36 CFR Part 1194 - Proposed Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and Guidelines NPRM - Preamble

6. Conclusion

While the Preliminary RIA estimates that incremental costs, as assessed and monetized in the assessment, exceed the monetized benefits of the proposed rule, this finding represents only a piece of the regulatory story. Today, though ICT is now woven into the very fabric of everyday life, millions of Americans with disabilities often find themselves unable to use—or use effectively—computers, mobile devices, federal agency websites, or electronic content. The Board’s existing standards and guidelines are greatly in need of a “refresh” to keep up with technological changes over the past fifteen years. The Board expects this proposed rule to be a major step toward ensuring that ICT is more accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities—both in the federal workplace and society generally. Indeed, much—if not most—of the benefits expected to accrue from the proposed rule are difficult if not impossible to quantify or monetize, including: greater social equality, human dignity, and fairness. These are all values that, under Executive Order 13563,¹³ may properly be considered in the benefit-cost calculus.

Moreover, American companies that manufacture telecommunications equipment and ICT-related products would likely derive significant benefits from the harmonized accessibility standards. Given the relative lack of existing national and globally-recognized standards for accessibility of mobile technologies, telecommunications equipment manufacturers would greatly benefit from harmonization of the 255 Guidelines with consensus standards. Similar benefits would likely accrue more generally to all ICT-related products as a result of harmonization. These manufacturers would earn return on investments in accessibility technology, remain competitive in the global marketplace, and achieve economies of scale created by wider use of nationally and internationally recognized technical standards.

Accordingly, when considering all unquantified benefits and costs, the Access Board, along with its consulting economic firm (Econometrica), jointly conclude that the benefits of the proposed update of the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines justify its costs.

The Access Board welcomes comments on any aspect of the Preliminary RIA to improve the assumptions, methodology, and estimates of the incremental benefits and costs (baseline and incremental) of the proposed rule. The full Preliminary RIA sets forth numerous regulatory assessment-related questions or areas for public comment. In addition, the Board provides below several additional questions on which it seeks input:

Question 36. The Board requests information from telecommunications equipment manufacturers concerning expected one-time and ongoing costs associated with implementation of the proposed technical requirements related to support for real-time text (RTT) functionality. Please be as specific as possible. The Board is also interested in hearing from other stakeholders —particularly persons with disabilities—about the nature and scope of benefits provided by RTT in emergency and non-emergency settings. How might the Board quantify or monetize such benefits?

Question 37. The Board requests information from telecommunications equipment manufacturers concerning potential benefits that would accrue from harmonization of technical requirements in the proposed rule with national and international consensus standards? Both cost savings data and qualitative information are requested.

Question 38. The proposed rule would, among other things, require federal agency websites and electronic content to conform to WCAG 2.0 or PDF/UA-1. Do federal agencies believe that the Preliminary RIA adequately captures their potential costs to comply with these requirements? If not, how might the analysis be improved? Are there significant cost elements missing from the Preliminary RIA? Please be as specific as possible.

Question 39. The Preliminary RIA does not monetize benefits for persons with non-vision disabilities due to a lack of data on which to base estimated time savings. The Board requests data and other information on the likely time savings for persons with hearing, motor or dexterity, speech, or cognitive disabilities from using accessible websites as compared to websites with low accessibility. Are there empirical research studies from which time savings estimates may be derived?

Question 40. The Board also seeks information from persons with disabilities who would benefit from improved accessibility of federal agency websites. How frequently do they visit federal agency websites, and for what duration and purposes? Are there other suggested methods of quantifying benefits accruing from accessible agency websites other than (or in addition to) monetizing time savings? To the extent that benefits from accessible agency websites cannot be quantified, the Board welcomes examples of personal or anecdotal experience that illustrate the value of improved accessibility of federal websites.

Question 41. In addition to the questions for public comment posed in the Preliminary RIA and elsewhere in this NPRM, the Board is interested in hearing from the public more generally with information that would aid analysis of the costs and benefits of individual requirements in the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines at the final rule stage. Is there a better way than the methodology used in the Preliminary RIA to “map” the incremental costs and benefits of particular technical and functional requirements to various stakeholders? If so, how might the analysis be improved? Are there other suggested sources for unit cost data other than those cited in the Preliminary RIA?