[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71914-71918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30002]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 71914]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Part 382
[Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0177]
RIN No. 2105-AD96
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel:
Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).
ACTION: Extension of comment period and clarification of proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period for a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on the accessibility of Web sites
and automated kiosks that was published in the Federal Register on
September 26, 2011. The Department of Transportation is extending the
closing date for interested persons to submit comments on this
rulemaking by 45 days from November 25, 2011, to January 9, 2012. This
extension is a result of requests from a number of parties for
additional time to respond to the SNPRM. The Air Transport Association,
the International Air Transport Association, the Air Carrier
Association of America, the Regional Airline Association, and the
Association of Asia Pacific Airlines all asked to extend the comment
period on the proposal by 120 days in order to allow interested parties
to fully evaluate the proposed rule, answer the numerous questions in
the preamble, and develop constructive comments for the Department's
consideration. The Interactive Travel Services Association requested an
extension of at least 60 days to gather the information necessary to
provide an in-depth, comprehensive response to the SNPRM. An individual
with a disability has also asked for an extension, citing difficulties
in using the online comment form on the www.regulations.gov Web site.
The Department acknowledges that more time to provide comments may be
warranted given the complex nature of the issues and the need to
resolve problems encountered by some individuals to date in submitting
comments. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that an additional 120 or
even 60 days are needed to respond. In addition to extending the
comment period, this action responds to questions posed by the
Associations about certain aspects of the SNPRM.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 9, 2012. Comments received
after this date will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Please include the agency name and the docket number DOT-
OST-2011-0177 or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) (2105-AD96)
for this rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. You may file
comments using any of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: Complete and submit the comment
form for this rulemaking at http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOT-OST-2011-0177-0006. If you are a person with a
disability and cannot access or use the online comment form, please use
the alternate comment form to submit your comments, which you can
access by clicking the icon for the attachment labeled ``Optional
Submission Form'' available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2011-0177-0019. The form includes complete
instructions and may be completed, saved, and sent as an email
attachment to [email protected]. You can also use it to
submit comments by any of the methods listed below.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
(3) Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
(4) Fax: (202) 493-2251.
(5) Privacy Act: For comments submitted on www.regulations.gov,
please see the Privacy and Use Notice at http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice. All comments received on this SNPRM are posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including personal information
provided with the comments. Personal information is viewable on
www.regulations.gov and individual or organizational submitters can be
identified by performing an electronic search in the docket folder. You
may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
(6) Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents
or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov (or to the
street address listed above). Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Blank Riether, Senior
Attorney, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9342 (phone),
(202) 366-7152 (fax), [email protected]. You may also
contact Blane A. Workie, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of
the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC
20590, (202) 366-9342 (phone), (202) 366-7152 (fax),
[email protected]. TTY users may reach the individual via the
Federal Relay Service toll-free at (800) 877-8339. You may obtain
copies of this notice in an accessible format by contacting the above
named individuals.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 26, 2011, the Department of
Transportation (``Department,'' also ``DOT,'' ``we,'' or ``us'')
published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register. The SNPRM proposed to amend the Department's disability
regulation implementing the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) rule, 14 CFR
part 382 (Part 382), by requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers to
ensure that their Web sites and those of their agents are accessible to
people with disabilities. The SNPRM further proposed to amend Part 382,
as well as the Department's regulation implementing Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, 49 CFR part 27 (Part 27), by requiring U.S.
airports and U.S. and foreign air carriers to ensure that all new
orders for automated kiosks they own, lease, or control at U.S.
airports that provide flight-related services and
[[Page 71915]]
information to passengers are accessible to people with disabilities.
76 FR 59307 (September 26, 2011). Comments on the matters proposed were
to be received by November 25, 2011. On October 7, 2011, the Air
Transport Association, the International Air Transport Association, the
Air Carrier Association of America, and the Regional Airline
Association (hereinafter ``Associations'') jointly submitted a request
to clarify the proposal and to extend the comment period by an
additional 120 days. On October 20, 2011, the Association of Asia
Pacific Airlines (AAPA) filed a request in support of the Associations'
request to extend the comment deadline by 120 days. Eight days later we
received another request from the Interactive Travel Services
Association (ITSA) for an extension of at least 60 days. Finally, on
November 3, 2011, we received a request from member of the disability
community to delay the closing of the comment period until issues
concerning access to the online comment form could be resolved. In the
sections that follow, we respond to the requests and questions of the
submitters.
