Thread Subject: Re: "very readily achievable" ?

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Pam Ransom
Date: Fri, Dec 29 2006 11:45 AM

As a consumer, whenever its readily achievable to put an access feature(s) in a product, I'd want ALL of those readily achievable feature(s) in that product. (Not just the ones that are "very readily achievable".)

One could argue that if an access solution is "very readily achievable" to incorporate into the product, then the manufacturer should already be doing it under its "readily achievable" requirement.

I'd suggest that we not begin to go down the path of parsing out what are "very readily achievable" access solutions and what are not "very readily achievable" access solutions. Because this opens up another can of worms in Narrative Paragraphs 57 and 58 - which states that for "more significant readily achievable accessibility features" manufacturers and service providers can use the "cumulative cost" of what they've spent on all accessibility actions over the period of a fiscal year as a defense for not incorporating a "more significant readily achievable access feature" into a product.

I don't think that going in this "very readily achievable" direction is going to result in consumers getting "more substantive" access features in products. I'll just leave it at that... And it may be that we just disagree on this point... Hope that you have a Happy New Year! Pam








It may be that we just don't agree on this point...
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Tobias
To: 'Pam Ransom' ; 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] [teitac-subparta] "very readily achievable" ?


I'm sorry if I have been the cause of confusion on this point. But it's clear from Paragraph 51 that the FCC intended to create a class of features that were to be found on every product. No other reading of this paragraph makes sense to me, anyway. Whether or not this part of the order creates a new regulatory standard is beyond my acumen. But it is a clear distinction, isn't it -- *every* similar product must have the feature, and manufacturers cannot refer potential customers to the feature available on another product in the same line. The problem is, the FCC let manufacturers determine which features were very readibly achievable (VRA), and which were only readily achievable (RA), and did not require them to inform customers which class they assigned a feature to. So a nib on the '5' key could be VRA, or just coincidentally RA for every product.

My larger point is that we are under no such restriction. We could, I believe, identify a list of VRA features, and recommend that the list be part of the refreshed regulations.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pam Ransom [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:41 PM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] [teitac-subparta] "very readily achievable" ?


I just read the string of emails below...The legal standard that is used in Section 255 of the Telecom Act and the thus the standard used by the FCC is "readily achievable". This standard can only be changed by Congress.

Below you have quoted Paragraph 51 of the narrative section of the FCC Report and Order. The FCC, uses the narrative to further explain its Rules. The FCC, in Paragraph 51 is referring to those access solutions that are "readily achievable" (readily achievable means easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense). The FCC is not referring to a new category (very readily achievable) of access solutions.

In Narrative Paragraph 51 the FCC is saying that, accessibility features that can be incorporated into the design of different products with very little or no difficulty or expense (aka "readily achievable") must be deployed universally into those different products.

Pam Ransom



----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Tobias
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee' ; 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Cc: 'Jasionowski, Tony'
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] [teitac-subparta] "very readily achievable" ?


Here's the citation, paragraph 51 of the Sec. 255 Report and Order:

"
51. We recognize that there are accessibility features that can be incorporated into the design

of products with very little or no difficulty or expense.139 These features must be deployed

universally. We will not identify specific features that fall into this category, because it necessarily

varies given the individual circumstances. Manufacturers and service providers must make their

own determinations based on the factors in the readily achievable definition. Thus, manufacturers

and service providers cannot decline to incorporate modest features that will enhance accessibility

simply because some other product or service with the feature may be available. We expect that,

over time, more and more features will be incorporated into all products in this manner, and that

features that today may not be readily achievable soon will become routine and universally

adopted.




------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Schomburg, Paul [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:23 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Cc: Jasionowski, Tony; Schomburg, Paul
Subject: [teitac-subparta] "very readily achievable" ?


Jim: I've never heard of "very readily achievable" in FCC rules. Can you provide a citation?



I think the FCC's definition of "readily achievable" already captures what is easy to do for every product but also allows for other factors to be taken into account. This flexibility allows manufacturers to provide products with a range of accessibility features - not one size fits all - and thus allows them to product products with a range of features to compete in the market.



For example, the FCC determined, based on the Access Board recommendations, that "that a manufacturer or service provider is not required to install an accessibility feature if it can demonstrate that the feature fundamentally would alter the product." The FCC also found that "that the concept of fundamental alteration is implicit in the readily achievable analysis" and thus did not require a separate factor. See discussion in FCC 99-181 paragraphs 61-64.



With regard to 508, the FCC R&O also notes: "The Access Board found that the "fundamental alteration" concept derives from the "undue burden" test under the ADA and, since "undue burden" is a higher standard than "readily achievable," that the concept of fundamental alteration is implicit in the readily achievable analysis." Therefore this same consideration should be part of the 508 guidelines.



For these reasons, a list of "mandatory" features that should be in every product seems to be outside of the intent and statutory limits of 255. For 508, agencies should have some flexibility to determine what features are mandatory - balanced against their needs and other compliance requirements - thus it seems unnecessary for this to be defined by the Access Board.



Best regards, Paul



Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager

Panasonic Corporation of North America

Government & Public Affairs
1130 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114; Fax: (202) 912-3810



-----Original Message-----

From: Jim Tobias [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]

Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 12:10 PM

To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'

Subject: RE: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions







Here again a bit of market wisdom would be useful....



In the FCC's 255 rules, they put forward the concept of "very readily

achievable". This was to be applied to features that were so easy to do

that they should be found in every product, and that was their intent. (I

guess the 508 formulation would be "totally due burden".)



I think we could agree to such a list. It might not go very deeply into the

web/software space, but it could certainly cover almost all hardware

questions, and most telecom ones. Is it worth it? (By the way, the FCC

never went ahead and identified their list, nor did they, to my knowledge,

encourage anyone else to do so.)



Secondly, a compendium of recent E&IT purchases, or some other way of

sharing market information could reveal what is really available so widely

that no exceptions are necessary. An unwieldy version of this would sound

like "an accessibility feature found on 75% of the federal purchases in this

product category in the past 12 months is considered mandatory." A real

implementation nightmare, I know. I'm just being conceptual here.



But the underlying concern I have is trying to create reasonably

"prioritized" regulations without any good sense of current trends in E&IT

purchases; similarly, we lack good economic tools to define our costs and

benefits....









--------------------------------------------------------------------------

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University