Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59307 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore, (1) Is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this 

proposed rule, when promulgated, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the criteria of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This proposed rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This proposed regulation is 

within the scope of that authority as it 

would establish Class D and E airspace 

and amend existing Class E airspace at 

Punta Gorda Airport, Punta Gorda, FL. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (Air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for part 71 

will continue to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 9, 2011, and effective 

September 15, 2011, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. 

* * * * * 

ASO FL D Punta Gorda, FL [New] 

Punta Gorda Airport, FL 

(Lat. 26°55′08′′ N., long. 81°59′27′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface up to and including 2,500 feet MSL 

within a 4.5-mile radius of the Punta Gorda 

Airport. This Class D airspace area is 

effective during specific dates and times 

established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Airport/Facility Directory. 

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace 

Designated as Surface Areas. 

* * * * * 

ASO FL E2 Punta Gorda, FL [New] 

Punta Gorda Airport, FL 

(Lat. 26°55′08′′ N., long. 81°59′27′′ W.) 

That airspace extending from the surface 

up to and including 2,500 feet MSL within 

a 4.5-mile radius of Punta Gorda Airport. 

This Class E airspace area is effective during 

specific dates and times established in 

advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective 

date and time will thereafter be continuously 

published in the Airport/Facility Directory. 

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas 

Designated as an Extension to a Class D 

Surface Area. 

* * * * * 

ASO FL E4 Punta Gorda, FL [New] 

Punta Gorda Airport, FL 

(Lat. 26°55′08′′ N., long. 81°59′27′′ W.) 

That airspace extending from the surface 

2.4 mile either side of the 036° bearing from 

Punta Gorda Airport extending from the 4.5- 

mile radius to 7.0 miles northeast of the 

airport. This Class E airspace area is effective 

during specific dates and times established in 

advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective 

date and time will thereafter be continuously 

published in the Airport/Facility Directory. 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ASO FL E5 Punta Gorda, FL [Amended] 

Punta Gorda Airport, FL 

(Lat. 26°55′08′′ N., long. 81°59′27′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius 

of Punta Gorda Airport. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on 

September 16, 2011. 

Mark D. Ward, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24640 Filed 9–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 382 

49 CFR Part 27 

RIN 2105–AD96 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2011–0177] 

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: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation (Department) proposes 

to revise its rule implementing the Air 

Carrier Access Act (ACAA) to provide 

greater accommodations for individuals 

with disabilities in air travel by 

requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers to 

make their Web sites accessible to 

individuals with disabilities and to 

ensure that their ticket agents do the 

same. It would also require U.S. and 

foreign air carriers to ensure that their 

proprietary and shared-use automated 

airport kiosks are accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. In 

addition, the Department proposes to 

revise its rule implementing Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act to require U.S. 

airports to ensure that shared-use 

automated airport kiosks are accessible 

to individuals with disabilities. This 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNPRM) applies to U.S. 

carriers and to foreign air carriers 

operating flights to, from, and in the 

United States. It also applies to U.S. 

airports with annual enplanements of 

10,000 or more. The proposed rule 

establishes the technical criteria and 

procedures that apply to automated 

airport kiosks and to Web sites on 

which covered air transportation is 

marketed to the general public in the 

U.S. to ensure that individuals with 

disabilities can readily use these 

technologies to obtain the same 

information and services as other 

members of the public. 

DATES: Comments should be filed by 

November 25, 2011. Late-filed 

comments will be considered to the 

extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may file comments 

identified by the docket number DOT– 

OST–2011– 0177 by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59308 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1The dates and citations for these amendments 

are the following: April 3, 1990, 55 FR 12336; June 

11, 1990, 55 FR 23539; November 1, 1996, 61 FR 

56409; January 2, 1997, 62 FR 16; March 4, 1998, 

63 FR 10528; March 11, 1998, 63 FR 11954; August 

2, 1999, 64 FR 41781; January 5, 2000, 65 FR 352; 

May 3, 2001, 66 FR 22107; July 8, 2003, 68 FR 

40488; and May 13, 2008, 73 FR 27614. 

2Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in 

Air Travel, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 69 Fed. 

Reg. 64364–64395 (November 4, 2004); 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air 

Travel—Medical Oxygen and Portable Respiration 

Assistive Devices, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

70 Fed. Reg. 53108–53117 (September 7, 2005); and 

Accommodations for Individuals Who Are Deaf, 

Hard of Hearing, or Deaf-Blind, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 71 Fed. Reg. 9285–9299 (February 23, 

2006). 

the online instructions for submitting 

written comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• 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. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and docket number DOT– 

OST–2011–0177 or the Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for the 

rulemaking at the beginning of your 

comment. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received in any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment if 

submitted on behalf of an association, a 

business, a labor union, etc.). 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. 

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), 

kathleen.blankriether@dot.gov. 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), blane.workie@dot.gov. 

You may obtain copies of this SNPRM 

in an accessible format by contacting the 

above named individuals. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pilot 

Project on Open Government and the 

Rulemaking Process: On January 21, 

2009, President Obama issued a 

Memorandum on Transparency and 

Open Government in which he 

described how ‘‘public engagement 

enhances the Government’s 

effectiveness and improves the quality 

of its decisions’’ and how ‘‘knowledge is 

widely dispersed in society, and public 

officials benefit from having access to 

that dispersed knowledge.’’ To support 

the President’s open government 

initiative, DOT Department of 

Transportation has partnered with the 

Cornell eRulemaking Initiative (CeRI) in 

a pilot project, Regulation Room, to 

discover the best ways of using Web 2.0 

and social networking technologies to: 

(1) Alert the public, including those 

who sometimes may not be aware of 

rulemaking proposals, such as 

individuals, public interest groups, 

small businesses, and local government 

entities, that rulemaking is occurring in 

areas of interest to them; (2) increase 

public understanding of each proposed 

rule and the rulemaking process; and (3) 

help the public formulate more effective 

individual and collaborative input to 

DOT. Over the course of several 

rulemaking initiatives, CeRI will use 

different Web technologies and 

approaches to enhance public 

understanding and participation, work 

with DOT Department of Transportation 

to evaluate the advantages and 

disadvantages of these techniques, and 

report their findings and conclusions on 

the most effective use of social 

networking technologies in this area. 

DOT and the Obama Administration are 

striving to increase effective public 

involvement in the rulemaking process 

and strongly encourage all parties 

interested in this rulemaking to visit the 

Regulation Room Web site, http:// 

www.regulationroom.org, to learn about 

the rule and the rulemaking process, to 

discuss the issues in the rule with other 

persons and groups, and to participate 

in drafting comments that will be 

submitted to DOT. For this rulemaking, 

CeRI will submit to the rulemaking 

docket a Summary of the discussion that 

occurs on the Regulation Room site; 

participants will have the chance to 

review a draft and suggest changes 

before the Summary is submitted. Note 

that Regulation Room is not an official 

DOT Web site, and so participating in 

discussion on that site is not the same 

as commenting in the rulemaking 

docket. The Summary of discussion and 

any joint comments prepared 

collaboratively on the site will become 

comments in the docket when they are 

submitted to DOT by CeRI. At any time 

during the comment period, anyone 

using Regulation Room can also submit 

their individual views to the rulemaking 

docket through the federal rulemaking 

portal Regulations.gov, or by any of the 

other methods identified at the 

beginning of this document. For 

questions about this project, please 

contact Brett Jortland in the DOT Office 

of the General Counsel at 202–366–9314 

or brett.jortland@dot.gov. 

Background and Organization 

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 

passed by Congress in 1986, prohibits 

discrimination in airline service on the 

basis of disability. Since the Department 

of Transportation (‘‘Department’’ or 

‘‘DOT,’’ also ‘‘we’’ or ‘‘us’’) issued the 

final rule implementing the ACAA, 14 

CFR part 382 (Part 382) in 1990, it has 

amended the rule eleven times.1 On 

May 13, 2008, the Department issued 

the most recent amendment to Part 382, 

which among other things, applied the 

rule to foreign air carriers and added 

new provisions concerning the onboard 

use of respiratory assistive devices and 

accommodations for passengers who are 

deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind. 

See 73 FR 27614 (May 13, 2008). This 

latest amendment consolidated three 

separate NPRMs,2 each of which 

proposed certain requirements and 

requested public comment on some 

issues that we did not address in the 

final rule due to the unavailability of 

critical cost and technical information. 

In the first NPRM [hereinafter ‘‘2004 

Foreign Carriers NPRM’’], for example, 

we had proposed to require carriers to 

make their Web sites accessible and 

asked for public comment on the cost 

and feasibility of making automated 

airport kiosks accessible (we did not 

propose specific accessibility 

requirements for automated kiosks). See 

NPRM entitled ‘‘Nondiscrimination on 

the Basis of Disability in Air Travel,’’ 

Docket DOT–OST–2004–19482, RIN No. 

2105–AC97. After reviewing the public 

comments on this NPRM, we concluded 

that we did not have enough 

information to adequately determine the 

cost impact and technical feasibility of 

requiring accessibility for Web sites or 

automated airport kiosks. In the 

preamble to the 2008 final rule, we 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59309 

3Under 13 CFR 121.201, travel agents and tour 

operators are defined as small business concerns if 

their annual revenues do not exceed $3.5 million 

and $7 million, respectively (excluding funds 

received in trust for unaffiliated third party 

bookings/sales, but including the commissions 

earned from such bookings/sales). 

4The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

recognizes 3,364 of the 19,847 airports in the U.S. 

as open to the public. Of these, 382 are primary 

airports defined as having more than 10,000 

enplanements annually. Primary airports include 29 

large, 37 medium, 72 small, and 244 non-hub 

commercial service airports. 

indicated our intention to revisit these 

issues in a SNPRM. 

In the section that follows, we discuss 

the proposed Web site accessibility 

requirements and the questions we 

posed on airport kiosk accessibility in 

the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM and 

summarize the public comments we 

received. We then set forth the new 

measures we are proposing in this 

SNPRM in light of the public comments 

from the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM 

and our further research since the final 

rule was issued in 2008. These measures 

include requirements for U.S. and 

foreign air carriers to ensure that the 

public-facing content of Web sites they 

own or control conforms to the Website 

Content Accessibility Guidelines 

(WCAG) 2.0 Success Criteria and all 

Conformance Requirements at Level A 

and Level AA (discussed in detail in the 

next section). The proposed 

requirements would apply to foreign 

carriers only with respect to publicfacing pages on Web sites they own or 

control that market covered air 

transportation to the general public in 

the U.S. A foreign carrier Web site 

would be covered by the proposed 

requirements if it advertises or sells to 

the general public in the U.S. air 

transportation that includes flights that 

begin or end in the U.S. We consider the 

following to be indicators that a foreign 

carrier Web site is likely marketing air 

transportation to the general public in 

the U.S., and if so, would be covered by 

the proposed Web site accessibility 

requirements: (1) Contains an option to 

view content in English, (2) advertises 

or sells flights operating to, from, or 

within the U.S., and (3) displays fares in 

U.S. dollars. While it is our intention to 

require all public-facing content on the 

Web sites of U.S. carriers to meet the 

proposed Web site accessibility 

requirements, only those pages on the 

Web sites of foreign carriers involved in 

marketing covered air transportation to 

the general public in the U.S. would be 

subject to the Web site accessibility 

requirements. Web content on foreign 

carrier Web sites marketing air 

transportation to the general public 

outside the U.S. would not be covered. 

We also intend that Web site 

accessibility requirements cover a 

carrier’s new or completely redesigned 

primary Web site brought on line 180 or 

more days after the effective date of the 

final rule. Updating the information 

content on one or more Web pages 

would not be considered a complete 

redesign of a Web site, which entails 

technical changes to a substantial 

portion of the site (e.g., visual design 

(‘‘look and feel’’) of the site, an overall 

upgrade of the site to ensure compliance 

with technical standards, reorganizing 

the site’s information architecture). By 

one year after the final rule’s effective 

date, we propose to require Web pages 

on an existing Web site associated with 

booking or changing a reservation, flight 

check-in, and accessing a personal 

travel itinerary, frequent flyer account, 

flight status or schedules, and carrier 

contact information to be conformant 

either on a primary Web site or by 

providing accessible links from the 

associated pages on a primary Web site 

to corresponding accessible pages on a 

mobile Web site. All covered Web pages 

on a carrier’s primary Web site would 

have to be conformant by two years 

from the final rule’s effective date. We 

will continue to require that a carrier 

make discounted Web-based fares and 

other Web-based amenities available to 

passengers who self identify as being 

unable to use a carrier’s Web site due to 

their disability even if the Web site 

meets the WCAG 2.0 accessibility 

requirements. We expect that only a 

very small segment of the disability 

community would not be able to use an 

‘‘accessible’’ Web site (e.g., an 

individual who is deaf-blind). 

The Department considers marketing 

covered air transportation to the general 

public in the U.S. on Web sites that are 

inaccessible to individuals with 

disabilities to be discriminatory and a 

violation of the Air Carrier Access Act 

(49 U.S.C. 41705) and an unfair trade 

practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712. 

The Department’s authority to prohibit 

unfair and deceptive practices under 

49 U.S.C. 41712 applies not only to 

carriers, but also to ‘‘ticket agents,’’ (i.e., 

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 49 U.S.C. 

40102(a)(45). This SNPRM, in addition 

to proposing to require U.S. and foreign 

air carriers to ensure that their Web sites 

are accessible in accordance with 

WCAG 2.0 standards, would explicitly 

require carriers to ensure that when 

their agents are providing schedule and 

fare information and marketing covered 

air transportation services to the general 

public in the U.S. on Web sites, such 

Web content also meets the WCAG 2.0 

standards. Carriers are responsible for 

the activities of their agents, and as 

such, this NPRM would require them to 

ensure that those agents comply with 

the Web site accessibility requirements, 

or carriers could face enforcement 

action. See 14 CFR 382.15(a). Carriers 

would not, however, be required to 

ensure the compliance of agent Web 

sites with WCAG 2.0 standards if the 

agent’s annual receipts are less than the 

threshold established under the 

applicable small business size standard 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). See 13 CFR 

121.201.3 Carriers would still be 

permitted to market covered air 

transportation on the inaccessible Web 

sites of ticket agents that meet the small 

business size standard. However, we 

would require carriers to ensure that 

those small ticket agents make 

discounted Web-based fares and other 

Web-based amenities available to 

passengers who self identify as being 

unable to use the agent’s inaccessible 

Web site due to their disability. This 

NPRM would also require carriers to 

ensure that ticket agents with 

‘‘accessible’’ Web sites still make 

discounted Web-based fares and other 

Web-based amenities available to 

passengers who self-identify as being 

unable to use the agent’s Web site due 

to their disability. 

As for automated airport kiosks, we 

are proposing to require U.S. and 

foreign air carriers that own, lease, or 

control automated kiosks at U.S. 

airports having 10,000 or more 

enplanements per year 4 to ensure that 

all kiosk orders initiated sixty (60) days 

after the effective date of the rule for 

installation at U.S. airports are for 

models that meet a specified 

accessibility standard. The accessibility 

standard for automated airport kiosks 

that we propose to require is based on 

the U.S. Department of Justice’s 2010 

ADA Standards for Accessible Design 

(2010 ADA Standards) applicable to 

automated teller machines (ATM) and 

fare machines and on other selected 

accessibility criteria. We propose to 

apply this standard to both proprietary 

and shared-use automated airport 

kiosks. Shared-use automated airport 

kiosks are self-service transaction 

machines provided by an airport, a 

carrier, or an independent service 

provider with which any carrier having 

a compliant data set can collaborate to 

enable its customers to independently 

access the flight-related services it 

offers. Where automated airport kiosks 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59310 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

are jointly owned, leased, or controlled 

by U.S. airports and carriers, we 

propose to require that the airport 

operators and carriers enter into written 

agreements spelling out the respective 

responsibilities of the parties for 

meeting the accessibility requirements. 

We also intend to continue to require 

that carriers ensure equivalent service to 

passengers with a disability who are 

unable to use their automated airport 

kiosks due to their disability (e.g., 

passenger is unable to use an 

inaccessible automated airport kiosk, 

passenger is unable to use an automated 

airport kiosk that meets the accessibility 

standard because the passenger cannot 

reach the function keys due to a 

disability). 

We invite all interested parties to 

comment on the proposals set forth in 

this proposed rule. Our final action will 

be based on comments and supporting 

evidence from the public filed in this 

docket, and on our own analysis and 

regulatory evaluation. 

Proposals and Questions in the 2004 

Foreign Carriers NPRM on Web Site 

and Automated Airport Kiosk 

Accessibility 

1. Web Site Accessibility 

Today’s passengers increasingly rely 

on air travel Web sites for information 

about airline services, making 

reservations, and obtaining discounted 

airfares. While these Web sites are more 

accessible to people with disabilities 

today than ever before, the degree of 

accessibility can vary significantly not 

only from one Web site to another, but 

also from page to page on a given site. 

