[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76640-76646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31462]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: board.gov">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: board.gov">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
[[Page 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 cross-section 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/ 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
[[Page 76642]]
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
[[Page 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.
[[Page 76644]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,
Circular No. A-119 Revised, February 10, 1998, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119.
\2\ Why 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 76645]]
``RGAA 2.2.1'') and Japan (under ``JIS X 83141'') and has so far
generated eight formal authorized translations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Policies Relating to Web Accessibility, W3C WAI, August 25,
2006, http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/.
\4\ World 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.
\5\ Standard 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.
\6\ New Zealand Government Web Standards, Government Information
Services, Department of Internal Affairs, November 15, 2011, http://webstandards.govt.nz/standards/nzgws-2/.
\7\ European Accessibility Requirements for Public Procurement
of Products and Services in the ICT Domain, European Commission
(EC), November 2, 2011, http://www.mandate376.eu/.
\8\ Translations of W3C Documents, World Wide Web Consortium,
retrieved November 23, 2011, http://www.w3.org/2005/11/Translations/Lists/ListAuth.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 76646]]
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