Request for Comment Period Extension
Citing the complexity of the proposed rule and the many questions
on which the Department seeks comment, the Associations request a 120-
day extension of the SNPRM comment period. They contend that their
members will need to develop a significant amount of information to
evaluate the feasibility of the proposals and determine the accuracy of
the Department's cost assumptions. They assert that additional time is
also needed to evaluate the potential impact of all the proposals on
their operations and determine the availability of products that would
meet the proposed ``hybrid'' accessibility standard for automated
kiosks. By ``hybrid'' standard, the Associations are referring to the
Department's proposal to combine the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ)
2010 American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible
Design applicable to automated teller machines (Section 707) and
selected provisions from Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(36 CFR 1194.25) applicable to self-contained closed products. The
Associations also expressed concern about the difficulty of gathering
information from entities during the holiday season. They note that the
current comment deadline is the day after Thanksgiving and that with an
extension of 30 days, it would be the day after Christmas. In light of
these challenges, the Associations believe that an additional 120 days
is in the public interest to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to provide the most meaningful responses to the questions
raised by the Department. The AAPA cited their agreement with the
Associations' 120-day extension request in the interest of a more
thorough analysis and constructive comments on the SNPRM.
ITSA also indicated the need for additional time to determine
whether WCAG 2.0 is the appropriate standard for achieving the
accessibility goals of the rulemaking, the cost of implementing the
standard across the many sites, platforms, and Web pages of ITSA
members, and the need to clarify technical matters such as sequencing
implementation, measuring and verifying compliance.
The Department concurs that an extension of the comment period is
in the public interest but believes that an extension of 120 additional
days is not warranted. We have decided to grant a 45-day extension, or
until January 9, 2012, for the public to comment on the SNPRM. By
granting 45 rather than 120 additional days, we are balancing the
stated need for additional time to gather information and consider the
proposals with the need to proceed expeditiously with this important
rulemaking. We note that with an additional 45 days, interested parties
will have a total of 106 days to comment. We believe this is sufficient
time for analysis and coordination regarding the proposals.
Accordingly, the Department finds that good cause exists to extend the
time for comments on the proposed rule from November 25, 2011, to
January 9, 2012. We do not anticipate any further extension of the
comment period for this rulemaking.
Concerns Regarding Access to Web Site (www.regulations.gov)
Since publication of the SNPRM on September 26, we have been
contacted by a disability rights advocate who indicated that
individuals with visual impairments have had difficulty submitting
comments from the www.regulations.gov Web site. For a variety of
reasons, the Web page containing the public comment form is not easily
accessed by individuals using screen reader software. We therefore urge
those who cannot use the online comment form to submit their comments
using one of the alternative submission methods described in the
ADDRESSES section above.
Request for Clarification
In addition to requesting the comment period extension, the
Associations posed a number of questions to the Department concerning
the applicability and scope of certain provisions of the proposed
accessibility requirements for Web sites and automated kiosks. They
also sought further information about various documents referenced in
the SNPRM preamble. We respond to their questions and requests below.
Issues Concerning the Proposed Web Site Accessibility Requirements
1. Scope of Applicability of Web Site Accessibility Requirements to
U.S. Carrier Web Sites
The initial issue raised by the Associations is the scope of the
proposed requirements for Web site accessibility as they apply to U.S.
carrier Web sites. In their request, they ask DOT to confirm that the
proposed Web site accessibility requirements in section 382.43 do not
apply to the non-U.S. Web sites of U.S. carriers (e.g., country-
specific Web sites maintained by U.S. carriers for the purpose of
selling to consumers in countries other than the U.S.). Their concern
is that if the proposed requirements do apply to all U.S. carrier Web
sites maintained world-wide, it will add tremendously to their
compliance burden, have a significant impact on their compliance cost
estimates, and offer no benefit to U.S. customers. They note that the
proposed rule exempts foreign air carriers from the requirements for
their non-U.S. Web sites and assert their belief that the Department
intended the same exemption to apply to the non-U.S. Web sites of U.S.
carriers.
We do, in fact, intend to apply the same exemption to the non-U.S.
Web sites of U.S. carriers. Section 382.43(c) of the SNPRM states: ``As
a U.S. or foreign carrier that owns or controls a primary Web site that
markets air transportation, you must ensure the public-facing Web pages
on your Web site are accessible to individuals with disabilities in
accordance with this section. As a foreign carrier, only Web pages on
your Web site involved in marketing covered air transportation to the
general public in the U.S. must be accessible to individuals with
disabilities.'' We inadvertently included the word ``foreign'' before
``carrier'' in the second sentence of proposed section 382.43(c). The
preliminary regulatory evaluation does not include costs to U.S.
carriers associated with making Web sites accessible that are not
marketing to U.S. consumers. Our intention in the proposal is and
continues to be to exempt both U.S. and foreign carriers' Web sites
that market
[[Page 71916]]
air transportation to consumers outside the U.S.
We appreciate the Associations' request for clarification on this
point and encourage comments from the public on whether the Web site
accessibility requirements should apply to U.S. and foreign carriers,
as proposed, only with respect to their primary Web sites marketing air
transportation to the general public in the U.S., or be expanded to
cover all their Web sites regardless of whether they are marketing air
transportation mainly to non-U.S. consumers.
2. Clarification of the Terms ``Primary,'' ``Main,'' and ``Public-
Facing'' as They Apply to Web Sites and Web Pages Subject to the
Proposed Web Site Accessibility Requirement
The Associations noted that the terms ``public-facing Web pages,''
``primary Web site,'' and ``main Web site,'' were not defined in the
SNPRM and asked for clarification of the terms as used in proposed
section 382.43(c) and in the preamble to describe the applicability of
the proposed requirements to carrier Web sites. The term ``public-
facing Web page'' as used in the SNPRM means a Web page intended to be
accessed and used by the general public, as opposed to Web pages
intended for limited access (e.g., by carrier employees, private
companies, or entities other than the general public). Any Web page on
a carrier's primary commercial Web site that is intended to provide air
transportation information or services to consumers is a ``public-
facing'' Web page covered by the proposed accessibility requirements.
For carriers that own, lease, or control multiple Web sites that market
air transportation and offer related services and information, the Web
site that is accessed when the ``www.carriername.com'' uniform resource
locator (URL) is entered to an Internet browser from a standard desktop
or laptop computer would be the ``primary'' or ``main'' Web site. The
terms ``main Web site'' and ``primary Web site'' as used in the SNPRM
are synonymous.
3. Conforming Alternate Versions and ``Text-Only'' Features on a
Primary Web Site
The Associations also asked for clarification of the term
``conforming alternate version,'' which they believe is undefined in
the SNPRM, and asked whether a text-only feature offered by some
carriers on their primary Web sites would be considered an alternate
conforming version. They describe the text-only feature as one that is
compatible with screen-reader technology and is activated by a single
click on the homepage of the primary Web site, linking the user to a
text-only page that conforms to WCAG 2.0 at Level A and AA. They note
that the SNPRM asks for public comment on whether the Department
``should explicitly prohibit the use of conforming alternate versions
except when necessary to provide the information, services, and
benefits on a specific Web page or Web site as effectively to
individuals with disabilities as to those without disabilities.''
Anticipating that the Department might adopt such a restriction, they
ask whether the Department has the cost-benefit data that would support
a requirement to completely redesign a primary Web site when the text-
only feature provides Web content at the required level of
accessibility.
The term ``conforming alternate version,'' while not defined in the
proposed rule text, is described in the SNPRM preamble as a Web page or
Web site ``that meets the [WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA] success criteria,
is up to date, and contains the same information and functionality in
the same language [as the non-conforming page on the primary Web site].
A conforming alternate version of a Web page is intended to provide
people with disabilities equivalent access to the same content and
functionality as a directly accessible Web page under WCAG 2.0.'' See
76 FR 59307, 59313 (September 26, 2011). While the WCAG 2.0
implementation guidance is clear that conforming alternate versions are
not the preferred method of conformance,\1\ the Department did not
propose to explicitly restrict their use in the proposed rule. We are
aware of serious concerns about the emergence of parallel carrier Web
sites that may be screen-reader accessible but may not provide all the
information and content available on the non-conforming Web site. A
review of some text-only versions of carrier Web sites indicates that
these versions meet some, but not all, of the four requirements below
for a conforming alternate version:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Understanding Conformance'' at http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conforming-alt-versions-head, October 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. conforms at the designated level (e.g., meets Level A and Level
AA success criteria), and
b. provides all of the same information and functionality in the
same human language, and
c. provides content that is as up-to-date as the non-conforming
content, and
d. can be reached from the non-conforming page via an
accessibility-supported mechanism, or the non-conforming version can
only be reached from the conforming version, or the non-conforming
version can only be reached from a conforming page that also provides a
mechanism to reach the conforming version.
The sites we reviewed met three of the four requirements for
conforming alternate versions: the first (text-only content met all the
WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria), the third (the text-only
content that was dynamically generated from the non-conforming site
content was up-to-date), and the fourth (was available from the non-
conforming site via an accessibility-supported mechanism). The main
problem we found with these sites was that the text-only site did not
always contain the same information and functionality available on the
non-conforming site. For example, while it was possible to book a
flight on both the non-conforming and text-only Web sites, certain
other functions available on the non-conforming site were not available
on the text-only site (e.g., ability to prioritize flights listed by
price over schedule, ability to indicate that your travel dates are
flexible, ability to enter cities as well as airport codes, ``live
chat'' assistance, etc.). At the same time, we found that some pages on
the text-only site did provide close to the same information and
functionality as their counterpart pages on the non-conforming site.
While none of the carrier text-only sites we reviewed qualified as
conforming alternate versions, we were nonetheless encouraged by the
extent to which the text-only sites mirrored the content of the non-
conforming sites.
Unless a carrier's text-only Web content can be reached from the
carrier's primary Web site via an accessible link, conforms with WCAG
2.0 success criteria at Level A and AA, provides the same content and
functionality, and is promptly updated to reflect changes to content
available to its non-disabled customers, it will not meet the required
level of accessibility and will not be considered a conforming
alternate version. Given the concerns about carriers consistently
maintaining the quality of text-only content to meet this stringent
standard, we asked for comment on whether existing text-only Web sites
meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria at Level A and AA. In particular, we
solicit comments from consumers with disabilities on their experiences
in using text-only carrier Web sites and any gaps they are aware of in
the available information and functionality on such sites as compared
with that on the corresponding non-conforming site.
[[Page 71917]]
We also invite public comment on whether the cost of making a carrier's
entire Web site directly conformant would be substantially greater (or
less) than providing a text-only version of the carrier's Web site that
is conformant with WCAG 2.0 standards at Level A and AA and meets the
definition of conforming alternate version. What other advantages or
disadvantages are there to allowing the use of conforming alternate
versions without restriction, or to restricting their use to
circumstances in which it is ``the only way to provide the content on
specific Web pages or Web sites as effectively to individuals with
disabilities as to those without disabilities?''
4. Whether the Scope of Carrier Responsibility Under the Proposed
Requirement To Ensure That Ticket Agent Web Sites Comply With the Web
Site Accessibility Standards Extends to Large Tour Operators and
Carrier Alliances
Noting that the term ``ticket agent'' was used in the preliminary
regulatory analysis to collectively refer to travel agents and tour
operators,\2\ the Associations also asked the Department to confirm
whether the requirement in proposed section 382.43(d) to require
carriers to ensure the accessibility of ticket agents' Web sites would
include Web sites operated by tour operators. See 76 FR 59307, 59325
(September 26, 2011). The Department defines ``ticket agent'' in the
SNPRM preamble by citing the definition found at 49 U.S.C.
40102(a)(45), as a person other than a carrier that ``as a principal or
agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out as
selling, providing, or arranging for air transportation.'' See 76 FR
59307, 59309 (September 26, 2011). Both travel agents and tour
operators engaging in these activities, therefore, are ``ticket
agents'' for purposes of the SNPRM's provisions. Under proposed section
382.43(d), carriers would be responsible to ensure that the Web sites
of ticket agents comply with the Web site accessibility requirements
when marketing travel packages to the general public in the U.S. that
include covered air transportation operated by the carriers. We invite
comments from the public on the feasibility of requiring carriers to
monitor the Web sites of large tour operators to ensure their
compliance with the accessibility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Preliminary Regulatory Analysis, ACAA SNPRM Accessible
Kiosks and Web Sites, 1, September 7, 2011 [Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-
0177-0002].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the Web sites of carrier alliances, the Department
views such alliances as enterprises jointly owned by the member
carriers. A review of several carrier alliance Web sites shows that all
provide extensive flight-related information, as well as online tools
to assist customers in creating flight itineraries. By providing
services to assist consumers in building itineraries and linking them
to member Web sites to book specific flights, the alliance Web sites
are clearly marketing to consumers. However, since a carrier alliance
Web site is not a primary carrier Web site as discussed above, the
Department did not include such sites in its proposal or accompanying
preliminary cost benefit analysis. We therefore ask for public comment
on whether carriers should be required to ensure that the Web sites of
any alliances with which they are affiliated comply with the proposed
accessibility requirements.
5. The Department's Authority To Regulate Ticket Agent Web Sites
Directly Under 49 U.S.C. 41712
Concerning ticket agent Web sites, the Associations sought
clarification of the Department's assertion in the SNPRM preamble of
its authority to require accessibility of Web sites marketing covered
air transportation to the general public in the U.S. under 49 U.S.C.
41712, the statute prohibiting carriers and ticket agents from engaging
in unfair and deceptive trade practices. They questioned why, in light
of its assertion, the Department proposed to regulate ticket agents
indirectly through carriers and asked for clarification of the
Department's authority under the statute.
The Department considers marketing air transportation on a Web site
that effectively excludes a class of consumers solely due to their
disabilities to be unlawful discrimination that is also an unfair trade
practice. In the SNPRM, we ask for comment on whether the Department
should apply the proposed Web site accessibility requirements to ticket
agents directly. We note that the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced
in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that it is considering
whether to revise its Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations
in the future to include Web site accessibility standards. See 75 FR
43460 (July 26, 2010). Anticipating that ticket agent Web sites may
also be covered under DOJ's future amended ADA regulation, we ask
whether DOT should wait for DOJ to move forward with its rulemaking
before issuing our own rules to require accessibility of ticket agent
Web sites. We solicit feedback on these questions to assist us in
determining a course of action that would best serve the public
interest. Today a great many Web sites selling air transportation,
particularly ticket agent Web sites, are not accessible or are only
partially accessible to people with disabilities. The Department
believes that all stakeholders would greatly benefit as the number of
accessible Web sites marketing and selling air transportation to the
general public in the U.S. increases across the air travel industry. We
are aware that there are pros and cons to our proposal to require
carriers to work with their ticket agents to create incentives to
achieve this objective. We again invite all stakeholders to share the
pros and cons from their perspectives of this approach.
6. Ongoing Costs To Maintain an Accessible Web Site
The final issue the Associations raise regarding the proposed Web
site accessibility requirements concerns the ongoing cost of
maintaining Web site accessibility. They observe that the Department
asserts that the estimated cost of ensuring full compliance of a
primary Web site is $2.0 million annually for U.S. and foreign carriers
and $2.6 million annually for ticket agents, but also states on the
same page that there is a lack of quantitative data on the cost of
maintaining Web site accessibility. See 76 FR 59315. They asked that
the Department clarify whether it was able to quantify ongoing
recurring costs to maintain an accessible Web site, and if so, identify
the source of the estimated costs, and place any supporting
documentation in the docket.
The statement above indicating an absence of quantitative data on
the ongoing costs of maintaining Web site accessibility appeared in the
SNPRM and in the preliminary regulatory analysis \3\ due to editing
oversights and should have been omitted from both documents. Table 24
of the preliminary regulatory analysis shows how the ongoing annual
cost of maintaining Web site accessibility was estimated. The
maintenance costs per carrier or agent are assumed to be the sum of the
costs associated with the following fixed and variable cost elements:
site evaluation and conformance checking costs (fixed), site layout and
style sheet revision costs (fixed), and per-page maintenance costs
(variable). This formula was used to compute costs for the ``Largest''
Web site category in Table 24. Per-page maintenance costs were
inadvertently omitted from the formula used to
[[Page 71918]]
compute costs for the other three size categories (Large, Small, and
Smallest). Because per page maintenance costs are so small, the impact
on the overall estimates shown at the bottom of Table 24 is minimal.
For a general discussion of the impact of accessibility on Web site
development and maintenance over the long term, see the World Wide Web
Consortium (W3C) Web site Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Web site.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id. at 58.
\4\ W3C Web site Accessibility Initiative, ``Reduce Site
Development and Maintenance Time,'' available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/tech.html#maint, October 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues Concerning the Proposed Accessibility Requirements for Automated
Kiosks at U.S. Airports
1. Retrofitting of Automated Kiosks To Meet Accessibility Requirements
The Associations also asked the Department to clarify whether it is
proposing a retrofit requirement for automated kiosks at U.S. airports,
and if so, what would be the compliance time period. They note that the
proposed rule text explicitly states that carriers would not be
required to retrofit existing kiosks, while the preamble states that
the Department is considering some form of retrofitting. They state
that clarification of this point is important because retrofitting
would have a significant impact on estimating the technical feasibility
and cost impact of compliance for both carriers and airports (for
shared-use automated kiosks).
The Department has not proposed to require retrofitting of
automated kiosks but is considering this option because of concern that
only requiring accessibility of new kiosks ordered after the rule's
effective date could substantially delay the availability of accessible
kiosks at many airport locations. The Department wants to ensure the
availability of at least some accessible kiosks at every airport
location within a reasonable time after the rule goes into effect. We
therefore are asking for information about the technical feasibility
and cost impact of retrofitting some number of kiosks before the end of
their life cycle (e.g., one kiosk at each airport location). We invite
comment on whether retrofitting any number of existing kiosks is
feasible and if so, whether there should be a requirement for limited
retrofitting, in addition to requiring that all new kiosks ordered be
accessible.
2. Automated Ticket Scanners for Rebooking Flights
The Associations also wanted clarification about the types of self-
service kiosks at U.S. airports that would be covered by the proposed
accessibility requirements. Acknowledging that the Department did
intend to cover check-in kiosks, they asked for confirmation that the
Department did not intend to include automated ticket scanners
available behind the security checkpoint to enable customers to
independently rebook their flights during irregular operations.
Automated ticket scanners appear to fall within the scope of
automated kiosks the Department intended to cover. In the SNPRM, we
proposed to define ``automated airport kiosk'' as ``a self-service
transaction machine that a carrier owns, leases, or controls and makes
available at a U.S. airport to enable customers to independently obtain
flight-related services'' [emphasis added].\5\ We also proposed to
define ``flight-related services'' as ``functions related to air travel
including, but not limited to, ticket purchase, rebooking cancelled
flights, seat selection, and obtaining boarding passes or bag
tags''[emphasis added]. The proposed accessibility requirements would
extend to any carrier-owned or shared-use airport self-service
transaction machine that enables customers to rebook their flights. We
invite public comment on whether there are compelling reasons not to
require such machines to be accessible, whether accessible models
currently exist or are under development, and any available cost
information on such models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 76 FR 59325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for Supporting Documentation
The Associations asked that a number of documents cited in the
SNPRM and preliminary regulatory analysis be placed in the docket. Some
of these documents are publicly available as indicated below. Other
information was obtained in oral interviews and no documentation is
available.
1. Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology
Advisory Committee Report to the Access Board: Refreshed Accessibility
Standards and Guidelines in Telecommunications and Electronic and
Information Technology (April 2008).
This document is available at http://access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/report/ report/.
2. The source of the estimate that ``building accessibility into
new Web pages today is estimated to add only about 3-6 percent to the
cost.''
This information was obtained from comments posted by Marco
Maerten, an independent Web technologies consultant, on behalf of
Accessibility Associates, LLC, in response to the Department of
Justice's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web
Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities and
Public Accommodations. [RIN 1190-AA61, Docket 110, available at DOJ-
CRT-2010-0005-0311 on www.regulations.gov. ``In my experience,
incorporating Web accessibility from the outset with qualified
personnel can add 3-6% or less to technical development costs for
smaller projects of 50-300 pages. There are significant economies of
scale such that larger sites could benefit from even significantly
lower costs.''
3. Any documentation that supports the following statement
appearing in the SNPRM: ``Information obtained from kiosks vendors
indicates that the bulk of the incremental costs associated with making
kiosk hardware, middleware, and software applications accessible are
fixed, therefore they do not vary appreciably with the number of units
sold.'' 76 FR 59321.
This statement was obtained in oral interviews with two major kiosk
manufacturers on 6/29/11 (IBM) and on 7/12/11 and 8/10/11 (NCR). No
documentation was provided.
4. The document ``Countering the economic threat to sustainable
accessibility'' by Lewis, D., Suen, S.L., Federing, D. (2010).
This document is available at http://www.sortclearinghouse.info/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1612&context=research.
5. The preliminary regulatory analysis cites a TRACE analysis of
the modifications that would be required to produce an accessible
kiosk.
The analysis is available at http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/kiosk_req/minimum.htm.
Issued this sixteenth day of November 2011, in Washington, DC
under authority assigned to me by 14 CFR 385.17(c).
Neil R. Eisner,
Assistant General Counsel, Office of Regulation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2011-30002 Filed 11-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P