Not all information and services 

available to the public on these Web 

sites are accessible to people with 

disabilities. The Department views Web 

site accessibility as a vital step toward 

making the convenience and cost 

savings of booking the best airfares and 

checking-in online available to people 

with disabilities. 

The 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM: In 

the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM we 

proposed to require carriers to make 

their Web sites compliant with the 

accessibility standards of Section 508 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended (hereinafter Section 508) as a 

means of ensuring that all domestic and 

international flight and other 

information on their Web sites is 

accessible to persons with visual 

impairments. For foreign air carriers, we 

proposed that only the portion of their 

Web sites displaying information related 

to flights serving U.S. airports would 

have to meet the Section 508 standard. 

The requirements were also to apply to 

multi-carrier travel service Web sites 

owned by groups of carriers or with 

whom carriers have contractual or 

agency relationships. Under Section 

508, Federal agencies are required to 

make their electronic and information 

technology, including Web sites, 

accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Generally, this means use of text labels 

or descriptors for graphics and certain 

formatting elements. In the 2004 Foreign 

Carriers NPRM, we chose to use the 

Section 508 standard in proposing Web 

site accessibility requirements under 

our ACAA authority. Covered entities 

were to have two years from the final 

rule’s effective date to make existing 

Web sites accessible and new Web sites 

coming on line after the effective date 

were to be accessible immediately. 

We sought public comment on 

whether the Section 508 standard was 

the appropriate accessibility standard to 

apply, whether the standard should be 

modified for the airline Web site 

context, and whether other domestic or 

foreign accessibility standards would be 

appropriate. We also asked for comment 

on whether additional or specific 

requirements concerning online travel 

agencies (e.g., Web sites that provide 

schedule and fare information and 

market for carriers) should be added to 

the Part 382 section on contractor 

compliance (now section 382.15). We 

noted that under the proposed 

requirements all services offered to 

passengers on a carrier’s Web site (e.g., 

seat selection) would have to be 

accessible to users with disabilities and 

asked for comment on whether carrier 

Web sites that allow passengers to 

request special services should be 

required to permit passengers to request 

disability accommodations. 

The Comments: Disability community 

commenters strongly supported all the 

proposed requirements for Web site 

accessibility, including applying the 

Section 508 standard to the Web sites of 

carriers, their affiliates, contractors, and 

agents offering air transportation. Some 

also wanted accessibility requirements 

specifically applicable to online travel 

agencies (OTAs) to be included in what 

is now section 382.15. A few disability 

commenters urged the Department to 

consider the Web site Content 

Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 

developed by the World Wide Web 

Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility 

Initiative as an alternative to the Section 

508 standard, since many Internet-based 

commercial transaction organizations 

already use those guidelines. Some 

disability commenters explicitly 

expressed support for requiring Web 

sites to be accessible to people with 

disabilities other than blindness and 

other visual disabilities. There was also 

a strong disability community response 

favoring a measure discussed in the 

NPRM preamble to require carriers that 

offer passenger services online (e.g., seat 

selection) to also allow passengers to 

make special service requests online for 

disability accommodations. While most 

disability commenters did not object to 

a two-year timeframe from the rule’s 

effective date to bring existing Web sites 

into compliance, some favored a much 

shorter period (e.g., six months from the 

effective date). Most supported 

requiring carriers to make lower fares 

and other special offers on the carrier’s 

Web site available to any passenger with 

disability who could not use an 

inaccessible Web site by calling a 

customer service line. 

Many carriers and carrier 

organizations opposed requiring Web 

site accessibility on the grounds that it 

would be too difficult and expensive to 

accomplish. Several made note of the 

fact that the regulatory analysis had not 

quantified the benefits of requiring 

carriers to make their Web sites 

accessible. Yet a number of carriers, 

including foreign carriers, supported the 

goal of Web site accessibility while 

disagreeing with the proposed standards 

and timeframes. A number of carriers 

supported applying the WCAG 

standards and some carriers (most of 

them foreign) reported already taking 

steps toward applying the WCAG 

standards to their Web sites. 

Many U.S. and foreign air carriers and 

carrier associations contended that the 

Department had greatly underestimated 

the initial and ongoing costs of Web site 

accessibility. While the regulatory 

evaluation of the 2004 Foreign Carriers 

NPRM estimated the cost to U.S. carriers 

of making their Web sites accessible to 

be a one-time cost over two years of 

about $17,600 per carrier, the Air 

Transport Association (ATA) and some 

individual carriers themselves put the 

actual cost of initial compliance as 

ranging from $300,000 to more than 

$1,000,000 per carrier, with recurring 

costs of $10,000 to $200,000 per carrier 

annually. Generally carriers felt that 

compliance would take much longer to 

accomplish initially. For example, ATA 

reported that two of their members 

estimated that it would require 4,700 

and 6,000 hours respectively of 

planning, programming, and testing to 

comply. Carriers also felt that 

compliance would involve much more 

expense to maintain over the long term 

than the Department had estimated. 

Again, few carriers provided specific 

cost estimates, or when they did, few 

provided any breakdown of the cost 

allocation. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59311 

Some smaller carriers suggested that 

they would remove passenger 

information from their own Web sites 

and place it on the Web site of a 

mainline partner rather than incur the 

cost of compliance themselves. ATA not 

only opposed the Web site accessibility 

requirements as too costly, but also did 

not support a requirement to allow 

passengers with disabilities to book 

special service requests online. They 

maintained that if we adopted the 

proposed requirements, we should limit 

their application to Web sites within the 

U.S., and only to the portion of Web 

sites necessary to booking a flight. They 

also urged that we allow compliance 

with accessibility standards other than 

Section 508 and recommended that Web 

site accessibility be limited to 

accommodating individuals who are 

blind. A few carriers wanted to expand 

the phase in period from two to five 

years so compliance could be 

accomplished during scheduled 

maintenance operations. 

Foreign carriers also disagreed with 

the Department’s estimate of the cost 

($1,680 per foreign carrier over two 

years) and of the difficulty of making 

Web sites accessible, but provided little 

data supporting their assertions that the 

cost would be prohibitive. Almost 

unanimously, foreign carriers opposed 

any requirement to ensure the 

accessibility of contractor Web sites, 

explaining that they generally lacked 

any control over the design of these 

sites. This view was shared by most U.S. 

carriers as well. Several foreign carriers, 

among other commenters, asserted that 

limiting the applicability of Web site 

accessibility requirements to flights 

covered by Part 382 was neither 

practical nor technically feasible. 

Foreign carriers that did not oppose 

Web site accessibility requirements still 

favored much longer implementation 

timeframes, limiting the Web content 

required to be accessible (e.g., text pages 

only, booking function only, etc.), and 

allowing them to choose among various 

accepted accessibility standards. The 

International Air Transport Association 

(IATA) took the position that Web site 

accessibility requirements should only 

apply to foreign carrier Web sites 

maintained in the U.S. and only with 

respect to content essential for booking 

a flight. IATA and a number of 

individual foreign carriers opposed 

requiring carriers to allow passengers 

with disabilities to book special service 

requests online. 

Associations representing travel 

agencies held similar views about the 

cost impact, insisting that our 

preliminary regulatory evaluation had 

missed the mark. The Interactive Travel 

Services Association (ITSA) argued that 

compliance for travel agencies would be 

far more technically complex than we 

had anticipated and estimated the cost 

of basic Web site compliance with the 

Section 508 standard to be $200,000– 

$300,000 per company with millions 

more in ongoing maintenance costs. 

ITSA recommended that we (1) apply 

accessibility standards only to ticket 

agent sites geared to selling air 

transportation to persons in the U.S.; (2) 

not specify a particular Web site 

accessibility standard; and (3) allow a 

‘‘reasonableness standard’’ to determine 

when infrequently visited Web pages 

could be exempted from accessibility 

requirements. 

The American Society of Travel 

Agents (ASTA) reported that 90% of 

travel agencies are small businesses 

with 4–6 employees and that we had not 

considered the real impact of 

compliance on small businesses. While 

the majority of travel agencies have Web 

sites, ASTA noted that about half were 

created in-house, by a friend, or by 

using a template. ASTA reported that of 

these travel agency Web sites, only 12% 

enabled clients to book online and that 

bookings from online transactions 

generated only 5% of the agencies’ total 

revenues. 

Cendant Corporation (Cendant) 

addressed some of the technical 

problems with ensuring accessibility on 

Web sites where control of Web page 

content is shared by multiple entities 

and offered suggestions on how 

responsibility for accessibility should be 

allocated. Cendant suggested that when 

a carrier enters into a marketing 

agreement with a hosting Web site, the 

compliance responsibility should be 

allocated to the party that deploys or 

controls the site’s front-end code (user 

interface). They recommended that 

carriers in co-branding relationships 

with other carriers or marketing agents 

should only be responsible for Web site 

platform content that they directly 

develop, control, manage, or maintain, 

and that they should provide exit 

notices to users advising them when 

they’ve clicked a link to an outside Web 

site where the content may not be 

accessible. Cendant also endorsed 

requiring the WCAG rather than Section 

508 accessibility standard. 

As a group, U.S. ticket agents opposed 

any Web site accessibility rules 

applying to them that did not apply to 

foreign ticket agents as well. Like ATA, 

they urged the Department to limit Web 

site accessibility requirements to 

accommodating individuals with visual 

disabilities. 

Decision in the 2008 Final Rule: We 

deferred final action on Web site 

accessibility requirements due to the 

wide range in estimated compliance and 

maintenance costs asserted by the 

commenters, as well as their varying 

claims regarding the level of difficulty 

and technical feasibility of bringing a 

Web site into compliance. We were 

unable to resolve these differences 

based on the record in that proceeding 

and decided the best course was to 

revisit the issue in a later rulemaking. In 

the interim, we adopted a provision in 

the final rule prohibiting carriers from 

charging fees for reservation assistance 

to passengers with disabilities who 

cannot use inaccessible Web sites and 

requiring carriers to make Web fare 

discounts available to such passengers. 

Current Proposed Rule: In this 

SNPRM we propose to require U.S. and 

foreign air carriers to ensure that the 

public-facing air transportation-related 

content of Web sites they own or control 

is accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. The proposed accessibility 

requirements would apply to all publicfacing content on the Web sites of U.S. 

carriers. Foreign carrier Web sites would 

be covered only with respect to Web 

pages involved in marketing 

(advertising or selling) covered air 

transportation to the general public in 

the U.S. We would consider a foreign 

carrier Web site that has an option to 

view content in English, that advertises 

or sells flights operating to, from, or 

within the U.S., and/or that shows fares 

in U.S. dollars as likely to be marketing 

air transportation to the general public 

in the U.S., and if so, covered by the 

proposed Web site accessibility 

requirements. Web content on a foreign 

carrier Web site that markets air 

transportation to the general public 

outside the U.S. would not be covered. 

With respect to air transportation 

services advertised or sold online, we 

note that carriers offer an everexpanding array of services on their 

Web sites today, including air travel 

packages. The Department’s authority to 

regulate air transportation extends to the 

marketing of air travel packages that 

include a tour (i.e., a combination of air 

transportation and ground 

accommodations), or tour component 

(e.g., a hotel stays) that must be 

purchased with air transportation. See 

14 CFR Part 399.84. Over the years, the 

Department has taken numerous 

enforcement actions against travel 

companies and tour providers selling air 

tour packages for violating the 

Department’s advertising requirements. 

See, e.g., Grand Casinos, Inc., Violations 

of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 CFR Part 

399.84, Order 2005–5–5 (May 26, 2005); 

Trafalgar Tours West, Inc. d/b/a 

Trafalgar Tours, Violations of 49 U.S.C. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59312 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

§ 41712 and 14 CFR Part 399, Order 

2007–8–24 (August 24, 2007); Pacific 

Delight Tours, Inc., Violations of 49 

U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 CFR Part 399.84, 

Order 2008–2–13 (February 7, 2008); 

Unique Vacations Inc., Violations of 49 

U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 CFR Part 399.84, 

Order 2010–11–7 (November 8, 2010). 

In this NPRM, we are proposing to 

require carriers offering travel packages 

online that include covered air 

transportation must ensure that their 

Web site pages marketing all package 

components (e.g., hotel or rental car 

reservations) are conformant with the 

WCAG 2.0 accessibility requirements. 

When carriers provide links on their 

Web sites to third party Web sites for 

booking the non-air travel components 

of travel packages marketed on their 

Web sites that include covered air 

transportation, the Department solicits 

comment on whether it should 

recommend or require such carriers to 

provide a notice that the third party 

Web site may not be accessible when 

the link is activated. 

As for the time period provided for 

carriers to make their Web sites 

accessible, we propose that carriers 

implement the Web site accessibility 

requirements for primary Web sites 

incrementally in three phases over a 

two-year period. 

• Newly created or completely 

redesigned primary Web sites placed 

online 180 or more days after the 

effective date of the final rule would 

have to comply with WCAG 2.0 at Level 

A and Level AA. 

• Web pages on an existing Web site 

that provide core air travel services and 

information (i.e., booking or changing a 

reservation, checking-in, and accessing 

a personal travel itinerary, flight status, 

personal frequent flyer account, flight 

schedules, or the carrier’s contact 

information) would have to be 

conformant one year after the effective 

date of the final rule. These specific 

services were selected for the second 

phase of Web site accessibility because 

we view them as being essential and 

each appeared on most of the U.S. and 

foreign air carriers’ mobile Web sites we 

reviewed. Web site conformance could 

be achieved in one of two ways. Web 

pages containing core air travel services 

and information could either be directly 

compliant with WCAG 2.0 at Level A 

and Level AA on a carrier’s primary 

Web site or a carrier can provide 

accessible links from the nonconforming pages on its primary Web 

site to the corresponding pages on its 

mobile Web site that are conformant 

with WCAG 2.0 at Level A and Level 

AA. In addition to ensuring its mobile 

site conforms with WCAG 2.0 at Level 

A and Level AA, we solicit comment on 

whether we should require a carrier to 

follow the World Wide Web Consortium 

(W3C) Recommendation 28 July 2008, 

Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP) 1.0, 

Basic Guidelines (see http:// 

www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/) if it elects 

to provide a link from a non-conforming 

page on its primary Web site to a page 

on its mobile Web site. 

• All covered pages on a carrier’s 

primary Web site, including those made 

conformant during the second phase by 

a link to a conformant page on the 

carrier’s mobile Web site, would have to 

meet the WCAG 2.0 at Level A and 

Level AA standard two years after the 

effective date of the final rule. 

We believe the proposed approach to 

implementing the requirements 

balances the carriers’ need for flexibility 

and adequate time to fully implement 

an accessible primary Web site, while 

establishing priorities for accessibility of 

existing Web sites based on the online 

services of greatest interest and value to 

air travelers with disabilities. By 

allowing carriers to choose how to 

initially make certain online customer 

service functions accessible (e.g., either 

on their primary Web site or on a mobile 

site), carriers can determine which 

approach is most feasible for them based 

on factors such as the complexity of the 

Web pages associated with these 

functions on their primary Web sites, 

the robustness of the functions on their 

mobile Web sites, and how they wish to 

allocate their available resources for 

Web site accessibility. Since only 

entirely new or completely redesigned 

Web sites placed online starting 180 or 

more days after the rule’s effective date 

would have to be accessible, carriers 

would have up to two years to make all 

covered pages on their primary Web 

sites accessible (i.e., if they chose to 

make the core customer service 

functions accessible through links on 

the associated primary Web site pages to 

accessible pages on their mobile Web 

sites). 

We note that many regional and 

charter carriers have Web sites that 

provide information related to covered 

air transportation (e.g., route maps, 

customer service plans, contracts of 

carriage, etc.) but do not sell airline 

tickets. In most instances, these carriers’ 

Web sites provide links to the Web sites 

of their mainline partners where 

covered flights can be booked and other 

flight-related services obtained. 

Although the Web sites of these smaller 

carriers are covered for purposes of this 

rule, the carriers are not required to 

comply with interim provisions that do 

not apply to them (e.g., if the carrier’s 

Web site does not provide booking or 

check-in functions or flight status 

information, the carrier need not 

provide such functions in accessible 

format on its Web site). Such carriers 

would still be required to ensure that 

the links on their Web sites to their 

partner carriers’ Web sites were 

accessible by one year after the effective 

date of the final rule and that all the 

public-facing content of their Web sites 

was conformant with WCAG 2.0 by two 

years after the effective date. 

The Department considered proposing 

to require that carriers post WCAG 2.0 

‘‘conformance claims’’ on their Web 

sites to support easy identification of 

accessible Web pages and verification of 

a Web site’s compliance status. 

