsections E107 and C106) also 

requested comments on the option to 

use WCAG 2.0. Commenters noted that 

deviations from WCAG 2.0 phrasing 

introduced ambiguities, particularly for 

those familiar with WCAG 2.0. 

The current 508 Standards provide 

discrete requirements for software (36 

CFR 1194.21) and web content (36 CFR 

1194.22). As noted in the TEITAC report 

and the 2010 ANPRM preamble, such 

distinctions are increasingly arbitrary. 

The 2010 ANPRM attempted to retain 

some of this separation by having one 

chapter of simpler provisions which 

were applicable to document authors 

and a chapter of more complex 

provisions which were applicable only 

to software developers. Provisions 

related to multimedia were grouped in 

a third distinct chapter. Commenters felt 

that this separation seemed more 

arbitrary than useful. 

Both of the above weaknesses have 

been addressed in the 2011 ANPRM. 

Proposed subsections E205.1 and 

C203.1 incorporate WCAG 2.0 by 

reference, so there is no paraphrasing. 

WCAG 2.0 is written to be technology 

neutral, so it is straightforward to apply 

the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria and 

Conformance Requirements to 

electronic documents and applications, 

regardless if those documents and 

applications are rendered within a web 

browser or within a native application 

outside the web browser environment. 

Referencing WCAG 2.0 is consistent 

with Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–119 1 which directs 

agencies to use voluntary consensus 

standards in lieu of government-unique 

standards. The primary benefit is 

economic in that this practice reduces 

costs to the government associated with 

developing its own standards and also 

decreases the cost of goods and services 

procured by the government. According 

to the Web Accessibility Initiative 2, 

fragmentation of standards is an 

economic issue for government, 

businesses, and web developers. In this 

case, incorporation by reference also 

directly serves the best interests of 

people with disabilities because 

harmonization of standards can help 

accelerate the spread of accessibility 

across the web. The accessibility of the 

web is essential to enable the 

participation of people with disabilities 

in an information society. 

The Board’s proposal to reference 

WCAG 2.0 as the standard for Section 

508 and Section 255 web accessibility is 

also consistent with the Department of 

Transportation’s proposed approach in 

its supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking addressing, among other 

things, the accessibility of air carrier 

and ticket agent Web sites. 76 FR 59307 

(September 26, 2011). 

The Board’s proposal to incorporate 

WCAG 2.0 by reference is consistent 

with activity by other international 

standards organizations.3 Australia 4, 

Canada 5, and New Zealand 6 already 

make direct reference to WCAG 2.0. The 

European Commission references 

WCAG 2.0 in its current working draft 

(under ‘‘Mandate M376’’ 7). WCAG 2.0 

also serves as the basis for web 

accessibility standards in Germany 

(under ‘‘BITV 2’’), France (under 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76645 

8Translations of W3C Documents, World Wide 

Web Consortium, retrieved November 23, 2011, 

http://www.w3.org/2005/11/Translations/Lists/

ListAuth.html. 

‘‘RGAA 2.2.1’’) and Japan (under ‘‘JIS X 

83141’’) and has so far generated eight 

formal authorized translations.8

7. Clarification of Documentation 

Requirement for Undue Burden 

In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board 

proposed clarifications to the 

circumstances when documentation for 

the basis of a determination of undue 

burden is required, proposing that 

documentation must be provided in 

cases of development, maintenance, or 

use of ICT, as well as procurement. This 

was a change from 36 CFR 1194.2(2) 

which only discussed documentation of 

an undue burden determination during 

procurement of ICT. 29 U.S.C. 

794d(a)(4) requires that ‘‘documentation 

by the department or agency supporting 

the procurement shall explain why 

compliance creates an undue burden’’. 

29 U.S.C. 794d(a)(1)(B) provides that 

federal agencies must provide 

alternative means of access to 

information and data to individuals 

with disabilities when development, 

procurement, maintenance, or use of 

electronic and information technology 

would impose an undue burden. The 

TEITAC recommended that the 

documentation requirement for undue 

burden be clarified. Accordingly, the 

Board added subsection E104.3 in the 

2010 ANPRM to require documentation 

of undue burden determinations in the 

procurement, development, 

maintenance and use of ICT. The Board 

received only two comments, both made 

by one individual with a disability, in 

response to this provision. Both 

comments requested clarification of the 

factors to be addressed in undue burden 

documentation. In the 2011 ANPRM, 

the Board has clarified the factors used 

as the basis for a determination of 

undue burden in subsection E202.5.1, 

and retained the requirement for 

documentation in subsection E202.5.2. 

The Board believes that requiring 

documentation of undue burden 

determinations for the use, 

maintenance, and development of ICT 

in addition to procurements will result 

in greater consistency and conformance 

with the 508 standards. These changes 

are consistent with the language of the 

statute, incorporate current practices, 

and encourage consistency in the 

documentation of undue burden 

determinations. 

VI. Questions 

A. General 

In addition to the major policy 

questions discussed above, this ANPRM 

includes some non-substantive editorial 

changes to the first ANPRM that are not 

detailed in this discussion. In addition 

to the questions below, the Board seeks 

general comments on the provisions in 

this document, including the extent to 

which they are necessary, their 

advantages and disadvantages, their 

quantitative and qualitative benefits and 

costs, and recommended alternatives. 

The Board also invites the public to 

identify any gaps in the draft guidelines 

and standards, and approaches to 

addressing such gaps. 

B. Questions 

Question 1: As discussed above, in 

response to public comments, the Board 

has made significant changes to the 

2010 ANPRM by consolidating, 

streamlining, and removing provisions 

and advisories to improve readability, 

comprehensibility, and usability. The 

Board seeks comment on this new 

approach. 

Question 2: As noted above, the Board 

has changed the approach taken towards 

covered electronic content (E205.1) in 

the 2011 ANPRM. The proposed 

requirement in Section E205.1 requires 

electronic content falling into certain 

categories of official communications by 

federal agencies to be accessible. Should 

additional or different types of 

communications be included in this 

subsection? What are the benefits and 

costs of this approach? Would such an 

approach have any unintended 

consequences on federal agency 

communications? 

Question 3: In the discussion above, 

the Board has changed the approach to 

the functional performance criteria for 

limited hearing (302.5) and limited 

vision (302.2) in the 2011 ANPRM to 

require three specific features to be 

provided. These features may be 

provided either directly or through the 

use of assistive technology. The Board 

requests information on whether the 

features listed in these functional 

performance requirements will provide 

accessibility to users with limited vision 

or hearing, or whether there are other 

features which should be required in 

addition or instead. What are the costs 

and benefits associated with requiring 

the three features? 

Question 4: As noted above, the 2011 

ANPRM has changed the relationship 

between the functional performance 

criteria and the technical provisions 

(E204.1). The Board seeks comment on 

the proposed approach requiring 

conformance with the functional 

performance criteria at all times, even 

when the technical provisions are met. 

What are the costs and benefits 

associated with this approach? 

Question 5: The 2011 ANPRM 

requires Web sites to be accessible to 

individuals with disabilities by 

conforming to WCAG 2.0. WCAG 2.0 

allows a non-conforming (i.e., 

inaccessible) Web page to be considered 

compliant if there is an accessible 

mechanism for reaching an accessible 

version of the Web page that is up to 

date and contains the same information 

and functionality as the inaccessible 

Web page. A web page that meets all 

these criteria qualifies as a ‘‘conforming 

alternate version’’ and is intended to 

provide individuals with disabilities 

equivalent access to the same 

information and functionality as the 

non-conforming web page. However, 

unrestricted use of conforming alternate 

versions may facilitate the emergence of 

two separate Web sites: One for 

individuals with disabilities and 

another for individuals without 

disabilities. Alternatively, restricting the 

use of conforming alternate versions 

may result in significant costs to federal 

departments and agencies by limiting 

their options for providing accessible 

content. 

