[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