(‘‘Conformance claim’’ is W3C’s term of 

art for a statement by an entity giving a 

brief description of the Web page(s) on 

its Web site for which the claim is 

made, the date of conformance, the 

WCAG guidelines and conformance 

level satisfied, and the Web content 

technologies relied upon. Conformance 

is defined only for Web pages, but a 

conformance claim may be made to 

cover one Web page, a series of pages, 

or multiple related pages.) While 

conformance claims appear to be our 

best option for identification and 

compliance verification purposes, we 

are concerned that the resources 

involved in preparing and maintaining 

conformance claims for complex and 

dynamic carrier Web sites may not be 

feasible. We therefore invite public 

comment on effective alternative means 

for readily identifying compliant Web 

pages during the Web site conversion 

period and for verifying overall Web site 

accessibility after the compliance 

deadline. 

During the interim period while the 

inaccessible public-facing content of 

their Web sites is being updated in 

accordance with the implementation 

timeframes, the Department will 

continue to require carriers to make 

discounted Web-based fares and other 

Web-based amenities available to 

passengers who self-identify as being 

unable to use a carrier’s inaccessible 

Web site due to their disability. This 

means, for example, that Web-based 

discount fares must be disclosed to any 

prospective passenger who inquires 

about fares through other channels (e.g., 

telephone or walk-in) and who states 

that he or she has a disability and is 

unable to use the inaccessible Web site, 

if his or her itinerary qualifies for the 

discounted fare. In addition, after 

carriers’ Web sites are fully conformant 

with all applicable accessibility 

requirements, we will continue to 

require them to make Web-based 

discounts and amenities available as 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59313 

described above to any passenger who 

states that due to a disability, he or she 

is unable to use a carrier’s accessible 

Web site. 

With respect to carriers that market 

their airline tickets on their agents’ Web 

sites, we propose to require that they 

ensure that their airline tickets are 

marketed and sold on ticket agent Web 

sites that conform to the accessibility 

standards set forth in WCAG 2.0. We are 

proposing to provide carriers two years 

from the effective date of the rule to 

ensure that their agents’ Web sites are 

accessible as described above. After this 

time, the Department would take 

enforcement action against carriers that 

market air transportation on an agent’s 

inaccessible Web site, unless the agent 

qualifies as a small business (i.e., having 

annual revenues less than the applicable 

threshold set forth in 13 CFR 121.201). 

In those situations, carriers would be 

required to ensure that those small 

ticket agents make discounted Webbased fares and other Web-based 

amenities available on the carrier’s 

behalf to passengers who self identify as 

being unable to use the agent’s 

inaccessible Web site due to their 

disability (e.g., an individual who is 

deaf-blind and contacts the carrier by 

relay service to make a reservation). 

Methods carriers could use to ensure 

that ticket agent Web sites marketing 

their travel services are accessible 

include sending a notice to their agents 

regarding their obligations to have an 

accessible Web site and make 

discounted fares or other applicable 

Web-based amenities available to 

individuals who are unable to use an 

agent’s Web site due to a disability. 

Carriers could also periodically (once or 

twice a year) monitor ticket agent Web 

sites, marketing their travel services to 

ensure that the Web sites are accessible. 

Another possibility is for carriers to 

monitor disability complaints received 

by its ticket agents to see if any of the 

complaints allege that a ticket agent’s 

Web site is inaccessible or if a ticket 

agent refused to make the services 

discussed above available to individuals 

who cannot use their Web sites due to 

a disability. 

Although we asked for comment in 

the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM, we 

decided against proposing a 

requirement for carriers to provide a 

Web site function allowing passengers 

to add special service requests for 

disability accommodations to their 

passenger record. Our decision was 

based on comments from several 

carriers indicating the importance of 

passengers speaking directly with an 

agent when requesting disability 

services to avoid any misunderstandings 

about their specific accommodation 

needs. 

The departure from our proposal in 

the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM to 

require Web site conformance with the 

Section 508 standards is based in part 

on comments from the 2004 Foreign 

Carriers NPRM but mostly on 

developments that have occurred since 

the final rule was issued. Comments on 

our proposal in the 2004 Foreign 

Carriers NPRM to adopt the Section 508 

Web site accessibility standard were 

mixed. Although there was significant 

support for the Section 508 standard, a 

number of commenters urged us to 

consider adopting the WCAG standard 

or at least allowing carriers to choose 

which standard to apply. We did not 

consider adopting the then current 

WCAG 1.0 standard, however, because 

some requirements were not testable, 

thus compromising compliance 

verification. In December 2008, 

following a lengthy development 

process with Web developers, 

accessibility experts, and the disability 

community, the W3C adopted WCAG 

2.0, incorporating developments in Web 

technology and lessons learned since 

WCAG 1.0 (1999). 

WCAG 2.0 has 12 guidelines 

organized under four design principles: 

Perceivable, operable, understandable, 

and robust. Each guideline has testable 

success criteria defined at three levels 

(A, AA, and AAA) for determining Web 

site conformance. Level A conformance 

is the minimum level of conformance 

for providing basic accessibility and 

means that Web pages satisfy all the 

Level A success criteria. Level AA 

conformance provides a stronger level of 

accessibility and means that the Web 

pages satisfy all the Level A and Level 

AA success criteria. Level AAA 

conformance provides a very high level 

of accessibility and means that the Web 

pages satisfy all the Level A, Level AA, 

and Level AAA success criteria. Level 

AA conformance provides better 

accessibility and barrier reduction for 

accessing Web content than Level A 

(e.g., Level AA success criteria include 

the capability to resize text up to 200% 

without loss of content or functionality 

and consistent identification of 

components that have the same 

functionality within a set of Web pages). 

While Level AAA conformance provides 

the most robust level of accessibility, 

W3C does not recommend requiring it 

for entire Web sites because it is not 

possible to satisfy all Level AAA 

success criteria for some content. 

For each conformance level, a nonconforming page is considered 

compliant if it provides an accessible 

mechanism for reaching a conforming 

alternate version of the page that meets 

the success criteria, is up to date, and 

contains the same information and 

functionality in the same language. 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. Nonetheless, WCAG 2.0 

implementation guidance notes that 

providing a conforming alternate 

version of a Web page is a fallback 

option for WCAG conformance and that 

the preferred method of conformance is 

to make all Web page content directly 

accessible. Therefore, the intent of these 

proposed accessibility requirements is 

that Web site content be directly 

accessible whenever possible. However, 

the proposal does not explicitly require 

that a conforming alternate version be 

used only when needed to provide the 

Web content as effectively to 

individuals with disabilities as to those 

without disabilities. The Department 

seeks comment on whether we 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. 

In early 2010, the U.S. Access Board 

(Board) issued an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to 

update various accessibility standards 

and guidelines, including the Section 

508 standard which has been in effect 

for more than a decade and that applies 

to electronic and information 

technology developed, procured, 

maintained, or used by Federal 

agencies. See 75 FR 13457 (March 22, 

2010). Due to the scope and complexity 

of this rulemaking, it may take two or 

more years to issue a refreshed Section 

508 standard, which we anticipate will 

be significantly different from the 

current version. While the timing and 

scope of the Section 508 refresh were 

significant factors in our decision to 

propose WCAG 2.0 as the Web site 

accessibility standard, the most 

important consideration was the Board’s 

stated intention in the ANPRM to 

‘‘seek[s] to harmonize, to the extent 

possible, its criteria with other 

standards and guidelines in order to 

improve accessibility and facilitate 

compliance.’’ See 75 Fed. Reg. 13457, 

13458 (March 22, 2010). The Board 

adopted this position based on the 

recommendations of the 

Telecommunications and Electronic and 

Information Technology Advisory 

Committee (TEITAC), which it 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59314 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

established in 2006 to review the 

existing Section 508 standards and 

Telecommunications Act accessibility 

guidelines and to recommend changes. 

As part of its review, TEITAC, which 

represented industry, disability groups, 

standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and 

abroad, and government agencies, 

sought to address key issues driving the 

development of electronic information 

technology, including the need for 

standardization across markets globally. 

In its report to the Board in 2008, 

TEITAC recommended that the Board 

seek to harmonize the Section 508 

standards with WCAG 2.0 (which were 

still being finalized) in order to improve 

accessibility and facilitate compliance. 

As a result, in the March 2010 ANPRM, 

the Board sought comment on a 

harmonization approach with WCAG 

2.0 in which Web pages (as defined by 

WCAG 2.0), which are Level AA 

conformant, be deemed to be in 

conformance with the technical criteria 

it proposed in Chapter 4 (Platforms, 

Applications, and Interactive Content), 

Chapter 5 (Electronic Documents), and 

Chapter 6 (Synchronized Media Content 

and Players), and certain other specified 

provisions of the draft. See 75 Fed. Reg. 

13457, 13460 (March 22, 2010).WCAG 

2.0, which is internationally recognized 

as the most up-to-date and widely used 

accessibility standard available, 

addresses to varying degrees, access 

issues for people with visual, hearing, 

motor, cognitive, and neurological 

disabilities. The WCAG 2.0 specification 

and detailed technical guidance are 

available to the public free of charge at 

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. 

Although the Department initially 

intended to require accessibility for 

visual disabilities only, recognition by 

TEITAC and other technology experts of 

the significant commercial and other 

benefits of harmonizing with 

international accessibility standards 

persuaded us to propose the more 

inclusive WCAG 2.0 standard for air 

travel Web site accessibility at this time. 

We anticipate that approximately 4.3 

million Web site visitors with 

disabilities will benefit from these 

proposed Web site accessibility 

requirements in the first 10 years after 

the effective date of the rule. 

Request for Public Comments: Below 

we discuss the requirements we are 

proposing in more detail, report some 

preliminary findings of our regulatory 

evaluation, and pose questions for 

public comment. 

Applicability—We propose to apply 

the Web site accessibility requirements 

to the public-facing content of U.S. and 

foreign carrier primary Web sites that 

market air transportation and to limit 

the application to foreign carrier Web 

sites to Web pages involved in 

marketing covered air transportation to 

the general public in the U.S. Is there 

any reason to limit the applicability of 

this requirement to the largest U.S. and 

foreign air carriers, such as those that 

operate at least one aircraft with more 

than 60 seats for example? Should 

carriers that only provide charter service 

be subject to different Web site 

accessibility requirements than carriers 

that provide scheduled service? Should 

we exclude from Web site accessibility 

requirements carriers that advertise air 

transportation but do not sell airline 

tickets? 

We also propose to indirectly cover 

the Web sites of ticket agents that 

exceed the small business revenue 

thresholds established by the SBA. 

Should carriers not be required to 

ensure that the Web pages on which 

online ticket agencies market and sell 

their airline tickets are accessible? 

Should carriers only be required to 

ensure Web page accessibility of online 

ticket agencies that market and sell 

more than a certain percentage (e.g., 

10%) of the carrier’s total ticket sales 

annually? Should this rule apply to 

ticket agents directly with respect to 

ensuring that their Web pages on which 

they market and sell covered air 

transportation to the general public in 

the U.S. are accessible? Should DOT 

wait for the Department of Justice to 

move forward with its rulemaking under 

Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act before promulgating 

regulations that require ticket agent Web 

sites to be accessible? 

Technical Accessibility Standard— 

Should the Department consider 

requiring a set of technical or 

performance accessibility standards 

other than WCAG 2.0? Besides the 

Section 508 standards, what other 

accepted Web site accessibility 

standards are available? In the final rule, 

should the Department permit carriers 

to comply with Web site accessibility 

requirements by meeting any accepted 

Web site accessibility standard? Does 

WCAG 2.0 Level AA conformance 

provide a sufficient level of 

accessibility? Are there sufficient 

technical assistance resources available 

to support companies in implementing 

the standard? As an alternative, should 

Level A conformance or Level A plus 

conformance with some number of 

selected Level AA success criteria be 

required as long as the result is at least 

as strong as the current Section 508 Web 

accessibility standard? As stated earlier, 

the intent of the proposed accessibility 

requirements is that Web site content be 

directly accessible whenever possible. A 

conforming alternate version of a Web 

page must meet the WCAG 2.0 success 

criteria, be up to date, contain the same 

information and functionality in the 

same language, and be reachable via an 

accessible mechanism from the primary 

Web site. The Department seeks 

comment on whether it 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. The Department is 

also interested in public comment on 

what circumstances would make it 

necessary to use a conforming alternate 

version 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. With respect to 

specific technical criteria, we ask for 

comment on whether timeouts present 

barriers to using Web sites and on the 

cost or difficulty potentially associated 

with providing timeout capability. 

In addition to a requirement to 

comply with the proposed technical 

accessibility criteria for Web sites, we 

are considering requiring covered 

entities to also ensure their Web sites 

are usable by individuals with 

disabilities. During a meeting between 

DOT officials and representatives of the 

National Federation of the Blind (NFB) 

held on June 29, 2011, NFB 

recommended that any DOT proposal 

on Web site accessibility contain not 

only technical standards but also a 

performance standard to ensure that a 

Web site that meets specific technical 

criteria is also useable by people with 

visual impairments. NFB emphasized 

that compliance with a technical 

standard without a clear understanding 

of the underlying accessibility goal can 

lead to implementing the standard in a 

way that hinders access for people with 

disabilities. For example, the WCAG 2.0 

requirement for headings to identify 

items on a Web page (information, 

navigation controls, graphics, etc.) can 

result in a Web page with so many 

headings that it cannot be efficiently 

navigated by a screen reader. Similarly, 

full compliance with the WCAG 2.0 

requirement to label links on a Web 

page with an ‘‘alt-tag’’ is not helpful if 

the alt-tags do not adequately explain 

the link’s purpose. Because 

implementing the WCAG 2.0 

requirements for headings and alt-tags 

to label Web page content is somewhat 

subjective, there is a need to ensure that 

a Level AA-compliant Web page is 

usable by persons with a disability. To 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59315 

ensure that Web pages are technically 

compliant in a manner that ensures 

accessibility and usability to people 

with disabilities, NFB recommends that, 

in addition to any proposed technical 

accessibility standards, covered Web 

pages meet a performance standard such 

that the Web pages ensure that persons 

with disabilities ‘‘may access or acquire 

the same information, engage in the 

same interactions, and enjoy the same 

products and services’’ offered to Web 

site users without disabilities ‘‘with a 

substantially similar ease of use.’’ We 

recognize that whether ease of use is 

‘‘substantially similar’’ depends to a 

significant extent on the user’s screen 

reader or other assistive technology, 

which is beyond the control of the 

carrier. For this reason, we may need to 

specify the types and versions of various 

assistive technologies to which the 

performance standard must apply. The 

Department, therefore, seeks comments 

on the adoption of a performance 

standard in the final rule, in addition to 

the proposed technical standards, as 

well as on the types and versions of 

assistive technologies to which a 

performance standard should apply. We 

also seek comment on the feasibility and 

value of requiring airlines to work with 

the disability community (e.g., establish 

a committee on Web site accessibility) 

to assist them in maintaining the 

accessibility of their Web site through 

periodic monitoring and feedback on 

the Web site’s usability. 

Scope of the requirements—We are 

proposing the accessibility standards to 

cover public-facing content on Web sites 

owned or controlled by U.S. carriers and 

foreign carriers where air transportation 

is marketed to the general public in the 

U.S. Should accessibility requirements 

cover all public-facing Web site content 

on the Web sites, or only the portion(s) 

of the Web site necessary to book a 

flight? Should the accessibility 

requirements apply to either mobile 

Web sites or primary Web sites, or to 

both? Are the services and information 

available on mobile Web sites generally 

as easy to use as their counterparts on 

a carrier’s main Web site or not? We also 

solicit comment on whether the 

Department should require carriers to 

ensure that their mobile Web sites are 

conformant with WCAG 2.0 at Level A 

and Level AA, or follow the World Wide 

Web Consortium (W3C) 

Recommendation 28 July 2008, Mobile 

Web Best Practices (MWBP) 1.0, Basic 

Guidelines, or both? 

Should carriers be required to ensure 

that any third party software that is 

downloadable from a link on the 

carrier’s Web site (e.g., deal finding 

software) is accessible? Can mobile 

applications be programmed to comply 

with WCAG 2.0 accessibility standards? 

Should the Department require 

electronic communications generated by 

a carrier, such as reservation 

confirmation, flight status notifications, 

and special offer e-mails to be 

accessible? What are the costs and 

technical difficulties of ensuring that 

such content is accessible? 