Should the Board restrict the use of 

conforming alternate versions? The 

Board seeks comments on whether 

allowing inaccessible content, even with 

conforming alternate versions, 

negatively affects the usability and 

accessibility of Web sites by individuals 

with disabilities. The Board also 

requests comments on the difficulty or 

costs that may be incurred if federal 

departments or agencies are not free to 

use conforming alternate versions of 

content along with inaccessible content. 

Question 6: As noted above, Chapter 

4 addresses features of ICT which may 

be used to communicate or produce 

electronic content or retrieve 

information or data. Some of the 

sections addressing these features of ICT 

include but are not limited to: Two Way 

Voice Communication (408), Operable 

Parts (407), and Standard Connections 

(406). The Board seeks comment on 

whether it should provide additional 

provisions to address accessibility 

concerns associated with features of 

ICT, such as content displayed on small 

screens, which are not otherwise 

addressed. For example the Board is 

considering whether to allow an 

exception to subsection 402.4 for text 

size for ICT which has a smaller screen. 

Should the Board require a minimum or 

maximum screen size to display 

content? Should a minimum text size be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76646 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

specified for display on a screen? When 

ICT communicates or produces 

electronic content or retrieves 

information or data, are there additional 

unique limiting features that are not 

adequately addressed in these 

provisions, such as screen and text size 

and battery life, which the Board should 

address? 

Question 7: The 2011 ANPRM has 

retained the approach of addressing 

features of ICT which make the ICT 

accessible and usable to individuals 

with disabilities. Are there some 

features or technologies addressed in 

the ANPRM that are obsolete or that 

have changed in a way that makes the 

proposed requirements irrelevant or 

difficult to apply? If so, commenters 

should recommend revisions to those 

section(s) of the ANPRM that should be 

updated and, if possible, recommend 

specific changes that would address the 

needs of individuals with disabilities 

and the unique characteristics of the 

technology concerned. 

Question 8: Some modern touch 

screen devices, such as versions of some 

smartphones and tablets, have proved 

popular with people who are blind, 

despite not having keys which are 

tactilely discernible. Should the 

provision requiring that input controls 

be tactilely discernible (407.3) be 

revised to allow for such novel input 

methods? Should the Board add an 

exception to 407.3 to allow for input 

controls which are not tactilely 

discernible when access is provided in 

another way? If so, how should access 

be addressed when the controls are not 

tactilely discernible? Should a 

particular technology or method of 

approach be specified? 

Question 9: As discussed above, the 

subsection for WCAG 2.0 conformance 

(E207.2) for user interface components 

and content of platforms and 

applications is intended to set a single 

standard for user interfaces, without 

regard to underlying rendering 

mechanisms, such as web browsers, 

operating systems, or platforms. Is 

applying the WCAG 2.0 Success and 

Conformance criteria to electronic 

documents and applications outside the 

web browser environment sufficient and 

clear to users, or should the Board 

provide further clarification? Are there 

other accessibility standards more 

applicable to user interface components 

and content of platforms and 

applications than WCAG 2.0 that the 

Board should reference? 

Nancy Starnes, 

Chair. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31462 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0870; FRL–9501–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; South Dakota; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the South Dakota State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing 

regional haze submitted by the State of 

South Dakota on January 21, 2011, as 

amended by a submittal received on 

September 19, 2011. This SIP revision 

was submitted to address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and our rules that require states 

to prevent any future and remedy any 

existing man-made impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). 

DATES: Comments: Comments must be 

received on or before February 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0870, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: fallon.gail@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are 

faxing comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011– 

0870. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30–4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail 

Fallon, EPA Region 8, at (303) 312– 

6281, or fallon.gail@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(v) The words South Dakota and State 

mean the State of South Dakota. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Regional Haze 

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS