1

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 382

49 CFR Part 27

RIN No. 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.
2

DATES: Comments should be filed by [insert date that is 60 days after the date of publication in 

the Federal Register]. 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:

o Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online 

instructions for submitting written comments.

o Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Ave., SE, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

o 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.

o 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 FR19477–78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
3

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 21st, 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 
4

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 website, 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 website, 

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
5

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 indicated our intention to revisit these issues in a SNPRM.

 1 The 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.

2 Nondiscrimination 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).
6

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 public-facing 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 
7

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 
8

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 

 3 Under 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). 
9

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 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 notice. 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.

 4 The 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.
10

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 
11

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 Website 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 
12

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 
13

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.

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 
14

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.
15

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.
16

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 public-facing 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 ever-expanding 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. § 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 
17

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 websites 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 
18

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 non-conforming 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 nonconforming 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 
19

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 
20

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 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 
21

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 Web-based 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 

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. 
22

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 
23

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 non-conforming 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 
24

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 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 upto-date and widely used accessibility standard available, addresses to varying degrees, access 
25

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 publicfacing 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 is 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 
26

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 
27

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 

useable 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 
28

that a Level AA-compliant Web page is usable by persons with a disability. To 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 publicfacing 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 
29

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 emails 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 
30

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 have 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 
31

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 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 time-consuming, 

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 
32

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 
33

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 public-facing 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 
34

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 flightrelated 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 
35

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 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 
36

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 
37

would be the costs associated with any of these approaches? Are there any other methods of 

monitoring/ensuring ticket agents' websites are accessible and discounted fares are available to 

individuals who can't use the ticket agent's website 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-trends-survey-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 
38

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 selfservice and technology-driven 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 
39

Accessibility Guidelines of 2004 for automated transaction machines (ATM) and fare machines, 

as well as the Section 508 requirements for self-contained closed 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 
40

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.
41

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 five to 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 

 5 U.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, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. VISIT Program, 2008. http://airlineinfo.com/dhspdf/3.pdf (accessed May 27, 2011.)
42

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 nondisabled 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 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 
43

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). 
44

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 
45

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 shared-use 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). 
46

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., shared-use automated 

kiosks owned, leased, or controlled by publicly operated airports). 

Given the agencies’ separate rulemaking activities concerning self-service 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 
47

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 self-service 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 
48

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 
49

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.
50

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 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 
51

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 
52

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 
53

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 shared-use 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 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 
54

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 shared-use 

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 self-contained 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. 
55

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? 
56

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).
57

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 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
58

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 
59

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 
60

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 
61

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 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 notice 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 notice 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
62

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 shareduse 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 
63

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 Web-based amenities to passengers who self-identify 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
64

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 shared-use 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 notice.

Issued this _____________day of__________________, 2011, at Washington, DC.

Raymond H. LaHood

Secretary of Transportation

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 382
65

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 

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend 14 CFR 

Part 382 and 49 CFR Part 27 as follows:

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 a definition for “automated airport kiosk”, “flightrelated services” and “shared-use automated airport kiosk.” 

§382.3 What do the terms in this rule mean?

* * * * *

Automated airport kiosk means a self-service transaction machine that a carrier owns, leases,

or controls and makes available at a U.S. airport to enable customers to independently obtain

flight-related services.

* * * * *

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.

* * * * *
66

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 title 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, Website

Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, as specified below:

(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 
67

“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 
68

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) above. 

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. 
69

(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) below. 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), 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.

(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 subparagraphs (2) through (3) below. 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) below. You are not required 

to retrofit existing kiosks.

(3) Until all shared-use automated airport kiosks meet the design specifications in paragraph 

(c), you must ensure that each such kiosk you order is:
70

(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 subsection (c)(5).
71

(i) Speech Enabled. 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. Speech shall comply with 

subparagraphs1) and 2) below.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. 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.

2. 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.

1) User Control. Speech for any single function shall be automatically interrupted when a 

transaction is selected. Speech shall be capable of being repeated and paused.

2) Receipts, Tickets, and Transactional Outputs. 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.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Automated airport kiosk location, date and time of transaction, customer account 

numbers, and the kiosk identifier shall not be required to be audible.
72

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.

ADVISORY: Receipts, Tickets, and Transaction Outputs. 

1. 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.

2. 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 

subsection (c)(5)(ii). 

1) Private Listening. Where speech required by (c)(5)(i) is delivered through a mechanism 

for private listening, the automated kiosk shall provide a means for controlling the volume.

2) 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 
73

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.

EXCEPTION: 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 subparagraphs (i) through (iii) below.

(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 discernable 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 subparagraphs 1) and 2) below.

1) 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.

EXCEPTION: Tactile symbols required by (c)(6)(iii)2) shall not be required to comply 

with (c)(6)(iii)1).
74

2) 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 subparagraphs (i) and (ii) below.

(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. 

EXCEPTION: 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) above, 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).
75

(e) You must provide appropriate equivalent service as described in paragraph (d) above

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.

PART 27—NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN PROGRAMS 

OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

1. 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.).

2. Section 27.71 is amended by adding paragraphs (j) and (k) as follows:

§27.71 Airport facilities.

* * * * *

(j) Shared-use automated airport kiosks. This subsection 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) below. 

(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 
76

specifications set forth in paragraph (k) in accordance with the requirements of subparagraphs 

(1), (3), and (4). 

(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). 

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) 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 shared-use automated kiosks. Shared-use automated airport 

kiosks provided in accordance with subsection (j) above 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.
77

(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 subsection (c)(5).

(i) Speech Enabled. 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. Speech shall comply with 

subparagraphs1) and 2) below.

EXCEPTIONS:
78

1. 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.

2. 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.

1) User Control. Speech for any single function shall be automatically interrupted when a 

transaction is selected. Speech shall be capable of being repeated and paused.

2) Receipts, Tickets, and Transactional Outputs. 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.

EXCEPTIONS:

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.

ADVISORY: Receipts, Tickets, and Transaction Outputs. 

1. 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 
79

concourse, gate number, seat number, and boarding group is necessary to complete 

and verify a transaction.

2. 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 

subsection (c)(5)(ii). 

1) Private Listening. Where speech required by (c)(5)(i) is delivered through a mechanism 

for private listening, the automated kiosk shall provide a means for controlling the volume. 

2) 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.

EXCEPTION: 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.
80

(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 subparagraphs (i) through (iii) below.

(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 discernable 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 subparagraphs 1) and 2) below.

1) 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.

EXCEPTION: Tactile symbols required by (c)(6)(iii)2) shall not be required to comply 

with (c)(6)(iii)1).

2) 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 subparagraphs (i) and (ii) below.

(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.
81

(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. 

EXCEPTION: 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.