Costs and Benefits—Our preliminary 

regulatory evaluation estimates the net 

benefits of the proposed air travel Web 

site accessibility requirements over the 

entire 10-year analysis period at $55.3 

million using the 7 percent discount 

rate and $74.7 million using the 3 

percent discount rate. The total 

estimated benefits of $122.1 million 

discounted at 7% and $147.3 million 

discounted at 3% were calculated based 

on the expected time savings for people 

with disabilities who can use an 

accessible Web site, as well as the 

savings to carriers resulting from 

avoided calls (assisting passengers with 

disabilities who cannot use their Web 

sites). The monetized value of the time 

savings for individuals with disabilities 

and cost savings to carriers associated 

with compliant air travel Web sites is 

estimated at more than $14 million in 

the first year after air travel Web sites 

become fully compliant with the 

proposed Web site accessibility 

standards. Our preliminary regulatory 

analysis underscores that many 

unquantifiable benefits are also 

expected to result from the proposed 

requirements, including increased air 

travel by persons with disabilities, 

reaching more consumers with 

disabilities, and improved 

understanding by carriers of their Web 

sites’ content, structure, and 

performance issues. 

The total estimated costs associated 

with the proposed accessibility 

requirements were based on the Web 

site size (class sizes of largest, large, 

small, smallest), estimated number of 

revision hours by type of task (site 

layout and home page reorganization, 

conformance evaluation/certification, 

per individual site page) and the cost 

per hour for programming and 

overhead. The estimated cost per site for 

making primary Web sites completely 

accessible is estimated at $225,000 for 

the largest sites having an average of 900 

pages (1,500 hours), $105,000 for large 

sites having an average of 300 pages 

(700 hours), $50,400 for small sites 

having an average of 120 pages (420 

hours) and $31,200 for the smallest sites 

having an average of 60 pages (260 

hours). These costs for bringing the Web 

sites into initial compliance, which are 

based on a review of carrier Web sites 

using a collection of Web development 

tools, would be incurred during the first 

2 years of the 10-year analysis period. 

Thereafter, U.S. and foreign carriers 

would incur an estimated $2.0 million 

annually and ticket agents an estimated 

$2.6 million annually in costs to ensure 

that their primary Web sites remain 

fully compliant. We are seeking 

comment on whether these cost 

estimates for Web site compliance are 

reasonable and address the relevant cost 

components. Total compliance costs for 

all entities, including U.S. and foreign 

carriers and their agents that are not 

small business concerns, to comply with 

the proposed Web site accessibility 

standards are estimated at $66.8 million 

using the 7 percent discount rate, and 

$72.6 million using the 3 percent 

discount rate. As with the estimated 

benefits, potentially important 

categories of cost identified for which 

no quantitative data are available 

include the cost of maintaining Web site 

accessibility, reallocating resources used 

to create Web pages to ensuring 

regulatory compliance, and possible 

impacts on Web site innovation options. 

We note that the Air Transport 

Association (ATA) reported 

significantly higher estimated hours and 

overall costs for making carrier Web 

sites accessible in its comments on the 

Web site accessibility requirements 

proposed in the 2004 Foreign Carriers 

NPRM (e.g., two member carriers 

estimated that it would require 4,700 

and 6,000 hours respectively for 

planning, programming, and testing to 

comply with the Web site 

requirements). In a similar vein, the 

Interactive Travel Services Association 

(ITSA) estimated the cost of basic Web 

site compliance with the Section 508 

standard to be $200,000–$300,000 per 

company with millions more in ongoing 

maintenance costs. There are several 

factors accounting for the differences 

between our current cost estimates and 

the earlier estimates of both ATA and 

ITSA. The number of hours needed to 

comply depends on the size, type of 

programming, and current accessibility 

of a carrier’s Web site. Carrier and travel 

agent Web sites vary significantly with 

respect to these factors, particularly 

Web site size and current level of 

accessibility. We believe very few 

carriers, if any, would need up to 6,000 

hours to comply with the proposed 

accessibility standards; the vast majority 

would be able to achieve fully 

accessible Web sites within the number 

of hours we’ve estimated above. 

Another key factor driving the 

difference in estimated costs for both 

initial compliance and maintenance is 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59316 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

that the programming tools available in 

Web design software were far less 

sophisticated in 2004 than today. For 

example, Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), 

which make maintenance and updating 

of Web pages far easier and less timeconsuming, were just beginning to be 

used in 2004 and now are nearly 

universal. Building accessibility into 

new Web pages today is estimated to 

add only about 3–6 percent to the cost, 

making the ongoing costs for 

maintaining an accessible Web site 

significantly less than for achieving 

initial compliance. Yet another factor in 

the cost difference is that the section 

508 accessibility standard we proposed 

in 2004 was not as widely used in the 

private sector, nor as well supported as 

WCAG 2.0, which today is widely 

recognized as a more robust, more 

current, better-supported, and more 

easily implemented standard. 

In light of the above, the Department 

seeks input from the public on the 

following questions. Do any carriers 

currently have Web sites that conform to 

the WCAG 2.0 standard? If so, what was 

the cost the carriers incurred in bringing 

their Web site into conformance with 

this standard? Is there agreement or 

disagreement with the Department’s 

cost per site estimate? If not, what is an 

accurate estimate and on what specific 

component costs is the estimate based? 

What is a reasonable estimate of the 

time required to make embedded 

content (such as PDFs and multimedia) 

accessible? Does the initial cost of 

creating accessible Web content differ in 

any significant way from non-accessible 

Web content? Do the maintenance costs 

of an accessible Web site differ in any 

significant way from those of an 

inaccessible Web site once the 

conversion is completed? What would 

be the cost and technical difficulty 

associated with conforming mobile Web 

content to the WCAG 2.0 accessibility 

standard or any other accessibility 

standard? How much time is needed to 

make an existing mobile Web site or 

primary Web site entirely accessible? 

What is the cost impact of disclosing 

Web-based fare discounts and other 

Web-based amenities to passengers with 

disabilities who indicate they are unable 

to use a carrier’s Web site due to their 

disability and who inquire about air 

transportation with the carrier using 

another means? Are there any 

unintended impacts, positive or 

negative, that could result from 

requiring carrier and ticket agent Web 

sites to be accessible? 

Implementation Approach and Time 

Frame—The Department seeks comment 

on alternative time frames and 

approaches for implementation of Web 

site accessibility requirements. We are 

proposing a three-phase approach that 

attempts to expedite accessibility of 

Web pages on a Web site based on when 

individual Web pages were created as 

well as the relative importance of the 

information or service (functionality) 

carriers make available for air travelers. 

For the initial phase,, we propose to 

require that a carrier’s new or 

completely redesigned primary Web site 

be accessible if placed online 180 or 

more days after the effective date of the 

final rule. By one year after the final 

rule’s effective date, we propose to 

require Web pages associated with 

booking or changing a reservation, flight 

check-in, and accessing a personal 

travel itinerary, frequent flyer account, 

flight status or schedules, and carrier 

contact information to be conformant 

either on a primary Web site or by 

providing an accessible link from the 

associated pages on a primary Web site 

to corresponding conformant pages on a 

mobile Web site. All covered Web pages 

on a carrier’s primary Web site would 

have to be conformant by two years 

from the final rule’s effective date. We 

believe a gradual phasing in, deferring 

the most extensive Web site conversion 

tasks until last, will make the cost 

burden more manageable. Is the 

reservation booking mechanism more 

difficult to render accessible than other 

Web site functions? Is one year a 

reasonable time frame for making this 

function accessible? Is it feasible to 

require that just the booking function be 

made accessible within 180 days of the 

rule’s effective date? Is a two-year time 

frame sufficient to render all publicfacing content on a carrier’s main Web 

site accessible? In its ANPRM on Web 

site accessibility for entities covered by 

the ADA, DOJ sought comment on 

compliance time frames based on when 

the Web sites or individual Web pages 

were created and on the feasibility of 

achieving compliance for new pages on 

existing Web sites. For newly created or 

completely redesigned Web pages—or 

all new Web sites (i.e., those placed 

online for the first time), DOJ asked 

about requiring compliance starting six 

months after the publication of the final 

rule. Recognizing that completely new 

or redesigned Web sites and pages can 

more easily be made fully accessible 

than new pages on existing Web sites 

where certain features such as 

navigation components cannot be 

changed or replaced without 

redesigning the entire Web site, DOJ 

asked whether requiring compliance to 

the maximum extent feasible for new 

pages on existing Web sites (which may 

result in pages that are not completely 

accessible) would be the appropriate 

standard. Finally, considering that 

existing Web sites may have hundreds 

to thousands of pages to be made 

accessible, DOJ also asked whether it 

would be reasonable to apply the Web 

site accessibility requirements to 

existing Web sites or pages effective two 

years after the date of publication of the 

final rule. See 75 FR 43460, 43466 (July 

26, 2010). DOT requests comment on 

the approach we are proposing in this 

rulemaking for a three-phase 

implementation timeframe based on 

whether the Web page or site is new, 

which is similar to DOJ’s approach, and 

the relative importance of the 

information or service (functionality) 

carriers make available for air travelers 

on existing Web sites. We also solicit 

comment on the approach DOJ proposed 

in its ANPRM which is based primarily 

on when Web sites/Web pages were 

created and the feasibility of compliance 

for new pages on existing Web sites, as 

well as any other approach for 

determining the time frame that should 

be adopted for carriers and ticket agents 

to bring their Web sites into compliance. 

Should the time frames for 

implementing the phased Web site 

accessibility requirements be expanded 

(e.g., 12 months for the first phase, 18 

months for the second phase and 30 

months for the third phase)? 

Identifying Accessible Web Pages on 

Partially Accessible Web Sites—Should 

the Department require carriers to 

ensure that accessible Web pages can be 

readily identified as such by people 

with disabilities (e.g., contain a tag 

readable by screen reader software)? If 

flight-related functions that must be 

accessible 180 days or one year after the 

rule’s effective date cannot be accessed 

from a carrier’s inaccessible home page, 

are alternative means for accessing those 

functions (e.g., through a Google search) 

acceptable until the carrier’s entire Web 

site is accessible? 

Compliance Verification and Web Site 

Usability—Can the available protocols 

and procedures for testing Web content 

conformance with WCAG 2.0 be 

implemented cost effectively by 

carriers? The Department believes that 

requiring carriers to post and maintain 

WCAG 2.0 conformance claims on their 

Web sites may be too costly given the 

size, complexity, and dynamic nature of 

many carrier Web sites. We are seeking 

comment on alternative means to 

readily identify a Web site’s 

conformance with applicable 

accessibility requirements. What 

methods might DOT use to ensure/ 

verify compliance with the applicable 

standards? Should the Department 

initiate random ‘‘spot’’ investigations of 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59317 

carrier and online ticket agency Web 

sites to monitor compliance after the 

rule becomes effective? Are there any 

specific technical barriers to 

maintaining air carrier Web site 

accessibility after full Web site 

compliance is initially achieved? 

Among the issues raised by NFB in 

the aforementioned June 29 meeting 

with the Department was the need for 

accessibility training for airline 

employees involved in programming, 

coding, or editing a carrier’s Web site so 

that the underlying goals of technical 

accessibility requirements are well 

understood by those who develop and 

maintain the carriers’ Web sites. Should 

the Department require carriers to 

develop guidance manuals for such 

personnel on how to implement 

technical accessibility standards so that 

their Web sites are also functionally 

usable by individuals with disabilities 

(i.e., they are able to access or acquire 

the same information, engage in the 

same interactions, and enjoy the same 

products and services as non-disabled 

users of their Web site with 

substantially equivalent ease of use)? 

Ensuring Ticket Agents Meet Web Site 

Accessibility and Service Obligations— 

The Department seeks public comment 

on the specific methods carriers might 

use to ensure that their ticket agents 

marketing air transportation to the 

general public in the U.S. are complying 

with both the requirements to make the 

Web pages on their Web sites related to 

covered air transportation accessible 

and to provide Web-based discounts 

and amenities to individuals who are 

unable to use their Web sites due to a 

disability. With respect to ensuring Web 

site accessibility, should we require 

carriers to notify their agents that their 

Web sites must be in compliance with 

WCAG 2.0 by two years after the rule’s 

effective date? Would such notification 

to agents be sufficient, or should we 

require carriers to obtain certification 

from their agents by two years after the 

rule’s effective date that their Web sites 

are compliant? Should we permit 

carriers to rely solely on their agents’ 

certifications of Web site compliance, or 

should we also require carriers to 

monitor their agents’ Web sites once or 

twice a year? What about simply 

requiring carriers to bring any 

inaccessible agent Web sites that they 

become aware of to the attention of the 

those agents, and if the agent does not 

respond, bring those agent Web sites to 

the Department’s attention? What would 

be the costs associated with any of the 

approaches discussed above? 

Regarding accessible agent Web sites 

that cannot be used by certain 

individuals due to a disability or 

inaccessible Web sites of small ticket 

agents, should the Department require 

carriers to notify agents of their 

obligations to provide Web-based 

discounts and amenities as of the rule’s 

effective date to individuals who cannot 

use an agent’s Web site? Should the 

Department require that carriers verify 

their agents’ compliance with these 

obligations through test calls or some 

other method? Would it be sufficient to 

allow carriers to rely on a written 

statement from their agents certifying 

that as of a certain date the agent 

provides these services? Should we 

require carriers to monitor complaints 

against ticket agents alleging that an 

agent refused to provide these services 

to consumers who could not access its 

Web site due to a disability? What 

would be the costs associated with any 

of these approaches? Are there any other 

methods of monitoring/ensuring ticket 

agents’ Web sites are accessible and 

discounted fares are available to 

individuals who can’t use the ticket 

agent’s Web site because of a disability 

that we should consider? 

Other Issues—Should the Department 

require carriers and ticket agents to 

provide a mechanism for passengers to 

provide online notification of their 

requests for disability accommodation 

services (e.g., enplaning/deplaning 

assistance, deaf/hard of hearing 

communication assistance, escort to 

service animal relief area, etc.)? 

2. Automated Airport Kiosk 

Accessibility 

Most airlines today are using 

automated kiosks at airports to perform 

customer service functions such as 

automated flight check-in and printing 

of boarding passes. The speed and 

efficiency of automated airport kiosks 

make them the check-in option of 

choice for many air travelers. 

Participants in the Airline IT Trends 

Survey 2009 reported that over half of 

all travellers use an automated airport 

kiosk to check-in, making it the primary 

means for passenger processing at 29% 

of airports. By 2012, automated airport 

kiosks are expected to be the primary 

passenger check-in method at more than 

75% of airports. Of 116 carriers (both 

U.S. and foreign) responding to the 2009 

Airline IT Trends Survey, 60% had 

automated check-in kiosks at airports 

and 86% planned to have them by the 

end of 2012. See SITA, Airports Council 

International, & Airline Business, (June 

2009). The Airport IT Trends Survey 

2009 Executive Summary. SITA and 

Airline Business Magazine. Retrieved 

February 11, 2011, from http:// 

www.sita.aero/content/airport-it-trendssurvey-2009. 

Increasingly, carriers are 

implementing kiosk technology for 

other customer service functions at 

airports such as bag tag printing, 

rebooking passengers from cancelled 

flights, and reporting lost luggage, 

resulting in significant cost savings. But 

the trend has bypassed a significant 

number of passengers with visual and 

mobility impairments for whom 

automated airport kiosks remain largely 

inaccessible. While Part 382 currently 

requires carriers to provide equivalent 

service to passengers with disabilities 

when automated airport kiosks are 

inaccessible, such service typically 

involves assistance from carrier 

personnel in operating the kiosk or 

permitting a passenger to move to the 

first class ticket counter line. Many 

passengers with disabilities consider 

these solutions inadequate because they 

do not allow for independent access and 

call attention to a passenger’s disability. 

Indeed, advocacy organizations for 

individuals with visual disabilities have 

initiated lawsuits against carriers and an 

airport for failure to provide accessible 

automated airport kiosks. In addition, 

the trend in the air travel industry 

toward self-service and technologydriven service models has continued to 

grow rapidly since the 2008 final rule 

was issued. 

The 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM: The 

Department sought comment on 

whether automated kiosks operated by 

carriers in airports or other locations 

(e.g., for ticketing and dispensing of 

boarding passes) are sufficiently 

accessible to people with vision and 

mobility impairments, whether the final 

rule should mandate specific 

accessibility requirements, and if so, 

what accessibility standards should 

apply. The Department asked 

specifically if it should adopt the 

Section 508 standard for self-contained 

closed products (36 CFR 1194.25) by 

reference for electronic kiosks, but did 

not propose any rule text. 

The Comments: Comments from 

disability community representatives 

were universally supportive of requiring 

automated airport kiosks to be 

accessible for people with visual and 

mobility impairments. Some disability 

commenters urged that accessibility be 

required for those with hearing, 

cognitive, and dexterity disabilities. A 

number of large disability advocacy 

organizations strongly supported 

applying the standards in section 707 of 

the ADA and ABA Accessibility 

Guidelines of 2004 for automated 

transaction machines (ATM) and fare 

machines, as well as the Section 508 

requirements for self-contained closed 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59318 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. 

Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator and 

Technology (US–VISIT) Program. Air/Sea Biometric 

Exit Project Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. VISIT Program, 2008. http:// 

airlineinfo.com/dhspdf/3.pdf (accessed May 27, 

2011.) 

products, to both built-in and 

freestanding automated airport kiosks. 

The public comments did not, 

however, provide any specific technical 

or cost information on which to 

determine the feasibility of imposing 

accessibility requirements for automated 

airport kiosks. The Air Transport 

Association (ATA) opposed including 

any accessibility requirements for 

automated airport kiosks in the final 

rule, asserting that the technology was 

still maturing and adopting standards at 

that stage would be inappropriate. In 

ATA’s view, a kiosk should be 

considered accessible as long as airline 

personnel are available to assist 

passengers with a disability in 

accomplishing kiosk ticketing and 

check-in processes. A number of carriers 

emphasized the cost burden of 

retrofitting automated airport kiosks for 

accessibility, including increased 

airport facilities charges due to 

expansion of the automated kiosk 

footprint. IATA cited not only the 

prohibitive cost of adapting existing 

automated kiosks, but also the 

complications arising from shared 

ownership of automated kiosks by 

airlines, airport operators, and even 

government entities at foreign airports 

and the difficulty of allocating the costs 

of adapting such kiosks when not all of 

the kiosk owners must comply with Part 

382. Some individual foreign carriers 

pointed out their inability to control the 

operation and use of automated airport 

kiosks through contractual provisions at 

foreign airports where kiosks are 

provided by airport operators. 

The Decision in the 2008 Final Rule: 

We determined that we did not have 

sufficient information to accurately 

estimate the cost and technical impact 

of imposing accessibility standards on 

automated airport kiosks and concluded 

that new requirements for kiosk 

accessibility were not appropriate at 

that time. As an interim measure, we 

did require carriers whose automated 

airport kiosks are not accessible to 

provide equivalent service to passengers 

with disabilities who cannot use the 

kiosks and announced our intention to 

seek further comment about kiosk 

accessibility in an SNPRM. 

The Proposed Rule: The Department 

believes that accessibility for people 

with disabilities cannot be viewed as a 

dispensable design feature. Increasingly, 

the business community also is 

recognizing the importance of 

accessibility as a baseline technology 

design factor to support expansion of 

customer bases and market shares. IBM, 

a leading manufacturer of kiosks and 

other self-service applications, has 

developed an automated airport kiosk 

equipped with an industry standard 

audio connector, accessible hardware 

controls, and text-to-speech output. The 

model was tested by dozens of people 

with vision and mobility impairments 

who were able to complete the check-in 

process with an unprecedented level of 

independence. In this SNPRM, we 

propose to amend section 382.57 to 

require U.S. and foreign air carriers at 

every U.S. airport with 10,000 or more 

enplanements per year where they own, 

lease, or control automated kiosks 

providing flight-related services to their 

customers (e.g., ticket purchase, seat 

selection, issuance of boarding passes, 

bag tags, etc.) to ensure that all new 

kiosk orders initiated 60 days after the 

rule’s effective date are for accessible 

units. This means that carriers would be 

required to ensure that all new 

automated kiosk orders initiated 60 days 

after the effective date of the final rule, 

including those to be installed at new 

locations and those replacing existing 

automated kiosks taken out of service in 

the normal course of operations (e.g. 

due to end of life cycle, a general 

equipment upgrade, a terminal 

renovation, etc.), are for models that 

meet the technical accessibility criteria 

set forth in this proposal. 

Research conducted in conjunction 

with the regulatory evaluation for this 

SNPRM indicates that the average life 

cycle for airport kiosks is five years.5

The National Federation of the Blind 

(NFB) indicated in a meeting with the 

Department on June 29, 2011, that a 

major U.S. airline disclosed to them that 

the average life cycle of its automated 

airport kiosks is seven to ten years. The 

same carrier also disclosed that 

automated airport kiosks may have 

various components replaced or 

upgraded (e.g., printer, motherboard) 

during the life cycle before the 

equipment is taken out of service. 

Assuming a longer functional life cycle 

for automated airport kiosks, NFB 

recommended that the Department 

consider requiring carriers to retrofit 

some portion of their kiosk fleet at each 

airport location to meet any proposed 

accessibility standards. At the same 

time, we are aware that retrofitting 

existing kiosks to meet accessibility 

standards would involve not only 

hardware modifications but also 

updated carrier software applications 

that may not be operable on older kiosk 

machines. In light of the variations in 

the life cycle estimates and the software 

issues, the Department is considering 

requiring either retrofitting or 

replacement of a certain percentage or 

number of airport kiosks (e.g., retrofit 

25% of existing kiosks or retrofit at least 

one kiosk at each airport location by a 

certain date). Given the estimated fiveto ten-year life cycle of automated 

airport kiosks, we are concerned that 

our proposal may take too long for 

accessible kiosks to be available to 

individuals with disabilities. We are 

seeking additional information from the 

public on the accuracy of our 

assumption about the life cycle of 

automated airport kiosks and to 

determine the ability of the 

manufacturing sector to meet the 

demand for accessible automated airport 

kiosks. Such information will enable us 

to determine the appropriate timeframe 

for achieving accessibility of all 

automated airport kiosks. Although we 

are not proposing to require retrofitting 

or replacement of existing kiosks at this 

time, if the average life cycle for 

automated airport kiosks is seven to ten 

years, the transition time to achieve 

accessibility of all such kiosks at each 

airport location could be more than a 

decade. In such a situation, should the 

Department require carriers to retrofit or 

replace a certain portion of their kiosk 

fleet to meet the accessibility standards 

during the interim period until 100% of 

all automated airport kiosks are 

accessible? 

Despite the advantages of the various 

incremental approaches we considered, 

there were difficulties with any 

proposed requirement that would result 

in less than 100% accessible automated 

kiosks at an airport. For example, if we 

required only 25% of a carrier’s 

automated kiosks in an airport location 

to be accessible, would we also need to 

require that the carrier give priority 

access to any individual who needs an 

accessible kiosk? If the accessible 

automated airport kiosks at an airport 

location are used by all passengers, the 

wait time for passengers who need an 

accessible automated kiosk may end up 

being significantly longer than the wait 

for non-disabled passengers who can 

use any available automated kiosk at 

that location. At the same time, any 

mandate to reserve accessible automated 

kiosks at an airport location exclusively 

for passengers who need an accessible 

kiosk carries the potential of segregating 

and stigmatizing such passengers. In 

terms of independent use, passengers 

with visual impairments would still 

need assistance from carrier personnel 

in identifying an accessible model at 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59319 

airport locations where the carrier 

owned, leased, or controlled both 

accessible and inaccessible automated 

kiosks. Since these outcomes would 

undermine some of the benefits we are 

seeking to achieve, we view our best 

alternative as requiring that all new 

automated airport kiosks ordered after a 

certain date be accessible so that 

eventually 100% of kiosks at all airport 

locations will be accessible. We 

nonetheless seek public comment on the 

need to require that all new automated 

airport kiosks be accessible, and on any 

alternative approaches we should 

consider in addition to those discussed 

above (e.g., requiring only 25% of a 

carrier’s automated kiosks in an airport 

location to be accessible). 

As mentioned above, while we are not 

requiring any retrofitting of existing 

kiosks, we are cognizant of the market 

impact of a requirement that would 

create a significant demand for a 

product that may not yet be widely 

available. We have posed a number of 

questions for public comment related to 

these potential impacts in the next 

section. 

Until all automated kiosks in an 

airport location are accessible, we are 

also proposing to require carriers to 

ensure that each accessible automated 

kiosk they own, lease, or control at an 

airport location is visually and tactilely 

identifiable as such to users (e.g., a 

raised international symbol of 

accessibility affixed to the front of the 

device) and is maintained in proper 

working condition. These requirements 

will no longer be applicable when 100% 

of the automated kiosks in an airport 

location are accessible, since it will not 

be necessary for automated kiosks to be 

identifiable as accessible to users, and 

carriers will have a business incentive 

to maintain their automated kiosks in 

working condition throughout the 

airport. During the transition to 

accessible kiosks, carriers would 

continue to be responsible to provide 

equivalent service as is required under 

the current rule (e.g., by assistance from 

carrier personnel in using the kiosk or 

allowing the passenger to come to the 

front of the line at the check-in counter) 

to any passenger who cannot use a 

carrier’s inaccessible automated kiosk at 

an airport location where the carrier has 

not yet installed an accessible kiosk. We 

also propose to require that carriers 

provide equivalent service during and 

after the transition is complete to 

passengers who cannot readily use an 

accessible automated airport kiosk due 

to his or her disability (e.g., passenger 

is unable to reach the function keys on 

an automated kiosk that meets the 

accessible reach range requirement). 

The Department is aware that not all 

automated kiosks at airports are owned 

by carriers and that some number of 

them are shared-use automated kiosks, 

owned, leased, or controlled jointly 

with the airport authority or other 

carriers. Our intention is that the same 

technical specifications and similar 

implementation requirements apply to 

shared-use automated airport kiosks. 

Carriers that jointly own, lease, or 

control shared-use automated kiosks 

with the airport operator at a U.S. 

airport with 10,000 or more 

enplanements per year would be 

required to enter into and implement a 

written, signed agreement with the 

operator by 60 days after the effective 

date of the final rule. The agreement 

must allocate responsibility among the 

parties for ensuring that all new orders 

for shared-use automated airport kiosks 

initiated 60 days after the effective date 

of the final rule, including replacements 

for older installed models, meet the 

technical accessibility criteria set forth 

in this proposal. The agreement would 

also have to spell out the respective 

responsibilities of the parties for 

ensuring that the accessible shared-use 

automated airport kiosks are maintained 

in proper working condition until all 

shared-use automated kiosks at each 

airport location are accessible. The 

Department’s intention is to hold 

carriers and U.S. airport operators 

jointly and severally responsible for the 

timely and complete implementation of 

the agreement provisions. 

We are proposing to apply parallel 

requirements to U.S. airport operators 

receiving Federal financial assistance 

that jointly own, lease, or control 

shared-use automated airport kiosks 

with carriers by amending our 

regulation implementing section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in 49 CFR 

part 27. Provisions nearly identical to 

those we propose to apply under 14 CFR 

382.57 to carriers that jointly own, lease, 

or control shared-use automated kiosks 

with airport operators would also apply 

to those operators under proposed 

sections 49 CFR 27.71(j) and (k). The 

provisions applying to the carriers and 

the airport operators respectively would 

become effective at the same time to 

avoid any delays in implementing 

accessible shared-use automated kiosks. 

We estimate that under these proposed 

requirements travelers with disabilities 

will check-in using an accessible kiosk 

more than 12.4 million times in the first 

10 years after the effective date of the 

rule, resulting in time savings to them 

and reduced labor costs to airlines 

having a total monetized value of nearly 

$123 million. 

Since carriers and airport operators 

that own, lease, or control shared-use 

automated airport kiosks must comply 

with the applicable requirements under 

Part 382 and Part 27, respectively, the 

burden will be on them both to ensure 

that any outside vendors with whom 

they have contracts to supply shareduse automated airport kiosks provide 

accessible models in accordance with 

the rule’s provisions. 

Currently there is no ACAA-derived 

accessibility standard that applies to 

automated airport kiosks owned, leased, 

or controlled by carriers. Accessibility 

standards for ATMs and fare vending 

machines (Section 707 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards), which were adopted as part 

of the Department of Justice’s 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

title II and III regulations (28 CFR Parts 

35 and 36) in September 2010, do not 

cover automated airport kiosks. The 

Section 508 standard for self-contained, 

closed products (36 CFR 1194.25) 

adopted by the Access Board requires 

electronic information products used in 

or provided to the public by the Federal 

sector to be accessible, but also does not 

cover automated airport kiosks. 

In addition to proposing changes to 

the Section 508 standards and section 

255 guidelines for electronic and 

information technology on Web site 

accessibility, the ANPRM issued by the 

Access Board in March 2010, proposed 

to revise its ADA Accessibility 

Guidelines (ADAAG) to address, among 

other things, accessibility of self-service 

machines (kiosks) used for ticketing, 

check-in or check-out, seat selection, or 

boarding passes. See 75 FR 13457 

(March 22, 2010). The comment period 

closed on June 21, 2010; however, 

further revisions to the ADAAG are not 

expected to become final for several 

years and will not become enforceable 

thereafter until adopted by DOT and 

DOJ. In July 2010, DOJ also published 

an ANPRM seeking comment on 

revisions to the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations to 

ensure, among other things, the 

accessibility of electronic and 

information technology equipment and 

furniture such as kiosks, interactive 

transaction machines, point of sale 

devices and ATMs. See 75 FR 43452 

(July 26, 2010). The ANPRM comment 

period closed on January 24, 2011, but 

a final rule amending the DOJ 

regulations is unlikely to become 

effective for some time. The DOJ ADA 

rules would have some application to 

automated airport kiosks, (e.g., shareduse automated kiosks owned, leased, or 

controlled by publicly operated 

airports). 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59320 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Given the agencies’ separate 

rulemaking activities concerning selfservice transaction machines, the 

Access Board, the Department of Justice, 

and the Department of Transportation 

formed an informal interagency working 

group and began collaborating in 2010 

on the appropriate accessibility criteria 

for such machines generally, regardless 

of the type of services and information 

they are designed to provide to users. 

The accessibility standard proposed in 

this SNPRM for automated airport 

kiosks is based on DOJ’s 2010 ADA 

Standards applicable to ATMs and fare 

machines (section 707 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards) and on selected provisions 

from the current Section 508 standard 

for self-contained closed products (36 

CFR 1194.25). Collectively, these 

technical criteria address accessibility 

for individuals with visual, mobility, 

tactile, and hearing disabilities. For 

purposes of this SNPRM, proposed 

section 382.57(a) indicates how these 

common technical criteria generally 

apply in the airport environment. The 

accessibility standard in this proposed 

rule is intended to apply to automated 

airport kiosks with respect to their 

physical design and the functions they 

perform. Some common technical 

criteria included in the proposed 

standard do not presently apply to 

automated airport kiosks as they are 

currently configured, but may apply to 

them at some time in the future (e.g., 

criteria for biometric security features, 

captioning of multi-media content). We 

intend that those technical criteria 

addressing the accessibility of functions 

not currently available on automated 

airport kiosks will not apply until those 

functions are available on kiosks in the 

future. 

Request for Public Comment: The 

Department is seeking public comment 

on the following questions concerning 

factors affecting the costs and benefits of 

the proposed requirements. 

Applicability—The requirements for 

accessible automated airport kiosks are 

proposed to apply only at U.S. airports 

with 10,000 or more enplanements per 

year. To the extent that kiosks located 

at hotel lobbies and other non-airport 

venues in the U.S. are owned, leased, or 

controlled by carriers, DOT has 

authority under the ACAA to require the 

carriers to ensure that such kiosks be 

accessible. The Department recognizes 

that such venues may also be places of 

public accommodation to which DOJ 

regulations under title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

apply. As such, title III entities would 

have to ensure that self-service 

transaction machines located in their 

facilities (e.g., ATMs, information 

kiosks, airline check-in kiosks) also 

meet any technical and scoping 

requirements applicable under the ADA. 

(The 2010 DOJ ADA standards for new 

ATMs and fare machines become 

effective on March 15, 2012, and 

standards applicable to other selfservice transaction machines used in 

programs and services provided by 

public entities and public 

accommodations are being addressed in 

a DOJ rulemaking now in progress.) In 

instances where airline kiosks are 

located in the facility of a title III entity, 

the airline and title III entity would 

have to comply respectively with the 

ACAA rules applicable to automated 

kiosks and the DOJ ADA standards 

applicable to self-service transaction 

machines. In light of the overlapping 

scope of the ACAA and the ADA rules, 

should automated kiosks that are 

owned, leased, or controlled by carriers 

and perform functions similar to airport 

kiosks, but are located in non-airport 

venues (e.g., hotel lobbies), be covered 

in this rulemaking? 

Effective Date—Should the proposed 

time frame for accessible kiosks (i.e., 

kiosks ordered 60 days after the 

effective date of the rule) be reduced or 

increased assuming the rule is effective 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register? Is it reasonable to require that 

all new kiosk orders initiated after the 

effective date of the rule be for 

accessible models? Should there be a 

delay in the effective date of this 

provision? If so, what is a reasonable 

amount of time to delay the effective 

date of this provision? Should the 

effective date for carriers to enter into 

and implement agreements with airport 

operators concerning the provision and 

maintenance of accessible shared-use 

automated airport kiosks be more than 

60 days after the final rule’s effective 

date? If so, what is a reasonable time to 

enter into such agreements and 

commence implementation? 

Alternatives—Should less than 100% 

of new automated airport kiosks ordered 

after the effective date of the rule be 

required to be accessible? If so, what is 

a reasonable percentage to be accessible 

at each airport location? If only some 

kiosks are accessible at each location, 

how would carriers ensure that the 

accessible kiosks are available to 

passengers with disabilities when 

needed? Would a phasing in period over 

10 years, gradually increasing the 

percentage of automated airport kiosks 

required to be accessible, meaningfully 

reduce the costs of implementing this 

requirement (e.g., 25% of new 

automated kiosks must be accessible 

within 3 years of the rule’s effective 

date, 50% within 5 years, 75% within 

7 years and 100% within 10 years)? 

Should existing automated airport 

kiosks be required to be retrofitted? 

What percentage or number of existing 

kiosks should we require to be 

retrofitted? How much time should be 

provided to carriers/airports to retrofit 

existing automated airport kiosks? What 

about automated airport kiosks 

currently in use that have inactive 

accessibility features (e.g., equipped 

with headset jack but lacks internal 

software to use this accessibility 

feature)? Should airlines be required to 

activate any dormant accessibility 

features on existing automated airport 

kiosks immediately upon the effective 

date of the rule or does the activation of 

such features require extensive 

programming? What would be the cost 

of activating dormant accessibility 

features on existing automated airport 

kiosks? What alternative requirements 

for automated airport kiosk accessibility 

might be proposed and what would be 

the associated benefits and costs for 

each? 

Costs and Benefits—Our preliminary 

regulatory evaluation estimates the net 

benefits of time saved by air travelers 

with disabilities and reduced labor costs 

to carriers from adoption of the 

proposed automated airport kiosk 

accessibility requirements at $70.4 

million at the 7 percent discount rate 

and $86.2 million at the 3 percent 

discount rate over the entire 10-year 

analysis period. This estimate assumes 

that an average of 1.2 million travelers 

with disabilities would be able to use 

accessible kiosks in each of the first 10 

years after the effective date of the rule 

(more than 12.4 million total), with a 

five-year phase-in period as accessible 

kiosks installations gradually increase. 

Quantitative estimates of the benefits 

to air travelers with disabilities who can 

use accessible automated kiosks were 

developed for the evaluation based on 

an average reduction of 13 minutes in 

check-in waiting times. The value of 

time saved using an accessible kiosk by 

a traveler with a disability was 

calculated by multiplying this average 

amount of time saved by the standard 

value of time for air travel passengers 

specified in the applicable FAA 

guidance ($28.60 per hour). See 

‘‘Preliminary Regulatory Analysis: 

ACAA SNPRM Accessible Kiosks and 

Web Sites,’’ July 29, 2011, p. 27. 

The preliminary regulatory analysis 

also assumes that carriers will 

experience a reduction in per-person 

check-in costs, as more persons with 

disabilities use accessible kiosks instead 

of requiring check-in assistance from 

agents. The value of the reduced 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59321 

assistance costs benefits were calculated 

using the average carrier savings per 

passenger when using an automated 

airport kiosk to check-in instead of 

going to the counter (estimated at $3.70 

per transaction in a recent trade 

publication), multiplied by the number 

of passengers with disabilities who are 

projected to use accessible kiosks. See 

‘‘Preliminary Regulatory Analysis: 

ACAA SNPRM Accessible Kiosks and 

Web Sites,’’ July 29, 2011, p. 27. 

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. The preliminary regulatory 

analysis estimates that these 

modifications would add $750 to the 

cost of each new kiosk installed at a 

new location or replacing an existing 

older model, with the variable costs for 

kiosk hardware modifications (e.g., 

keypads, audio output jacks) 

representing no more than 10 to 20 

percent of this amount. Total 

compliance costs were estimated at 

$21,375,000 based on a $750 cost 

increase per accessible unit and the 

number of newly added and 

replacement kiosks (28,500) projected to 

be installed during the 10-year analysis 

period See ‘‘Preliminary Regulatory 

Analysis: ACAA SNPRM Accessible 

Kiosks and Web Sites,’’ July 29, 2011, p. 

30–31. Costs associated with the kiosk 

accessibility requirements are not 

expected to accrue until six months 

after the effective date of the rule when 

the initial deliveries of accessible kiosks 

ordered 60 days after the rule’s effective 

date would take place. 

In light of the above, the Department 

seeks additional information and 

comment from the public in response to 

the following questions. What would be 

the average amount of time a passenger 

with a disability would save by using an 

accessible automated airport kiosk? 

Would the amount of time saved vary by 

airport and what airport-specific factors 

could affect the amount of time saved? 

What would be the estimated impact on 

average wait times for an accessible 

automated kiosk at airport locations 

where only 25% are accessible as 

compared to locations where 100% are 

accessible? Would the wait time for a 

passenger with a disability to use an 

accessible automated kiosk be less if 

such passengers were given priority 

access to such kiosks in airport 

locations where less than 100% of the 

automated kiosks are accessible? If such 

passengers are not given priority access 

to accessible automated kiosks, how 

much longer would their wait time be 

versus non-disabled passengers who can 

use any available machine? What factors 

have the greatest impact on wait time 

for an automated airport kiosk (e.g., 

number of flights scheduled for 

departure, distance of the flight, 

destination of the flight, time between 

scheduled departures, number of 

passengers per flight, etc.)? 

What percentage of persons with a 

disability who cannot use an 

inaccessible automated airport kiosk 

would use an accessible one if 

available? Do passengers with 

disabilities prefer to check-in online at 

home to using an automated airport 

check-in kiosk? Is there a quantifiable 

benefit associated with reduced risk in 

having to provide sensitive personal 

information to strangers in order to 

receive assistance at an inaccessible 

kiosk? Is there a quantifiable benefit 

associated with reduced risk of legal 

action related to kiosk inaccessibility? 

What cost savings can be expected 

from the reduction in resources carriers 

will have to allocate to provide 

equivalent alternative service to 

passengers with disabilities who cannot 

use a carrier’s inaccessible kiosk at an 

airport location (e.g., assisting 

passengers at the ticket counter or at an 

inaccessible kiosk versus directing 

passengers to the carrier’s accessible 

automated kiosk at that airport 

location)? What is the cost impact of 

requiring carriers to provide equivalent 

service to passengers who cannot use an 

accessible kiosk due to their disability at 

airport locations where all automated 

kiosks are accessible? 

Would a requirement for accessible 

automated airport kiosks have a 

significant impact on the cost, 

inventory, or delivery of such kiosks, 

and if so, for how long? Can 

manufacturers of accessible automated 

airport kiosks meet the market demand 

if 100% of new kiosks ordered starting 

60 days after the final rule’s effective 

date be accessible? If not, up to what 

percentage of new automated airport 

kiosks could the Department require to 

be accessible (e.g., 50% or 75%) before 

the demand would exceed what the 

manufacturers could meet? How often 

are automated airport kiosks replaced 

typically? How many manufacturers 

currently make automated airport 

kiosks? How many manufacturers 

currently make accessible automated 

airport kiosks? How many 

manufacturers that make inaccessible 

automated airport kiosks are capable of 

making an accessible model? How much 

lead-time does a company that 

manufactures inaccessible automated 

airport kiosks need to develop and start 

manufacturing an accessible model as 

proposed in this SNPRM? What is the 

size of companies that manufacture 

automated airport kiosks? How many 

manufacturers of automated airport 

kiosks are small businesses? Do these 

smaller companies manufacture 

products other than automated airport 

kiosks? Do smaller companies have the 

capital and technology available to 

make accessible automated airport 

kiosks? Would smaller companies be 

able to handle the market demand for 

accessible automated airport kiosks 

resulting from this rule or might cost or 

other reasons delay the manufacturing 

technology for such kiosks causing these 

companies to be pushed out of the 

market? What is the cost difference 

between manufacturing a new 

automated airport kiosk that meets 

accessibility standards and one that 

does not? What is the cost of retrofitting 

an existing kiosk to meet accessibility 

standards versus manufacturing a new 

accessible kiosk? What are the costs of 

developing accessible carrier software 

applications that are capable of running 

on proprietary or shared-use kiosks that 

have accessible hardware features? 

Are there significantly greater 

quantitative and qualitative benefits and 

lower costs associated with requiring 

carriers to ensure that only 50% versus 

100% of the automated airport kiosks 

are accessible? Do airlines anticipate an 

increase in the number of automated 

airport kiosks used for check-in and 

other services? If so, what would be the 

percentage of increase in the number of 

automated airport kiosks and what 

additional types of services are 

anticipated and over what period of 

time? 

Shared-Use Automated Airport 

Kiosks—As discussed above, automated 

airport kiosks used by carriers may be 

either proprietary or shared-use. Is the 

term ‘‘shared-use automated airport 

kiosk’’ adequately described in the rule 

text? What are the most common kiosk 

ownership arrangements at airports? 

What is the current number of 

automated check-in kiosks that are 

proprietary, that are jointly owned, 

leased, or controlled with airports, and 

that are jointly owned, leased, or 

controlled by carriers only? Who 

typically is responsible for the purchase, 

operation, and maintenance of shareduse automated kiosks at airports? What 

are the procurement and maintenance 

costs incurred by carriers for proprietary 

automated airport kiosks? What are the 

procurement and maintenance costs 

incurred by carriers that provide the 

shared-use automated kiosk hardware at 

an airport? What are the procurement 

and maintenance costs incurred by 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59322 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

carriers that collaborate with shared-use 

automated airport kiosks using 

compatible software and data sets? What 

are the procurement and maintenance 

costs incurred by airports for shared-use 

automated kiosks? Carriers and airport 

operators would be jointly and severally 

responsible for ensuring that new orders 

for automated shared-use kiosks 

initiated 60 days after the rule’s 

effective date are for accessible units 

and that the automated kiosks are 

maintained in proper working 

condition. Are there potential 

difficulties associated with meeting this 

requirement given that responsibility for 

the hardware and middleware 

components of shared-use automated 

kiosks generally falls to airports and the 

responsibility for compatible software 

applications and data sets to carriers? If 

a single carrier is the provider of shareduse automated kiosks at a given airport, 

is a written agreement needed between 

the provider carrier and the 

collaborating carriers concerning the 

accessibility and maintenance of the 

kiosks? If so, would additional time be 

needed after the rule’s effective date for 

carriers to enter into such a written 

agreement? We understand that some 

shared-use automated airport kiosks are 

owned neither by the airport nor a 

carrier, but by an outside service 

provider. It is our intention that carriers 

and airports ensure that their orders 

initiated 60 days after the effective date 

of the rule for automated airport kiosks 

to be supplied by such service providers 

are for accessible models. 

Technical Criteria—As discussed 

above, the proposed accessibility 

standard for automated airport kiosks is 

based on the technical specifications in 

Section 707 of the 2010 ADA Standards 

that apply to fare machines and ATMs. 

It also includes certain specifications 

from the Section 508 standard for selfcontained closed products (36 CFR 

1194.25). We propose to apply this 

accessibility standard to automated 

airport kiosks with respect to their 

physical design and the functions they 

perform. Is the term ‘‘automated airport 

kiosk’’ adequately described in the rule 

text? What functions other than those 

described in the rule text and the 

preamble are presently performed by 

automated airport kiosks? Are there any 

other accessible features not covered by 

the proposed standard that should be 

included? 

1. Use of Assistive Technology 

The standard would require that 

automated airport kiosks be accessible 

to those with visual impairments 

without attaching assistive technologies 

other than a personal headset or audio 

loop. A telephone handset or an 

industry standard connector would be 

provided so that users with visual 

impairments can attach personal 

headsets or use a handset to listen to the 

speech output during a transaction 

while maintaining their privacy. What 

are the costs associated with providing 

a handset or industry standard 

connector on the kiosk? Is technology 

available that would allow people with 

disabilities to use wireless technology 

such as mobile phones and Bluetooth at 

an automated airport kiosk in lieu of 

requiring the kiosk itself to have a 

handset or headset connector? If so, 

should we require that automated 

airport kiosks use such technology? 

2. Operable Parts 

We propose to require that the 

operable parts on new automated airport 

kiosks be tactilely discernable by users 

to avoid unintentional activation and 

request comment regarding the cost of 

meeting the requirement. This 

specification is based on the current 

Section 508 standard 36 CFR 1194.25(c) 

and 1123.23(k). We are also proposing 

that where a timed response is required, 

the automated airport kiosks alert the 

user by sound or touch and give the user 

an opportunity to indicate that more 

time is needed. We ask for comment on 

whether timeouts present barriers to 

using automated airport kiosks and on 

the cost or potential difficulties 

associated with meeting this 

requirement. 

3. Outputs 

Speech outputs will be required to be 

coordinated with the information on the 

visual display so that users with low 

vision or cognitive disabilities may 

benefit from using the display along 

with the speech. Regarding the 

exceptions and the advisory listed 

under proposed section 

382.57(c)(5)(i)(2) ‘‘Receipts, Tickets, and 

Transaction Outputs,’’ are there any 

other types of information that should 

be required on the printed output other 

than the types listed in the advisory or 

that may be excluded from the required 

printed output listed in the exceptions? 

Should speech output be required 

through either a handset, standard 

connector headset, or an audio loop? 

Are considerations for speech output 

other than those defined in proposed 

section 382.57(c)(5)(i) needed? What 

about requiring volume control for the 

automated airport kiosk’s speaker only, 

without requiring any other mode of 

voice output? What about privacy 

concerns under such an arrangement? 

What are the costs/benefits of requiring 

a speaker only, without handset and 

headset output capabilities? 

4. Volume Control 

If both volume control and the ability 

to use a personal audio loop are 

mandated accessibility features, can the 

same industry-standard connector be 

used for both speech navigation and the 

automated airport kiosk’s audio output? 

If so, how would users select the 

function that meets their particular 

disability-related needs? Would volume 

controls similar to those provided in 

speech-enabled ATMs be useful in the 

airport environment? Should the dB 

amplification gain associated with the 

volume control for private listening be 

specified? Is incremental volume 

control up to an output amplification of 

at least 65 dB sufficient for voice output 

in public areas? When ambient noise at 

the airport is above 45 dB, is a selectable 

volume gain up to 20 dB sufficient? 

Should the same decibel gains apply to 

outputs delivered both in public areas 

and through assistive listening headsets 

or should different amplification gains 

apply to each output type? If volume 

control is required, are the specified dB 

gains appropriate to address the needs 

of individuals who are hard of hearing? 

See proposed section 382.57 (c)(5)(ii)2). 

5. Captioning 

For automated airport kiosks having 

certain multi-media content, captioning 

would be required. See (c)(5)(iii). This 

proposed requirement is based on the 

Section 508 standard for video and 

multi-media products. See 36 CFR 

1194.24(c). 

6. Input Controls 

Software applications are now 

available to give individuals who are 

blind access to touch screen-based 

technology, including entering and 

reviewing text via a touch screen. As a 

result, certain touch screen devices (e.g., 

recent versions of Apple’s iPhone, iPod 

Touch, and iPad; mobile devices with 

Google’s Android platform; etc.) are 

becoming very popular with consumers 

who are blind. These devices are 

equipped with a screen-reading 

technology that uses built-in voiceover 

software and a touch-sensitive track pad 

to give the user a spoken description of 

what is on the display screen as he/she 

drags a finger over the track pad. The 

location of a verbal descriptor on the 

track pad corresponds to its location on 

the display screen. Should the 

requirement that input controls be 

tactilely discernable be revised to allow 

for input methods similar to the Apple 

devices? Are most users who are blind 

or who have low vision familiar with 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59323 

how to use such touch screens? 

Proposed section 382.57 (c)(6)(ii) 

specifies an arrangement of the numeric 

keypad which typically is provided at 

ATMs. How should symbols be 

indicated on a numeric input keypad? 

Automated airport kiosks generally 

provide a touch screen keyboard or 

sometimes a physical alphabetic 

keyboard. When either a virtual 

alphabetic or a physical keyboard is 

provided, should the arrangement of the 

keys be specified? Are the function keys 

specified in proposed section 382.57 

(c)(6)(iii) sufficient to address the types 

of functions typically available on 

automated airport kiosks? Besides the 

keypad functions and corresponding 

tactile symbols indicated in proposed 

section 382.57 (c)(6)(iii)(2), what other 

function keys are needed and what 

tactile symbols should identify them? 

Should the status of all locking or toggle 

controls be required to be visually 

discernable and discernable through 

either touch or sound? 

7. Biometric Systems 

Where automated airport kiosks 

employ biometrics as a means of user 

identification, we are including a 

requirement in proposed section 382.57 

(c)(9) that at least two options using 

different biological characteristics be 

available. This will ensure that where 

finger print identification is used, for 

example, a person without arms can still 

use an alternate biometric method (e.g., 

iris scanner) provided by the kiosk. We 

are requesting comment on the 

importance of this provision and the 

costs associated with implementing it. 

Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

A. Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review), 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This action has been determined to be 

significant under Executive Order 12866 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It 

has been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget in accordance 

with Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) and 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) and 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and is consistent 

with the requirements in both orders. 

Among other things, Executive Order 

13563 directs agencies to use the best 

possible techniques to quantify 

anticipated present and future benefits 

and costs as accurately as possible. 

Where appropriate and permitted by 

law, agencies may consider values that 

are difficult or impossible to quantify, 

including equity, human dignity, and 

fairness. In developing this proposed 

rule, the Department has sought to use 

the best possible techniques to quantify 

the benefits and costs. 

We have produced a preliminary 

regulatory evaluation addressing the 

economic impact the proposed 

requirements in this SNPRM would 

impose on U.S. and foreign air carriers 

covered by the ACAA rule, as well as on 

their agents. We recognize that 

compliance with the accessibility 

standards for Web sites and automated 

airport kiosks set forth in this SNPRM 

will incur both implementation and 

ongoing operational costs, as well as 

potentially lead to the expanded 

customer bases and reduced customer 

service personnel costs for carriers. Our 

preliminary regulatory evaluation 

estimates benefits and costs over the 10- 

year period starting 6 months after the 

effective date of the rule, because no 

Web site benefits (and no kiosk benefits 

or costs) will accrue until 6 months after 

the effective date of the rule. Some 

carriers may need to incur costs to 

comply with the proposed Web sites 

accessibility requirements starting as 

early as 6 months before the 10-year 

analysis period begins. These ‘‘Year 0’’ 

compliance costs have been included in 

the 10-year estimates of benefits and 

costs. 

We estimate the expected present 

value (PV) of the benefits of the 

proposed automated airport kiosk 

accessibility requirements at $86.2 

million over the 10-year analysis period, 

using a 7 percent discount rate and 

$104.8 million, using a 3 per cent rate. 

The expected PV of compliance costs 

incurred by carriers and airports over 

the same period to meet these proposed 

requirements is $15.8 million, 

discounted at 7 percent and $18.6 

million, discounted at 3 per cent. The 

expected PV of net benefits for these 

proposed requirements over the 10-year 

analysis period, therefore, is estimated 

at $70.4 million using the 7 percent 

discount rate and $86.2 million using a 

3 percent discount rate. 

With respect to the proposed 

requirements to ensure air travel Web 

site accessibility, our preliminary 

regulatory evaluation estimates the 

expected PV of the benefits at $122.1 

million over the 10-year analysis period, 

discounted at 7 percent and $147.3 

million, discounted at 3 per cent. The 

expected PV of costs incurred by 

carriers and airports to comply with 

these proposed requirements over the 

same period is estimated to be $66.8 

million, discounted at 7 percent and 

$72.6 million, discounted at 3 per cent. 

The expected PV of net benefits to 

accrue from the proposed Web site 

accessibility requirements over the 10- 

year analysis period, therefore, is 

estimated at $55.3 million, using a 7 

percent discount rate and $74.7 million, 

using a 3 percent discount rate. 

We believe this rule would have 

important benefits in support of values 

that are difficult to monetize or 

quantify, including independence and 

promoting a more inclusive society. We 

have carefully considered these values 

in developing this SNPRM. The benefits 

we seek to achieve include greater 

access for individuals with disabilities 

to conveniences and services offered to 

the general public that currently either 

are not available to them or are not 

independently accessible by them. The 

value of time spent comfortably using 

accessible Web sites and automated 

airport kiosks, as well as the value of 

avoiding time spent struggling with or 

seeking assistance in using inaccessible 

technologies, are benefits in addition to 

the conventional measurement of time 

saved by the use of accessible 

technologies. (Lewis, D., & Suen, S. L., 

& Federing, D. (2010). Countering the 

economic threat to sustainable 

accessibility. Paper presented at the 

12th International Conference on 

mobility and transport for elderly and 

disabled persons (TRANSED 2010) held 

in Hong Kong on 2–4 June 2010.) This 

rulemaking affirms the human dignity of 

individuals with disabilities by 

affording them greater independence 

overall in accessing air travel. In 

keeping with the guidelines in 

Executive Order 12866 as amended, we 

believe that enhanced independence is 

a viable consideration in assessing the 

benefits of these proposed measures. We 

further believe that these measures 

requiring Web site and automated 

airport kiosk accessibility may 

eventually lead to the permanent 

removal of existing access barriers for 

people with disabilities to use these 

services and eliminate the costs 

associated with providing alternative 

forms of assistance to compensate for 

the widespread inaccessibility of these 

technologies. These are important 

factors to consider in estimating the 

benefits we expect would be achieved 

by ensuring that airline Web sites and 

automated kiosks at airports conform to 

the applicable accessibility standards. 

The Department seeks comment on the 

Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, its 

approach, and the accuracy of its 

estimates of costs and benefits. A copy 

of the Preliminary Regulatory 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59324 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Evaluation has been placed in the 

docket. 

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

has been analyzed in accordance with 

the principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). 

This proposed rule does not propose 

any regulation that has substantial 

direct effects on the States, the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. It does not 

propose any regulation that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

State and local governments. It does not 

propose any regulation that preempts 

state law, because states are already 

preempted from regulating in this area 

under the ACAA and the Airline 

Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. 

Therefore, the consultation and funding 

requirements of Executive Order 13132 

do not apply. 

C. Executive Order 13175 

This proposed rule has been analyzed 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because none of the proposals on which 

we are seeking comment would 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on them, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to 

review regulations to assess their impact 

on small entities unless the agency 

determines that a rule is not expected to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The regulatory initiatives discussed in 

this SNPRM would have some impact 

on small carriers and some indirect 

impact on small ticket agents. However, 

based on our small entity economic 

evaluation, I certify that they would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We invite comment to facilitate our 

assessment of the potential impact of 

these initiatives on small entities. 

This SNPRM would require small 

U.S. carriers that own, lease, or operate 

proprietary or shared-use automated 

kiosks at U.S. airports with 10,000 or 

more annual enplanements to begin 

ordering and installing accessible 

models when adding or replacing 

automated kiosks in the normal course 

of business operations. The same 

requirement would apply to operators of 

airports with 10,000 or more annual 

enplanements that own, lease, or 

operate shared-use automated kiosks. 

Based on our preliminary research, 

however, it appears that no small 

airports or small U.S. carriers own, 

lease, or operate shared-use automated 

kiosks, and that no small U.S. carriers 

own, lease, or operate proprietary 

automated airport kiosks at covered U.S. 

airports. At this time, therefore, it 

appears that neither small airports nor 

small carriers would incur any costs 

associated with the kiosk requirements. 

We are seeking public comment on 

these findings. 

There are 50 U.S. carriers meeting the 

DOT definition of ‘‘small carrier’’ that 

would have to comply with the 

proposed Web site accessibility 

requirements at a cost of $37,800 to 

$61,200 over the two-year 

implementation period, depending on 

the number of pages on the site. The 

annual revenues for these carriers 

appear to range from $10 million to over 

$100 million, indicating that the cost 

impact on small carriers would not be 

significant. Although the proposal 

would not require small ticket agents 

that sell air transportation to ensure that 

their Web sites are accessible, it would 

require carriers to ensure that their 

agents that are small business entities 

provide Web-based fares and other Webbased amenities to passengers who selfidentify as being unable to use the 

agents’ Web sites due to a disability. 

Carriers already must provide this 

service to passengers who cannot use 

their Web sites due to a disability under 

the current rule, but they would be 

required to ensure that their agents that 

are small business entities do so for the 

first time under the proposed rule. We 

anticipate that there will be some 

indirect compliance costs on 1,704 

small travel agencies and 384 small tour 

operators that have Web sites with 

online booking capability, and on as 

many as 9,921 small travel agencies and 

2,336 small tour operators without 

online sales capability that will have to 

make any discounted fares advertised 

on their Web sites and any other 

amenities that may be offered on these 

Web sites available upon request to 

passengers who are unable to use the 

agents’ Web sites due to their 

disabilities. Our research indicates that 

about 90% of these small entities 

employ less than ten people, and 80% 

employ less than five. Given that the 

requirement would rely largely on 

existing employee skills to find and 

book Web-based discount fares and 

amenities, and considering the small 

number of employees in the majority of 

these businesses, we believe the 

economic impact on most covered 

entities to implement the requirements 

would not be significant. We also 

request public comment on the cost 

impact of this proposed requirement. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This SNPRM proposes a new 

collection of information that would 

require approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, 49 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

before an agency submits a proposed 

collection of information to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

approval, it must publish a document in 

the Federal Register providing notice of 

and a 60-day comment period on the 

proposed collection of information. This 

SNPRM proposes to require airlines and 

U.S. airport operators to enter into 

agreements outlining their joint 

responsibilities for implementing the 

accessibility requirements for shareduse automated kiosks. These agreements 

will help ensure that the accessibility 

requirements for shared-use automated 

airport kiosks are effectively 

implemented by the parties at each U.S. 

airport and provide information to assist 

the Department in assessing carrier 

compliance with these requirements. 

The Department intends to publish a 

separate notice in the Federal Register 

inviting OMB, the general public, and 

other Federal agencies to comment on 

this new information collection 

requirement. As prescribed by the PRA, 

the requirements will not go into effect 

until OMB has approved them and the 

Department has published a notice 

announcing the effective date of the 

information collection requirement. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Department has determined that 

the requirements of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995, which does not apply to 

nondiscrimination civil rights 

requirements, do not apply to this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 382 

Air carriers, Civil rights, Individuals 

with disabilities, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

49 CFR Part 27 

Airports, Civil rights, Individuals 

with disabilities, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59325 

Issued this 15th day of September, 2011, at 

Washington, DC. 

Raymond H. LaHood, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 382 and 49 CFR part 

27 as follows: 

TITLE 14—AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 

PART 382—NONDISCRIMINATION ON 

THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR 

TRAVEL 

1. The authority citation for Part 382 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41702, 41705, 41712, 

and 41310. 

2. Section 382.3 is amended by 

adding definitions for ‘‘automated 

airport kiosk’’, ‘‘flight-related services’’ 

and ‘‘shared-use automated airport 

kiosk’’ In alphabetical order to read as 

follows: 

§ 382.3 What do the terms in this rule 

mean? 

* * * * * 

Automated airport kiosk means a selfservice 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. 

* * * * * 

Flight-related services mean functions 

related to air travel including, but not 

limited to, ticket purchase, rebooking 

cancelled flights, seat selection, and 

obtaining boarding passes or bag tags. 

* * * * * 

Shared-use automated airport kiosk 

means a self-service transaction 

machine provided by an airport, a 

carrier, or an independent service 

provider with which any carrier having 

a compliant data set can collaborate to 

enable its customers to independently 

access the flight-related services it 

offers. 

* * * * * 

§ 382.31 [Amended] 

3. Section 382.31(c) is removed. 

4. Section 382.43 is amended by 

revising the section heading and adding 

paragraphs (c) through (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 382.43 Must information and reservation 

services of carriers be accessible to 

individuals with visual, hearing, and other 

disabilities? 

* * * * * 

(c) 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. Covered 

Web pages and Web sites must conform 

to all Level A and Level AA Success 

Criteria and all Conformance 

Requirements from the World Wide 

Web Consortium (W3C) 

Recommendation 11 December 2008, 

Web site Content Accessibility 

Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this 

section: 

(1) A new or completely redesigned 

primary Web site placed online on or 

after [insert date 180 days from the 

effective date of the final rule] shall be 

conformant. A complete redesign means 

technical changes affecting a substantial 

portion of the site such as its visual 

design (the site’s ‘‘look and feel’’), 

upgrading the site to ensure its overall 

compliance with technical standards, or 

reorganizing the site’s information 

architecture. Updating the information 

content of one or more Web pages alone 

would not constitute a Web site 

redesign. 

(2) Web pages on an existing Web site 

associated with obtaining the following 

services and information shall either be 

directly conformant on your primary 

Web site or have accessible links from 

the non-conforming pages on your 

primary Web site to corresponding 

pages on your mobile Web site that are 

conformant by [insert date one year 

from the effective date of the final rule]: 

(i) Booking or changing a reservation; 

(ii) Checking-in for a flight; 

(iii) Accessing a personal travel 

itinerary; 

(iv) Accessing the status of a flight; 

(v) Accessing a personal frequent flyer 

account; 

(vi) Accessing flight schedules; and 

(vii) Accessing carrier contact 

information. 

(3) All covered Web pages on your 

primary Web site, including those made 

conformant during the second phase by 

a link to a conformant page on your 

mobile Web site, shall be conformant by 

[insert date two years from the effective 

date of this rule]. 

(d) As a carrier, when marketing your 

airline tickets on the Web site of a ticket 

agent whose annual receipts exceed the 

maximum established in 13 CFR 

121.201, you must ensure that the Web 

pages on which such tickets are 

marketed conform to all WCAG 2.0 

Level A and Level AA Success Criteria 

and all Conformance Requirements by 

[insert date two years from the effective 

date of the final rule]. You are not 

required to apply this requirement with 

respect to ticket agents whose annual 

receipts do not exceed the maximum 

established in 13 CFR 121.201; however, 

you must ensure that Web-based fare 

discounts and other Web-based 

amenities provided to customers by 

such agents on your behalf are made 

available to a person with a disability 

who indicates that he or she cannot use 

the agents’ Web sites and who 

purchases a ticket using another 

method. 

(e) As a carrier, until your Web sites 

are fully accessible in accordance with 

the requirements of this section, you 

must assist a prospective passenger who 

contacts you through another channel 

(e.g., telephone or walk-in) and 

indicates that he or she is unable to use 

your inaccessible Web site due to a 

disability as follows: 

(1) Disclose Web-based discount fares, 

if his or her itinerary qualifies for the 

discounted fare. 

(2) Waive any applicable fee to make 

a reservation or purchase a ticket using 

a method other than your Web site (e.g., 

by phone). 

(f) As a carrier, you must assist a 

prospective passenger who indicates 

that he or she is unable to use your 

accessible Web site due to a disability 

and contacts you through another 

channel (e.g., telephone or walk-in) in 

accordance with paragraphs (e)(1) and 

(e)(2) of this section. 

5. Section 382.57 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 382.57 What accessibility requirements 

apply to automated airport kiosks? 

(a) As a carrier, you must ensure that 

the requirements set forth below are 

followed for any automated airport 

kiosk you own, lease, or control for 

which an order is initiated after [insert 

date 60 days after the effective date of 

the rule] for installation at a U.S. airport 

with 10,000 or more enplanements per 

year. 

(1) You shall ensure that all new 

orders for automated airport kiosks are 

for models that meet the design 

specifications set forth in paragraph (c) 

of this section. You are not required to 

retrofit existing kiosks. 

(2) Until all automated airport kiosks 

you own, lease, or control at an airport 

location meet the design specifications 

in paragraph (c) of this section, you 

must ensure that each such kiosk you 

order is: 

(i) Visually and tactilely identifiable 

to users as accessible (e.g., a raised 

ADA-compliant international symbol of 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59326 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

accessibility affixed to the front of the 

device). 

(ii) Maintained in proper working 

condition. 

(b) As a carrier, you must ensure that 

the requirements set forth below are 

followed for any shared-use automated 

airport kiosk you jointly own, lease, or 

control with the airport operator for 

which an order is initiated after [insert 

date 60 days after the effective date of 

the rule] for installation at a U.S. airport 

with 10,000 or more enplanements per 

year. 

(1) By [insert 60 days after the 

effective date of the rule], you must 

have a written, signed agreement with 

the airport operator allocating 

responsibility for ensuring that the 

shared-use automated airport kiosks 

meet the design specifications set forth 

in paragraph (c) in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) 

through (3) of this section. Carriers and 

airport operators are jointly and 

severally responsible for the timely and 

complete implementation of the 

agreement provisions. 

(2) You shall ensure that all new 

orders for shared-use automated airport 

kiosks are for models that meet the 

design specifications set forth in 

paragraph (c) of this section. You are not 

required to retrofit existing kiosks. 

(3) Until all shared-use automated 

airport kiosks meet the design 

specifications in paragraph (c) of this 

section, you must ensure that each such 

kiosk you order is: 

(i) Visually and tactilely identifiable 

to users as accessible (e.g., a raised 

ADA-compliant international symbol of 

accessibility affixed to the front of the 

device). 

(ii) Maintained in proper working 

condition. 

(c) You must ensure that the 

automated airport kiosks provided in 

accordance with this section conform to 

the following technical accessibility 

standards with respect to their physical 

design and the functions they perform: 

(1) Self Contained. Except for 

personal headsets and audio loops, 

automated kiosks shall be operable 

without requiring the user to attach 

assistive technology. 

(2) Clear Floor or Ground Space. A 

clear floor or ground space complying 

with 36 CFR Part 1191, appendix D, 

section 305 of the U.S. Department of 

Justice’s 2010 ADA Standards for 

Accessible Design shall be provided. 

(3) Operable Parts. Operable parts 

shall comply with subsection (c)(3) and 

36 CFR Part 1191, appendix D, section 

309 of the 2010 ADA Standards. 

(i) Identification. Operable parts shall 

be tactilely discernible without 

activation. 

(ii) Timing. Where a timed response is 

required, the user shall be alerted by 

touch or sound and shall be given the 

opportunity to indicate that more time 

is required. 

(iii) Status Indicators. Status 

indicators, including all locking or 

toggle controls or keys, shall be 

discernible either through touch or 

sound. 

(iv) Color. Color coding shall not be 

used as the only means of conveying 

information, indicating an action, 

prompting a response, or distinguishing 

a visual element. 

(4) Privacy. Automated airport kiosks 

shall provide the opportunity for the 

same degree of privacy of input and 

output available to all individuals. 

(5) Output. Automated airport kiosks 

shall comply with this paragraph (c)(5). 

(i) Speech Enabled. 

(A) Automated airport kiosks shall be 

speech enabled. Operating instructions 

and orientation, visible transaction 

prompts, user input verification, error 

messages, and all displayed information 

for full use shall be accessible to and 

independently usable by individuals 

with vision impairments. Speech shall 

be delivered through a mechanism that 

is readily available to all users, 

including but not limited to, an industry 

standard connector or a telephone 

handset. Speech shall be recorded or 

digitized human, or synthesized. Speech 

shall be coordinated with information 

displayed on the screen. 

(B) Audible tones shall be permitted 

instead of speech for visible output that 

is not displayed for security purposes, 

including but not limited to, asterisks 

representing personal identification 

numbers. 

(C) Advertisements and other similar 

information shall not be required to be 

audible unless they convey information 

that can be used in the transaction being 

conducted. 

(D) Speech for any single function 

shall be automatically interrupted when 

a transaction is selected. Speech shall be 

capable of being repeated and paused. 

(E) Where receipts, tickets, or other 

outputs are provided as a result of a 

transaction, speech output shall include 

all information necessary to complete or 

verify the transaction, except that: 

(1) Automated airport kiosk location, 

date and time of transaction, customer 

account numbers, and the kiosk 

identifier shall not be required to be 

audible. 

(2) Information that duplicates 

information available on-screen and 

already presented audibly shall not be 

required to be repeated. 

(3) Printed copies of a carrier’s 

contract of carriage, applicable fare 

rules, itineraries and other similar 

supplemental information that may be 

included with a boarding pass shall not 

be required to be audible. 

(F) The information necessary to 

complete or verify a transaction 

depends on the nature of the transaction 

and the automated kiosk type. Where 

automated kiosks provide boarding 

passes and other similar transactional 

outputs, information such as concourse, 

gate number, seat number, and boarding 

group is necessary to complete and 

verify a transaction. 

(G) Receipts, tickets, and similar 

transactional output usually are printed, 

but this is not always the case. For 

example, a boarding pass might be 

transferred to a smart phone or personal 

digital assistant. Regardless of the 

delivery method, the automated kiosk 

must convey to the user the information 

provided in receipts, tickets and other 

similar transactional outputs that is 

necessary to complete and verify a 

transaction. 

(ii) Volume Control. Automated 

kiosks shall provide volume control 

complying with paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A) 

and (B) of this section. 

(A) Private Listening. Where speech 

required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this 

section is delivered through a 

mechanism for private listening, the 

automated kiosk shall provide a means 

for controlling the volume. 

(B) Speaker Volume. Where sound is 

delivered through speakers on the 

automated kiosk, incremental volume 

control shall be provided with output 

amplification up to a level of at least 65 

dB SPL. Where the ambient noise level 

of the environment is above 45 dB SPL, 

a volume gain of at least 20 dB above 

the ambient level shall be user 

selectable. A function shall be provided 

to automatically reset the volume to the 

default level after every use. 

(iii) Captioning. Multimedia content 

that contains speech or other audio 

information necessary for the 

comprehension of the content shall be 

open or closed captioned. 

Advertisements and other similar 

information shall not be required to be 

captioned unless they convey 

information that can be used in the 

transaction being conducted. 

(iv) Tickets and Boarding Passes. 

Where tickets or boarding passes are 

provided, tickets and boarding passes 

shall have an orientation that is tactilely 

discernable if orientation is important to 

further use of the ticket or boarding 

pass. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59327 

(6) Input. Input devices shall comply 

with paragraphs (c)(6)(i) through 

(c)(6)(iii) of this section. 

(i) Input Controls. At least one 

tactilely discernible input control shall 

be provided for each function. Where 

provided, key surfaces not on active 

areas of display screens shall be raised 

above surrounding surfaces. Where 

touch or membrane keys are the only 

method of input, each shall be tactilely 

discernible from surrounding surfaces 

and adjacent keys. 

(ii) Numeric Keys. Numeric keys shall 

be arranged in a 12-key ascending or 

descending telephone keypad layout. 

The number five key shall be tactilely 

distinct from the other keys. 

(iii) Function Keys. Function keys 

shall comply with paragraphs 

(c)(6)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. 

(A) Contrast. Function keys shall 

contrast visually from background 

surfaces. Characters and symbols on key 

surfaces shall contrast visually from key 

surfaces. Visual contrast shall be either 

light-on-dark or dark-on-light. However, 

tactile symbols required by paragraph 

(c)(6)(iii)(B) shall not be required to 

comply with paragraph (c)(6)(iii)(A) of 

this section. 

(B) Tactile Symbols. Function key 

surfaces shall have tactile symbols as 

follows: Enter or Proceed key: raised 

circle; Clear or Correct key: raised left 

arrow; Cancel key: raised letter ex; Add 

Value key: raised plus sign; Decrease 

Value key: raised minus sign. 

(7) Display Screen. The display screen 

shall comply with paragraphs (c)(7)(i) 

and (c)(7)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Visibility. The display screen shall 

be visible from a point located 40 inches 

(1015 mm) above the center of the clear 

floor space in front of the automated 

kiosk. 

(ii) Characters. Characters displayed 

on the screen shall be in a sans serif 

font. Characters shall be 3/16 inch (4.8 

mm) high minimum based on the 

uppercase letter ‘‘I.’’ Characters shall 

contrast with their background with 

either light characters on a dark 

background or dark characters on a light 

background. 

(8) Braille Instructions. Braille 

instructions for initiating the speech 

mode shall be provided. Braille shall 

comply with 36 CFR part 1191, 

appendix D, section 703.3 of the 2010 

ADA Standards. 

(9) Biometrics. Biometrics shall not be 

the only means for user identification or 

control, except that where at least two 

biometric options that use different 

biological characteristics are provided, 

automated kiosks shall be permitted to 

use biometrics as the only means for 

user identification or control. 

(d) Until you have met the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b), 

and (c) of this section, you must provide 

equivalent service upon request to 

passengers with a disability who cannot 

readily use your automated airport 

kiosks (e.g., by directing a passenger 

who is blind to an accessible automated 

kiosk, assisting a passenger in using an 

inaccessible automated kiosk, or 

allowing the passenger to come to the 

front of the line at the check-in counter). 

(e) You must provide appropriate 

equivalent service as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section upon 

request to any passenger, who due to his 

or her disability, cannot readily use an 

accessible automated kiosk that you 

own, lease, or control at a U.S. airport. 

TITLE 49—TRANSPORATION 

PART 27—NONDISCRIMINATION ON 

THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN 

PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES 

RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL 

ASSISTANCE 

6. The authority citation for Part 27 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794); sec. 

16(a) and (d) of the Federal Transit Act of 

1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 5310(a) and (f); 

sec. 165(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act 

of 1973, as amended (23 U.S.C. 142 nt.). 

7. Section 27.71 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (j) and (k) as follows: 

§ 27.71 Airport facilities. 

* * * * * 

(j) Shared-use automated airport 

kiosks. This paragraph (j) applies to U.S. 

airports with 10,000 or more annual 

enplanements. 

(1) With respect to shared-use 

automated airport kiosks that are jointly 

owned, leased, or controlled with 

carriers, the airport operator must 

ensure that all automated kiosks 

installed at each airport location are 

accessible to passengers with 

disabilities by following the design 

specifications set forth in paragraph (k) 

of this section. 

(2) No later than [insert date 60 days 

after the effective date of the rule], the 

airport operator shall have a written, 

signed agreement with the carriers at 

that airport that are subject to 14 CFR 

382.57(b) allocating responsibility for 

ensuring that shared-use automated 

kiosks meet the design specifications set 

forth in paragraph (k) in accordance 

with the requirements of paragraphs 

(k)(1), (3), and (4) of this section. 

(i) The agreements must ensure that 

accessible shared-use automated airport 

kiosks are maintained in proper working 

condition until all automated kiosks 

installed at each airport location are 

accessible to passengers with 

disabilities. 

(ii) Airport operators and carriers are 

jointly and severally responsible for the 

timely and complete implementation of 

the agreement provisions. 

(3) Airport operators that jointly own, 

lease, or control automated airport 

kiosks with carriers shall ensure that all 

new orders for shared-use automated 

kiosks initiated [insert date 60 days after 

the effective date of the rule] meet the 

design specifications set forth in 

paragraph (k) of this section. There is no 

requirement to retrofit existing kiosks. 

(4) Until all automated airport kiosks 

meet the design specifications in 

paragraph (k), each shared-use 

automated kiosk that meets the design 

specifications in paragraph (k) of this 

section shall be visually and tactilely 

identifiable to users as accessible (e.g., 

a raised ADA-compliant international 

symbol of accessibility affixed to the 

front of the device). 

(k) Technical standards for shareduse automated kiosks. Shared-use 

automated airport kiosks provided in 

accordance with paragraph (j) of this 

section must conform to the following 

technical accessibility standards with 

respect to their physical design and the 

functions they perform: 

(1) Self Contained. Except for 

personal headsets and audio loops, 

automated kiosks shall be operable 

without requiring the user to attach 

assistive technology. 

(2) Clear Floor or Ground Space. A 

clear floor or ground space complying 

with 36 CFR Part 1191, appendix D, 

section 305 of the U.S. Department of 

Justice’s 2010 ADA Standards for 

Accessible Design shall be provided. 

(3) Operable Parts. Operable parts 

shall comply with subsection (c)(3) and 

36 CFR Part 1191, appendix D, section 

309 of the 2010 ADA Standards. 

(i) Identification. Operable parts shall 

be tactilely discernible without 

activation. 

(ii) Timing. Where a timed response is 

required, the user shall be alerted by 

touch or sound and shall be given the 

opportunity to indicate that more time 

is required. 

(iii) Status Indicators. Status 

indicators, including all locking or 

toggle controls or keys, shall be 

discernible either through touch or 

sound. 

(iv) Color. Color coding shall not be 

used as the only means of conveying 

information, indicating an action, 

prompting a response, or distinguishing 

a visual element. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59328 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(4) Privacy. Automated airport kiosks 

shall provide the opportunity for the 

same degree of privacy of input and 

output available to all individuals. 

(5) Output. Automated airport kiosks 

shall comply with this paragraph (k)(5). 

(i) Speech Enabled. 

(A) Automated airport kiosks shall be 

speech enabled. Operating instructions 

and orientation, visible transaction 

prompts, user input verification, error 

messages, and all displayed information 

for full use shall be accessible to and 

independently usable by individuals 

with vision impairments. Speech shall 

be delivered through a mechanism that 

is readily available to all users, 

including but not limited to, an industry 

standard connector or a telephone 

handset. Speech shall be recorded or 

digitized human, or synthesized. Speech 

shall be coordinated with information 

displayed on the screen. 

(B) Audible tones shall be permitted 

instead of speech for visible output that 

is not displayed for security purposes, 

including but not limited to, asterisks 

representing personal identification 

numbers. 

(C) Advertisements and other similar 

information shall not be required to be 

audible unless they convey information 

that can be used in the transaction being 

conducted. 

(D) Speech for any single function 

shall be automatically interrupted when 

a transaction is selected. Speech shall be 

capable of being repeated and paused. 

(E) Where receipts, tickets, or other 

outputs are provided as a result of a 

transaction, speech output shall include 

all information necessary to complete or 

verify the transaction, except that: 

(1) Automated airport kiosk location, 

date and time of transaction, customer 

account numbers, and the kiosk 

identifier shall not be required to be 

audible. 

(2) Information that duplicates 

information available on-screen and 

already presented audibly shall not be 

required to be repeated. 

(3) Printed copies of a carrier’s 

contract of carriage, applicable fare 

rules, itineraries and other similar 

supplemental information that may be 

included with a boarding pass shall not 

be required to be audible. 

(F) The information necessary to 

complete or verify a transaction 

depends on the nature of the transaction 

and the automated kiosk type. Where 

automated kiosks provide boarding 

passes and other similar transactional 

outputs, information such as concourse, 

gate number, seat number, and boarding 

group is necessary to complete and 

verify a transaction. 

(G) Receipts, tickets, and similar 

transactional output usually are printed, 

but this is not always the case. For 

example, a boarding pass might be 

transferred to a smart phone or personal 

digital assistant. Regardless of the 

delivery method, the automated kiosk 

must convey to the user the information 

provided in receipts, tickets and other 

similar transactional outputs that is 

necessary to complete and verify a 

transaction. 

(ii) Volume Control. Automated 

kiosks shall provide volume control 

complying with paragraphs (k)(5)(ii)(A) 

and (B) of this section. 

(A) Private Listening. Where speech 

required by paragraph (k)(5)(i) of this 

section is delivered through a 

mechanism for private listening, the 

automated kiosk shall provide a means 

for controlling the volume. 

(B) Speaker Volume. Where sound is 

delivered through speakers on the 

automated kiosk, incremental volume 

control shall be provided with output 

amplification up to a level of at least 65 

dB SPL. Where the ambient noise level 

of the environment is above 45 dB SPL, 

a volume gain of at least 20 dB above 

the ambient level shall be user 

selectable. A function shall be provided 

to automatically reset the volume to the 

default level after every use. 

(iii) Captioning. Multimedia content 

that contains speech or other audio 

information necessary for the 

comprehension of the content shall be 

open or closed captioned. 

Advertisements and other similar 

information shall not be required to be 

captioned unless they convey 

information that can be used in the 

transaction being conducted. 

(iv) Tickets and Boarding Passes. 

Where tickets or boarding passes are 

provided, tickets and boarding passes 

shall have an orientation that is tactilely 

discernable if orientation is important to 

further use of the ticket or boarding 

pass. 

(6) Input. Input devices shall comply 

with paragraphs (k)(6)(i) through 

(k)(6)(iii) of this section. 

(i) Input Controls. At least one 

tactilely discernible input control shall 

be provided for each function. Where 

provided, key surfaces not on active 

areas of display screens shall be raised 

above surrounding surfaces. Where 

touch or membrane keys are the only 

method of input, each shall be tactilely 

discernible from surrounding surfaces 

and adjacent keys. 

(ii) Numeric Keys. Numeric keys shall 

be arranged in a 12-key ascending or 

descending telephone keypad layout. 

The number five key shall be tactilely 

distinct from the other keys. 

(iii) Function Keys. Function keys 

shall comply with paragraphs 

(k)(6)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section. 

(A) Contrast. Function keys shall 

contrast visually from background 

surfaces. Characters and symbols on key 

surfaces shall contrast visually from key 

surfaces. Visual contrast shall be either 

light-on-dark or dark-on-light. However, 

tactile symbols required by paragraph 

(k)(6)(iii)(B) shall not be required to 

comply with paragraph (k)(6)(iii)(A) of 

this section. 

(B) Tactile Symbols. Function key 

surfaces shall have tactile symbols as 

follows: Enter or Proceed key: raised 

circle; Clear or Correct key: raised left 

arrow; Cancel key: raised letter ex; Add 

Value key: raised plus sign; Decrease 

Value key: raised minus sign. 

(7) Display Screen. The display screen 

shall comply with paragraphs (k)(7)(i) 

and (k)(7)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Visibility. The display screen shall 

be visible from a point located 40 inches 

(1015 mm) above the center of the clear 

floor space in front of the automated 

kiosk. 

(ii) Characters. Characters displayed 

on the screen shall be in a sans serif 

font. Characters shall be 3⁄16 inch (4.8 

mm) high minimum based on the 

uppercase letter ‘‘I.’’ Characters shall 

contrast with their background with 

either light characters on a dark 

background or dark characters on a light 

background. 

(8) Braille Instructions. Braille 

instructions for initiating the speech 

mode shall be provided. Braille shall 

comply with 36 CFR part 1191, 

appendix D, section 703.3 of the 2010 

ADA Standards. 

(9) Biometrics. Biometrics shall not be 

the only means for user identification or 

control, except that where at least two 

biometric options that use different 

biological characteristics are provided, 

automated kiosks shall be permitted to 

use biometrics as the only means for 

user identification or control. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24298 Filed 9–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS