Thread Subject: First Responder Exception

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Tom Brett
Date: Fri, Oct 05 2007 5:55 AM
Subject: First Responder Exception

Currently the exception for first responders as shown in the 9/14 EWG is:



This part does not apply to any electronic and information technology
operated by agencies in a field environment where the function, operation,
or use is by a first responder, emergency, security, or law enforcement
personnel. This exception does not apply to the agency systems
administrative and business applications (including payroll, finance,
logistics, and personnel management applications) or any application or
system that is intended for use by members of the public.



There are many agencies that have a headquarter office and several field
offices. I can see that some people will focus on the words 'field
environment' in the exception and try to apply it only to field offices. I
would think that eliminating those word and worded as below would remove any
confusion.



This part does not apply to any electronic and information technology
operated by agencies where the function, operation, or use is by a first
responder, emergency, security, or law enforcement personnel. This exception
does not apply to the agency systems administrative and business
applications (including payroll, finance, logistics, and personnel
management applications) or any application or system that is intended for
use by members of the public.

Tom Brett

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Fri, Oct 05 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: First Responder Exception

I agree with Tom that people will focus on the words "field environment"
and default to an exception without much thought. That certainly has
been my experience with "back office exceptions" over the years.

I would also like to ask why an exception is needed. In the context of
Section 508, if electronic and information technology (E&IT) is
available that meets the technical standards and can be used in the
"field environment", why wouldn't it be beneficial to require
compliance? There are already other general exceptions that apply
(market availability, undue burden, & best meets) so why do we need this
exception? Accessibility doesn't prevent use in any of the field
environment/first responder use scenarios. The only administrative
benefit I could see is to reduce burden when purchasing E&IT in response
to an actual emergency event; the evaluation process for selection of a
product could be at odds with saving lives. Even then, most items are
purchased off blanket contracts and I think requiring compliance where
feasible would be beneficial.

As an aside, I've seen the justification for "field environment" related
as equating to "first-responder" themes. I don't agree as I thought the
reasoning for national security exceptions was one of obscurity. Asking
for compliance documentation of "Super-Secret-Device2000" could
compromise the security of the device and the program using it. But I
suppose it is for the NSA and other agencies to clarify and not for me
to apply my imagination or try and justify it for them.

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 7:53 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-subparta] First Responder Exception



Currently the exception for first responders as shown in the
9/14 EWG is:



This part does not apply to any electronic and information
technology operated by agencies in a field environment where the
function, operation, or use is by a first responder, emergency,
security, or law enforcement personnel. This exception does not apply to
the agency systems administrative and business applications (including
payroll, finance, logistics, and personnel management applications) or
any application or system that is intended for use by members of the
public.



There are many agencies that have a headquarter office and
several field offices. I can see that some people will focus on the
words 'field environment' in the exception and try to apply it only to
field offices. I would think that eliminating those word and worded as
below would remove any confusion.



This part does not apply to any electronic and information
technology operated by agencies where the function, operation, or use
is by a first responder, emergency, security, or law enforcement
personnel. This exception does not apply to the agency systems
administrative and business applications (including payroll, finance,
logistics, and personnel management applications) or any application or
system that is intended for use by members of the public.

Tom Brett

From: Tom Brett
Date: Fri, Oct 05 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: First Responder Exception

Norm said

"I would also like to ask why an exception is needed. In the context of
Section 508, if electronic and information technology (E&IT) is available
that meets the technical standards and can be used in the "field
environment", why wouldn't it be beneficial to require compliance? There are
already other general exceptions that apply (market availability, undue
burden, & best meets) so why do we need this exception? Accessibility
doesn't prevent use in any of the field environment/first responder use
scenarios. The only administrative benefit I could see is to reduce burden
when purchasing E&IT in response to an actual emergency event; the
evaluation process for selection of a product could be at odds with saving
lives. Even then, most items are purchased off blanket contracts and I think
requiring compliance where feasible would be beneficial."



I believe that the CDC would need to be excepted from the 508 provision on
purchasing conformant EIT in the event of a serious disease outbreak.
Requiring an agency to perform market research or to search for other
general exceptions would not be in its best interest. Once an agency
determines that the EIT is to be used for the First Responder they should
not have to go any further.



I would also see other civilian agencies, EPA, USPS, Interior, requiring EIT
to insure for the safety of their employees in the event of an emergency
action.





Tom Brett



_____

From: Mark D. Urban
Date: Mon, Oct 08 2007 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: First Responder Exception

While I'm normally a passive observer of these discussions, I'd like to make
a point in this regard - as CDC is mentioned.



One of the outcomes of Katrina was an understanding that public health
situations disproportionately affect persons with disabilities. Thus, it is
actually MORE important to have accessible EIT deployed during these times.
Additionally, many volunteer staff have some disabilities, and thus the
accessibility of the internal EIT can also affect the response capability.



HHS (CDC is a division of HHS) generally considers emergency communication
and IT infrastructure accessibility to be an essential mission requirement,
and exceptions are generally not allowed except in pre-documented
circumstances (we have some Commercial non-availability documentation for
certain laboratory and medical EIT). As Norm points out, most materials are
purchased off pre-set blanket purchase agreements (BPAs), rather than being
purchased "on the fly". This allows accessibility review of the EIT
involved in a formal, deliberative way.



I would discourage any consideration of a "First Responder" exception,
except maybe in a limited way such as "purchased incidental to an emergency
response for immediate use only by trained public safety staff".



Regards,



Mark D. Urban

HHS Section 508 Project Manager

919-395-8513

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =







From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:46 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] First Responder Exception



Norm said

"I would also like to ask why an exception is needed. In the context of
Section 508, if electronic and information technology (E&IT) is available
that meets the technical standards and can be used in the "field
environment", why wouldn't it be beneficial to require compliance? There are
already other general exceptions that apply (market availability, undue
burden, & best meets) so why do we need this exception? Accessibility
doesn't prevent use in any of the field environment/first responder use
scenarios. The only administrative benefit I could see is to reduce burden
when purchasing E&IT in response to an actual emergency event; the
evaluation process for selection of a product could be at odds with saving
lives. Even then, most items are purchased off blanket contracts and I think
requiring compliance where feasible would be beneficial."



I believe that the CDC would need to be excepted from the 508 provision on
purchasing conformant EIT in the event of a serious disease outbreak.
Requiring an agency to perform market research or to search for other
general exceptions would not be in its best interest. Once an agency
determines that the EIT is to be used for the First Responder they should
not have to go any further.



I would also see other civilian agencies, EPA, USPS, Interior, requiring EIT
to insure for the safety of their employees in the event of an emergency
action.





Tom Brett



_____