Vol. 78 Tuesday, 

No. 218 November 12, 2013 

Part V 

Department of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Parts 382 and 399 

49 CFR Part 27 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of 

Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports and Accessibility of 

Aircraft and Stowage of Wheelchairs; Final Rules 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67882 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Parts 382 and 399 

49 CFR Part 27 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2011–0177] 

RIN 2105–AD96 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of 

Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at 

U.S. Airports 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation is amending its rules 

implementing the Air Carrier Access 

Act (ACAA) to require U.S. air carriers 

and foreign air carriers to make their 

Web sites that market air transportation 

to the general public in the United 

States accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. In addition, the Department 

is amending its rule that prohibits unfair 

and deceptive practices and unfair 

methods of competition to require ticket 

agents that are not small businesses to 

disclose and offer Web-based fares to 

passengers who indicate that they are 

unable to use the agents’ Web sites due 

to a disability. DOT is also requiring 

U.S. and foreign air carriers to ensure 

that kiosks meet detailed accessibility 

design standards specified in this rule 

until a total of at least 25 percent of 

automated kiosks in each location at the 

airport meet these standards. In 

addition, the Department is amending 

its rule implementing the Rehabilitation 

Act to require U.S. airport operators 

meet the same accessibility standards. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 

12, 2013. 

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, at the 

same address, 202–366–9342 (phone), 

202–366–7152 (fax), 

blane.workie@dot.gov. You may obtain 

copies of this rule in an accessible 

format by contacting the above named 

individuals. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of Transportation is 

amending its rule implementing the Air 

Carrier Access Act (ACAA) to require 

U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers 

to make their Web sites that market air 

transportation to the general public in 

the United States accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. 

Specifically, we are requiring U.S. and 

foreign air carriers that operate at least 

one aircraft having a seating capacity of 

more than 60 passengers to ensure that 

their primary Web sites are accessible. 

The requirements will be implemented 

in two phases. Web pages that provide 

core air travel services and information 

(e.g., booking or changing a reservation) 

must be accessible by December 12, 

2015. All remaining pages on a carrier’s 

Web site must be accessible by 

December 12, 2016. Web sites must 

conform to the standard for accessibility 

contained in the widely accepted Web 

site Content Accessibility Guidelines 

(WCAG) 2.0 and meet the Level AA 

Success Criteria. In addition, the 

Department is amending its rule that 

prohibits unfair and deceptive practices 

and unfair methods of competition to 

require ticket agents that are not small 

businesses to disclose and offer Webbased fares on or after June 10, 2014, to 

passengers who indicate that they are 

unable to use the agents’ Web sites due 

to a disability. 

DOT is also requiring U.S. and foreign 

air carriers that own, lease, or control 

automated airport kiosks at U.S. airports 

with 10,000 or more annual 

enplanements to ensure that kiosks 

installed after December 12, 2016, meet 

detailed accessibility design standards 

specified in this rule until a total of at 

least 25 percent of automated kiosks in 

each location at the airport meet these 

standards. In addition, accessible kiosks 

provided in each location at the airport 

must provide all the same functions as 

the inaccessible kiosks in that location. 

These goals must be met by December 

12, 2022. In addition, the Department is 

amending its rule implementing the 

Rehabilitation Act to require U.S. 

airport operators that jointly own, lease, 

or control automated airport kiosks with 

U.S. or foreign air carriers to work with 

the carriers to ensure that the kiosks 

installed after December 12, 2016, meet 

the same accessibility standards. The 

accessibility standard for automated 

airport kiosks set forth in this rule is 

based, in part, on the standard for 

automated teller and fare machines 

established by the Department of Justice 

in the 2010 amendment to its Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA) rules. 

Executive Summary 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

ensure that passengers with disabilities 

have equal access to the same air travelrelated information and services that are 

available to passengers without 

disabilities through airline Web sites 

and airport kiosks. In the Department’s 

view, equal access means that 

passengers with disabilities can obtain 

the same information and services on 

airline Web sites and airport kiosks as 

conveniently and independently as 

passengers without disabilities. We 

expect this rulemaking to be a major 

step toward ending unequal access in 

air transportation for people with 

disabilities resulting from inaccessible 

carrier Web sites and airport kiosks. 

Today, individuals with disabilities 

often cannot use an airline’s Web site 

because it is not accessible. There are 

many disadvantages to not being able to 

do so even with the existing prohibition 

on airlines charging fees to passengers 

with disabilities for telephone or inperson reservations, or not making web 

fare discounts available to passengers 

with disabilities who cannot use 

inaccessible Web sites. For example, the 

cheapest prices for air fares and 

ancillary services are almost always on 

the airline’s Web site. As a practical 

matter, the cheapest fares may not be 

made available to many consumers with 

disabilities who book by phone or in 

person as they may be unaware of their 

right to ask for the Web fare discounts. 

A few airlines also do not have 

telephone reservation operations or 

ticket offices, making it particularly 

difficult for passengers with disabilities 

to purchase tickets from them. 

Inaccessible Web sites also prevent 

persons with disabilities from checking 

out many airlines’ fares online for the 

best price before making a choice, 

booking an online reservation any time 

of day or night, or avoiding long wait 

times associated with making telephone 

reservations. Many also can’t always 

take advantage of checking-in early 

online to save time as passengers 

without disabilities can. The reality is 

that some people with disabilities 

currently lack access to most, if not all, 

of the information and services on 

certain carriers’ Web sites that are 

available to their non-disabled 

counterparts. 

As for airport kiosks, many passengers 

today use airport kiosks when arriving 

at the airport to finalize their travel 

preparations, whether scanning a 

passport to check in, printing a boarding 

pass, cancelling/rebooking a ticket, or 

printing baggage tags. The convenience 

of airport kiosks simplifies the airport 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67883 

experience of countless travelers as they 

independently conduct the necessary 

transactions and head to their departure 

gates. For many passengers with 

disabilities who are otherwise selfsufficient, using an airport kiosk can 

only be done with assistance from 

others. In many instances, passengers 

who cannot use a kiosk due to a 

disability are simply directed to a line 

at the ticket counter where they receive 

expedited service from an agent. This is 

not a good solution as it denies travelers 

with disabilities their rights to function 

independently and excludes them from 

the advantages other air travelers enjoy 

in using kiosks. 

The legal authority for the 

Department’s regulatory action affecting 

14 CFR part 382 is 49 U.S.C. 41702, 

41705, 41712, and 41310. Our legal 

authority for regulatory action affecting 

49 CFR part 27 is Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

(29 U.S.C. 794). Below is a summary of 

the major provisions of this regulatory 

action. 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS

Web Site Accessibility 

Scope/Coverage ....................................................................................... • Requires U.S. and foreign carriers that operate at least one aircraft 

having a seating capacity of more than 60 passengers, and own or 

control a primary Web site that markets air transportation to consumers in the United States to ensure that public-facing pages on 

their primary Web site are accessible to individuals with disabilities. 

• Requires ticket agents that are not small businesses to disclose and 

offer Web-based fares to passengers who indicate that they are unable to use an agent’s Web site due to a disability. 

Web Site Accessibility Standard .............................................................. • Requires carriers to ensure that Web pages on their primary Web 

sites associated with core travel information and services conform to 

all Level AA success criteria of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 within two years of the rule’s effective date and 

that all other Web pages on their primary Web sites are conformant 

within three years of the rule’s effective date. 

Usability Testing of Web Sites ................................................................. • Requires carriers to test the usability of their accessible primary Web 

sites in consultation with individuals or organizations representing 

visual, auditory, tactile, and cognitive disabilities. 

Equivalent Service .................................................................................... • Requires carriers to provide applicable Web-based fare discounts 

and other Web-based amenities to customers with a disability who 

cannot use their Web sites due to a disability. 

• Requires ticket agents to provide applicable Web-based fare discounts on and after 180 days from the rule’s effective date to customers with a disability who cannot use an agent’s Web sites due to 

a disability. 

Online Disability Accommodation Requests ............................................ • Requires carriers to make an online service request form available 

within two years of the rule’s effective date for passengers with disabilities to request services including, but not limited to, wheelchair 

assistance, seating accommodation, escort assistance for a visually 

impaired passenger, and stowage of an assistive device. 

Automated Airport Kiosk Accessibility 

Scope, Coverage, and Kiosk Accessibility ............................................... • Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers that own, lease, or control 

automated airport kiosks at U.S. airports with 10,000 or more annual 

enplanements to ensure that all new automated airport kiosks installed three or more years after the rule’s effective date meet required technical accessibility standards until at least 25 percent of 

automated kiosks in each location at the airport is accessible. Accessible kiosks provided in each location at the airport must provide all 

the same functions as the inaccessible kiosks in that location. These 

goals must be met within ten years after the rule’s effective date. 

• Requires airlines and airports to ensure that all shared-use automated airport kiosks installed three or more years after the rule’s effective date meet required technical accessibility standards until at 

least 25 percent of automated kiosks in each location at the airport is 

accessible. Accessible kiosks provided in each location at the airport 

must provide all the same functions as the inaccessible kiosks in that 

location. These goals must be met within ten years after the rule’s 

effective date. 

Identification and Maintenance of Accessible Kiosks .............................. • Requires carriers and airports to ensure that accessible automated 

airport kiosks are visually and tactilely identifiable and maintained in 

working condition. 

Joint and Several Liability ........................................................................ • Makes carriers and airports jointly and severally liable for ensuring 

that shared-use automated airport kiosks meet accessibility requirements. 

Priority Access .......................................................................................... • Requires carriers to give passengers with a disability requesting an 

accessible automated kiosk priority access to any available accessible kiosk the carrier owns, leases, or controls in that location at the 

airport. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67884 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1 73 FR 27614–27687 (May 13, 2008), as modified 

by 74 FR 11469–11472 (March 18, 2009) and 75 FR 

44885–44887 (July 30, 2010). 

2Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in 

Air Travel, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 69 FR 

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 FR 53108–53117 (September 7, 2005); and 

Accommodations for Individuals Who Are Deaf, 

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

Rulemaking, 71 FR 9285–9299 (February 23, 2006). 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS—Continued 

Equivalent Service .................................................................................... • Requires carriers to provide equivalent service upon request to passengers with a disability who cannot readily use their automated airport kiosks. 

Summary of Regulatory Analysis 

The regulatory analysis summarized 

in the table below shows that the 

estimated monetized costs of the Web 

site and kiosk requirements exceed their 

estimated monetized benefits at the 7% 

discount rate but the monetized benefits 

exceed the costs at the 3% discount rate. 

The present value of monetized net 

benefits for a 10-year analysis period is 

estimated to be ¥$4.0 million at a 7% 

discount rate and $13.7 million at a 3% 

discount rate. Additional benefits and 

costs were also identified for which 

quantitative estimates could not be 

developed. The Department believes 

that the qualitative and non-quantifiable 

benefits of the Web site and kiosk 

accessibility requirements combined 

with the quantifiable benefits justify the 

costs and make the total benefits of the 

rule exceed the total costs of the rule. A 

more detailed discussion of the 

monetized benefits and costs for the 

final Web site and kiosk accessibility 

requirements is provided in the 

Regulatory Analysis and Notices section 

below. 

PRESENT VALUE OF NET BENEFITS FOR RULE REQUIREMENTS* 

[millions] 

Monetized benefits and costs Discounting period/rate Web sites Kiosks Present value 

(millions) 

Monetized Benefits ................................... 10 Years, 7% discounting ........................ $75.9 $34.8 $110.7 

10 Years, 3% discounting ........................ 90.3 42.0 132.3 

Monetized Costs ....................................... 10 Years, 7% discounting ........................ 79.8 34.9 114.7 

10 Years, 3% discounting ........................ 82.5 36.1 118.6 

Monetized Net Benefits ............................ 10 Years, 7% discounting ........................ (3.9) (0.1) (4.0) 

10 Years, 3% discounting ........................ 7.8 5.9 13.7 

* Present value in 2016 for Web site requirements and 2017 for kiosk requirements. 

Background 

On May 13, 2008, the Department of 

Transportation (‘‘Department’’ or 

‘‘DOT,’’ also ‘‘we’’ or ‘‘us’’) amended 14 

CFR Part 382 (Part 382), its ACAA rule, 

to apply the rule to foreign carriers and 

to add new provisions concerning 

passengers who use medical oxygen and 

those who are deaf or hard of hearing, 

among other things.1 The final rule 

consolidated and took final action on 

proposals from three separate notices of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM).2 In the 

preamble of the 2008 final rule, we 

announced that we would defer final 

action on certain proposals and issues 

set forth in the three NPRMs in order to 

seek further information on their cost 

and technical feasibility through a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNPRM). Among the issues 

we intended to revisit in the SNPRM 

was a proposal in the initial NPRM to 

require carriers and their agents to make 

their Web sites accessible to people with 

vision impairments and other 

disabilities. See 69 FR 64364, 64382–83 

(November 4, 2004), hereinafter 

‘‘Foreign Carrier NPRM.’’ We also 

pledged to seek further comment on 

kiosk accessibility, which we had 

discussed in the preamble of the initial 

NPRM. See Id. at 64370. In the 2008 

final rule, as an interim measure, we 

mandated that carriers ensure 

passengers with disabilities who cannot 

use inaccessible kiosks or inaccessible 

Web sites are provided equivalent 

service. 

On September 26, 2011, the 

Department published an SNPRM 

proposing to require 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. We also 

proposed to 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, we proposed to 

revise our rule implementing Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended (29 U.S.C. 794) to require U.S. 

airports to work with airlines to ensure 

that shared-use automated airport kiosks 

are accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. The SNPRM also set forth 

the technical criteria and procedures 

that we proposed to apply to automated 

airport kiosks and to Web sites on 

which air transportation is marketed to 

the general public in the United States 

to ensure that individuals with 

disabilities can readily use these 

technologies to obtain the same 

information and services as other 

members of the public. See 76 FR 59307 

(September 26, 2011). Comments on the 

SNPRM were to be filed by November 

25, 2011. 

Request for Clarification and Extension 

of Comment Period 

In October 2011, the Department 

received a joint request from the Air 

Transport Association (now Airlines for 

America), the International Air 

Transport Association, the Air Carrier 

Association of America, and the 

Regional Airline Association for 

clarification of the proposal and a 120- 

day extension of the comment period. 

The carrier associations specifically 

asked DOT to clarify the following with 

regard to our Web site accessibility 

proposals: 1) whether the scope of the 

proposed Web site accessibility 

requirements included the non-U.S. 

Web sites of U.S. carriers (e.g., countryspecific Web sites maintained by U.S. 

carriers for the purpose of selling to 

consumers in countries other than the 

United States); 2) the meaning of the 

terms ‘‘primary,’’ ‘‘main,’’ and ‘‘publicfacing’’ as used in the proposed Web 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67885 

3 49 U.S.C. 41712 authorizes the Secretary of 

Transportation to investigate and determine 

whether an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket 

agent has been or is engaged in an unfair or 

deceptive practice or an unfair method of 

competition in air transportation or the sale of air 

transportation, and if so, to stop such practice or 

method. 

site requirements; 3) whether the term 

‘‘alternate conforming version’’ as 

described in the SNPRM would 

encompass ‘‘text-only’’ features offered 

by some carriers on their primary Web 

sites; 4) whether carriers would be 

responsible under the proposed 

requirement to ensure that the Web sites 

of large tour operators and carrier 

alliances are accessible; 5) the 

Department’s authority to regulate ticket 

agent Web sites directly under 49 U.S.C. 

41712, rather than indirectly through 

the carriers under the ACAA; and 6) the 

basis for our estimates of the recurring 

costs associated with maintaining Web 

site accessibility. Regarding the 

Department’s kiosk accessibility 

proposals, the carrier associations asked 

for clarification concerning: 1) whether 

the Department intended to require 

some retrofitting of automated airport 

kiosks in the final rule in the absence of 

a specific proposal on the issue in the 

SNPRM; and 2) whether automated 

ticket scanners at U.S. airports would be 

covered by the proposed accessibility 

requirements. We received additional 

requests shortly thereafter from the 

Association of Asia Pacific Airlines 

(AAPA) and the Interactive Travel 

Services Association (ITSA) to extend 

the comment deadline. 

By early November 2011, members of 

the disability community and advocacy 

organizations were also requesting that 

we delay the closing of the comment 

period until accessibility issues 

concerning the comment form available 

at www.regulations.gov could be 

resolved. In response, we sought 

expedited action from the 

Regulations.gov workgroup to correct 

the accessibility problems with the form 

and issued a notice in the Federal 

Register on November 21, 2011, 

outlining alternative methods for 

submitting comments until the 

comment form could be made fully 

accessible. See 76 FR 71914 (November 

21, 2011). This notice also addressed the 

carrier associations’ clarification 

requests and extended the public 

comment period until January 9, 2012. 

We responded to the carrier 

associations’ inquiries concerning our 

Web site accessibility requirements by 

explaining that it was our intention to 

exclude from the accessibility 

requirements both U.S. and foreign air 

carrier Web sites that market air 

transportation solely to consumers 

outside of the United States. We also 

further defined ‘‘public-facing’’ Web 

pages as those on a carrier’s or agent’s 

Web site intended for access and use by 

the general public rather than for 

limited access (e.g., by carrier 

employees only). For carriers that own, 

lease, or control multiple Web sites that 

market air transportation and offer 

related services and information, we 

explained that its ‘‘primary’’ or ‘‘main’’ 

Web site is the one accessed upon 

entering the uniform resource locator 

‘‘www.carriername.com’’ in an Internet 

browser from a standard desktop or 

laptop computer. We note that some 

carriers use their IATA airline 

designator code or other convention in 

their primary Web site URL (e.g., 

www.aa.com, www.virgin-atlantic.com). 

We further explained that a carrier’s 

text-only Web page may only be 

considered a conforming alternate 

version if (1) it provides the same 

content and functionality as the 

corresponding non-conforming page on 

the carrier’s primary Web site, (2) it can 

be reached via an accessible link from 

the primary Web site, (3) the content 

conforms with WCAG 2.0 Level A and 

AA success criteria, and (4) it is 

promptly updated to reflect all changes 

to content available to its non-disabled 

customers on the primary Web site. In 

response to the request for clarification 

regarding the applicability of the 

accessibility requirements to ticket 

agent Web sites, we also explained that 

the requirements would apply to Web 

sites of large tour operators, since both 

travel agents and tour operators fall 

within the definition of ticket agent 

found in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(45). Carrier 

alliance Web sites, on the other hand, 

are operated by carriers but are not 

primary carrier Web sites and therefore 

would not be covered. 

Regarding the question raised about 

the Department’s assertion of its 

authority to regulate ticket agents 

directly while proposing to regulate 

ticket agents indirectly through the 

carriers, we stated that it was our 

intention to gather more information 

from the public about the course of 

action that would best serve the public 

interest. We stated in the notice that the 

Department’s authority under 49 U.S.C. 

41712 extends to unfair practices, 

including discrimination against a 

protected class of consumers by ticket 

agents,3 in this case discrimination 

against individuals with disabilities 

who are excluded from using the agents’ 

inaccessible Web sites solely due to 

their disabilities. We acknowledged that 

the Department of Justice (DOJ) was also 

likely to mandate that ticket agents 

make their Web sites accessible under a 

future amendment to that agency’s rule 

implementing title III of the ADA. At the 

same time, we stated our intention to 

pursue a regulatory approach vis-a`-vis 

the accessibility of ticket agent Web 

sites that would best serve the goal of 

achieving Web site accessibility for all 

in the shortest reasonable time frame. 

Finally, we corrected the errors in the 

SNPRM and preliminary regulatory 

evaluation concerning the estimated 

annual cost of maintaining Web site 

accessibility and re-explained the basis 

of the cost estimate. 

Regarding the carrier associations’ 

inquiries about our proposals 

concerning accessible automated airport 

kiosks, we explained that: (1) Although 

we did not propose to require 

retrofitting of existing kiosks, we were 

seeking information about the technical 

feasibility and cost impact of retrofitting 

some number of kiosks before the end 

of their life cycle if that should be 

necessary to ensure at least some 

accessible kiosks in every location at the 

airport within a reasonable time after 

the rule goes into effect; and (2) 

automated ticket scanners would fall 

within the scope of automated kiosks 

the Department intended to cover under 

the proposed requirements. 

The Department received 84 

comments on issues raised in the 

SNPRM from industry and advocacy 

organizations, academic institutions, 

and members of the public. The 

industry comments included: two from 

airline associations (the Association of 

Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA), as well as 

a joint submission by Airlines for 

America (A4A), the International Air 

Transport Association (IATA), Regional 

Airline Association (RAA) and Air 

Carrier Association of America that also 

included comments from the Airports 

Council International—North America 

(ACI–NA)), two from airports (San 

Francisco International and Denver 

International), three from U.S. carriers 

(Spirit Airlines, Allegiant Air, LLC, and 

Virgin America), four from foreign air 

carriers (Air New Zealand Limited, All 

Nippon Airways, Condor Flugdienst 

GmbH, and El Al Israel Airlines Ltd.), 

four from travel agency or tour operator 

associations (a joint submission by the 

American Society of Travel Agents 

(ASTA) and the National Tour 

Association (NTA), a joint submission 

by NTA and Student and Youth Travel 

Association (SYTA), as well as separate 

submissions by the Interactive Travel 

Services Association (ITSA), and the 

United States Tour Operators 

Association (USTOA)), and one from a 

trade association representing leading 

companies in the information and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67886 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

4 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(5) defines ‘‘air 

transportation’’ as foreign air transportation, 

interstate air transportation, or the transportation of 

mail by aircraft. 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(23) defines 

‘‘foreign air transportation’’ as the transportation of 

passengers or property by aircraft as a common 

carrier for compensation, or the transportation of 

mail by aircraft, between a place in the United 

States and a place outside of the United States 

when any part of the transportation is by aircraft. 

49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(25) defines ‘‘interstate 

transportation’’ as the transportation of passengers 

or property by aircraft as a common carrier for 

compensation, or the transportation of mail by 

aircraft between a place in a State, territory, or 

possession of the United States and (i) a place in 

the District of Columbia or another State, territory, 

or possession of the United States; (ii) Hawaii and 

another place in Hawaii through the airspace over 

a place outside Hawaii; (iii) the District of Columbia 

and another place in the District of Columbia; or 

(iv) a territory or possession of the United States 

and another place in the same territory or 

possession; and when any part of the transportation 

is by aircraft. 

communication technology sector 

(Information Technology Industry 

Council (ITI)). Advocacy organization 

comments included one airline 

passenger consumer organization 

(Association for Airline Passenger 

Rights) and 11 submissions from 

disability advocacy organizations (a 

joint submission by the American 

Council of the Blind (ACB) and 

American Foundation of the Blind 

(AFB), Consortium for Citizens with 

Disabilities (CCD), a joint submission by 

the National Association of the Deaf 

(NAD), Deaf and Hard of Hearing 

Consumer Advocacy Network 

(DEAFCAN), Telecommunications for 

Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDHH), 

Association of Late-Deafened Adults, 

Inc. (ALDA), Hearing Loss Association 

of America (HLAA), and California 

Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf 

and Hard of Hearing (CCASDHH), and 

individual submissions by Disability 

Rights New Jersey (DRNJ), Silicon 

Valley Independent Living Center 

(SVILC), National Federation of the 

Blind (NFB), United Spinal Association 

(United Spinal), Association of Blind 

Citizens (ABC), National Council on 

Independent Living (NCIL), American 

Association of People with Disabilities 

(AAPD), Paralyzed Veterans of America 

(PVA), and Open Doors Organization 

(ODO)). Comments from academic 

institutes included one each from the 

Burton Blatt Institute (BBI) at Syracuse 

University, the Department of Computer 

and Information Sciences at Towson 

University, and the Trace Research and 

Development Center (Trace Center) at 

the University of Wisconsin, and two 

from the Cornell e-Rulemaking Initiative 

(CeRI) at Cornell University. There were 

also 22 individual and joint submissions 

from students at the University of 

Pittsburgh School of Law. Nearly 30 

individual members of the public also 

posted comments, 21 of whom 

identified themselves as persons with 

disabilities or relatives of the same. 

One submission from the Cornell eRulemaking Initiative consisted of 

summaries of the public discussion on 

the SNPRM proposals that occurred on 

its Regulation Room Web site, http://

www.regulationroom.org. The 

Regulation Room Web site is a pilot 

project in which members of the public 

can learn about and discuss proposed 

Federal regulations and provide 

feedback to agency decision makers. 

The Department partnered with Cornell 

University on this open government 

initiative of the Obama administration 

in order to discover the best ways to use 

Web 2.0 and social networking 

technologies to increase effective public 

involvement in the rulemaking process. 

During the period the SNPRM was 

available for comment on the Regulation 

Room Web site, there were nearly 8,000 

unique visitors to the site. Those who 

registered to participate in the 

discussion totaled 53 and of those, 29 

identified as having a disability. A total 

of 103 comments were posted by 31 of 

the 53 registered respondents, with 18 

comments submitted by respondents 

identifying as having a disability. The 

Regulation Room submitted summaries 

to the Department of the online 

discussions addressing the accessibility 

standards, applicability, scope of the 

requirements, benefits and costs, and 

implementation approach of the 

proposed accessibility requirements for 

both Web sites and kiosks. 

The Department has carefully 

reviewed and considered all the 

comments received. A summary of the 

proposed requirements and related 

questions asked in the SNPRM, the 

public comments responsive to those 

proposals, and the Department’s 

responses are set forth in the sections 

that follow. 

Summary of Comments and Responses 

Web Site Accessibility 

In the September 2011 SNPRM, we 

proposed to require that U.S. and 

foreign air carriers ensure that the 

public-facing content of a primary Web 

site they own or control that markets air 

transportation 4 to the general public in 

the United States conforms to the 

WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria and all 

Conformance Requirements at Level A 

and Level AA. We explained that the 

proposed requirements would apply to 

foreign carriers only with respect to 

public-facing pages on Web sites they 

own or control that market air 

transportation to the general public in 

the United States and made clear in the 

November 2011 notice that this same 

limitation would apply to U.S. carriers 

as well. For both U.S. and foreign 

carriers, our intent was to exclude from 

coverage public-facing content on 

primary Web sites they own or control 

that market flights to the general public 

outside of the United States. We 

explained that the characteristics of a 

covered primary Web site that markets 

air transportation to the general public 

inside the United States includes, but is 

not limited to, a site that: (1) Contains 

an option to view content in English, (2) 

advertises or sells flights operating to, 

from, or within the United States, and 

(3) displays fares in U.S. dollars. We 

note that non-English (e.g., Spanish) 

Web sites targeting a U.S. market 

segment would also be covered; whereas 

Web sites that block sales to customers 

with U.S. addresses or telephone 

numbers, even if in English, would not. 

We also stated our intention to continue 

requiring carriers to make applicable 

discounted Web-based fares and other 

Web-based amenities available to 

passengers who self-identify as being 

unable to use an inaccessible Web site 

due to their disability and to extend the 

requirement to do the same for 

passengers who self-identify as being 

unable to use the carrier’s Web site that 

meets the WCAG 2.0 standard due to 

their disability. 

In addition to the content on their 

primary Web sites, the Department 

proposed to require U.S. and foreign 

carriers to ensure that when their ticket 

agents are providing schedule and fare 

information and marketing covered air 

transportation services to the general 

public in the United States on Web 

sites, that these ticket agent Web sites 

also meet the WCAG 2.0 standard. We 

proposed to limit the scope of the 

carriers’ responsibility to ensure agent 

Web site accessibility to the Web sites 

of agents that are not small businesses 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration under 13 CFR 121.201 

(i.e., travel agents or tour operators with 

annual receipts exceeding $19 million). 

Specifically with regard to small ticket 

agents, we proposed to permit carriers 

to market air transportation on the 

inaccessible Web sites of such agents 

but at the same time require carriers to 

ensure that those small agents make 

Web-based discount fares available and 

waive applicable reservation fees to a 

passenger who indicates that he or she 

is unable to use an agent’s Web site and 

purchases tickets using another method, 

unless the fee would apply to other 

customers purchasing the same ticket 

online. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67887 

5 In the September 2011 SNPRM, the Department 

defined core air travel services and information on 

Web sites as the booking and check-in functions as 

well as information pertaining to personal flight 

itinerary, flight status, frequent flyer account, flight 

schedules, and carrier contact information available 

to consumers on a carrier’s primary Web site. 

6See 36 CFR 1194.22, Note par. 2, stating that 

‘‘Web pages that conform to WCAG 1.0, level A (i.e., 

all priority 1 checkpoints) must also meet 

paragraphs (l), (m), (n), (o), and (p) of this section 

to comply with this section.’’ 

7The World Wide Web Consortium is an 

international community that develops open 

standards to ensure the long-term growth of the 

Web. One of its primary goals is to make the 

benefits that the Web enables, including human 

communication, commerce, and opportunities to 

share knowledge, available to all people. 

8 75 FR 43460–43467 (July 26, 2010). 

Finally, we proposed a tiered 

implementation approach in which the 

WCAG 2.0 standard at Level A and AA 

would apply to (1) a new or completely 

redesigned primary Web site brought 

online 180 or more days after the 

effective date of the final rule; (2) Web 

pages on an existing Web site associated 

with core air travel services and 

information 5 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 by one year after the 

final rule’s effective date; and (3) all 

covered Web pages on a carrier’s 

primary Web site by two years after the 

final rule’s effective date. 

1. Technical Standard for Web Site 

Accessibility 

The SNPRM: The Department 

proposed WCAG 2.0 at Level AA (Level 

AA includes all the Level A success 

criteria) as the required accessibility 

standard for all public-facing Web pages 

involved in marketing air transportation 

to the general public in the United 

States on primary carrier and ticket 

agent Web sites. 

Comments: The comments submitted 

jointly by A4A, IATA, ACI–NA, RAA, 

and the Air Carrier Association of 

America opposed mandating a single 

technical standard for Web site 

accessibility. They supported various 

compliance options that, for the most 

part, would provide increased access for 

passengers with disabilities to some, but 

not all, of the content on primary carrier 

Web sites through an alternative textonly or Mobile Web site conformant 

with any of the following standards: 

WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0 at Level A, 

existing Section 508 standards, or 

Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP) 1.0 

(if applicable). Two of the options they 

proposed would allow carriers to 

establish an alternative Web site (i.e., 

text-only or mobile Web site) containing 

only the proposed core air travel 

information and essential functions to 

which they would apply the 

accessibility standard of their choice. 

Two other options they proposed would 

allow them to apply the standard of 

choice to limited portions of a carrier’s 

primary Web site (i.e., either to newly 

designed Web pages or to Web pages 

associated with core air travel services 

and information). These compliance 

options proposed by the carrier 

associations, as well as other electronic 

information and communication 

technology issues discussed in the 

SNPRM, are presented in greater detail 

below in the section on Scope. 

Regarding compliance with the WCAG 

2.0 standard at Level AA, the carrier 

associations asserted that requiring 

carriers to comply with WCAG 2.0 

would ‘‘set a very high bar that exceeds 

federal government Web site 

accessibility requirements.’’ They 

commented that no government agency 

currently is required to meet the WCAG 

2.0 Level A and AA standards, 

maintaining that the section 508 Web 

site standard agencies are required to 

meet is the equivalent of the WCAG 1.0 

standard.6 They argued that the airline 

industry should not be the ‘‘test case’’ 

or the first to implement WCAG 2.0. 

Although the Association of Asia 

Pacific Airlines (AAPA) did not 

specifically oppose the WCAG 2.0 

standard, they noted that requiring 

airlines to apply the standard to primary 

Web sites which include covered and 

non-covered content could result in the 

airlines having to revamp Web pages 

and shared electronic data sources 

outside the scope of the requirement 

from which the covered Web sites 

obtain information. This concern was 

echoed by foreign carriers that 

commented individually, although none 

of the comments provided any 

information about the amount of noncovered content they anticipated having 

to change. AAPA also expressed 

concern that foreign carriers may 

eventually be required by the law of 

their countries to meet a different Web 

site accessibility standard. Another 

carrier commenting individually 

supported compliance with the WCAG 

2.0 Level A standard but only for those 

portions of its Web site involved in 

providing core air transportation 

information and functions. Other 

carriers objected to the Department 

requiring the WCAG 2.0 standard 

altogether, opining that it is ‘‘not widely 

used on commercial Web sites’’ or that 

the technical criteria are ‘‘highly 

subjective.’’ One U.S. carrier was 

unopposed to the WCAG 2.0 Level AA 

standard as long as the Department 

allowed two years to achieve 

compliance. 

The American Aviation Institute 

(AAI) supported the Department’s 

proposal to require conformance with 

the WCAG 2.0 Level AA, but again, only 

on those pages involved with providing 

core information and functions. The 

Information Technology Industry 

Council (ITI), representing 50 leading 

companies in the information and 

communications technology industry, 

urged the Department not to require any 

technical standard other than WCAG 

2.0, stating: ‘‘WCAG 2.0 is the most 

current and complete standard for web 

accessibility and is expected to be the 

basis for the updated Section 508 also. 

For harmonization purposes, ITI 

strongly recommends only accepting 

WCAG 2.0.’’ 

With rare exception, individual 

commenters who self-identified as 

having a disability supported WCAG 2.0 

as the applicable standard for Web site 

accessibility. Virtually all advocacy 

organizations representing individuals 

with disabilities across the spectrum 

also supported WCAG 2.0, with more 

than half specifically endorsing the 

Level AA success criteria as the 

appropriate standard. All of the 

advocacy organization commenters 

representing individuals who are blind, 

deaf, or hard of hearing specifically 

endorsed the Level AA success criteria. 

ACB and AFB also urged the 

Department to adopt the Authoring 

Tools Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 

1.0, a World Wide Web Consortium 7

(W3C) guideline that defines how 

authoring tools should assist Web 

developers in producing Web content 

that is accessible and conforms to 

WCAG. (ATAG will be discussed in a 

later section on Implementation 

Approach and Schedule.) There were a 

few comments suggesting that all Level 

A success criteria and only selected 

criteria from Level AA be required. 

The leading commenters representing 

ticket agents (ASTA, NTA, USTOA, and 

ITSA) felt strongly that the Department 

should refrain from requiring carriers to 

ensure that their agent Web sites 

conform to the WCAG 2.0 standard or 

any other specific accessibility standard 

at this time. ITSA, in particular, 

advocated that the Department allow 

carriers, as well as agents, to adopt any 

acceptable standard at any compliance 

level. Citing the DOJ’s concurrent 

rulemaking concerning Web site 

accessibility standards applicable to 

entities covered under ADA title III 

regulations,8 ticket agent commenters 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67888 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

9See 75 FR 43452–43460 (title II) and 75 FR 

43460–43467 (title III) (July 26, 2010); see also 75 

FR 13457 (March 22, 2010) and 76 FR 76640 

(December 8, 2011). 

10See 75 FR 43460–43467 (July 26, 2010). 

11TEITAC was established in 2006 to review the 

existing Section 508 standards and 

Telecommunications Act accessibility guidelines 

and advise the Access Board concerning needed 

changes, including the need for standardization 

across markets globally. Its members represented 

the electronic information technology industry, 

disability groups, standard-setting bodies in the 

United States and abroad, and government agencies. 

TEITAC recommended in its 2008 final report that 

the Access Board seek to harmonize the Section 508 

standards with the WCAG 2.0 standards to improve 

accessibility and facilitate compliance. 

12See 75 FR 13457 (March 22, 2010) and 76 FR 

76640 (December 8, 2011). 

13See 76 FR 76640, 76644, nt. 4 (December 8, 

2011). 

14See 76 FR 76640, 76644, nt. 5 and 6 (December 

8, 2011). 

15See Australian Government Web Guide, 

http://webguide.gov.au/accessibility-usability/

accessibility/ (last visited July 2, 2013). 

16See Government of Canada Standard on Web 

Accessibility, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doceng.aspx?section=text&id=23601 (last visited July 2, 

2013). 

17See Accessibility of Non-National Airports 

System Air Terminals: Code of Practice, http://

www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/accessibilitynon-national-airports-system-air-terminals-codepractice (last visited August 26, 2013). 

18See Directive of the European Parliament and 

of the Council on the Accessibility of Public Sector 

Bodies’ Web sites, http://ec.europa.eu/digitalagenda/en/news/proposal-directive-europeanparliament-and-council-accessibility-public-sectorbodies-Web sites (last visited July 2, 2013). 

19See Guidelines on Dissemination of 

Information Through Government Web sites, 

http://www.ogcio.gov.hk/en/community/web_

accessibility/doc/disseminationguidelines.pdf (last 

visited July 2, 2013). 

20See New Zealand Government (Web 

Accessibility Standard 1.0), https://webtoolkit.govt.

nz/standards/web-accessibility-standard/ (last 

visited July 2, 2013). 

21See Powermapper Software Blog, Government 

Accessibility Standards and WCAG 2.0, http://blog.

powermapper.com/blog/post/GovernmentAccessibility-Standards.aspx (last visited July 9, 

2013 

22See Draft EN 301 549 V1.0.0, Human Factors 

(HF); Accessibility Requirements for Public 

Procurement of ICT products and services in 

Europe, (2013–02). The public comment period on 

the draft closes July 28, 2013. 

also urged that both agencies coordinate 

the technical accessibility criteria each 

intends to apply so that Web site 

accessibility requirements are 

consistent. A number of these 

commenters felt that the Department 

should postpone imposing a Web site 

accessibility standard for ticket agent 

Web sites until the DOJ rulemaking is 

completed. 

DOT Decision: After considering the 

arguments raised by the carrier and 

ticket agent associations to postpone 

requiring any standard until after the 

DOJ rulemaking on Web site 

accessibility is complete, we have 

concluded that there is no compelling 

reason to defer promulgating a WCAG 

2.0 based standard applicable to the 

Web sites of carriers. Since WCAG 2.0 

is by far the front-runner among the 

existing accessibility standards worldwide, and both the Access Board and 

the Department of Justice have sought 

public comment on incorporating 

WCAG 2.0 technical criteria into the 

existing section 508 standard or directly 

adopting the standard,9 the Department 

believes there is ample justification for 

adopting WCAG 2.0 at Level AA as the 

accessibility standard for carrier Web 

sites that market air transportation to 

the public in the United States. 

We note that well before DOT 

published its SNPRM in September 

2011, both DOJ and the Access Board 

had embarked upon rulemakings that 

address Web site accessibility standards. 

The DOJ rulemakings sought comment 

on the standard for Web site 

accessibility it should adopt for entities 

covered by ADA titles II and III.10

Specifically, DOJ asked whether it 

should adopt the WCAG 2.0 Level AA 

success criteria, whether it should 

consider adopting another WCAG 2.0 

success criteria level, or whether it 

should instead adopt the section 508 

standards rather than the WCAG 2.0 

guidelines as the applicable standards 

for Web site accessibility. In addition, 

the Telecommunications and Electronic 

and Information Technology Advisory 

Committee (TEITAC) recommended to 

the Access Board that the Section 508 

standard be harmonized with WCAG 

2.0.11 The Access Board, in turn, sought 

public comment in two successive 

advance notices of proposed rulemaking 

on adopting WCAG 2.0 as the successor 

to the current section 508 standards for 

Web content, forms and applications.12

This consensus is corroborated by 

many indicators that WCAG 2.0 is the 

most robust and well supported 

accessibility standard currently in use. 

The developers of WCAG 2.0 have made 

an array of technical resources available 

on the W3C Web site at no cost to assist 

companies in implementing the 

standard. 

In addition, foreign governments 

increasingly are adopting WCAG 2.0 

Level AA either as guidelines for 

evaluating nondiscrimination in 

providing Web site access 13 or as the 

official legal standard for accessibility 

on government Web sites.14 Australian 

government agencies are currently 

required to be compliant at WCAG 2.0 

Level A and upgrade to Level AA by 

December 31, 2014.15 In August 2011, 

the Canadian government adopted a 

requirement for government agencies to 

bring most content on their public Web 

sites into compliance with the WCAG 

2.0 Level AA standard by July 31, 

2013.16 The Canadian government also 

released a resource tool in March 2013, 

to assist air terminal operators in 

implementing the government’s 

voluntary Code of Practice on 

accessibility of non-national airports 

system air terminals.17 The guidance 

recommends that terminal operators 

conform their Web sites to the WCAG 

2.0 standard. All official Web sites of 

the European Union institutions are 

currently expected to follow the WCAG 

1.0 guidelines for accessible Web 

content, and the EU Commission has 

proposed to require 12 categories of EU 

public sector Web sites to meet WCAG 

2.0 at Level AA by December 31, 2014.18

Hong Kong government sites are 

currently required to meet the WCAG 

2.0 at Level AA.19 New Zealand 

government sites must meet the same 

standards by July 1, 2017, with some 

limited exceptions.20 France and 

Germany have national standards that 

are based on, but not identical to, 

WCAG 2.0 (Level AA), while United 

Kingdom government Web sites are 

required to comply with either WCAG 

1.0 or 2.0 at the AA level.21 The 

European Telecommunications 

Standards Institute (ETSI) is seeking 

public comment on a draft proposal to 

adopt harmonized accessibility 

standards for European public 

information and communication 

technology (ICT) procurements that 

specifically proposes WCAG 2.0 Level 

AA as the Web content accessibility 

standard.22

The Department considered requiring 

conformance with WCAG 2.0 Level A 

success criteria only, which are feasible 

standards for Web developers and 

would ensure the removal of major 

accessibility barriers. Level AA, 

however, contains additional guidelines 

and recommendations that provide a 

more comprehensive level of Web site 

accessibility for people with various 

types of disabilities. Examples of Level 

AA success criteria that provide 

additional access beyond what Level A 

provides include minimum contrast 

ratios for regular and large text, 

capability to resize text, consistent order 

of the navigation links that repeat on 

Web pages when navigating through a 

site, and the availability of multiple 

ways for the users to find Web pages on 

a site. As the foregoing discussion on 

government Web site accessibility 

standards indicates, the Level AA 

success criteria are widely regarded as 

feasible for Web content developers to 

implement. Moreover, the Level AA 

success criteria appear to be most often 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67889 

23See WCAG 2.0 Overview, http://

www.evengrounds.com/wcag-tutorial/overview (last 

visited July 2, 2013). 

24See Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 

(WCAG) 2.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/ (last 

visited August 22, 2012.) 

25The Department of Justice requires covered 

entities to ensure effective communication through 

auxiliary aids and services that are ‘‘provided in 

accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such 

a way as to protect the privacy and independence 

of the individual with a disability.’’ See 28 CFR 

35.160 (b) and 28 CFR 36.303(c)(1)(ii). 

specified when conformance with 

WCAG is required and are most often 

adopted when Web sites voluntarily use 

WCAG.23 Level AAA success criteria, 

while providing a high level of 

accessibility, are not recommended for 

entire Web sites because they are much 

more challenging to implement and all 

criteria cannot be satisfied for some Web 

content.24 For these reasons, the 

Department is persuaded that Level AA 

is the compliance level that can provide 

the highest practicable level of Web site 

accessibility. 

Regarding the carrier associations’ 

assertion that requiring airlines to 

comply with the WCAG 2.0 standard 

sets ‘‘a very high bar that exceeds 

federal government Web site 

accessibility requirements,’’ we believe 

they overstate the actual differences 

between the section 508 and WCAG 2.0 

standards. From a practical standpoint, 

WCAG 2.0 success criteria largely 

standardize best practices that were 

developed in response to the 

requirements of the current section 508 

standards. In addition, WCAG 2.0 

success criteria that do not correspond 

to the current section 508 standards 

were developed to address perceived 

gaps and deficiencies in the current 

section 508 standards. Overall, the 

WCAG 2.0 success criteria spell out 

more specific requirements for aspects 

of the Web site coding function than 

section 508 provides, such as consistent 

identification of functional elements 

that repeat across Web pages, specific 

standards for color contrast, multimedia 

player controls, and compatibility with 

assistive technology. 

2. Usability and Performance Standards 

The SNPRM: In the September 2011 

SNPRM preamble, we asked for 

comment on whether we should adopt 

a performance standard in lieu of or in 

addition to the proposed technical 

standards in the final rule, as well as on 

the types and versions of assistive 

technologies to which performance 

standards should apply. We also sought 

comment on the feasibility and value of 

requiring airlines to seek feedback from 

the disability community on the 

accessibility of their Web sites through 

periodic monitoring and feedback on 

their usability. In addition, we wanted 

to know whether the Department should 

require carriers to develop guidance 

manuals for their Web site developers 

on implementing the WCAG 2.0 

standard so that their Web sites are 

functionally usable by individuals with 

disabilities. 

Comments: Disability advocacy 

organizations strongly urged the 

Department to adopt a set of 

performance standards in addition to 

the WCAG 2.0 Level AA technical 

standard. ACB and AFB advocated the 

adoption of a general performance 

standard consistent with the broader 

accessibility standard of effective 

communication articulated in the DOJ 

ADA title II and III regulations.25 They 

argued that mere compliance with the 

technical standards would not be 

enough to ensure that Web sites would 

be fully accessible to people with 

disabilities. NFB, ABC, NCIL, CCD, and 

BBI also supported pairing the WCAG 

technical standard with a performance 

standard to ensure accessibility and 

usability by a range of individuals with 

sensory, physical, and cognitive 

disabilities. Acknowledging the 

difficulty of measuring performance 

standards, NCIL suggested several 

possible measures, including the rate of 

success of users with disabilities in 

accomplishing various tasks on the Web 

site, the average time it takes for a group 

of users with disabilities to accomplish 

a task as compared to a group of nondisabled users, and required 

compatibility of a Web site with the 

most widely used accessibility software 

and technologies to ensure usability by 

as many people as possible. 

While most industry commenters did 

not specifically address performance 

standards, the carrier associations 

opposed the adoption of any kind of 

prescriptive standard, including specific 

performance standards. ITSA noted that 

making Web pages accessible involves 

performance trade-offs and that 

imposing rigid performance standards 

would result in costs and technical 

challenges that may not be feasible. The 

Cornell e-Rulemaking Initiative (CeRI), 

an academic initiative working to 

facilitate public comment on DOT 

rulemakings, sought to conform its Web 

site to WCAG 2.0 at Level AA in 

preparation for soliciting public 

comments on DOT’s rulemaking on Web 

site and kiosk accessibility. Their 

experience led them to conclude that 

applying performance standards broadly 

may have limited usefulness. They note, 

for example, that performance standards 

are typically developed based on a 

specific version of a specific assistive 

technology used to access Web sites and 

therefore are not useful for testing 

earlier versions of the technology (e.g., 

a Web site that meets a performance 

standard accessed by a user with the 

latest version of JAWS screen reader 

software may not meet the performance 

standard if accessed using an earlier 

version of the software). They also noted 

that with regard to specific assistive 

technologies, compatibility with 

evolving technical standards and user 

proficiency has an impact on whether 

performance standards are helpful in 

testing the usability of a Web site. ITI 

expressed concern about the many 

questions related to specific 

combinations of browsers, operating 

systems, assistive technologies, and 

disability types that would need to be 

considered and the cost impact of 

developing and testing specific 

performance standards. As an 

alternative, ITI suggested introducing a 

mechanism for end users of a Web site 

that already meets the WCAG 2.0 

technical standard to be able to report 

on specific accessibility issues 

encountered on that Web site. 

BBI supported a requirement for 

carriers to develop internal guidance 

manuals, pointing out that such 

documents are useful for training new 

or temporary employees on 

implementing the standard and 

preventing new accessibility barriers on 

the Web site. CCD stated that DOT 

should act now to develop guidance for 

carriers on how to implement technical 

accessibility standards so that their Web 

sites will be functionally usable. DRNJ, 

on the other hand, noted that since a 

substantial amount of free training and 

guidance materials are presently 

available online, a requirement for each 

carrier to develop its own guidance 

manual would appear to be 

unnecessary. They recommended that if 

there is a need for airline-specific 

material, the Department should 

contract with a university or other 

provider to create a national center for 

training and technical assistance. The 

carrier associations felt that requiring 

carriers to produce a guidance manual 

would further burden staff members 

already busy implementing other 

passenger protection requirements. 

DOT Decision: The Department is 

persuaded that adopting specific 

performance standards at this time is 

premature. We strongly believe that 

specific measures to ensure the usability 

of Web sites that meet the WCAG 2.0 

standard are necessary, however. We 

therefore are requiring carriers to 

consult with members of the disability 

community to test and provide feedback 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67890 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

26Richardson, Allie (November 29, 2011). Those 

WCAG Forgot: Designing for the Cognitively 

Disabled. Retrieved July 16, 2013 from http://

orange.eserver.org/issues/7-2/richardson.html. 

27Erickson, W., Lee, C., von Schrader, S. (2013). 

Disability Statistics from the 2011 American 

Community Survey (ACS). Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

University Employment and Disability Institute 

(EDI). Retrieved July 16, 2013 from 

www.disabilitystatistics.org. 

on the usability of their Web sites before 

the applicable compliance deadline. A 

carrier is not required to pay a group or 

individual representing a disability type 

to test its Web site. Although we believe 

that it is very unlikely that a carrier 

would be completely unable to find 

anyone with whom to consult, if after 

making a reasonable effort a carrier is 

unable to find a person or group 

representing a disability type that will 

test the carrier’s Web site at no expense 

to the carrier and within a reasonable 

time period, the carrier has fulfilled its 

obligation with respect to the 

requirement. 

It is worth noting that the Department 

has required consultation with 

disability organizations in 

implementing certain provisions of its 

disability regulation (14 CFR part 382) 

since March 1990. In the March 1990 

final rule, the Department mandated 

that airlines consult with organizations 

representing persons with disabilities in 

developing their employee training 

programs. In the preamble to this 1990 

final rule, we explained that ‘‘[t]he 

Department continues to believe that 

disability groups are a major resource 

for carriers, to help them devise 

practical and comprehensive procedures 

for accommodating passengers with a 

wide variety of disabilities. Consultation 

basically means making reasonable 

efforts to obtain the views of disability 

organizations: there is no list of 

organizations or type of contacts that the 

rule specifically mandates.’’ See 55 FR 

8008, 8043 (March 6, 1990). 

More recently, we refined this 

requirement in the May 2008 final rule 

in response to concerns raised by 

foreign carriers. In their comments on 

the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM, some 

foreign carriers objected to consulting 

with disability groups, saying that the 

requirement should be waived if they 

could not find a local disability group 

to consult. Disability groups responded 

to these comments by suggesting that 

such a waiver was unnecessary because 

the U.S.-based staff of the airline could 

consult with U.S. groups if necessary. 

The following excerpt from the 

preamble to the 2008 final rule 

discusses the Department’s decision 

regarding changes to the consultation 

requirement: ‘‘While U.S. disability 

groups can undoubtedly be a useful 

resource for both U.S. and foreign 

carriers, we do not believe it would be 

realistic to require foreign carriers to 

seek out U.S. disability groups for 

consultation (in many cases, U.S.-based 

personnel of these carriers would be 

operations staff, not management and 

training officials). Consequently, we 

have modified the language of this 

provision to refer to seeking disability 

groups in the home country of the 

airline. If home country disability 

groups are not available, a carrier could 

consult individuals with disabilities or 

international organizations representing 

individuals with disabilities. We do not 

believe that a waiver provision is 

needed, since it is unlikely that a carrier 

would be completely unable to find 

anyone—home country or international 

disability groups, individuals with 

disabilities—with whom to consult. As 

a matter of enforcement policy, 

however, the Department would take 

into consideration a situation in which 

a carrier with an otherwise satisfactory 

training program documented it had 

made good faith efforts to consult but 

was unable to find anyone with whom 

to consult.’’ 73 FR 27614, 27643 (May 

13, 2008). The Department also already 

requires U.S. and foreign carriers to 

consult with local service animal 

training organization(s) in providing 

animal relief areas for service animals at 

U.S. airports. 

Similarly, in this final rule, the 

Department is requiring carriers to 

consult with individuals with visual, 

auditory, tactile, and cognitive 

disabilities or organizations 

representing these disability types (e.g., 

American Federation of the Blind, 

National Federation of the Blind, 

National Association of the Deaf, 

Arthritis Foundation, United Cerebral 

Palsy, The Arc, etc.) in testing the 

usability of their Level AA-compliant 

Web sites. Carriers may consult with 

any individuals and/or local, national, 

or international disability organizations 

whose input collectively can help them 

determine how effectively their 

accessible Web site addresses the 

functional limitations of people with 

visual, auditory, tactile, and cognitive 

disabilities. To the extent that 

individuals on a carrier’s disability 

advisory board represent these disability 

types, the carrier may consult with 

those individuals to satisfy the 

requirement. For disabilities of the types 

listed above that are not represented on 

their advisory boards, carriers will be 

obliged to consult with outside 

individuals or organizations 

representing those disability types. We 

believe that it is very unlikely that a 

carrier would be completely unable to 

find anyone with whom to consult— 

either unaffiliated individuals with 

disabilities or members of a home 

country or international disability 

group—that represent these disability 

types and who use or want to use a 

carrier’s Web site. As a matter of 

enforcement policy, however, the 

Department would take into 

consideration a situation in which a 

carrier documented that it had made 

good faith efforts but was unable to find 

a group or individual willing or able to 

consult within a reasonable time period. 

While the consultation requirement 

does not mandate that carriers modify 

their Web sites using all the feedback 

obtained from the consultations, we 

encourage carriers to make any changes 

necessary to ensure access by people 

with these functional limitations to the 

extent that such changes are not unduly 

burdensome to implement. 

We note that although the WCAG 2.0 

standard is geared to making Web sites 

accessible to a wide range of individuals 

with disabilities, the developers of 

WCAG 2.0 emphasize that the 

guidelines are not able to address the 

needs of people with all types, degrees, 

and combinations of disability. Some 

disability advocates have criticized 

WCAG 2.0 as falling short in providing 

equal accessibility for individuals with 

cognitive disabilities.26 These advocates 

observe that certain WCAG 2.0 Level A 

and Level AA success criteria target 

certain accessibility issues such 

individuals face (e.g., Success Criterion 

2.2.1—Adjustable Timing, 2.4.7—Focus 

Visible such that any keyboard operable 

user interface has a mode of operation 

where the keyboard focus indicator is 

visible, 3.3.1—Error Identification, 

3.3.3—Error Suggestion, and 3.3.4— 

Error Prevention). The advocates note, 

however, that the most significant issues 

such as difficulty comprehending text 

are addressed by optional Level AAA 

success criteria. Those criteria include 

Success Criterion 3.1.5—Reading Level 

that requires supplementary content or 

a version of the content that does not 

require reading ability greater than 

lower secondary level, and Success 

Criterion 1.4.8—Visual Presentation 

requiring unjustified text, text width no 

more than 80 characters, line spacing of 

at least one and a half lines within 

paragraphs, capabilities for users to 

select text and background colors and 

resize text up to 200%, and other 

features to assist with difficulties in 

tracking and comprehending text. With 

nearly 5% of the U.S. population 

reporting some kind of cognitive 

disability in 2011,27 the Department 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67891 

28Clark, Joe (November 26, 2006). Letter of 

invitation re cognitive language and learning 

aspects of WCAG 2.0. Retrieved July 16, 2013 from 

http://joeclark.org/access/webaccess/WCAG/

cognitive/message061122.html. 

acknowledges that even the best 

accessibility standards currently 

available fall short of providing the 

accessibility needed by many 

individuals with cognitive impairments. 

We are nonetheless encouraged that the 

WCAG developers recognize these 

needs and support additional measures 

to advance cognitive, language, and 

learning access that can be taken within 

WCAG 2.0 itself and other ways that go 

beyond what can go into the standard.28

As efforts to improve accessibility for 

different kinds of disabilities continue, 

usability testing with individuals 

representing a variety of disabilities will 

help in the interim to improve access 

until measurable success criteria to 

address specific unmet needs can be 

developed. We believe that the usability 

testing strikes a balance between taking 

reasonable steps to ensure usability, 

while limiting the potentially significant 

costs of meeting performance standards 

having minimal usefulness to 

individuals with disabilities. The 

Department encourages disability 

advocacy organizations to work with 

carriers to provide Web site usability 

feedback, both during the development 

and testing process and after the 

accessible Web site has been published. 

With regard to adopting a requirement 

for carriers to develop guidance 

manuals, the Department concurs that 

the benefits do not outweigh the costs. 

There is an abundance of readily 

available guidance on the W3C Web site 

with detailed information on 

implementing and testing each of the 

technical criteria for each WCAG 2.0 

conformance level. In addition, 

consultation with members of the 

disability community on the usability of 

conformant Web sites will enhance the 

available technical guidance and ensure 

that carriers have practical feedback to 

guide their efforts. As Web content is 

updated and Web development 

standards evolve, we encourage carriers 

to continue soliciting feedback from 

users with disabilities as the best way to 

ensure the ongoing accessibility and 

usability of their Web sites. 

3. Scope—Web Sites and Other 

Electronic Information and 

Communication Technologies 

The SNPRM: Our proposal to require 

carrier Web site accessibility was 

limited to all public-facing content on a 

carrier’s primary Web site marketing air 

transportation to the general public in 

the United States. We did not propose 

to apply the accessibility standard to 

any other Web site a carrier may own, 

lease, or control (e.g., a mobile Web site) 

or to primary carrier Web sites 

marketing flights exclusively to the 

public outside of the United States. The 

Department asked for comment on 

whether we should limit the 

requirement to certain portions of the 

primary Web site (e.g., booking 

function, checking flight status), 

whether the requirements should extend 

to mobile carrier Web sites and to other 

electronic information technologies 

(e.g., email or text messaging) used by 

carriers, and whether any third-party 

software downloadable from a carrier’s 

Web site should be required to be 

accessible. 

Covered Content on Primary Web Sites 

Comments: Regarding the scope of the 

Web site accessibility requirements, in 

general the carrier associations and 

several individual carriers advocated 

limiting the scope to pages on the 

primary Web site or on a mobile Web 

site involved in booking air 

transportation. The carrier associations, 

which strongly advocated for flexibility 

and alternative approaches to making 

Web sites accessible, urged the 

Department to consider four options for 

providing Web site accessibility from 

which carriers could choose. The first 

option was a text alternative Web site 

that would provide only the core air 

travel information and services (not all 

of the public-facing content) offered on 

the primary Web site. The second 

option would also provide only core air 

travel information and services on a 

mobile Web site that meets the MWBP 

1.0 standard and is accessible from a 

link on the primary Web site or that 

automatically loads on a Smartphone or 

other mobile device. The third option 

would allow a carrier to make the Web 

pages that provide core air travel 

information and services on a primary 

Web site accessible using any Web 

accessibility standard. The fourth option 

would only require carriers to make 

newly created Web pages on a primary 

Web site accessible using any Web 

accessibility standard starting two years 

from the final rule effective date. None 

of the options suggested by the carrier 

associations would require that all 

public-facing content on a primary Web 

site be accessible, although the fourth 

option might eventually lead to that 

result. Commenters who supported 

flexibility and carrier choice also 

expressed the view that fewer 

compliance options would inhibit 

carrier innovation and use of new 

technologies, limit Web site utility for 

all passengers, and result in an undue 

burden for the industry. Other industry 

commenters such as AAI supported the 

WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard, but 

also favored an approach that would 

limit the public-facing content on a 

primary Web site that must meet that 

standard. Some commenters who 

supported limiting the scope of covered 

primary Web site content argued that 

the cost of making large numbers of 

infrequently visited pages accessible 

will outweigh any benefit to the few 

people with disabilities who might visit 

them. Others argued that providing the 

core air travel functions in an accessible 

format on a mobile or text alternative 

Web site was a reasonable solution 

because it would be less costly than 

making their primary Web sites 

accessible and still provide passengers 

with disabilities essential air 

transportation service information. We 

note that carriers generally were in 

agreement with the core air travel 

information and services listed in the 

second tier of the phased compliance 

schedule proposed in the September 

2011 SNPRM and to applying some 

accessibility standard to all associated 

Web pages. One carrier that did not 

support applying accessibility standards 

to carrier Web sites suggested that 

carriers be required to provide a phone 

number to an accessible phone line 

where equivalent information and 

services could be obtained. In its view, 

this was the best alternative because it 

would provide personalized service to 

passengers with disabilities and avoid 

the imposition of high Web site 

conversion costs on carriers. 

Disability advocacy organizations and 

individuals who self-identified as 

having a disability unanimously 

supported the Department’s proposal to 

require that all public-facing content on 

a carrier’s primary Web site be 

accessible. A few commenters who selfidentified as having disabilities did not 

oppose the use of text-only Web sites for 

achieving accessibility, but none 

supported access to anything less than 

all public-facing content on a carrier’s 

Web site. ITI, the association of leading 

information and communication 

technology companies, stated 

unequivocally that the complete Web 

site (all public-facing content on a 

carrier’s primary Web site versus only 

portions necessary to providing core air 

travel services and information) should 

comply with the WCAG 2.0 standard at 

the conclusion of the implementation 

period. The majority of individual 

commenters identifying as having a 

disability and all commenters 

representing disability advocacy 

organizations were also adamantly 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67892 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

against the use of text-only Web sites as 

an alternative to making the primary 

Web site accessible. Their reasons for 

opposing the text-only sites will be 

explained in the discussion on 

conforming alternate versions later in 

this preamble. 

DOT Decision: The Department 

considered the arguments raised by 

carriers and carrier associations in 

support of compliance options that limit 

the scope of primary Web site content 

that must be accessible. While the 

proposed options would undoubtedly 

result in cost savings to carriers, they 

are not the only way to reduce the cost 

of making Web sites accessible. 

Moreover, and most importantly, such 

options are not acceptable because the 

purpose of requiring Web site 

accessibility is to attempt to ensure that 

passengers with disabilities have equal 

access to the same information and 

services available to passengers without 

disabilities. Therefore, the Department 

has decided to retain in the final rule 

the requirement we proposed that 

public-facing content on a carrier’s 

primary Web site marketing air 

transportation to the general public in 

the United States must be accessible. 

The statutory definition of air 

transportation includes interstate 

transportation or foreign air 

transportation between a place in the 

United States and a place outside of the 

United States. See 49 U.S.C. 40102 (a) 

(5). For a carrier whose primary Web 

site markets (i.e., advertises or sells) air 

transportation to the general public in 

the United States this generally means 

that all public-facing Web content is 

covered. For a carrier whose primary 

Web site markets air transportation as 

defined above and other flights to the 

general public in and outside of the 

United States, only public-facing 

content on the Web site marketing air 

transportation to the general public in 

the United States must be accessible. 

We recognize that some technical 

difficulty may be involved for foreign 

carriers applying the accessibility 

standard to Web sites marketing air 

transportation to the public in the 

United States that draw on data sources 

not required to be accessible under our 

rules. We are not convinced; however, 

that the effort to ensure the data from 

such sources can be used on the covered 

Web site will involve such significant 

expense as to cause an undue burden. 

At the same time, there is no 

requirement for carriers to make Web 

pages that market air transportation to 

the general public outside of the United 

States on a covered Web site accessible. 

Therefore, for covered Web sites that 

market both air transportation as 

defined above and other flights not 

within the scope of this rule, we expect 

carriers to do what is necessary to 

render Web pages marketing air 

transportation to the general public in 

the United States accessible. Carriers 

will have to decide the best approach to 

making the covered Web content 

accessible based on their business 

priorities and available resources. As a 

practical matter, we recognize that the 

most technically efficient and cost 

effective way to ensure that covered 

pages meet the accessibility standard 

may be for carriers to make all Web 

pages accessible on a Web site that 

markets air transportation to the general 

public both inside and outside of the 

United States and/or markets flights not 

covered by the rule. Therefore, we 

encourage carriers to bring Web pages 

covered by the accessibility 

requirements into compliance with the 

WCAG 2.0 Level AA standard using the 

technical approach that is most feasible 

for them given the content and 

infrastructure architecture of their Web 

sites. 

Mobile Web Sites, Mobile Apps, and 

Other Electronic Communication 

Technology 

The SNPRM: The Department sought 

comment on whether carriers should be 

required to ensure that their mobile Web 

sites meet the WCAG 2.0 standard at 

Level AA or follow the W3C’s MWBP 

1.0, or both. We asked whether carriers 

should be required to ensure that any 

third party software downloadable from 

a link on the carrier’s Web site (e.g., deal 

finding software) is accessible and to 

ensure other carrier-initiated electronic 

communications such as reservation 

confirmations, flight status notifications, 

and special offer emails are accessible. 

We also requested input on the costs 

and technical feasibility of ensuring that 

such content is accessible. 

Comments: The Department received 

a number of responsive comments to 

our questions about the accessibility of 

mobile Web sites and other electronic 

information and communication 

technologies. Several advocacy 

organizations for individuals with 

vision impairment were pleased that the 

Department had acknowledged that 

primary Web sites represent only a 

portion of the air travel-related 

electronic information and 

communication that pose barriers to 

people with disabilities. These 

organizations strongly urged the 

Department to go further and require 

carriers to ensure that their mobile Web 

sites and other technologies used for 

electronic customer interface (e.g., 

email, text messages, and mobile 

applications) are accessible. Some 

commenters representing advocacy 

organizations urged the Department to 

require carriers to make their mobile 

Web sites conform to the W3C’s MWBP, 

while others urged us to require mobile 

Web sites to conform to the same WCAG 

2.0 Level AA standard as primary Web 

sites. Regarding mobile applications 

(apps), while some of these commenters 

acknowledged that most mobile phones 

are not yet fully accessible to blind and 

other visually impaired users, they felt 

strongly that mobile apps may overtake 

Web sites and kiosks as the method of 

choice for looking up flight information, 

selecting seats, checking in, etc. within 

the next few years. They urged the 

Department to require carriers to ensure 

that their apps are compatible with the 

built-in or external assistive 

technologies that individuals with 

disabilities use. Specifically, they asked 

us to require carriers to meet the 

accessibility standards developed by 

operating system developers (e.g., 

Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines for 

mobile apps designed for Apple’s iOS 

mobile operating system) or another 

recognized standard known to be 

compatible with available external 

assistive technology. As discussed 

earlier, a few of these commenters also 

urged the Department to adopt in 14 

CFR part 382 DOJ’s ‘‘effective 

communication’’ standard under ADA 

titles II and III and require accessibility 

of all electronic information and 

communication technologies used by 

carriers to interface with their 

customers. NCIL advocated that the 

Department take a stronger stance in its 

rulemakings to reflect the broader rights 

of people with disabilities to technology 

access as described in Section 508. By 

way of comparison, they observed the 

efforts of government agencies to 

effectively communicate with people 

from diverse cultural backgrounds by 

making their regulations and guidance 

documents available in multiple 

languages on agency Web sites, through 

printed media, and via interpreters on 

the telephone. NCIL believes that the 

same concentrated and sustained effort 

to include people with disabilities is 

overdue. They further regard failure to 

move in the direction of greater access 

for people with disabilities across the 

spectrum of electronic information and 

communication technologies as 

‘‘unacceptable, unfair, and 

discriminatory’’ stating: ‘‘. . . mandates 

for accessibility of Web sites . . . [are] 

long overdue; DOT must not make the 

same mistake by neglecting to address 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67893 

mobile apps until several years from 

now.’’ 

Carrier associations and individual 

carriers generally supported applying an 

accessibility standard to mobile Web 

sites only when the mobile Web site is 

the platform for making the content of 

a carrier’s primary Web site accessible. 

They acknowledged that mobile Web 

sites typically do not contain all the 

content of primary Web sites. ITSA 

encouraged us to adopt a flexible 

standard for mobile Web sites (e.g., the 

W3C’s MWBP). In general, industry 

commenters either expressed opposition 

or did not comment on our questions 

regarding accessibility of other 

electronic information and 

communication technologies used by 

carriers to interface with their 

customers. 

DOT Decision: The Department 

unequivocally supports full accessibility 

of all electronic information and 

communication technologies used by 

the air transportation industry to 

interface with its customers. We believe 

that certain factors, however, preclude 

introducing new accessibility 

requirements for electronic information 

and communication technologies other 

than Web sites at this time. Four factors 

weighed most heavily in our decision: 

(1) No accessibility standard specifically 

for mobile Web sites exists at this time; 

(2) accessibility standards such as 

WCAG 2.0 cannot be readily applied to 

mobile applications designed for mobile 

platforms that are not accessible; (3) 

most mobile devices currently on the 

market are not accessible to individuals 

who are blind or visually impaired; and 

(4) the need to focus carrier attention 

and resources on bringing existing Web 

sites into compliance with WCAG 2.0 

Level AA. We believe the best approach 

to expanding accessibility of electronic 

information and communication 

technology in the air travel industry is 

to allow carriers to focus their resources 

on bringing the covered public-facing 

content of their primary Web sites into 

full compliance with the WCAG 2.0 

Level AA standard. As they do so, they 

will acquire expertise and develop 

technical efficiencies in implementing 

the standard. We have decided, 

therefore, not to require that mobile 

Web sites, email, text messaging, mobile 

apps, and other electronic 

communication technologies be 

accessible at this time. Nonetheless, we 

encourage carriers to develop their 

mobile Web sites in conformance with 

the W3C’s current MWBP until such 

time as a standard for mobile Web sites 

is developed and adopted. We also 

encourage carriers to immediately begin 

incorporating accessibility features into 

email, text messaging, and other 

information and communication 

technologies they use to the extent 

feasible. Doing so will immediately and 

incrementally increase access to those 

technologies for individuals with 

disabilities. In addition, it may make 

compliance with any accessibility 

standard the Department may require 

for such technologies in the future 

easier and less costly. 

Embedded Inaccessible Third-Party 

Plug-In Applications and Links to 

Inaccessible External Web Sites and 

Applications 

Comments: Carrier Web sites may 

contain content that can only be read 

using a software application owned and 

developed by a third party. Such 

applications may be hosted (embedded) 

on the carrier’s Web site, or the Web site 

may contain a link to an external Web 

site where the application resides. In the 

September 2011 SNPRM, the 

Department sought comment on 

whether third-party software 

downloadable from a carrier’s Web site 

(embedded) should be required to be 

accessible. The carrier associations 

opposed any such requirement, 

reiterating their position that the 

Department should regulate the entities 

providing the software directly when it 

is within the scope of its authority to do 

so. Disability advocacy organizations 

commenting on the issue urged the 

Department to require carriers to ensure 

that downloadable third-party software 

is accessible. These commenters pointed 

out that any contracts carriers have with 

the entities producing such software 

should contain a provision requiring 

that it meet the WCAG 2.0 standard. 

They specifically noted that section 

382.15(b) requires carriers contracting 

for services that must be provided under 

Part 382 to ensure that the contracts 

stipulate that the vendor provide the 

service in accordance with Part 382. 

They reasoned that if Part 382 requires 

a carrier’s public-facing Web content to 

be accessible, and the carrier contracts 

with a third party to provide 

downloadable software on its Web site, 

the contract must stipulate that the 

software meets the WCAG 2.0 standard. 

In addition, they urged the Department 

to require carriers to work proactively 

with the producers of inaccessible 

software that resides on an external Web 

site but can be reached from a link on 

the carriers’ Web sites to repair any 

accessibility issues. 

DOT Decision: The Department has 

considered the impact on Web site 

accessibility of various scenarios 

involving inaccessible third-party 

software embedded on a carrier’s Web 

site and links to inaccessible Web sites 

or software that reside on an external 

Web site. In the case of an inaccessible 

third-party software, such as a deal 

finder software, embedded directly on a 

carrier’s Web site, the Department 

believes that allowing exceptions for 

such software on an otherwise 

accessible Web site could significantly 

undermine the goal of equivalent access 

to Web site information and services for 

people with disabilities. Many 

companies today sell off-the-shelf Web 

software (e.g., JavaScript menus) used 

by Web site authors. A general 

exception allowing carriers to embed 

inaccessible plug-in software developed 

by third parties on an otherwise 

accessible Web site over time could 

result in significant portions of Web 

sites being excepted from compliance 

with the WCAG 2.0 standard. 

The Department believes it is 

incumbent on carriers that intend to 

host third-party software of any kind on 

their Web sites to work with the 

developers to ensure that such software 

meets the WCAG 2.0 standard. This rule 

does not, however, prohibit a carrier 

from having links on its primary Web 

site to external Web sites and thirdparty software that are partially or 

entirely inaccessible. Such links are 

acceptable so long as there is a 

mechanism on the carrier’s Web site 

informing the user that the third party 

software or external Web site may not 

follow the same accessibility policies as 

the primary Web site. For example, if a 

carrier’s Web site has links to 

inaccessible external Web sites 

containing information and consumer 

comments about the carrier’s services 

(e.g., social media Web sites such as 

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube), the 

carrier must provide a disclaimer when 

the link is clicked informing the user 

that the external Web site is not within 

the carrier’s control and may not follow 

the same accessibility policies (See links 

to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube on 

the Social Security Administration 

home page http://ssa.gov). While this 

approach is acceptable, we urge carriers 

generally to avoid linking to external 

resources that are known to be 

inaccessible and to work with the 

authors of the external sites whenever 

possible to develop accessible modules. 

For example, Facebook, Twitter, and 

YouTube have collaborated successfully 

with the Web site developers of certain 

government agencies to provide an 

accessible interface for agency-related 

content (e.g., see links to Facebook, 

Twitter, and YouTube on the 

homepages of the Department of 

Education at http://ed.gov and the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67894 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

29Lazar, Jonathan. ‘‘Up in the air: Are airlines 

following the new DOT rules on equal pricing for 

people with disabilities when Web sites are 

inaccessible?’’ Government Information Quarterly. 

27.4 (October 2010): 329–336. Web. 26 June 2012 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

S0740624X10000638 

Department of Homeland Security at 

http://dhs.gov). 

4. Applicability 

The SNPRM: We proposed to apply 

the WCAG 2.0 Web site accessibility 

standard to U.S. and foreign carrier 

primary Web sites that market (i.e., 

advertise or sell) air transportation to 

the general public in the United States. 

We asked whether the requirements 

should apply to the Web sites of the 

largest U.S. and foreign air carriers only 

(e.g., those that operate at least one 

aircraft with more than 60 seats), of 

carriers that offer charter service only, 

and of carriers that advertise air 

transportation but do not sell airline 

tickets. As discussed above, the 

Department also proposed to require 

both U.S. and foreign carriers to ensure 

the accessibility of Web sites owned or 

controlled by agents that are not small 

business entities and to permit carriers 

to market on the inaccessible Web sites 

of small ticket agents, if they ensure that 

those small agents make Web-based 

discount fares and amenities available 

to passengers who indicate they are 

unable to use the agent’s Web site. We 

sought comment on whether we should 

directly require ticket agents to ensure 

the accessibility of their Web sites under 

49 U.S.C. 41712, rather than indirectly 

through the carriers. We also proposed 

to require that carriers disclose (and 

make available to sell) Web-based 

discounts and waive telephone or ticket 

counter reservation fees for customers 

indicating that due to a disability they 

are unable to use a carrier’s inaccessible 

Web site (before the Web site conversion 

deadline). Finally, since individuals 

with certain disabilities (e.g., deaf-blind) 

may not be able to use a Web site that 

meets the WCAG 2.0 standard at Level 

AA without assistance, we proposed to 

require carriers to disclose and make 

available Web-based discounts and 

waive telephone or ticket counter 

reservation fees for customers indicating 

that due to a disability they are unable 

to use the carrier’s accessible Web site 

after the Web site conversion deadline. 

Applicability to Carrier Web Sites 

Comments: Overall, the majority of 

commenters favored our proposal to 

apply the Web site accessibility 

requirements to primary carrier Web 

sites that market air transportation to 

the general public in the United States. 

Despite their disagreements with the 

proposed technical standard, the scope 

of covered Web site content, and the 

implementation time frame, both U.S. 

and foreign carriers were nearly 

unanimous in supporting the concept of 

carrier Web site accessibility. There 

were some comments, particularly 

among industry commenters, in favor of 

limiting applicability of the Web site 

accessibility requirements based on 

carrier size or Web site function. 

The carrier associations who 

commented jointly urged the 

Department to apply the accessibility 

standard only to carrier Web sites that 

offer and sell air transportation. In their 

view, carrier Web sites that advertise air 

transportation but do not sell airline 

tickets should be excluded from 

coverage. Condor Flugdienst noted that 

foreign carriers operating a small 

number of weekly flights to and from 

the United States should be permitted 

an alternative means of compliance 

rather than having to make an 

investment in Web site accessibility 

similar to that of foreign carriers that 

operate more frequent covered service. 

All Nippon (ANA) concurred with the 

notion that basic information on carrier 

Web sites should be accessible to 

consumers with disabilities but stated 

that revising its Web sites targeting only 

U.S. consumers is impractical because 

all its Web sites (e.g., targeting Japan, 

Asia, Europe) draw on common data 

sources. The Regional Airline 

Association asserted that compliance 

costs for smaller carriers operating 

aircraft with 60 or fewer passenger seats 

would far outweigh the benefits but did 

not explicitly support excluding Web 

sites based on carrier size. One industry 

commenter suggested that DOT should 

exclude small or very small carriers 

with inaccessible Web sites from the 

accessibility requirements as long as the 

large partner carriers handling online 

ticket sales, check-in, etc., on their 

behalf also host on their own accessible 

Web sites the core air travel information 

and services available on the smaller 

airlines’ inaccessible Web sites. There 

were very few comments by individual 

members of the public and none by 

commenters representing the disability 

community in favor of excluding any 

primary carrier Web sites from coverage. 

Carriers raised no objections to the 

provisions to require disclosure of Webbased discounts and amenities and 

waiver of reservation fees not applicable 

to other customers for individuals with 

disabilities who notify the carrier that 

they are unable to use a Web site due 

to their disability. Some pointed out 

that this service is already required by 

Part 382 so compliance would not pose 

any additional burden. Others expressed 

the view that this provision by itself 

would meet the service needs of 

customers with disabilities without 

imposing the cost of compliance with 

the WCAG standard. 

Several disability commenters, 

however, expressed dissatisfaction with 

the disclosure and fee waiver measures 

currently required by the Department 

when a carrier’s Web site is not 

accessible. These commenters 

maintained that carriers frequently do 

not provide the discount information or 

do not waive reservation fees even when 

the individual identifies as having a 

disability. In 2010, Dr. Jonathan Lazar 

and students at the Department of 

Computer and Information Sciences of 

Towson State University conducted a 

study involving test calls to major 

carriers to determine how consistently 

carriers comply with these 

requirements. Their findings suggested 

that there are compliance problems. 

After placing a series of 60 phone calls 

(15 calls to each of 4 major carriers), 

students who self-identified as blind 

and specifically stated that they were 

unable to access the carrier’s Web site 

noted at least one instance per carrier of 

price discrimination (e.g., discounted 

Web-based fares offered online were not 

disclosed to the caller or the agent 

refused to waive the telephone 

reservation fee). The rate of compliance 

failure was as high as 33 percent and 40 

percent respectively for two carriers.29

DOT Decision: After carefully 

considering the concerns and 

compliance alternatives proposed by 

commenters, the Department has 

decided to require U.S. and foreign 

carriers that operate at least one aircraft 

with a seating capacity of more than 60 

passengers to apply the WCAG 2.0 Level 

AA standard to their primary Web sites 

that market air transportation to the 

general public in the United States 

regardless of the carrier’s type of 

passenger operations (e.g., charter or 

scheduled), or in the case of foreign 

carriers, the frequency of covered 

flights. We note here that whenever we 

reference aircraft passenger seating 

capacity in this or other economic or 

civil rights aviation rulemakings, we are 

referring to an aircraft’s seating capacity 

as originally designed by the 

manufacturer. This requirement 

includes the primary Web sites of any 

such carriers that advertise on that site 

but do not sell air transportation there. 

For carriers that only advertise air 

transportation or their role as providers 

of air transportation (e.g., contract 

carriers) on their Web sites, compliance 

will be less technically complex and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67895 

costly than for carriers that also sell 

airline tickets. For foreign carriers for 

whom air transportation to and from the 

United States is a small percentage of 

their overall operations, some additional 

complexity may be involved to convert 

data drawn from databases that are not 

covered by Part 382. But as we 

discussed earlier, the data conversion 

involved does not, in our view, 

constitute an undue burden. 

On the other hand, we have decided 

to exclude small carriers (defined as 

those exclusively operating aircraft with 

60 or fewer seats) from the requirement 

to make their primary Web sites 

accessible because of concerns about 

cost burden. When we proposed to 

require all carriers, regardless of size, to 

make their Web sites accessible, our 

research indicated that the majority of 

small carriers operated fairly simple 

Web sites that do not offer online 

booking, check-in or flight status 

updates. In updating our research for 

the final regulatory evaluation, we 

found that the Web sites of many 

smaller carriers have added online 

booking engines, one of the more 

difficult Web site functions to make 

accessible. As such, we believe that the 

additional cost to comply with the 

accessibility standard and maintain 

their Web site’s accessibility would be 

substantial for small carriers. At the 

same time, the benefit for consumers 

would be small as only a few carriers 

exclusively operate aircraft with 60 or 

fewer seats. We therefore agree with the 

Regional Airline Association that the 

additional compliance costs for these 

small carriers are likely to outweigh the 

additional benefits to consumers from 

slightly increasing the number of 

carriers subject to these requirements. 

To address carrier sites that are 

inaccessible to an individual with a 

disability before or after the Web site 

accessibility deadline, we retain the 

provisions requiring carriers to disclose 

Web-based discounts applicable to the 

individual’s itinerary and waive fees 

applicable to telephone or ticket counter 

reservations for individuals who contact 

them through another avenue to make a 

reservation and indicate they are unable 

to access the Web site due to a 

disability. If the carrier charges a fee for 

Web site reservations that applies to all 

online reservations, the carrier may 

charge the same fee to a passenger with 

a disability requesting a reservation for 

a Web-based fare. We have noted earlier 

the commenter assertions and the Lazar 

study findings that some carriers do not 

consistently make Web-based discounts 

available or waive telephone or ticket 

counter reservation fees for those unable 

to use an inaccessible Web site. 

Therefore, we encourage carriers to 

ensure that their customer service staff 

is properly trained to comply with these 

requirements, as failures in this regard 

could result in enforcement action. We 

also encourage individuals with 

disabilities to immediately request a 

complaints resolution official (see 14 

CFR 382.151) when they encounter any 

difficulties obtaining the required 

accommodation. 

Ticket Agent Web sites 

Comments: All carrier associations 

and individual carriers commenting on 

the provision to require carriers to 

ensure the accessibility of ticket agent 

Web sites strenuously opposed it and 

most urged the Department to regulate 

ticket agents directly. These 

commenters cited significant added 

costs to carriers in order to monitor 

ticket agent Web sites and a lack of 

leverage on the carriers’ part to make the 

agents comply. ANA also sought 

clarification of the provision that 

carriers must ensure compliance with 

the accessibility standard on ticket agent 

‘‘Web pages on which [their] airline 

tickets are sold.’’ They wanted to know 

the extent of a carrier’s obligation to 

ensure accessibility on agent Web pages, 

which in addition to the carrier’s fares, 

display special offers and advertise 

travel components (e.g., hotel bookings, 

rental cars) that are not within DOT’s 

jurisdiction. 

ANA also raised concerns about Web 

pages subject to oversight by more than 

one carrier if disagreements arise among 

the carriers as to whether the pages 

adequately meet the standard. ANA also 

wanted to know about Web pages that 

are likely to be viewed in the process of 

booking a carrier’s fares but that do not 

specifically mention the carrier—such 

as disclosures about service fees or 

refund fees imposed by the agent. 

Finally, they raised the possibility that 

DOJ may subsequently adopt a Web site 

accessibility standard that conflicts with 

the DOT standard, and asked whether 

carriers would be obligated to put agents 

at risk of DOJ sanctions by insisting that 

they follow the DOT standard. We 

respond to these concerns in the section 

DOT Decision below. 

The American Society of Travel 

Agents (ASTA) and National Tour 

Association (NTA) concurred with the 

view that airlines should not be quasienforcers of ticket agent compliance 

with Web site accessibility 

requirements, stating that the carriers’ 

role should only be to provide notice to 

agents of their Web site accessibility 

obligations (e.g., through the Airlines 

Reporting Corporation). The Interactive 

Travel Services Association (ITSA) was 

the sole commenter representing ticket 

agents that supported a requirement for 

carriers to ensure agent Web site 

compliance as long as the sole 

determinant of compliance is the 

accessibility standard DOT mandates 

and not any additional requirements 

that individual airlines may wish to 

impose. 

Echoing ANA’s comments about the 

scope of agent Web sites, other industry 

commenters pointed out that ticket 

agent Web sites contain content and 

functionality that go well beyond the 

marketing of air transportation. They 

observed that compliance with the 

accessibility standard would necessarily 

entail changes to many Web pages 

unrelated to air transportation. USTOA 

in particular argued that few, if any, 

tour operator Web sites offer customers 

the opportunity to purchase air 

transportation as a stand-alone product, 

which typically is offered as an add-on 

to supplement a cruise or land tour. 

They argued that Web site changes to 

make pages on which air transportation 

is marketed accessible will necessarily 

involve changes to the site layout and 

architecture affecting non-air 

transportation related Web pages. 

USTOA believes that this situation 

amounts to de facto regulation of travel 

products and services outside the scope 

of the ACAA and the Department’s 

jurisdiction. Other travel industry 

commenters noted that only a small 

portion of the content on agent Web 

sites is air transportation-related and 

asserted that unless agents undertake 

the expense of rendering all the publicfacing content on their Web sites 

accessible, their Web sites as a whole 

will not be accessible to passengers with 

disabilities under the proposed 

requirements. 

Commenters representing agents also 

pointed out that the cost of converting 

existing Web sites would be especially 

difficult for ticket agents that have 

minimal in-house resources providing 

Web site support. These commenters 

observed that many travel businesses 

would have no choice but to purge 

existing content and avoid adding any 

advanced features on their Web sites 

rather than incur the high cost of 

ensuring that all their covered content is 

accessible. As an alternative, ASTA/

NTA suggested that DOT consider 

requiring only new content on agent 

Web sites to be accessible, while 

permitting a safe harbor for existing 

content. They reasoned that even with 

a safe harbor provision, in most cases 

the continuous and rapid turnover of 

content would result in Web sites 

coming into compliance over a 

relatively short period of time. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67896 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

30 14 CFR 399.80. 

31See 13 CFR 121.201. 

32See 28 CFR 36.302(a). 

For the most part, disability advocacy 

organizations indicated their overall 

concurrence with the Department’s 

proposals and few commented directly 

on whether the Department should 

require carriers to ensure the 

accessibility of ticket agent Web sites or 

ensure the compliance of ticket agent 

Web sites directly. Disability advocacy 

organizations that did comment on the 

ticket agent proposal remarked that 

carriers should be held responsible for 

ensuring ticket agent Web site 

accessibility through their contracts 

with the agents. They again observed 

that Part 382 already requires carriers to 

have provisions in their agreements 

with contractors that perform services 

required by Part 382 on their behalf. See 

section 382.15(b). A few individual 

members of the public who did not 

identify as having disabilities, however, 

did not support a requirement to hold 

carriers responsible for ensuring the 

compliance of ticket agent Web sites. 

In connection with ensuring the 

accessibility of ticket agent Web sites, 

industry commenters and some 

individual commenters also raised the 

concurrent Department of Justice (DOJ) 

rulemaking to revise its ADA title III 

regulations concerning Web site 

accessibility standards. These 

commenters stated that both Federal 

agencies must coordinate to ensure that 

the technical Web site accessibility 

criteria each will require are consistent. 

Some of these commenters urged the 

Department to postpone imposing a 

Web site accessibility standard with 

regard to ticket agents until the DOJ 

rulemaking is completed. 

Finally, the Department received a 

number of comments on the proposed 

provisions for carriers to ensure that 

agents that are small businesses and 

whose Web sites are inaccessible 

provide Web-based discounts, services, 

and amenities to individuals who 

indicate that they cannot use the agents’ 

Web sites and who purchase tickets 

using another method. ASTA 

specifically supported this proposal as a 

viable trade-off for small entities in lieu 

of Web site conformance, saying that 

such businesses expect to have personal 

interaction with consumers anyway, so 

any additional burden of providing 

these services offline should be 

manageable. Some disability advocacy 

organizations took exception to the 

Department excluding small ticket 

agents from the carriers’ responsibility 

to ensure that agent Web sites comply 

with the WCAG 2.0 standard. In their 

view, a requirement for carriers to 

ensure that small agents offer Webbased discounts to passengers who selfidentify as having a disability is not 

practical. They argued that customers 

will not necessarily know whether the 

agent is a small business and whether or 

not the agent’s Web site should be 

accessible. They also objected to the 

notion that in order to access the same 

service as non-disabled people, they 

must self-identify as having a disability. 

DOT Decision: The Department has 

considered the viewpoints for and 

against requiring accessibility of ticket 

agent Web sites and the question of 

whether or not carriers should be 

responsible to ensure that such Web 

sites are accessible. After looking at all 

the available information, we have 

decided against requiring carriers to 

ensure the accessibility of ticket agent 

Web sites. We considered limiting the 

agent Web sites for which carriers must 

ensure compliance to those agents 

whose annual revenues related to 

passenger service to, within and from 

the United States are $100,000,000 or 

more. Limiting carriers’ responsibility to 

ensure the accessibility of ticket agent 

Web sites to only the few largest agent 

Web sites would limit the cost burden 

to carriers of monitoring agent Web site 

compliance with this requirement while 

increasing the range of accessible air 

travel Web sites available to consumers 

with disabilities who would benefit 

from the rule. 

We decided against adopting this 

approach for two reasons. First, the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) has 

jurisdiction to regulate travel services as 

service establishments that are public 

accommodations under title III of the 

ADA, and DOJ expects to issue a 

proposal in early 2014 on accessibility 

of public Web sites under ADA title III. 

The Department of Justice proposal 

would address the scope of the 

obligation for public accommodations to 

provide access to their Web sites for 

persons with disabilities, as well as the 

technical standards necessary to comply 

with the ADA. Ticket agents, which are 

public accommodations under ADA title 

III, would be covered entities under 

DOJ’s rulemaking. Although in our view 

DOT has the rulemaking authority to 

require ticket agents to directly comply 

with the same Web site accessibility 

standard as carriers, we acknowledge 

DOJ’s concurrent authority to do the 

same and are persuaded that a single 

consistent standard that applies to ticket 

agents for Web site accessibility will 

eliminate uncertainty and confusion in 

converting their Web sites. 

Secondly, we find the carriers’ 

arguments persuasive that a requirement 

to ensure that their agents implement 

the Web site accessibility standards will 

be difficult for them to monitor and 

enforce. Furthermore, diverting 

technical resources away from the 

development and maintenance of their 

own primary Web sites in order to 

monitor ticket agent Web sites may 

detract from their efforts to identify and 

correct problems that may emerge after 

the WCAG 2.0, Level AA standard is 

implemented on their Web sites. For 

these reasons, we feel it will best serve 

the public interest not to require carriers 

to ensure that their ticket agents bring 

their Web sites into compliance with 

WCAG 2.0, Level AA at this time. In the 

same vein, the Department has decided 

not to require carriers to monitor and 

refrain from using ticket agents who fail 

to provide, either over the telephone or 

at an agent’s places of business, Webbased fares and amenities to individuals 

who cannot access an agent’s Web site 

due to their disabilities. Instead, the 

Department has decided to amend its 

rule on unfair and deceptive practices of 

ticket agents 30 to require all ticket 

agents that are not considered small 

businesses under the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) size standards 31

to disclose and offer Web-based 

discount fares to prospective passengers 

who contact them through other 

channels (e.g., by telephone or at an 

agent’s place of business) and indicate 

that they are unable to use an agent’s 

Web site due to a disability. 

The Department has also decided not 

to include an additional requirement in 

the rule on unfair and deceptive 

practices to prohibit a ticket agent from 

charging a fee for reservations made 

over the phone or at the agent’s place of 

business to individuals who cannot use 

the agent’s Web site due to a disability. 

In our view, amending the unfair and 

deceptive practices rule to bar fees is 

unnecessary since existing law already 

prohibits charging a fee in such 

circumstances. Under the ‘‘reasonable 

modification’’ provision of DOJ’s 

current title III ADA regulation, covered 

entities are required to make reasonable 

modifications to their policies, 

practices, and procedures when 

necessary to afford the same advantages 

to individuals with disabilities as are 

available to others, unless such 

modification would cause a 

fundamental alteration of the advantage 

offered.32 Furthermore, ADA title III 

prohibits covered entities from 

imposing charges to cover the cost of 

such reasonable modifications, even 

when a charge would normally be 

assessed to all customers for the same 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67897 

33See 28 CFR 36.301(c) which prohibits a public 

accommodation from imposing a surcharge on a 

particular individual with a disability or any group 

of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of 

measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids, 

barrier removal, alternatives to barrier removal, and 

reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or 

procedures, that are required to provide that 

individual or group with the nondiscriminatory 

treatment required by the ADA or its implementing 

regulation. 

34See 28 CFR part 36, App. B, p. 223 (September 

15, 2010). 

service.33 DOJ’s guidance concerning 

this provision explains that when a 

service normally provided at a fee to all 

customers is provided to an individual 

with a disability as a necessary measure 

to ensure compliance with the ADA, no 

fee may be imposed on the individual 

with a disability for that service.34 The 

Department believes that these title III 

provisions sufficiently establish the 

obligation of ticket agents to modify 

their policies to refrain from charging a 

fee to individuals with a disability for 

Web fares requested over the telephone 

or in-person at the agents’ places of 

business when those individuals 

indicate that they are unable to access 

the agent’s Web sites due to their 

disabilities. 

Implementation Approach and 

Schedule 

The SNPRM: The Department 

proposed a three-phase implementation 

schedule for ensuring that the carriers’ 

primary Web sites would be fully 

compliant by two years after the 

effective date of the rule. The first phase 

would apply only to new or completely 

redesigned primary Web sites that 

would be required to be accessible if 

placed online 180 days or later after the 

effective date. We explained that 

substantial technical changes such as 

those affecting a Web site’s visual 

design or site architecture would 

constitute a ‘‘redesign.’’ The second 

phase would require all pages 

associated with obtaining core air travel 

services and information related to these 

core services, either to be directly 

conformant on the carrier’s primary 

Web site, or have accessible links from 

the primary Web site to corresponding 

conformant pages on a mobile Web site 

by one year after the effective date. The 

third phase would require all publicfacing content on the carrier’s primary 

Web site, including core air travel 

services and information previously 

made accessible on a mobile Web site, 

to meet the accessibility standard by 

two years after the effective date. We 

also sought comment on alternative time 

frames and approaches for 

implementation of the WCAG 2.0 

standard. 

Comments: Most commenters, 

whether representing industry or the 

disability community, disagreed with 

the proposed implementation approach 

and time frame. Nearly all of the 

industry comments, for example, 

favored a flat two-year implementation 

deadline for all Web site changes, rather 

than the proposed phased approach. 

Most of the industry comments favoring 

a two-year deadline also supported 

applying the accessibility standard to 

only the portion of a carrier’s primary or 

mobile Web site involved in providing 

core air travel services and information. 

Spirit Airlines offered another option, 

recommending that only core air travel 

service and information pages be 

compliant with WCAG 2.0 at Level A by 

two years after the effective date and 

with Level AA by five years after the 

effective date. Air New Zealand, which 

did not object to the proposed WCAG 

2.0 Level AA standard or to the scope 

(all public-facing Web pages on the 

primary Web site) argued that more than 

two years would be needed to render all 

covered content compliant. The 

Interactive Travel Services Association 

(ITSA) opposed the phased 

implementation timeline and urged the 

Department to impose a single 

compliance deadline of at least 18 

months after the effective date for all 

Web content. Not all commenters 

rejected a phased approach, however. 

The American Society of Travel Agents 

(ASTA) opposed a flat two-year 

compliance period, stating that the 

timeline should be variable, allowing 

more time to convert larger Web sites. 

ASTA also supported a requirement for 

priority to be given to bringing content 

most likely to be used by consumers 

with disabilities into compliance first. 

Although many individual 

commenters who self-identified as 

having a disability supported the 

proposed time frame, disability 

advocacy organizations generally 

considered the time frame too generous. 

In their view, the technology already 

exists to restructure a large Web site on 

an accelerated schedule. ACB and AFB 

found the staggered implementation 

time frame confusing and potentially 

subject to litigation. They recommended 

that all Web site pages be compliant by 

six months after the effective date, 

except for certain legacy pages and 

content that would pose an undue 

burden to convert. CCD and NCIL 

advocated that at least Web pages 

providing the core air transportation 

services be compliant within six months 

after the effective date. 

ITI offered several comments on the 

proposed implementation approach. 

They observed that while the technical 

challenges of Web site conversion vary 

greatly among the carriers, it is safe to 

say that when accessibility is properly 

integrated into the development 

process, technical efficiencies can be 

expected over time. They also observed 

that while new pages generally can be 

made accessible more easily than 

existing content, both share common 

back end infrastructure that may need to 

be changed. These infrastructure 

changes may involve additional staff 

training and implementation time in 

order to enable accessibility on new 

pages. They advised the Department to 

allow adequate time to execute all the 

required changes. 

DOT Decision: We have considered all 

these comments at length and have been 

persuaded that the three-phase 

implementation schedule proposed for 

carriers’ Web sites to be fully compliant 

within two years should not be adopted. 

However, for reasons we discussed 

earlier, the Department is convinced 

that it should require all covered publicfacing content on a carrier’s primary 

Web site to be accessible. The 

Department believes that reduction of 

compliance costs can be achieved 

without compromising access to all the 

public-facing pages on an airline’s Web 

site content for people with disabilities 

by providing additional time for carriers 

to make their Web sites accessible. The 

additional time before full compliance 

is required will increase the extent to 

which accessibility can be built into 

newly launched or redesigned Web 

pages, forms, and applications, while 

minimizing the amount of retrofitting 

required. As such, we are requiring 

carriers that market air transportation to 

the general public in the United States 

and operate at least one aircraft with a 

seating capacity of more than 60 

passengers to bring all Web pages 

associated with obtaining core air travel 

services and information (i.e., booking 

or changing a reservation (including all 

flight amenities), checking-in for a 

flight, accessing a personal travel 

itinerary, accessing the status of a flight, 

accessing a personal frequent flyer 

account, accessing flight schedules, and 

accessing carrier contact information) 

into compliance with the WCAG 2.0 

standard at Level AA two years after the 

effective date of the rule. All remaining 

covered public-facing content on their 

Web sites must meet the WCAG 2.0 

standard at Level AA three years after 

the effective date of the rule. We believe 

the extended deadline will lower the 

overall compliance costs for carriers by 

allowing more time to implement the 

changes during scheduled Web site 

maintenance and updates. A more 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67898 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

35See Disabilities, Opportunities, 

Internetworking, and Technology, University of 

Washington. Are text-only Web pages an accessible 

alternative? (January 23, 2013), http://

www.washington.edu/doit/CUDE/articles?1149 (last 

visited July 16, 2016). See also Accessibility Hawks, 

Why Text Only Alternate Web Pages Are Not Ideal 

For Accessibility (March 12, 2012), http://

accessibilityhawks.com/web-accessibility-articles/

why-text-only-alternate-Web-pages-are-not-idealfor-accessibility.php (last visited July 16, 2013). See 

also Should Sites Be Accessible or Provide a TextOnly Alternative, http://www.evengrounds.com/

articles/should-sites-be-accessible-or-provide-a-textonly-alternative (last visited July 16, 2013). 

36 Id. 

37See ‘‘Understanding Conformance’’ at http://

www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/

conformance.html#uc-conforming-alt-versionshead, June 20, 2012. 38See Id. 

detailed discussion of issues relating to 

the cost of implementation will be 

presented in the upcoming section on 

Costs and Benefits. 

5. Conforming Alternate Versions 

The SNPRM: In the September 2011 

SNPRM preamble, we discussed our 

concerns about some methods used to 

provide accessible Web content to 

individuals with disabilities. 

Specifically, we discussed the method 

of making the content of a primary Web 

site or Web page available in a text-only 

format at a separate location rather than 

making it directly conformant on the 

primary Web site. The Department had 

learned from a number of sources that 

such alternate sites are often not well 

maintained, frequently lack all the 

functionality available on the nonconforming Web site/page, and have 

content that is not up-to-date.35 These 

deficiencies are so prevalent that many 

accessibility experts flatly oppose 

alternate text-only sites as a general 

accessibility solution.36 WCAG 2.0, 

however, permits a conforming alternate 

version of a Web page as a way for a 

non-conforming page to comply with 

the standard. The conforming alternate 

version must meet the WCAG 2.0 Level 

AA success criteria, be up-to-date with 

and contain the same information and 

functionality in the same language as 

the non-conforming page, and at least 

one of the following must be true: (1) 

The conforming version can be reached 

from the non-conforming page via an 

accessibility-supported mechanism, or 

(2) the non-conforming version can only 

be reached from the conforming version, 

or (3) the non-conforming version can 

only be reached from a conforming page 

that also provides a mechanism to reach 

the conforming version.37 The 

conforming alternate version is intended 

to provide people with disabilities 

equivalent access to the same content 

and functionality as a directly accessible 

Web page. WCAG 2.0 implementation 

guidance, however, notes that providing 

a conforming alternate version of a Web 

page is a fallback option for WCAG 

conformance and that the preferred 

method is to make all Web page content 

directly accessible.38 Although the 

Department proposed no requirement 

restricting the use of conforming 

alternate versions, we stated our intent 

that Web site content be directly 

accessible whenever possible. See 76 FR 

59307, 59313 (September 26, 2011). We 

sought 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. We also asked 

under what circumstances it may be 

necessary to use a conforming alternate 

version to meet that objective. 

Comments: In general, as discussed 

earlier, industry commenters favored 

the use of alternate Web site versions 

that did not conform to the WCAG 2.0 

definition of ‘‘conforming alternate 

version.’’ Although some carriers did 

not oppose adopting the WCAG 2.0 

Level AA success criteria, nearly all 

preferred having the option to apply any 

accepted accessibility standard only to 

primary Web site content involving core 

air travel services and information and 

to provide such content on a separate 

mobile or text-only Web site. We note 

that this proposed alternative would 

result in two parallel Web sites, each 

with its own development and 

maintenance costs. ITI commented that 

it should be up to the carrier to decide 

whether to build and maintain two Web 

sites (one that meets the WCAG 2.0 

Level AA success criteria and one that 

does not) or a single compliant Web site. 

ITI observed that even though over time 

the cost of maintaining two Web sites 

would be greater than for a single 

compliant Web site, carriers should 

determine which approach would work 

best for them. 

Disability community commenters 

rejected any option involving an 

alternative Web site largely because of 

their experience with such Web sites 

being poorly maintained and containing 

outdated content. Moreover, they 

viewed reliance on text-only 

alternatives for achieving accessibility 

as a ‘‘fundamental mistake.’’ They noted 

that arguments for text-only Web sites 

carry the implicit assumption that 

accessibility is intended to focus on 

users with visual disabilities. They 

emphasized the importance of 

considering the accessibility needs of all 

users, including those with hearing, 

cognitive, and dexterity disabilities, 

who benefit from accessible content that 

contains images, color, time-based 

media, and JavaScript. 

DOT Decision: The Department 

continues to believe that conforming 

alternate versions, as defined by WCAG 

2.0, have a role, albeit a very limited 

one, in achieving Web site accessibility. 

The alternate version promoted by the 

carrier associations and some individual 

carriers (i.e., text-only Web site 

containing core air travel services and 

information only), however, would host 

on the alternate Web sites only selected 

portions of the information available on 

the carriers’ primary Web sites. The 

Department believes that permitting the 

use of an alternate version of any Web 

page that does not conform to the 

elements of a ‘‘conforming alternate 

version’’ as defined by WCAG 2.0 is 

incompatible with the goal of equal 

access. As discussed earlier, in order for 

a non-conforming Web page to be 

included within the scope of 

conformance by using a conforming 

alternate Web page under this rule, the 

alternate page must meet the WCAG 2.0 

Level AA success criteria, be as up-todate and contain the same information 

and functionality in the same language 

as the non-conforming page, and at least 

one of the following must be true: (1) 

The conforming version can be reached 

from the non-conforming page via an 

accessibility-supported mechanism, or 

(2) the non-conforming version can only 

be reached from the conforming version, 

or (3) the non-conforming version can 

only be reached from a conforming page 

that also provides a mechanism to reach 

the conforming version. We note that 

the use of WCAG 2.0 conforming 

alternate versions, if unrestricted, is 

likely to perpetuate the problem of 

unequal access as carriers allot fewer 

resources than needed over time to 

properly maintain the secondary site. 

Given the incentives for carriers to focus 

on the development and maintenance of 

their primary Web site and the cost 

inefficiencies of maintaining two 

separate Web sites, the Department 

concurs with the WAI’s view that the 

preferred method of conformance in 

most circumstances is to make all 

content (e.g., each page) on the primary 

Web site directly accessible. 

Moreover, limiting the use of 

conforming alternate versions aligns 

with the well-established principle of 

disability nondiscrimination law that 

separate or different aids, benefits, or 

services can only be provided to 

individuals with disabilities (or a class 

of such individuals) when necessary to 

provide aids, benefits, or services that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67899 

are as effective as those provided to 

others. See, e.g., the ADA implementing 

regulation for title II at 28 CFR 

35.130(b)(1)(iii) and (iv) and 

35.130(b)(8)(d), and the ADA 

implementing regulation for title III at 

28 CFR 36.202(b) and (c), and 36.203(a). 

Therefore, the Department has decided 

to permit the use of Level AA 

conforming alternate versions only 

when making a particular public-facing 

Web page compliant with all WCAG 2.0 

Level AA success criteria would 

constitute an undue burden or 

fundamentally alter the content on that 

page. Since a fundamental principle 

underlying the WCAG success criteria is 

that they be reasonable to do all of the 

time, most of the more difficult success 

criteria have explicit exceptions built-in 

for situations where direct compliance 

is not reasonable. For example, Success 

Criterion 1.1.1 (Level A) provides that 

all non-text content that is presented to 

the user has a text alternative that serves 

the equivalent purpose and lists six 

exceptions/alternative means of 

compliance for situations in which 

presenting non-text content as a text 

alternative would not be technically 

feasible. These include non-text content 

that is (1) a control or accepts user 

input, (2) time-based media, (3) a test or 

exercise, (4) designed to create a specific 

sensory experience, (5) a Completely 

Automated Public Turing test to tell 

Computers and Humans Apart 

(CAPTCHA), or (6) a decoration, 

formatting, or invisible. Most of these 

exceptions permit the text alternative to 

at least provide descriptive 

identification of the non-text content. 

With such broad exceptions intended to 

address technically challenging 

situations specifically built into the 

success criteria, an undue burden or 

fundamental alteration defense for using 

a conforming alternate version rather 

than rendering a Web page directly 

compliant with the Level AA success 

criteria will be a very high bar to meet. 

If, despite the exceptions built into 

the WCAG 2.0 standard, a carrier 

believes an undue burden defense is 

justified with respect to a particular 

Web page, we would emphasize that the 

determination must be based on an 

individualized assessment of a number 

of factors showing that directly 

converting the Web page would cause 

significant difficulty or expense to the 

carrier. Those factors include: The size 

of the carrier’s primary Web site; the 

type of change needed to bring the 

particular Web page into compliance; 

the cost of making the change as 

compared to the cost of bringing the 

Web site as a whole into compliance; 

the overall financial resources of the 

carrier; the number of carrier 

employees; the effect that making the 

change would have on the expenses and 

resources of the carrier; whether the 

carrier is part of a larger entity and its 

relationship to the larger entity; and the 

impact of making the change on the 

carrier’s operation. 

6. Compliance Monitoring 

The SNPRM: In the September 2011 

SNPRM, the Department discussed 

several issues relating to ensuring and 

monitoring carriers’ compliance with 

the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard. 

We discussed, but did not propose to 

require, that carriers post WCAG 2.0 

‘‘conformance claims’’ on their Web 

sites. (A ‘‘conformance claim’’ is W3C’s 

term of art for a statement by an entity 

giving a brief description of one Web 

page, a series of pages, or multiple 

related pages 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.) 

See Web Content Accessibility 

Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0: W3C 

Recommendation 11 December 2008, 

available at http://www.w3.org/TR/

WCAG/#conformance-claims (as of 

November 16, 2012). Although 

concerned that conformance claims may 

be too resource intensive for complex 

and dynamic carrier Web sites, we 

nonetheless invited 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. We asked 

whether the Department should initiate 

random ‘‘spot’’ investigations of carrier 

and online ticket agency Web sites to 

monitor compliance after the rule 

becomes effective. We also asked 

whether there were any specific 

technical barriers to maintaining Web 

site accessibility after full Web site 

compliance is initially achieved. 

Comments: The Department received 

a fairly wide range of comments 

addressing our inquiries on compliance 

monitoring. The NFB disagreed with the 

Department’s view that conformance 

claims may be too costly to be feasible, 

stating that conformance claims are the 

‘‘cheapest and easiest method of 

identifying accessible Web pages for 

both the carrier and the user.’’ If the 

Department does not decide to adopt 

conformance claims, NFB suggested that 

in the alternative carriers provide: (1) A 

mechanism for users to request 

accessibility information that carriers 

must promptly disclose in an accessible 

format; (2) a ‘‘how to’’ tutorial on using 

the accessible Web site; or (3) customer 

service assistance specifically to address 

accessibility questions and needs. NFB 

considered these suggested alternatives 

less effective and less feasible than 

conformance claims. Some commenters 

suggested that the Department require 

carriers to adopt some form of selfmonitoring such as a link to a customer 

survey prominently displayed on the 

Web site, a pop-up to ask users their 

opinion or permission to send them a 

survey regarding Web site accessibility, 

or a feedback mechanism on the Web 

site specifically for reporting 

accessibility problems. Other 

suggestions were that the Department 

itself randomly check carrier Web sites 

to ensure compliance or work 

collaboratively with academic 

institutions to carry out random 

monitoring. Yet another suggestion was 

that the Department require carriers to 

establish disability teams to conduct an 

annual or biannual assessment of their 

Web sites for accessibility barriers and 

send a report to the Department. 

The carrier associations suggested that 

the Department employ accessibility 

experts and use available online tools to 

determine if carriers’ Web sites meet the 

accessibility standard. They also 

suggested that initial ‘‘spot’’ 

investigations be used to provide 

constructive feedback to carriers on Web 

site areas that appear not to meet the 

required standard. Regarding specific 

technical barriers, they noted that Java 

or Flash programs used to enhance the 

customer Web site experience are not 

easily made accessible and should be 

exempt from the standard or a text 

alternative version permitted. 

DOT Decision: The Department 

considered the value of conformance 

claims as a means to readily identify 

compliant Web pages and Web sites and 

weighed the expense that meeting all 

the required elements of conformance 

claims is likely to incur. We also 

considered the fact that W3C itself does 

not require entities to post conformance 

claims. We have decided that other 

methods would allow the Department to 

monitor Web site compliance and 

provide feedback to carriers without 

imposing any additional cost burden on 

them. The Department encourages 

carriers to adopt one or more of the 

suggestions above for obtaining user 

feedback on the accessibility of their 

Web sites and urges them to use the 

feedback to continuously improve the 

accessibility of their Web sites. We 

especially recommend, but do not 

require, that carriers include a feedback 

form on their Web sites, perhaps located 

on a page that can be reached from a 

link on the Web pages associated with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67900 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

disability assistance services. At the 

same time, we do not consider selfmonitoring alone adequate for ensuring 

compliance. The Department intends, 

therefore, to engage Web site 

accessibility experts after the date 

specified in this rule for Web site 

compliance to check the compliance 

status of carrier Web sites so that we can 

notify carriers of non-compliant areas 

for corrective action. A carrier’s failure 

to take corrective action within a 

designated time frame may result in the 

Department taking enforcement action. 

7. Online Disability Accommodation 

Request 

The SNPRM: Following up on a 

similar inquiry we had made to the 

public in the 2004 Foreign Carrier 

NPRM, we asked in the September 2011 

SNPRM whether the Department should 

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.). 

Comments: The comments the 

Department received on this question 

were starkly split. The disability 

advocacy community and some 

individual members of the public 

strongly favored adopting a requirement 

for carriers to allow passengers to 

submit a request online for a disability 

accommodation. Representatives from 

industry opposed any mandate for them 

to provide this service. Disability 

advocacy commenters observed that 

online service request notification 

would be advantageous for passengers 

with disabilities, who would have a 

written record of their requests and for 

carriers, who would have the request in 

writing in case there was a need for 

additional information. The Open Doors 

Organization (ODO) stated that 

‘‘everyone in the industry,’’ including 

travel agents, should be using special 

service requests uniformly. ODO 

observed that passengers with 

disabilities who book their tickets with 

online travel agents oftentimes must 

still call the carrier to set up the service 

request. ODO also pointed out that 

when the option is available to make a 

disability service request online when 

booking with an online travel agent, the 

service request often does not transfer to 

the carrier. The carrier associations 

noted that several carriers already 

provide an online accommodation 

request function. They stated that 

carriers generally still prefer for 

passengers to speak with a customer 

service representative about their 

accommodation needs. The carrier 

associations believe that any 

requirement to provide an online 

service request function will serve to 

mislead passengers into believing that 

no other communication with the 

carrier about their accommodation 

needs is necessary, thus preventing 

carriers from getting all the information 

necessary to properly accommodate 

passengers. 

DOT Decision: The Department 

believes that having online capability 

for requesting a disability 

accommodation has a number of 

potential benefits both to passengers 

with disabilities and to carriers. Aside 

from the advantage to a passenger of 

having an electronic record of providing 

notice to the carrier of a service request, 

an online service request will serve as 

a flag to the carrier of the passenger’s 

accommodation needs. The Department 

is therefore requiring carriers to make an 

online service request form available for 

passengers with disabilities to request 

services including, but not limited to, 

wheelchair assistance, seating 

accommodation, escort assistance for a 

visually impaired passenger, and 

stowage of an assistive device. We also 

note the carrier associations’ argument 

that simply making an online service 

request may not be sufficient to ensure 

the correct accommodation is provided. 

We agree with their assertion that 

additional information may be needed 

at times from the passenger. Therefore, 

carriers will be permitted to require that 

passengers with disabilities making an 

online service request provide 

information (e.g., telephone number, 

email address) that the carrier can use 

to contact passengers about their 

accommodation needs. Carriers that 

market air transportation online will be 

required to provide the service request 

on their Web sites within two years after 

the effective date of this rule. 

We view an online service request 

form as a useful tool to assist carriers in 

providing timely, appropriate assistance 

and reducing service failures that lead 

to complaints. Furthermore, aggregate 

data on online service requests would 

potentially be useful in helping carriers 

to understand the volume and types of 

service requests across time periods and 

routes. 

Airport Kiosk Accessibility 

Automated airport kiosks are 

provided by airlines and airports to 

enable passengers to independently 

obtain flight-related services. The 

Department proposed provisions in the 

September 2011 SNPRM to require 

accessibility of automated airport kiosks 

affecting airlines under 14 CFR part 382 

and U.S. airports with 10,000 or more 

enplanements per year under 49 CFR 

part 27 (Part 27). Part 27 is the 

regulation implementing section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as it 

applies to recipients of Federal financial 

assistance from the Department of 

Transportation. The proposed 

provisions of Part 382 would require 

carriers that own, lease, or control 

automated kiosks at U.S. airports with 

10,000 or more annual enplanements to 

ensure that new kiosks ordered more 

than 60 days after the effective date of 

the rule meet the accessibility design 

specifications set forth in the proposal. 

We intended this provision to apply to 

kiosks for installation in new locations 

at the airport and as replacements for 

those taken out of service in the normal 

course of operations (e.g. end of life 

cycle, general equipment upgrade, and 

terminal renovation). The design 

specifications we proposed were based 

largely on Section 707 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards for Accessible Design. We 

also included selected specifications 

from the Access Board’s section 508 

standard for self-contained, closed 

products (36 CFR 1194.25). During the 

interim period from the effective date of 

the rule until all automated kiosks 

owned by a carrier are accessible, the 

Department proposed to require that 

each accessible kiosk be visually and 

tactilely identifiable to users as 

accessible (e.g., an international symbol 

of accessibility affixed to the device) 

and be maintained in proper working 

condition. We specifically proposed not 

to require retrofitting of existing kiosks. 

We intended the requirements 

proposed above also to apply to shareduse kiosks that are jointly owned by one 

or more carriers and the airport operator 

or a third-party vendor. Therefore, 

provisions to amend 49 CFR part 27 

were proposed to apply nearly identical 

requirements to U.S. airports. We also 

proposed to require that carriers and 

airport operators enter into written, 

signed agreements allocating 

responsibility for ensuring that shareduse equipment meets the design 

specifications and other requirements 

by 60 days after the final rule’s effective 

date. We included a provision 

proposing to make all parties jointly and 

severally responsible for the timely and 

complete implementation of the 

agreement provisions. Again, nearly 

identical requirements for entering a 

written agreement and making the 

parties jointly and severally liable for 

implementing the agreement were 

proposed for both Part 382 and Part 27. 

In addition, we proposed to amend 

Part 382 to require each carrier to 

provide equivalent service upon request 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67901 

to any passenger with a disability who 

cannot readily use its automated airport 

kiosks. Such assistance might include 

assisting a passenger who is blind in 

using an inaccessible automated kiosk 

or assisting a passenger who has total 

loss of the use of his/her limbs in using 

an accessible automated kiosk. We 

proposed to require carriers to provide 

equivalent service upon request to 

passengers with a disability who cannot 

readily use their accessible automated 

kiosks, because even accessible 

automated kiosks cannot accommodate 

every type of disability. 

Finally, we proposed the same 

effective date for all requirements 

applying to the carriers under 14 CFR 

part 382 and to the airport operators 

under 49 CFR part 27 to avoid any 

delays in implementing accessibility for 

shared-use automated kiosks. 

1. Covered Equipment and Locations 

Automated Airport Kiosk Definition and 

Applicability Based on Function/

Location 

The SNPRM: The ownership of 

automated kiosks varies from airport to 

airport. In some airports, automated 

kiosks are airline proprietary equipment 

(i.e., owned, leased, or controlled by 

each individual airline). In other 

airports, kiosk ownership is shared 

jointly by the airport operator and 

airlines serving the airport and are often 

referred to as common use self-service 

(CUSS) machines. In the September 

2011 SNPRM, the Department proposed 

to define an airline-owned automated 

airport kiosk covered by this rule as ‘‘a 

self-service transaction machine that a 

carrier owns, leases, or controls and 

makes available at a U.S. airport to 

enable customers to independently 

obtain flight-related services.’’ For CUSS 

machines, we proposed the term 

‘‘shared-use automated airport kiosk’’ 

defined as ‘‘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.’’ We proposed to apply the 

accessibility design specifications to all 

proprietary and shared-use automated 

kiosks that provide flight-related 

services (including, but not limited to, 

ticket purchase, rebooking cancelled 

flights, seat selection, and obtaining 

boarding passes or bag tags) to 

customers at U.S. airports with 10,000 

or more enplanements per year. We 

asked in the preamble whether we had 

adequately described automated airport 

kiosks in the rule text. 

Comments: In their joint request of 

October 7, 2011, to clarify the scope of 

the proposed requirement, A4A, IATA, 

the Air Carrier Association of America, 

and RAA asked the Department whether 

automated ticket scanners for rebooking 

flights during irregular operations were 

included in the definition of automated 

kiosks we intended to cover in the 

rulemaking. After our clarification 

notice of November 21, 2011, addressing 

ticket scanners, ITI sought further 

clarification of how accessibility 

requirements apply to kiosks based on 

their functionality and location at the 

airport (e.g., check-in or baggage tagging 

kiosks located near the ticket counter, 

boarding or rebooking kiosks near the 

gate areas). The Trace Center 

commented that check-in and other 

kiosks at airports such as ticket scanners 

for rebooking, self-tagging baggage 

kiosks, etc. should all be covered. They 

emphasized that no exceptions should 

be made for particular types of airport 

kiosks, but if needed due to technology 

shortcomings, should only apply to a 

particular kiosk functions, not to an 

entire kiosk or category of kiosks. The 

Trace Center also suggested that any 

exceptions based on function should be 

reviewed every five years in light of 

advances in technology. 

DOT Decision: In our notice of 

November 21, 2011, the Department 

clarified our position that a kiosk that 

allows passengers to rebook their flights 

independently provides a flight-related 

service and therefore is within the 

intended scope of the proposed rule. 

Although following the notice we 

received additional comments 

suggesting that certain types of 

automated airport kiosks be excluded 

from coverage based on function or 

location at the airport, the Department 

finds no reasonable basis for such 

exclusions. Despite the trend toward 

fewer consumers using an airport kiosk 

than a home computer or Smartphone to 

check in and download their boarding 

passes, we expect airlines to continue 

expanding the menu of new flightrelated services available on kiosks at 

various locations throughout the airport 

(e.g., rebooking, ticketing, and flight 

information). It continues to be the 

Department’s intention that all flightrelated services offered to passengers 

through airport kiosks in any location at 

the airport be accessible to passengers 

with disabilities. Therefore, the 

accessibility requirements will apply to 

all new automated airport kiosks and 

shared-use automated airport kiosks 

installed more than three years after the 

effective date of this rule until at least 

25 percent of automated kiosks in each 

location at the airport are accessible. By 

‘‘location at the airport’’ we mean every 

place at a U.S. airport where there is a 

cluster of kiosks or a stand-alone kiosk 

(e.g., in a location where five kiosks are 

situated in close proximity to one 

another, such as near a ticket counter, 

at least two of those kiosks must be 

accessible; in all locations where a 

single kiosk is provided which is not in 

close proximity to another kiosk, the 

single kiosk must be accessible). When 

the kiosks provided in a location at the 

airport perform more than one function 

(e.g., print boarding passes/bag tags, 

accept payment for flight amenities such 

as seating upgrades/meals/WiFi access, 

rebook tickets, etc.), the accessible 

kiosks must also provide all the same 

functions as the inaccessible kiosks. 

(See section below on Implementation 

Approach and Schedule.) 

Kiosk at Non-Airport Locations 

The SNPRM: Although we proposed 

to apply the accessibility standard only 

to automated airport kiosks, we noted in 

the preamble that airlines may also own, 

lease, or control kiosks that provide 

flight-related services in non-airport 

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

ADA title III rules. We asked for public 

comment on whether kiosks that 

carriers provide in non-airport venues 

should also be covered by this 

rulemaking. 

Comments: Six disability advocacy 

organizations (ACB, AFB, NFB, NCIL, 

PVA, and BBI) strongly urged the 

Department to apply the accessibility 

requirements to kiosks in non-airport 

locations. PVA argued that airlines 

should be required to ensure that kiosks 

providing flight-related services are 

accessible wherever they are located. 

ACB, AFB, NFB, NCIL and BBI all noted 

that both DOT and DOJ potentially have 

jurisdiction over kiosks in non-airport 

locations. ACB and AFB acknowledged 

that there may be differences between 

the DOT and DOJ requirements for kiosk 

accessibility given that DOJ is currently 

working on a rulemaking to apply 

accessibility standards to kiosks other 

than ATMs and fare machines provided 

by entities covered under ADA title III. 

NFB, NCIL and BBI all supported DOT’s 

initiative to cover non-airport kiosks 

under the ACAA but expressed concern 

that the ACAA regulations not impede 

or interfere with rights and remedies 

available under the ADA or other laws. 

The ACAA, for example, lacks a private 

right of action like that provided by the 

ADA against entities that violate the 

law. NFB, ACB, and AFB specifically 

urged the Department to cover nonairport kiosks in the final rule and to 

state in the preamble that ADA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67902 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

39See 28 CFR 35.104 (defining the ‘‘2010 

Standards’’ for title II as the requirements set forth 

in appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 and the 

requirements contained in § 35.151); see also 28 

CFR 36.104 (defining the ‘‘2010 Standards’’ for title 

III as the requirements set forth in appendices B and 

D to 36 CFR part 1191 and the requirements 

contained in subpart D of 28 CFR part 36). 

Appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 contain 

the Access Board’s 2004 ADA Accessibility 

Guidelines (2004 ADAAG), consolidating both the 

ADA Accessibility Guidelines and Architectural 

Barriers Accessibility Act Guidelines (see, 69 FR 

44084 (July 23, 2004)). 

provisions prevail when there is an 

overlap with the ACAA provisions. 

Among individual commenters, there 

was a mix of responses for and against 

applying the accessibility standard in 

DOT’s final rule to airline kiosks in nonairport venues. Individual members of 

the public who did not identify 

themselves as having a disability tended 

to oppose applying the standard to 

kiosks located outside airports due to 

concerns about possible conflicts 

between the applicable DOT and DOJ 

standards. 

On the industry side, only the carrier 

associations commented, stating that 

they were opposed to applying the DOT 

standard to airline kiosks located in 

places of public accommodation where 

ADA title III already applies. 

DOT Decision: Although a case can be 

made to support covering airline-owned 

kiosks located in non-airport venues 

under the ACAA regulations, the 

Department believes there are 

compelling reasons for not doing so at 

this time. A primary goal of this ACAA 

rulemaking is to apply an accessibility 

standard to new automated airport 

kiosks installed after a certain date. To 

achieve this, airlines must work with 

the airports and their own technical 

teams, as well as with the hardware 

designers and software developers of 

their suppliers, to design, develop, test, 

and install accessible kiosks at airports 

with 10,000 or more annual 

enplanements where they own, lease, or 

control kiosks. Each carrier may have 

several different kiosk suppliers with 

whom they must work, depending on 

the airports they serve. We believe 

requiring airlines to meet the 

accessibility standard for kiosks located 

in non-airport venues would add 

significantly to their compliance burden 

and divert resources needed to meet 

their primary goal of compliance at U.S. 

airports. In our view, airline compliance 

with respect to airport kiosks is a 

technically complex and resource 

intensive undertaking that must take 

priority over making kiosks located in 

other places accessible. Within the next 

few years, kiosks in non-airport 

locations will be subject to DOJ’s 

accessibility design standard under its 

revised ADA title II and III regulations. 

This means that at most there will be a 

lag of a few years from the time airline 

kiosks at airport locations and those at 

non-airport locations are required to be 

accessible. We believe this time lag is an 

acceptable trade off to support proper 

implementation of the fundamental goal 

of airport kiosk accessibility. 

Allocation of Responsibilities for 

Shared-Use Kiosks 

The SNPRM: The Department 

proposed that carriers and airports be 

required to enter into written, signed 

agreements concerning shared-use 

kiosks that they jointly own, lease, or 

control. The purpose of the agreements 

is to allocate responsibilities among the 

parties for ensuring that new shared-use 

kiosks ordered after the effective date 

meet the design specifications, are 

identified as accessible, and are 

maintained in working condition. We 

asked a number of questions about the 

allocation of responsibilities and costsharing between airport operators and 

airlines for the procurement, operation, 

and maintenance of shared-use kiosks. 

We asked about potential difficulties 

carriers and airport operators would 

have in meeting the written agreement 

requirement or in implementing the 

agreements. We also asked whether 

there were any shared-use kiosk 

ownership arrangements involving 

airlines only or between airlines and 

outside vendors that would require 

additional time to implement. 

Comments: The Department received 

very few comments directly responsive 

to the questions we asked about 

allocation of responsibilities and costs 

between carriers and airport operators 

on shared-used automated kiosks. 

Regarding the proposed written 

agreements, the carrier associations 

asserted that it would take 24 months to 

enter into them, presumably due to the 

time necessary to revise the IATA kiosk 

standards. Denver International Airport 

did not comment specifically on the 

deadline for compliance with the 

agreement provision. San Francisco 

International Airport indicated that six 

months would be needed to comply 

with the agreement provision. They also 

objected to the provision holding 

airports and carriers jointly and 

severally responsible for compliance 

with the accessibility standard for new 

kiosk orders and other provisions 

applicable to shared-use automated 

kiosks. Their concern was that airlines 

and airports have separate 

responsibilities for ensuring that shareduse kiosks are accessible and would 

have no control over the other party 

meeting its responsibilities under the 

agreement. They argued that airports 

should not be held responsible for 

airlines failing to do their part as 

provided in the joint agreement. In their 

view, the provision for both parties to be 

jointly and severally liable is not 

practical and they asked the Department 

to delete it. 

DOT Decision: The Department has 

considered the merits of the arguments 

against the proposed provision to hold 

carriers and airport operators jointly and 

severally liable for compliance of 

shared-use kiosks with the accessibility 

requirements. We continue to believe, 

however, that joint accountability is 

essential to ensuring that shared-use 

kiosks comply with the design 

specifications set forth in the final rule. 

Moreover, there is precedent for holding 

carriers and airport operators jointly and 

severally liable under Part 382 (see 14 

CFR 382.99(f)) and under Part 27 (see 49 

CFR 27.72(c)(2) and (d)(2)) for the 

provision and maintenance of lifts and 

accessibility equipment for boarding 

and deplaning at airports. Therefore, we 

have retained in the final rule 

provisions stating that carriers and 

airports are jointly and severally liable 

for ensuring that shared-use automated 

airport kiosks are compliant with the 

requirements, including the 

maintenance provisions. We have 

accepted, however, the recommendation 

to drop the requirement for a written, 

signed agreement. Both parties 

nevertheless will be responsible for 

jointly planning and coordinating to 

ensure that shared-use kiosks are 

accessible and will be held jointly and 

severally liable if compliance is not 

achieved. We believe the liability 

provision will be an incentive for 

airports and airlines to work together to 

carry out requirements that cannot be 

successfully implemented without their 

mutual cooperation. 

2. Accessibility Technical Standard 

The SNPRM: The Department 

proposed and sought public comment 

on design specifications based on 

section 707 of the ADA and ABA 

Accessibility Guidelines (now codified 

in the Department of Justice’s 2010 ADA 

Standards) 39 that apply to automated 

teller machines (ATM) and fare 

machines and on selected specifications 

from the section 508 standard for selfcontained closed products (see 36 CFR 

1194.25). Below we have summarized 

the questions we posed along with the 

responses we received. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67903 

40See http://www.accessboard.gov/sec508/

refresh/draft-rule2010.htm (preamble at 75 FR 

13457, 13468 (March 22, 2010) and http://

www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/draftrule.htm (preamble at 76 FR 76640, 76646 

(December 8, 2011). 

41See http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. 

42See Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, 

http://www.eac.gov/testing_and_certification/

voluntary_voting_system_guidelines.aspx. 

Comments: The consensus among 

most commenters was that the 

Department’s proposed design 

specifications adequately covered all the 

functions automated airport kiosks 

presently offer, as well as some 

functions that may be added in the 

future. The Trace Center, however, 

urged the Department to look beyond 

the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible 

Design and provisions of the section 508 

regulation dating from 1998 as the basis 

for the design specifications. Many of 

their comments for additions and 

revised wording were based on the 

Access Board’s advance notices of 

proposed rulemaking for the Section 

508 update 40 and on success criteria 

from WCAG 2.0.41 Two individual 

commenters suggested that the 

Department consider incorporating parts 

of the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission’s Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines (VVSG).42

DOT Decision: In collaboration with 

the Access Board and the Department of 

Justice, the Department reviewed and 

considered the VVSG guidelines and 

certain WCAG 2.0 success criteria in 

developing the proposed standard. We 

also considered each of the specific 

suggestions for modifying our proposed 

design specifications offered by the 

commenters and have adopted a number 

of them after weighing the cost and 

benefit as well as the present need based 

on functions automated airport kiosks 

currently perform. 

In deciding whether or not to accept 

a suggested change, we also considered 

the fact that the Access Board is now 

engaged in rulemakings to revise the 

guidelines and standards on which our 

proposed kiosk standard is based and is 

expected to issue updated guidelines 

within the next few years. We did not 

accept some recommended changes for 

functions typically not performed by 

airport kiosks or that the Access Board 

is studying for possible inclusion in 

their revised standard (e.g., control of 

animation and seizure flash threshold 

for visual outputs). 

Regarding the flight-related services 

automated airport kiosks currently make 

available, the Department believes that 

the standard we are now adopting is 

entirely adequate to ensure independent 

access and use by the vast majority of 

individuals with disabilities. The 

standard will apply to new kiosks 

installed three years or more after the 

effective date and will not apply to any 

kiosks installed prior to that date. We 

will continue to monitor automated 

airport kiosks and the accessibility of 

any new functions not currently 

available as the technology of selfservice transaction machines evolves. 

We will also review the new guidelines 

and standards issued by the Access 

Board and the Department of Justice to 

determine whether improvements to the 

section 707 and section 508 

specifications warrant further change to 

the DOT airport kiosk standard in the 

future. Insofar as the Department 

modifies its standard in the future to 

address new developments in kiosk 

technology, the revised standard will 

apply to new or replacement kiosk 

orders only and will not apply 

retroactively to any equipment that 

complies with this standard. 

Operable Parts 

The Department sought comment on 

certain characteristics of operable parts, 

including the following: 

Identification—The Department 

proposed to require that the operable 

parts on new automated airport kiosks 

be tactilely discernible by users to avoid 

unintentional activation and requested 

comment regarding the cost of meeting 

the requirement. 

Timing—We proposed that when a 

timed response is required, the user be 

alerted by sound or touch to indicate 

that more time is needed. We also 

wanted to know whether timeouts 

present barriers to using automated 

airport kiosks as well as the costs and 

potential difficulties associated with 

meeting the requirement. 

Status Indicators—We asked whether 

locking or toggle controls should be 

discernible visually as well as by touch 

or sound. 

Comments: The Trace Center offered 

a number of comments for substantially 

reorganizing and expanding the scope of 

this section so that the provisions apply 

to the overall operation of the kiosk 

rather than to its operable parts alone. 

They also suggested incorporating the 

provisions of section 309 of the 2010 

ADA standards word for word rather 

than by reference, as well as new 

requirements to allow at least one mode 

of operation that is usable without body 

contact, without speech, or without 

gestures. Regarding the timing 

provision, they requested that a visual 

alert be added and that the time limit be 

extendable at least ten times. In 

addition, they proposed to include a 

new ‘‘key repeat’’ provision, modify the 

color provision to further accommodate 

individuals with color blindness, and 

expand the scope of the operable parts 

provisions to include the provision of 

touch screen controls as well as tactilely 

discernible controls. The carrier 

associations suggested that making 

operable parts tactilely discernible and 

integrating a user prompt for timeouts 

would require substantial time to design 

and test and thus would require a 

compliance date of 36 months after the 

rule’s effective date. ITI indicated that 

timeouts, whether in voice or visual 

mode, are a standard feature of 

applications today. They also stated that 

there should be no requirement for the 

status of locking or toggle controls to be 

discernible visually, or by sound or 

touch. In their view, such a requirement 

would be unnecessary since most host 

system applications are not case 

sensitive or middle layer applications 

convert and send inputs to the host in 

the appropriate format. 

DOT Decision: The Department has 

accepted the suggestion to add a visual 

alert requirement to the timing 

provision and a requirement for visually 

discernible status indicators on all 

locking or toggle controls or keys. We 

have included as examples of toggle 

controls the Caps Lock and Num Lock 

keys. In light of current automated 

airport kiosk functions and operation, 

the Department has decided that the 

provisions of the operable parts section 

as we proposed them are adequate 

without further change. After the Access 

Board finalizes its rulemakings revising 

the section 508 rules and the ADA and 

ABA Accessibility Guidelines to address 

kiosks other than ATMs and fare 

machines, the Department will consider 

whether further changes addressing the 

issues raised by the Trace Center should 

be incorporated in the operable parts 

provisions for future orders. 

Privacy 

The Department proposed that 

automated airport kiosks must provide 

the same degree of privacy to all 

individuals for inputs and outputs. 

Comments: The Trace Center 

suggested that we add an advisory to 

provide users of speech output the 

option to blank the screen for enhanced 

privacy. They explained that the screen 

should not blank automatically when 

the speech output mode is activated 

since many users may want to use both 

speech and visual interfaces 

simultaneously. NFB suggested that the 

screen blank out automatically upon 

activation of speech output. 

DOT Decision: The Department has 

modified the proposal in line with the 

Trace Center suggestion to require that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67904 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

43For further explanation of general flash and red 

flash thresholds, see http://www.w3.org/TR/

UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/seizure-does-notviolate.html. 

when an option is provided to blank the 

screen in the speech output mode, the 

screen must blank when activated by 

the user, not automatically. 

Outputs 

The Department sought comment on 

certain characteristics of outputs, 

including the following: 

Speech Output—The Department 

proposed to require that speech output 

be delivered through an industrystandard connector or a handset and 

asked whether delivering speech output 

through either of these means should be 

required. We wanted to know whether 

it would be sufficient to require volume 

control for the automated airport kiosk’s 

speaker only without requiring any 

other mode of voice output and about 

any privacy concerns with a speakeronly arrangement. We also asked about 

the costs associated with providing a 

handset or industry standard connector 

and about the costs/benefits of requiring 

a speaker only, without a handset or 

headset output capability. We inquired 

about wireless technology to allow 

people with disabilities to use their own 

Bluetooth enabled devices in lieu of 

requiring the kiosk itself to have a 

handset or headset connector, and if so, 

whether it should be required. 

Volume Control—We asked whether 

the dB amplification gain specified for 

speakers was sufficient and about the 

need for volume control capability for 

outputs going to headphones or other 

assistive hearing devices. 

Tickets and Boarding Passes— 

Regarding transactional outputs (e.g., 

receipts, tickets), we proposed to require 

that the speech output must include all 

information necessary to complete or 

verify the transaction. We listed certain 

types of information accompanying 

transactions that must be provided in 

audible format, as well as certain 

supplemental information that need not 

be, and whether any other information 

should be required to be audible. 

Comments: Speech Output—In 

descending order of preference, 

commenters supported supplying 

standard headset connectors, handsets, 

or speakers as the method for delivering 

speech output. In response to our 

question whether requiring volume 

control for the automated airport kiosk’s 

speaker alone without requiring any 

other mode of voice output, ITI stated 

that it would not recommend working 

with a speaker-only solution. They 

observed that along with privacy 

concerns, the ambient noise levels in 

airports would present difficulties. The 

Trace Center, ITI, and a number of 

individual commenters supported a 

private listening option and 

recommended that a standard connector 

be provided for greater privacy during 

transactions and to allow individuals 

with hearing impairments the use of 

assistive listening technologies (e.g., 

audio loops). The carrier associations 

said all three methods should be 

allowed, in addition to any other 

equivalent alternative a carrier or 

vendor identifies. The Trace Center 

commented that handsets should be in 

addition to, not instead of, a headphone 

connector and should be hearing aid 

compatible if included. Regarding the 

cost of providing headset connectors 

and handsets, ITI said the costs will 

depend on whether volume control can 

be implemented via software or 

hardware, whether a physical volume 

control is required, and whether volume 

will need to be at distinct levels or at 

a continuous level. Carrier associations 

cited various reasons for believing that 

there would be high costs associated 

with providing either handsets or 

headset connectors, (e.g., need to keep 

a large supply of handsets on hand for 

sanitary reasons or to provide headsets 

for passengers who forgot their own). 

Regarding wireless technologies for 

receiving speech outputs, the Trace 

Center supported the wireless concept 

as an alternative output method, but 

noted that a Bluetooth device must be 

‘‘paired’’ with the kiosk to ensure user 

privacy, a process that is too 

complicated for many users and usually 

requires sight. ITI observed that 

Bluetooth technology is not widely used 

in public spaces and that it would not 

advocate a requirement for the use of 

Bluetooth at airport kiosks. 

Regarding speech outputs associated 

with characters such as personal 

identification numbers, both the Trace 

Center and NFB suggested that rather 

than providing a beep tone, which 

typically indicates an input error, it 

would be better to provide the masking 

characters as speech (e.g., read the word 

‘‘asterisk’’ when the character ‘‘*’’ is 

displayed onscreen). 

Volume Control—In response to our 

question about the adequacy of the 

proposed dB amplification levels, the 

Trace Center indicated that the specified 

volumes for external speakers was 

sufficient and noted that absolute 

volume for headphones cannot be 

specified due to differences in 

headphone equipment. 

Receipts, Tickets, and Boarding 

Passes—The Trace Center advocated for 

requiring speech output upon request 

for certain types of legally binding 

supplemental information (e.g., 

contracts of carriage, applicable fare 

rules) accompanying a transaction, 

unless the information was available to 

the user in an accessible format at an 

earlier time (e.g., when the ticket was 

purchased online). 

Other Suggested Changes—The Trace 

Center also proposed changes to require 

automatic cutoff of an external speaker 

when a plug is inserted into the headset 

connector. There were two new 

requirements proposed by the Trace 

Center related to outputs: one dealing 

with control over animation (i.e., a 

mode of operation to pause, stop, or 

hide moving, blinking, or scrolling if 

information starts automatically, lasts 

for more than five seconds, and is 

presented in parallel with other content) 

and one to prohibit lights and displays 

from flashing more than three times in 

any one second period, unless the 

flashing does not violate the general 

flash or red flash thresholds. The latter 

proposed requirement is derived from a 

WCAG 2.0 success criterion on seizure 

flash thresholds.43

DOT Decision: Speech Output—The 

Department concurs that a headset jack 

potentially offers more flexibility to 

users in accessing a kiosk, as well as 

greater privacy. At the same time, the 

volume control requirements for both 

private listening and external speaker 

will allow adequate access to speech 

outputs without limiting the design 

options and cost flexibility. Therefore, 

this rule allows carriers to choose 

whether their accessible automated 

kiosks will deliver speech outputs via a 

headset jack, a handset, or a speaker. We 

have also decided not to add a provision 

to require Bluetooth technology at this 

time due to security concerns regarding 

its use in public spaces and usability 

issues associated with pairing Bluetooth 

devices with airport kiosks. 

Regarding the speech output for 

masking characters, the Department is 

requiring that the masking characters be 

spoken (‘‘*’’ spoken as ‘‘asterisk’’) rather 

than presented as beep tones or speech 

representing the concealed information. 

Receipts, Tickets, and Boarding 

Passes—The Department has not 

accepted the suggestion to require that 

legally binding information be provided 

in audio format upon request because in 

our view the cost outweighs the benefit. 

We do not believe the burden to carriers 

of providing complex and lengthy 

documentation in speech format at an 

automated kiosk would be balanced by 

a corresponding benefit to people with 

disabilities, particularly when the 

information is supplemental (not 

essential to the transaction itself) and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67905 

can be obtained by requesting it from an 

agent at the airport or online. 

Other Suggested Changes—The 

Department has not accepted the 

suggested provision to require automatic 

cut-off of the external speaker when a 

headset is plugged into the connector. It 

is our understanding that this automatic 

cut-off is already a standard feature of 

devices equipped with connectors. 

While we believe that equipping 

handsets with magnetic coupling to 

hearing aids may be desirable, the 

volume control requirements for both 

handsets and headset connector will 

still provide access and allow greater 

design flexibility. Regarding the 

recommended provisions for animation 

control and seizure flash thresholds, we 

believe they have merit but are 

premature at this time. These provisions 

are appropriate and necessary for video 

clips and other animated material that 

typically are not available on today’s 

automated airport kiosks. Therefore, the 

Department has decided that it will 

reconsider the need for such provisions, 

if airport kiosk functionality evolves to 

include animated content in the future. 

Inputs 

The Department sought public 

comment on whether there was a need 

to revise the proposed requirement for 

tactilely discernible input controls to 

allow for accessible touch screen 

technology such as that used by Apple’s 

iPhone and Google’s Android products. 

We asked how familiar the community 

of individuals with visual impairments 

is with accessible touch screen 

technology. We also asked about 

alphabetic and numeric keypad 

arrangements and whether the specified 

function keys and identification 

symbols were sufficient for the types of 

operations typically performed on 

airport kiosks functions. 

Comments: Tactilely Discernible 

Input Controls—The carrier associations 

and ITI support allowing either tactilely 

discernible controls or accessible touch 

screen navigation as methods of input. 

The Trace Center believes that both 

methods should be allowed, but that if 

gestures on a surface or in threedimensional space are allowed there 

also must be some other method 

involving tactilely locatable controls. 

The Trace Center observed that gestures 

can work well for people who are 

technically savvy but are not easy to use 

for many people with disabilities— 

especially those with manual dexterity 

disabilities. 

Keypad Controls—The Trace Center 

made a number of suggestions to 

improve tactile controls, the layout of 

alpha and numeric keys on key pads 

(use of QWERTY arrangement), and the 

use of tactile symbols for distinguishing 

function keys on non-ATM style 

keypads. They also suggested adding a 

provision to specify the arrangement of 

a virtual onscreen keyboard 

alphabetically in one mode to facilitate 

navigation using arrow keys and voice 

output. ITI pointed out that airport 

kiosks are not usually equipped with 

keypads and the new standard should 

not assume their presence on an 

accessible kiosk. They further indicated 

that keypad arrangements, whether 

onscreen or external, should not be 

specified due to text-to-speech software 

that reads out each screen element. 

DOT Decision: The Department has 

accepted the Trace Center’s suggestion 

to modify the provision on tactile 

controls to state that ‘‘at least one input 

control that is tactilely discernible 

without activation shall be provided for 

each function. We also accepted their 

suggestions to require that alphabetic 

keys on a keypad to be arranged in a 

QWERTY keyboard layout with the ‘‘F’’ 

and ‘‘J’’ keys tactilely distinct from the 

other keys, as well as an option for 

numeric keys to be arranged in a row 

above the alphabetic keys on a 

QWERTY keyboard. We did not add any 

new provisions for enhancing the 

onscreen navigation of virtual keyboards 

for those with visual impairments but 

will consider doing so in the future if 

virtual keyboards are integrated into 

automated airport kiosks and there is a 

need to address their usability by people 

with disabilities. 

Display Screens 

The Department did not ask specific 

questions but received a few comments 

about the proposed specifications for 

display screens. 

Comments: The Trace Center 

suggested that we change the 

requirement for display screens such 

that they must not only be visible, but 

also readable, from a point located 40 

inches (1015 mm) above the center of 

the clear floor space in front of the 

automated kiosk. Several commenters 

requested that the language concerning 

the required contrast of characters with 

their background on visual displays be 

changed from ‘‘either light characters on 

a dark background or dark characters on 

a light background’’ to ‘‘with a 

minimum luminosity-contrast-ratio of 

3:1.’’ Trace Center requested that we 

require a higher contrast ratio of 4.5:1 

for characters that are less than 14- 

point. 

DOT Decision: We have accepted the 

suggestion to require display screen 

characters and background to have a 

minimum luminosity-contrast-ratio of 

3:1. This ratio is consistent with that 

specified in the WCAG 2.0 Success 

Criteria 1.4.3 on minimum contrast. 

Combined with the requirement for 

characters on the display screen to be in 

sans serif font and at least 3/16 inch (4.8 

mm) high (based on the uppercase letter 

‘‘I’’), the 3:1 contrast ratio will satisfy 

the success criterion at Level AA. (For 

further clarification of this requirement 

see the WCAG 2.0 definitions for 

‘‘contrast ratio’’ and ‘‘relative 

luminance’’ found at: http://

www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#contrastratiodef and http://www.w3.org/TR/

WCAG20/#relativeluminancedef.) 

Regarding display screen visibility, 

we have not accepted the suggestion to 

require display screens to be readable 

from a point located 40 inches above the 

center of the clear floor space in front 

of the kiosk. The proposed requirement 

that the display screen be visible from 

a point located 40 inches above the 

center of the clear floor space essentially 

means that the display screen must not 

be obscured from view at that height. A 

requirement that the display screen be 

readable from that height would not be 

practicable since ‘‘readability’’ is a 

function of many factors, including 

screen characteristics (e.g., font size), 

ambient conditions (e.g., lighting), and 

each potential reader’s visual acuity 

when viewing the screen at a given 

distance from the eye. 

Biometrics 

In the SNPRM, we included a 

provision stating that biometrics may be 

used as the only means for user 

identification or control where at least 

two options using different biological 

characteristics are provided. We 

requested comment on this provision as 

well as the costs associated with 

implementing it. 

Comments: ITI opposed any 

requirement for more than one 

biometric option, saying the cost of 

more than one biometric device per 

kiosk would be prohibitive. They 

recommended an alternative 

identification method be used such as a 

personal identification number (PIN) for 

those who cannot use the biometric 

option provided. 

DOT Decision: The final provision 

does not require that more than one 

biometric identification option be used 

unless the only method of identification 

the kiosk provides is biometric. The 

kiosk provider may also use a nonbiometric alternative such as a PIN in 

lieu of a second biometric identifier 

using a different biological 

characteristic. Our proposed provision 

provided alternatives that are accessible 

for virtually all individuals with a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67906 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

disability without imposing 

unreasonable cost on kiosk providers; 

therefore, we are finalizing the proposed 

requirement. 

Other Comments on the Technical 

Standard 

Several disability organizations’ 

comments urged the Department to 

require carriers and airports to consult 

with individuals with disabilities on the 

design and usability of their kiosks that 

meet the technical standard. Although 

the standard we are adopting consists of 

well-established and tested design 

specifications, the Department 

nonetheless encourages carriers and 

airports to consult with disability 

advocacy organizations on the usability 

of their accessible kiosk during the test 

phase and to consider adopting any 

feasible suggestions for improving its 

usability and accessibility. 

3. Implementation Schedule and 

Alternatives 

Compliance Dates for New Kiosk Orders 

and Airline/Airport Agreements 

The SNPRM: The Department 

proposed to require carriers that own, 

lease, or control automated airport 

kiosks or jointly own, lease, or control 

shared-use automated kiosks with an 

airport operator at U.S. airports with 

10,000 or more annual enplanements to 

ensure that new kiosks ordered more 

than 60 days after the effective date of 

the rule meet the proposed accessibility 

standard. We proposed to require the 

same of operators of U.S. airports having 

10,000 or more annual enplanements 

that jointly own, lease, or control 

shared-use automated kiosks with 

airlines. The Department asked whether 

setting the effective date to begin 

ordering accessible kiosks starting 60 

days after the effective date of the rule 

was too long or too short and what 

would be a reasonable amount of 

implementation time for the ordering 

provision. Important to our decision 

about the compliance time frame is the 

ability of the manufacturing sector to 

meet the demand for accessible 

automated airport kiosks. Consequently, 

we asked a number of questions about 

the capabilities of airport kiosk 

manufacturers to market accessible 

models in time to meet the proposed 

time frame. We asked about the number 

of large and small manufacturers that 

currently make automated airport kiosks 

and whether any currently market 

accessible models. Assuming that some 

lead-time would be needed to develop 

and start manufacturing an accessible 

model that meets the required standard, 

we asked whether carriers could meet 

the 60-day ordering deadline, and if not, 

how much time would be needed to 

have a product ready to market. We also 

asked about the competitive impact of 

the ordering deadline on small 

manufacturers given the resources of 

larger manufacturers to meet demand 

more quickly. 

We explicitly proposed not to require 

retrofitting kiosks. For both carriers and 

airports that jointly own, lease, or 

control shared-use automated kiosks, we 

proposed to require that they enter into 

written, signed agreements allocating 

their respective responsibilities for 

ensuring compliance with the kiosk 

accessibility requirements. We asked 

whether carriers and airport operators 

should have more than 60 days after the 

effective date of the rule to enter into 

agreements with airport operators 

concerning compliance with the kiosk 

accessibility requirements, and if so, 

what would be a reasonable amount of 

time. 

Comments: The carrier associations 

recommended a delay of up to 36 

months after the rule’s effective date to 

implement the ordering provision for 

new accessible kiosks. The carrier 

associations that commented jointly 

estimated it would take as long as one 

year for manufacturers to develop 

compliant prototype kiosks, an 

additional four to six months to procure 

the kiosk hardware, up to one year for 

carriers to develop compliant software 

applications, and six months to install 

and test the software. Individual carriers 

recommended lesser delays of one to 

two years for implementing the ordering 

provision. The American Aviation 

Institute (AAI) recommended at least 

two years from the rule’s effective date 

to begin implementing the ordering 

provision. 

In addition to a longer delay in the 

effective date of the ordering provision, 

most industry commenters 

recommended that only a percentage of 

new kiosks ordered be required to 

comply with the accessibility standard. 

The IATA Common Use Working Group 

stated that the majority of shared-use 

airport kiosks follow the international 

IATA (RP1706c) and ATA (30.100) 

Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) 

Standards. They suggested that at least 

one year would be needed to modify 

and test the standards for new 

accessible hardware, updated platform 

software, and new software interfaces 

required to support airline software 

applications. Development of airline 

application software and pilot testing 

with integration software could require 

up to another year. ITI recommended a 

delay of 18–36 months from the rule’s 

effective date, which from their 

perspective would allow a reasonable 

amount of time for product 

development and manufacturing. They 

emphasized the importance of adequate 

time to design, engineer, and test the 

accessibility features to ensure they 

function effectively, noting that once 

product development is completed, 

inventory and delivery should take 90– 

120 days. ITI also cautioned that 

certification, field trials, and controlled 

pilots could extend the timeline further, 

if issues arise with third parties that are 

out of the kiosk manufacturer’s control. 

They did not support recommendations 

that the Department require only a 

portion of new kiosks ordered to be 

accessible. 

Disability community commenters 

called for reducing the delay after the 

rule’s effective date for the new order 

requirement. United Spinal and CCD 

both recommended 30 days after the 

rule’s effective date; BBI recommended 

no delay in the effective date of new 

order provision and that it coincide 

with the rule’s effective date. The Trace 

Center, recognizing that a longer lead 

time would likely be needed, suggested 

that the Department finalize the 

technical standard and provide it to 

interested parties while the final rule is 

still under review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). In 

effect, the Trace Center recommended 

that the Department give vendors and 

other organizations advance notice of 

the technical standard before the final 

rule is published so that they could 

develop and test an accessible kiosk 

prototype before the actual effective 

date of the rule. They further 

recommended that the final rule require 

that accessible kiosks begin to be 

installed in airports shortly after the 

final rule is published. As for airports, 

Denver International Airport concurred 

with the Department’s proposed 

effective date of 60 days for new kiosk 

orders while San Francisco 

International Airport suggested 

extending the compliance date to six 

months after the rule’s effective date to 

allow enough time to complete the 

airport/airline agreements for shareduse automated kiosks and prepare the 

technical specifications. 

We received very few public 

comments addressing our questions 

about the capabilities of the 

manufacturing sector, none of which 

came from manufacturers of airport 

kiosks. However, our contractor 

preparing the regulatory evaluation 

contacted a number of manufacturers 

who confirmed in part what the 

industry commenters had told us about 

the longer lead-time required to develop 

and produce compliant hardware and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67907 

44See Exec. Order 12,866, 58 51735, 51741 

(October 4, 1993). 

45See Exec. Order 12,866, 58 FR No. 140 51735, 

51743 (October 4, 1993). 

46See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1). 

software applications. They explained 

that airlines with proprietary kiosks and 

the in-house capability to program their 

own software applications would need 

less time to comply than airlines that 

contract out software development. 

Manufacturers that produce shared-use 

kiosks confirmed the complex 

development scenario described by the 

carrier associations, including an initial 

phase to revise and test the international 

technical standard that applies to such 

kiosks. They confirmed that for shareduse kiosks, airports typically procure 

the hardware and platform software 

while the airlines must each develop 

and certify their own compliant 

software application, which then must 

be integrated and tested on the 

hardware—steps that could extend the 

compliance time frame. The 

manufacturers also corroborated ITI’s 

observations that requiring only a 

portion of new kiosks to be accessible 

would not substantially reduce the 

development costs for accessible kiosks. 

DOT Decision: The Department has 

weighed all the available information 

and is persuaded that a compliance 

deadline of 60 days from the effective 

date of the final rule for new kiosk 

orders is not feasible. Under this rule, 

airlines and airports have 36 months 

after the rule’s effective date to begin 

installing accessible kiosks at U.S. 

airports. There are no automated airport 

kiosks presently on the market that meet 

entire set of the accessibility 

requirements mandated by this rule, and 

discussions with kiosk manufacturers 

confirm airline assertions that it could 

take a substantial amount of time to 

have kiosks with fully compliant 

hardware and platform software 

developed, tested, and ready to market 

for sale. Research conducted by our 

contractor indicates that the amount of 

lead time required to develop and 

produce compliant hardware and 

software applications will vary 

significantly depending on whether the 

kiosks are proprietary or shared-use and 

whether their capabilities for software 

application development are in-house or 

contracted. Airlines with proprietary 

kiosks and immediate access to 

applications programming capabilities 

may be able to develop and deploy 

compliant kiosks within 18 to 24 

months. For carriers that use shared-use 

kiosks, however, it may take more than 

two years for accessible kiosks to be 

ready for installation. 

The IATA Common Use Working 

Group indicated that it would take up 

to one year to revise the applicable 

standards for shared use airport kiosks, 

with additional time needed to develop 

and test the kiosk hardware and 

software components for shared-use 

automated kiosks. ITI and several other 

sources have indicated that the current 

marketplace for developers of shareduse kiosk software is limited to a few 

firms. This suggests that carriers and 

airports could also face delays in 

securing the requisite technical 

resources. In addition, software 

applications for shared-use kiosks must 

be certified, which the IATA Working 

Group indicates can add another 3 

months to the time required to prepare 

the product for deployment. Apart from 

the above technical considerations, a 

compliance time frame of less than three 

years could also result in above-market 

pricing, since fewer vendors will be able 

to develop and test compliant kiosks in 

less time. 

The Trace Center’s recommendation 

that the Department ‘‘finalize[], 

publish[] and provide[] to all interested 

parties [the accessibility standard] in 

advance while the provisions make their 

way through the Office of Management 

and Budget . . .’’ might accelerate the 

availability of accessible kiosks, but 

would not be consistent with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Executive Order 12866 requires Federal 

agencies to submit the final rule of any 

significant agency rulemaking to OMB 

prior to its publication in the Federal 

Register, unless OMB waives its 

review.44 It also prohibits agencies from 

otherwise issuing to the public any 

regulatory action subject to OMB review 

prior to OMB completing or waiving its 

review.45 The Administrative Procedure 

Act specifically provides that 

individuals ‘‘may not in any manner be 

required to resort to, or be adversely 

affected by, a matter required to be 

published in the Federal Register and 

not so published.’’ 46 This means the 

Department can neither finalize the 

accessibility standard prior to OMB’s 

completion of its review nor compel 

carriers or airports to begin 

implementing the standard prior to 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

In light of these factors, the 

Department has decided to extend the 

compliance time frame for installing 

new kiosks at U.S. airports to three 

years after the rule’s effective date. 

Meeting this deadline will require some 

concurrent effort in the development of 

compliant hardware and software 

applications. Carriers and airports will 

need to be active participants in the 

IATA standards development and 

approval process to finalize a standard 

within a time frame that supports the 

development, prototyping, and 

marketing of accessible kiosks and 

software applications by the compliance 

deadline. At the same time, the threeyear lead time before the provision on 

new kiosk installations becomes 

effective will give manufacturers and 

programmers not presently engaged in 

developing accessible kiosks enough 

time to gear up to participate in the 

market. We believe this broadening of 

the supplier base can be expected to 

mitigate the incremental costs of 

acquiring and installing accessible 

kiosks. Based on the input our 

contractors received from 

manufacturers, shortening the 

compliance deadline may limit the 

number of firms that would develop and 

market compliant hardware and 

software applications. In addition, due 

to the amount of technical coordination 

between airlines and airports necessary 

to develop accessible shared-use kiosks 

and their reliance on third-party 

contractors to develop and test 

compliant platform and application 

software, many airports and carriers 

would not be able to meet a shorter 

compliance deadline. Ultimately, the 

Department believes that passengers 

with disabilities will benefit 

significantly from providing kiosk 

manufacturers and application 

developers with a longer period to 

develop, prototype, test, and deploy 

kiosks that effectively meet the required 

accessibility standard. 

Implementation Alternatives 

The SNPRM: The Department 

proposed that all new kiosks ordered 

after the order deadline must be 

accessible. We asked for comment on 

whether a phasing in period over 10 

years, gradually increasing the 

percentage of automated airport kiosk 

orders required to be accessible, would 

meaningfully reduce the cost of 

implementing the accessibility standard. 

We also asked whether we should 

require less than 100 percent of new 

airport kiosks to be accessible, and if so, 

what percentage of accessible kiosks we 

should require in each location at the 

airport. We noted that if only a 

percentage of kiosks were required to be 

accessible, the wait time for passengers 

who need an accessible automated kiosk 

could be significantly longer than for 

non-disabled passengers unless they 

were given some kind of priority access 

to those machines. We observed that 

any mandate for priority access to 

accessible kiosks could also carry the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67908 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

potential of stigmatizing and segregating 

those passengers. 

Comments: ITI commented that from 

a development and manufacturing 

perspective, the timelines and resources 

needed to develop and incorporate 

‘‘new accessibility solutions will be the 

same, regardless of whether all, or a 

percentage of, kiosks are required to 

comply with the new rules.’’ They 

added that from their perspective there 

also would be no meaningful cost 

reduction from a gradual phasing in of 

accessible kiosks. The carrier 

associations nonetheless opposed a 

requirement for all airport kiosks to be 

accessible, arguing that this approach is 

inconsistent with other Part 382 

requirements (e.g., movable armrests are 

only required on fifty percent of aircraft 

aisle seats, one accessible lavatory on a 

twin aisle aircraft) and costly. They 

urged the Department to consider two 

compliance alternatives, each having a 

compliance date of 36 months after the 

effective date of the final rule: (1) 

Require ten percent of future kiosks 

ordered to include accessible features 

or, in the alternative, (2) require one 

accessible kiosk per passenger check in 

area at an airport. From their point of 

view, a reduced number of accessible 

kiosks will have no significant impact 

on passenger wait times since 

passengers with a disability who selfidentify would be given priority to use 

an accessible kiosk, reducing their wait 

to the time it would take for someone 

already using the accessible kiosk to 

finish their transaction. In the event 

more than one passenger needs to use 

the accessible kiosk at the same time, 

agents will be available to assist. The 

carrier associations believe this 

approach will provide accessible kiosks 

to those who need and will use them, 

while better balancing the costs with the 

benefits. Air New Zealand made a 

similar argument, suggesting that 

requiring only 25 percent of airport 

kiosks to be accessible, in combination 

with priority access for passengers with 

disabilities, will provide passengers 

with disabilities the independent access 

they want and limit the additional 

financial burden to carriers. Spirit 

Airlines proposed that the Department 

require only 50 percent of new kiosks 

ordered to be accessible, until a total of 

25 percent of airport kiosks are 

accessible. The San Francisco 

International Airport, on the other hand, 

took the position that the Department 

should require 100 percent of kiosks to 

be accessible by a date to be determined 

after taking manufacturing capabilities 

and other factors into consideration. 

They saw this approach as the best way 

to avoid potential problems for airports 

having to maintain both accessible and 

inaccessible kiosk models. 

DOT Decision: We are requiring that 

all new kiosks installed at U.S. airports 

three years or more after the effective 

date of the rule be accessible until at 

least 25 percent of kiosks in each 

location at the airport are accessible. We 

agree with the comments of Air New 

Zealand that having 25 percent of 

airport kiosks accessible (as opposed to 

more than 25 percent), in combination 

with priority access for passengers with 

disabilities to those kiosks, will enable 

passengers with disabilities to 

independently use airport kiosks and 

limit the additional costs to carriers and 

airports associated with acquiring and 

installing accessible kiosks. 

Nonetheless, the Department intends to 

monitor implementation of this rule to 

determine whether delay in obtaining 

access to an accessible kiosk is a 

significant problem for passengers with 

disabilities, despite the priority access 

provision, especially during peak 

demand times. If so, we may issue 

further regulations to address the 

matter. Of course, airlines and airports 

may always choose to make more than 

25 percent of airport kiosks accessible. 

As noted by San Francisco International 

Airport, one advantage of making 100 

percent of airport kiosks accessible is 

avoidance of the potential costs 

associated with maintaining and 

supporting both accessible and 

inaccessible kiosk models. 

As we stated earlier, the requirement 

for at least 25 percent of accessible 

automated airport kiosks at each 

location in U.S. airports with 10,000 or 

more enplanements means that at least 

25 percent of kiosks provided in each 

cluster of kiosks and all stand-alone 

kiosks at the airport must be accessible. 

For example, in a location where five 

kiosks are situated in close proximity to 

one another, such as near a ticket 

counter, at least two of those kiosks 

must be accessible; in locations where a 

single kiosk is provided which is not in 

close proximity to another kiosk, the 

single kiosk must be accessible. In 

addition, when the kiosks provided in a 

location at the airport perform more 

than one function (e.g., print boarding 

passes/bag tags, accept payment for 

flight amenities such as seating 

upgrades/meals/WiFi access, rebook 

tickets, etc.), the accessible kiosks must 

provide all the same functions as the 

inaccessible kiosks in that location. 

These days many kiosks provide a broad 

range of functionality beyond simple 

check-in. Kiosks that perform different 

functions are considered to be of 

different types. Accessible automated 

airport kiosks must provide all the 

functions provided to customers at that 

location at all times. For example, it is 

unacceptable for the accessible 

automated airport kiosks at a particular 

location to only enable passengers to 

check-in and print out boarding passes 

while the inaccessible automated airport 

kiosks at that location also enable 

passengers to select or change seating, 

upgrade class of travel, change to an 

earlier or later flight, generate baggage 

tags and purchase inflight Wi-Fi 

sessions or other ancillary services. 

Whatever functions are available on 

inaccessible automated airport kiosks 

must also be available to customers 

using accessible airport kiosks at the 

same location. As noted above, the 25 

percent requirement also applies to each 

location at the airport where kiosks are 

installed. It is not sufficient for a carrier 

or an airport to merely comply with the 

percentage for the airport as a whole, or 

even for a given terminal building if 

there are kiosks in more than one 

location in the terminal. 

Based on data from commenters who 

estimated airport kiosk life spans, we 

estimate that the typical kiosk life span 

is no more than five to seven years. We 

believe it is reasonable to conclude that 

well before the end of the 10-year period 

after the effective date of this rule 

virtually all airport kiosks will have 

reached the end of their life span. As 

such, a total of at least 25 percent of 

airport kiosks in each location at a U.S. 

airport should have been replaced with 

an accessible kiosk by then. To ensure 

this outcome, we have added 

requirements that both carriers and 

airport operators must ensure that at 

least 25 percent of automated kiosk 

provided in each location at the airport 

must be accessible by ten years after the 

effective date of the rule. Accessible 

kiosks provided in each location at the 

airport must provide all the same 

functions as the inaccessible kiosks in 

that location. 

Retrofitting Kiosks 

The SNPRM: In proposing to require 

that only new kiosks ordered after a 

certain date be accessible, we had also 

considered proposing to require carriers 

to either retrofit or replace a certain 

percentage or number of airport kiosks 

(e.g., retrofit 25 percent of existing 

kiosks or replace at least one kiosk) in 

each location at the airport by a certain 

date. We ultimately decided against 

proposing either option, as the available 

information suggests that these 

approaches would significantly increase 

the cost to carriers. Nonetheless, we also 

had concerns that the transition time for 

an accessible kiosk to become available 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67909 

at each location in an airport could be 

more than a decade. The best life cycle 

estimates for airport kiosks available to 

us when the September 2011 SNPRM 

was published ranged from seven to ten 

years. We therefore asked for comment 

on the accuracy of our life cycle 

estimate and whether the Department 

should require carriers to retrofit or 

replace a certain portion of their kiosks 

to meet the accessibility standards until 

all automated airport kiosks are 

accessible. 

Comments: Most disability advocacy 

organizations, individual commenters 

who self-identified as having a 

disability, and some commenters from 

the general public supported an interim 

requirement to retrofit some percentage 

of existing kiosks to accelerate the 

availability of accessible kiosks at all 

locations in an airport. The Trace 

Center, NFB, and BBI supported a 

phased retrofit schedule such that 25 

percent of all deployed kiosks must be 

accessible by 1 year, 50 percent by 3 

years, 75 percent by 5 years, and 100 

percent by 7 years after the effective 

date. NCIL advocated a more accelerated 

approach for retrofitting that would 

have 100 percent of deployed kiosks 

accessible by five years after the 

effective date. PVA urged the 

Department to require that any existing 

kiosk that is altered (voluntarily 

modified or refurbished, including any 

software modification or upgrade) must 

be retrofitted to meet the accessibility 

standard. The Trace Center conceded 

that retrofitting ‘‘can be significantly 

more expensive than deploying new 

accessible kiosks’’ due to loss of the 

lower cost production environment and 

economies of scale, as well as the 

additional costs of taking kiosks out of 

service and the actual cost to modify the 

kiosk. They acknowledged that even 

activating dormant accessibility features 

(e.g., headset connector) can be a 

significant undertaking that would take 

some lead-time to complete. 

The San Francisco International 

Airport also recommended retrofitting 

some existing kiosks as a reasonable 

alternative to requiring only that new 

kiosks ordered after the effective date be 

accessible. They reasoned that if only 

new kiosks must meet the accessibility 

requirements, it would create an adverse 

incentive for airlines to maintain older 

kiosks beyond their useful life and delay 

full accessibility for many years. They 

thought it likely that the airport 

industry would be ready to support 

immediate retrofits. 

Carriers and the carrier associations 

opposed any kind of retrofitting. They 

added that many kiosk models could 

not be retrofitted because they are near 

the end of their life cycle and are no 

longer supported by the manufacturer. 

The IATA CUSS working group 

estimated incremental costs of at least 

$3,000 per kiosk to retrofit to the DOT 

standard. ITI said that the costs of 

retrofitting an existing kiosk would be 

difficult to quantify—particularly older 

kiosks with operating systems that are 

not compatible with text-to-speech 

technology and may not support 

software needed for speech output. 

They noted that in addition to hardware 

costs, there would also be software 

certification costs. Several manufacturer 

representatives echoed these concerns, 

indicating that there are significant 

technical feasibility issues associated 

with retrofitting. 

DOT Decision: The Department 

acknowledges that a requirement to 

retrofit some percentage of kiosks to 

meet the accessibility standard would 

accelerate the near-term availability of 

accessible machines at airports. While 

more rapid near-term availability of 

accessible machines is an important 

objective, retrofitting is clearly an 

expensive, and in some cases, 

technically infeasible means to 

accomplish it. A shortened compliance 

timeline also runs the risk of 

insufficient testing to ensure the 

successful integration and error-free 

operation of all the hardware and 

software components of accessible 

kiosks. In lieu of requiring retrofitting of 

existing kiosks, carriers and airports 

will be required to ensure that at least 

25 percent of automated kiosks in each 

location at an airport are accessible and 

that accessible kiosks provided in each 

location at the airport provide all the 

same functions as the inaccessible 

kiosks at that location by ten years after 

the rule’s effective date. As mentioned 

earlier, with data from carriers and 

industry experts confirming that the 

typical kiosk life cycle is between five 

and seven years, we anticipate that 25 

percent of kiosks in all locations at an 

airport will have been replaced with 

accessible models well before this tenyear deadline. Compliant kiosks will 

begin to be installed in locations at 

airports no later than 3 years after the 

effective date of this rule. 

4. Identification and Maintenance 

The SNPRM: The Department 

proposed to require carriers and airports 

to ensure that each accessible automated 

kiosk they own, lease, or control in a 

location at an airport is visually and 

tactilely identifiable as such to users 

(e.g., an international symbol of 

accessibility affixed to the front of the 

device) and is maintained in proper 

working condition, until all automated 

kiosks in a location at the airport are 

accessible. We proposed to apply these 

requirements to airlines under Part 382 

and to airports under Part 27. 

Comments: The Department received 

a very small number of comments on 

these provisions. Two disability 

organizations supported the 

requirement for affixing an international 

accessibility symbol. Some commenters 

who did not identify as having 

disabilities noted that a requirement to 

affix a symbol or a sign indicating that 

a particular kiosk is accessible may be 

helpful to some individuals with 

disabilities, such as those with mobility 

or cognitive impairments. As a practical 

matter, these same commenters noted 

that for users with visual impairments, 

receiving guidance from airline 

personnel to an accessible kiosk made 

more sense than affixing an accessibility 

symbol they cannot see and which they 

could not touch until physically in front 

of the machine. Despite such 

observations, there were no comments 

opposing these specific provisions. 

DOT Decision: The Department views 

the need for accessible automated kiosks 

to be identifiable and maintained in 

working condition to be of great 

importance particularly since this rule 

does not require 100 percent of kiosks 

to be accessible. Passengers with 

disabilities will experience a greater 

impact than other passengers when 

accessible kiosk equipment is out of 

order since only a portion of them will 

be required to be accessible. In assessing 

carrier/airport responsibility for 

accessible kiosks that are down for 

repair periodically during their service 

life, the Department will examine 

several factors on a case-by-case basis, 

including whether maintenance 

schedules are in place and followed for 

all kiosks owned by the carrier/airport 

and whether the maintenance schedules 

and policies followed for both 

accessible and inaccessible kiosks are 

similar. Also, kiosk locations at the 

airport will have a mix of accessible and 

inaccessible machines so there is value 

in requiring that accessible kiosk 

models carry the international 

accessibility symbol to allow passengers 

with a variety of disabilities maximum 

independence in locating and using an 

accessible kiosk. This requirement will 

help ensure that adequate resources are 

allocated to maintaining accessible 

kiosks, particularly during the first few 

years when there are fewer accessible 

models at an airport, for parts and 

technical training that may otherwise be 

given low priority. Since we received no 

comments opposing the provisions as 

proposed and for the other reasons 

mentioned above, the Department is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67910 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

47See Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. United Airlines, 

Inc., No. C 10–04816, p. 3 WHA, 2011 WL 1544524 

(N.D. Cal. April 25, 2011) and Foley et al v. JetBlue 

Airways Corp., No. C 10–3882, p. 3 (N.D. Cal. 

August 3, 2011). 

48See Id. 

49NFB and NCIL recommended identical 

language for this provision: ‘‘Nothing in these 

regulations shall be construed to invalidate or limit 

the remedies, rights, and procedures of any federal 

law or law of any state or political subdivision of 

any state or jurisdiction that provides greater or 

equal protection for the rights of individuals with 

disabilities than are afforded by these regulations.’’ 

50Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. United Airlines, Inc., 

No. C 10–04816, p. 2–3 WHA, 2011 WL 1544524 

(N.D. Cal. April 25, 2011). 

51Thomas Foley et al. v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 

No. C 10–3882, p. 4 (N.D. Cal. August 3, 2011). 

52 Id. at 18–20. 

53Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae 

Supporting Affirmance of the District Court’s 

Judgment, Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. United 

Airlines, Inc., No. 11–16240 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2011). 

54Order, Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. United 

Airlines, No. 11–16240 (9th Cir. May 22, 2013). 

55Order, Foley, et al., v. JetBlue Airways Corp. 

No. 11–17128 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2011). 

56See 132 Cong. Rec. S11, 784–08 (daily ed. Aug. 

15, 1986) (statement of Sen. Dole). See also S. Rep. 

No. 99–400, at 2, 4 (1986), reprinted in 1986 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 2328, 2329, 2331; 132 Cong. Rec. 

S11784–08 (daily ed. Aug. 15, 1986); 132 Cong. Rec. 

H7057–01 (daily ed. Sept. 17, 1986) (statement of 

Rep. Sundquist); S. Rep. No. 99–400, at 2 (1986), 

reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2328, 2329–30. 

retaining these provisions in the final 

rule. 

5. Other Issues—Federal Preemption 

The SNPRM: In the preamble of the 

September 2011 SNPRM, we stated that 

States are already preempted from 

regulating in the area of disability civil 

rights in air transportation under the 

Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 

41713 and the ACAA, 49 U.S.C. 41705. 

Comments: In their comments on this 

rulemaking, NFB and NCIL both urged 

the Department to rectify what they 

viewed as erroneous holdings in two 

recent court cases alleging that 

inaccessible airline kiosks and Web sites 

constitute disability discrimination 

under State law.47 In both cases, the 

court granted the defendant airlines’ 

motions to dismiss, concluding that 

Plaintiffs’ State-based claims alleging 

disability discrimination in air 

transportation were preempted by the 

ACAA and the Airline Deregulation 

Act.48 Specifically NFB and NCIL asked 

the Department to use agency discretion 

to grant passengers with disabilities, 

who are protected against disability 

discrimination under the ACAA 

regulations, additional protection under 

other laws, such as the State laws at 

issue in the litigation, by including a 

saving clause in Part 382.49

As background, we note that in the 

case filed by NFB in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District 

of California, the Department of Justice 

filed a Statement of Interest By the 

United States reflecting the views of the 

Department of Transportation in 

support of United’s motion to dismiss. 

The statement made three central 

arguments supporting Federal 

preemption of NFB’s state claims: (1) 

Airline kiosks constitute a service that 

falls within the preemption provision of 

the Airline Deregulation Act; (2) the 

ACAA rules apply pervasively not only 

to disability discrimination in aviation 

generally, but also to the accessibility of 

airline kiosks specifically; and (3) 

applying a State remedy to NFB’s 

discrimination claims would have the 

broad effect of undermining the purpose 

behind the ACAA regulations. The court 

agreed with the views of the United 

States, finding that NFB’s claims were 

preempted under both the Airline 

Deregulation Act and the ACAA.50

JetBlue’s dismissal motion 

subsequently adopted the preemption 

arguments made in the Statement of 

Interest By the United States submitted 

in the United case, asserting that these 

views represented the agency judgment 

of the Department of Transportation.51

The court did not agree with JetBlue’s 

argument that Web sites and kiosks are 

‘‘services’’ affecting economic 

deregulation or competition intended to 

fall within the scope of the Airline 

Deregulation Act and found that the 

plaintiffs’ State law claims were not 

preempted by the Act. The court agreed, 

however, with JetBlue’s arguments that 

DOT’s ACAA regulations occupy the 

field of disability non-discrimination in 

aviation and preempt State law. Citing 

provisions in DOT’s 2008 final ACAA 

rule requiring airlines to provide 

interim accommodations and its intent 

stated in the rule’s preamble for further 

rulemaking on inaccessible kiosks and 

Web sites, the court held that the ACAA 

regulations specifically preempt the 

field of airline kiosk and Web site 

accessibility ‘‘so as to justify the 

inference that Congress intended to 

exclude state law discrimination claims 

relating to these amenities.’’ 52

The Plaintiffs in both cases appealed 

the decisions to the Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit. In the NFB case, the 

United States filed an amicus curiae 

brief and reiterated its arguments that 

NFB’s claims were both field and 

conflict preempted by the ACAA and 

expressly preempted by the Airline 

Deregulation Act.53 The case was argued 

on November 8, 2012. However, the 

Court vacated submission of the case 

and will delay its decision pending a 

decision by the Supreme Court in 

Northwest, Inc. et .al. v. Ginsberg, 695 

F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 

—S. Ct. —, 2013 WL 2149802 (May 20, 

2013) (No. 12–462).54 The parties in the 

JetBlue case filed an unopposed motion 

to stay proceedings pending the court’s 

decision in the NFB case, and the Court 

granted that motion on September 22, 

2011.55

Notwithstanding the United States’ 

position and the district courts’ 

holdings of Federal field preemption 

under the ACAA in both cases, in its 

comments on this rulemaking, NCIL 

pointed to statements in the 

Congressional record that the ACAA 

was enacted to ensure that airlines 

eliminate all discriminatory restrictions 

on air travel by persons with disabilities 

not related to safety.56 They asserted 

that these statements concerning the 

ACAA are evidence that ‘‘. . . a 

saving[s] clause permitting the 

operation of more protective state laws 

[was] squarely contemplated by 

Congress and should be preserved with 

a saving[s] clause.’’ 

DOT Decision: The Department fully 

concurs with NCIL and NFB that the 

ACAA was enacted to eliminate 

discriminatory restrictions by airlines 

on air transportation for people with 

disabilities. We continue to strongly 

disagree, however, with the notions that 

Congress intended State and local 

disability non-discrimination laws 

applied to aviation to be exempt from 

preemption under the Airline 

Deregulation Act or to operate 

concurrently with the ACAA. As we 

outlined in the Statement of Interest 

discussed above, the Department 

believes that the concurrent operation of 

State and local laws would undermine 

certain central goals of both the ACAA 

and the Airline Deregulation Act. 

We believe that the detrimental 

impacts resulting from the concurrent 

operation of State/local disability nondiscrimination laws on passengers with 

disabilities and on air transportation 

overall are serious and foreseeable. The 

saving clause advocated by NCIL and 

NFB would subject airlines to nondiscrimination requirements in scores of 

State and local jurisdictions. Aside from 

the burden of complying with a 

patchwork of State and local disability 

regulations on airline economic activity 

and competition, passengers with 

disabilities would again be subject to 

inconsistency and uncertainty regarding 

the accommodations they can expect in 

air travel. Congress intended that the 

ACAA regulations apply accessibility 

requirements and compliance deadlines 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67911 

to covered airlines uniformly. The goal 

was to ensure that passengers with 

disabilities would consistently receive 

the same accommodations wherever 

their air transportation is subject to U.S. 

law. This outcome has largely come 

about today due to airlines throughout 

the U.S. market being freed to focus 

their resources on meeting a single 

regulatory and enforcement scheme for 

ensuring accessibility. Carriers have not 

had to scatter their resources training 

employees to meet varying regulatory 

requirements for each State in which the 

carrier operates. It is our view that 

Congress sought to avoid these 

foreseeable adverse effects and intended 

the ACAA regulation to occupy the legal 

field in this area in order to maximize 

accessibility across the entire air 

transportation market to which the 

ACAA applies. Therefore, we believe 

the public interest will be best served by 

not adding a saving provision to Part 

382. 

Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory 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 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and Executive 

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) and is consistent 

with the requirements in both orders. 

Executive Order 13563 directs agencies 

to propose or adopt a regulation only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs, tailor the 

regulation to impose the least burden on 

society consistent with obtaining the 

regulatory objectives, and in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, select those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Executive Order 

13563 recognizes that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify and 

provides that, where appropriate and 

permitted by law, agencies may 

consider and discuss qualitatively 

values that are difficult or impossible to 

quantify, including equity, human 

dignity, fairness, and distributive 

impacts. This rule promotes such values 

by requiring the removal of barriers to 

equal access to air transportation 

information and services for passengers 

with disabilities. 

In the Department’s view, the nonquantifiable benefits of kiosk 

accessibility, which the tables below do 

not reflect, are wholly consistent with 

the ACAA’s mandate to eliminate 

discrimination against individuals with 

disabilities in air transportation. They 

include the increased ability of 

individuals with disabilities to 

independently access and use with 

equal convenience and privacy, and 

without stigmatization, the same air 

transportation information and services 

available to individuals without 

disabilities. Specific non-quantifiable 

benefits associated with the kiosk 

accessibility requirements also include 

an enhanced sense of inclusion for 

travelers with vision or mobility 

disabilities, as well as a decrease in the 

stigma of special treatment at the ticket 

counter and in their overall waiting time 

to check-in. Having a choice of checkin options (e.g., either the automated 

kiosk or the check-in counter), 

depending on their anticipated 

transaction time or personal preference 

also has value to many travelers with 

disabilities, even if its monetary value 

cannot be quantified. The availability of 

accessible kiosks will also reduce 

waiting times at ticket counters for 

travelers without disabilities who are 

required to or choose to use the airline 

ticket counters for ticket purchase or 

check-in and free customer service 

agents from routine check-in and seat 

assignments tasks to focus on individual 

ticketing and baggage issues. Travelers 

with and without disabilities will also 

benefit from the design features of 

accessible kiosks (e.g., travelers who 

have difficulty reading English may 

benefit from having the ability to hear 

the kiosk instructions). We note that 

some of the non-quantifiable costs 

include the sunk costs of inaccessible 

kiosk models currently under 

development and occasional increases 

in kiosk waiting times that may result 

for other travelers initially as new users 

become familiar with kiosk features and 

applications. 

Regarding the Web site accessibility 

requirements, we anticipate both nonquantifiable and intrinsically qualitative 

benefits. Web sites that meet the WCAG 

2.0 Level AA standards will have a 

cleaner layout and less content per page, 

resulting in improved accessibility not 

only for people with severe vision 

impairments, but also for those with less 

severe disabilities such as low vision, 

developmental delays, or epilepsy. Web 

site accessibility will also remove a 

barrier to travel for independent people 

with severe vision impairments, making 

it more likely they will travel and 

increasing the number of trips they 

purchase. For carriers, we expect the 

process of making their Web sites 

accessible (e.g., developing a detailed 

Web site inventory) to result in an 

improved ability to identify and clean 

up existing errors and performance 

issues (e.g., broken links and circular 

references). 

There are also potentially important 

categories of costs associated with the 

Web site accessibility requirements that 

are intrinsically qualitative or for which 

monetary values cannot be estimated 

from the available data. Bringing an 

entire air travel Web site into 

compliance with WCAG 2.0 Level AA, 

for example, may reduce options for 

innovation and creative presentation of 

Web content. Carriers will also need to 

allocate programming resources for 

creating and updating Web pages to 

ensure regulatory compliance that could 

be used to otherwise improve or 

increase functionality on their primary 

Web sites. Also unknown are the costs 

the Department will have to incur to 

enforce these rules by acquiring and 

maintaining the ability to monitor 

covered air travel Web sites, conduct 

periodic testing and verification, and 

work with carriers to understand and 

remedy identified Web site 

noncompliance. 

The Department believes that the 

qualitative and non-quantifiable benefits 

of the Web site and kiosk accessibility 

requirements nonetheless justify the 

costs and make the rule cost beneficial, 

even without the economic benefits 

displayed in the tables below. The nonquantifiable benefits to individuals with 

disabilities, in particular, are integral to 

achieving full inclusion and access to 

the entire spectrum of air transportation 

services, which is the overarching goal 

of the ACAA. 

The final Regulatory Evaluation 

established that the monetized benefits 

of the final rule exceed its monetized 

costs by $13.5 million using a 3-percent 

discount rate. The benefits and costs 

were estimated for the 10-year period 

beginning two years after the effective 

date (which was assumed to be January 

1, 2014) for the Web site accessibility 

requirements and three years after the 

effective date for kiosk accessibility 

requirements. The upfront compliance 

costs incurred for Web sites in 2014 and 

2015 and for kiosks in 2015 and 2016 

were rolled forward and included in the 

10-year analysis period results cited in 

the final regulatory evaluation. The 

expected present value of monetized 

benefits from the final rule over a 10 

year period using a 7-percent discount 

rate is estimated at $110.7 million, and 

the expected present value of monetized 

costs to comply with the final rule over 

a 10-year period using a 7-percent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67912 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

57 49 U.S.C. 41713(b)(1). 

discount rate is estimated at $114.7 

million. The present value of monetized 

net benefits over a 10 year period at a 

7-percent discount rate is ¥$4.0 

million. The table below, taken from the 

final Regulatory Evaluation, summarizes 

the monetized costs and benefits of the 

rule. 

PRESENT VALUE OF NET BENEFITS FOR RULE REQUIREMENT

[Millions] 

Monetized benefits and costs Discounting period/rate Web sites Kiosks Present value 

(millions) 

Monetized Benefits ...................................... 10 Years, 7% discounting ........................... $75.9 $34.8 $110.7 

10 Years, 3% discounting ........................... 90.3 42.0 132.3 

Monetized Costs .......................................... 10 Years, 7% discounting ........................... 79.8 34.9 114.7 

10 Years, 3% discounting ........................... 82.5 36.1 118.6 

Monetized Net Benefits ............................... 10 Years, 7% discounting ........................... (3.9 ) (0.1 ) (4.0 ) 

10 Years, 3% discounting ........................... 7.8 5.9 13.7 

* Present value in 2016 for Web site requirements and 2017 for kiosk requirements. 

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This final rule 

does not include any provision that: (1) 

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; or (2) imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

State and local governments. With 

regard to preemption, this final rule 

preempts State law in the area of 

disability civil rights in air 

transportation. However, State 

regulation in this area is already 

expressly preempted by the Airline 

Deregulation Act, which prohibits States 

from enacting or enforcing a law 

‘‘related to a price, route, or service of 

an air carrier.’’ 57 Furthermore, the 

ACAA occupies the field in the area of 

nondiscrimination in air travel on the 

basis of disability. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

C. Executive Order 13175 

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because this final rule does not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on them, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

review regulations to assess their impact 

on small entities unless the agency 

determines that a rule is not expected to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We note that while the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act does not apply to foreign 

entities, we have examined the effects of 

this rule not only on U.S. airports and 

air carriers that are small entities under 

applicable regulatory provisions, but on 

small foreign carriers as well. The Web 

site accessibility requirements do not 

impact small U.S. and foreign carriers. 

Only carriers that operate at least one 

aircraft having a seating capacity of 

more than 60 passengers are required to 

make their Web sites accessible to 

passengers with disabilities and ensure 

that they provide Web-based discounts 

and waive any telephone or walk-in 

reservation fees for individuals unable 

to use their Web site due to a disability. 

This final rule also requires small U.S. 

and foreign carriers that own, lease, or 

operate proprietary or shared-use 

automated kiosks at U.S. airports with 

10,000 or more annual enplanements to 

install accessible models at each U.S. 

airport kiosk location starting three 

years after the rule’s effective date until 

at least 25 percent of automated kiosks 

provided at each location are accessible 

and provide all the same functions as 

the inaccessible kiosks at each location. 

The same requirement applies to 

operators of U.S. airports with 10,000 or 

more annual enplanements that own, 

lease, or operate shared-use automated 

kiosks. Research for our initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis identified 

no small carriers or small airport 

authorities covered by the proposed 

accessibility requirements that owned or 

operated kiosks. Moreover, we received 

no comments on the proposed 

requirements during the SNPRM public 

comment period from small carriers 

(those exclusively operating aircraft 

with 60 or fewer seats), small airport 

authorities (those publicly owned by 

jurisdictions with fewer than 50,000 

inhabitants or privately owned by small 

entities with annual revenues of $30 

million or less under the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standard), or 

other stakeholders that are small 

entities. For this final rule, therefore, we 

conducted no further analysis on the 

impact of the kiosk accessibility 

requirements on small entities. 

On the basis of the examination 

discussed above, the Department 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. A 

copy of the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis has been placed in docket. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), a Federal agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a valid 

control number assigned by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) (Pub. L. 

104–13, 49 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The 

Department may not impose a penalty 

on persons for violating information 

collection requirements when an 

information collection required to have 

a current OMB control number does not 

have one. 

The final rule contains two new 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by OMB under the 

PRA. Specifically, section 382.43 

requires carriers to provide a 

mechanism on their Web sites 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.) within two years after the 

effective date of this final rule. Section 

382.43 also requires carriers to ensure 

that a disclaimer is activated when a 

user clicks a link on a primary Web site 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67913 

to embedded third-party software or an 

external Web site. The disclaimer must 

inform the user that the software/Web 

site is not within the carrier’s control 

and may not follow the same 

accessibility policies. 

As required by the PRA, the 

Department invites interested persons to 

submit comments on any aspect of these 

information collections for 60 days, 

including the following: (1) The 

necessity and utility of the information 

collection, (2) the accuracy of the 

estimate of the burden, (3) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected, and 

(4) ways to minimize the burden of 

collection without reducing the quality 

of the collected information. 

Organizations and individuals desiring 

to submit comments on these 

information collection requirements 

should direct them to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the Office of the 

Secretary of Transportation, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725 

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

and should also send a copy of their 

comments to: Department of 

Transportation, Office of Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings, Office of 

the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

As noted above, the first of these two 

new information collections is 

mandated by the requirement that 

carriers that market air transportation 

online to customers in the U.S. make a 

disability accommodation service 

request function available on their 

primary Web site within two years after 

the effective date of this rule. The types 

of accommodations a passenger with a 

disability may request through the 

function would most often include, but 

are not limited to, wheelchair 

assistance, seating accommodation, 

escort assistance for a visually impaired 

passenger, and stowage of an assistive 

device. Carriers are permitted to require 

that a passenger with a disability 

provides his/her contact information 

(e.g., telephone number, email address) 

when making an online service request. 

The Department anticipates that 

carriers will create a form that contains 

1) check boxes corresponding to a 

listing of the current IATA disabilityrelated Special Service Request (SSR) 

codes currently used to flag electronic 

ticket records of passengers requesting 

assistance, 2) fields for passenger 

contact information to verify requested 

services, and 3) an open text box to 

describe the specific needs and the 

services being requested. We anticipate 

that each covered U.S. and foreign 

carrier that markets scheduled air 

transportation to the general public in 

the United States would incur initial 

costs associated with developing and 

reviewing the design and 

implementation plan for the request 

form, developing, coding, and 

integrating the form into the Web site, 

as well as testing, debugging, and 

connecting the form with a backend 

database to store the information. None 

of these initial costs involve 

recordkeeping or reporting activities 

under the meaning of the PRA. The 

revised final regulatory analysis (FRA) 

estimates that it will take an average of 

32 labor hours per carrier to develop, 

implement, integrate, connect, and test 

the online request form. Up to 28 

additional hours eventually may be 

needed to revise request-handling 

procedures and to train staff in the 

changes resulting from the new form. 

Should carrier associations or some 

other entity develop a common request 

form that all carriers could adapt and 

incorporate to their Web sites, the initial 

costs per carrier would be reduced. 

The second information collection is 

a requirement for carriers to provide a 

disclaimer notice for each link on its 

primary Web site that enables a user to 

access software or an external Web site 

that may not follow the same 

accessibility policies as the primary 

Web site. The disclaimer notice must be 

activated the first time a user clicks 

such a link before beginning the 

software download or transferring the 

user to the external Web site. We 

anticipate that each covered U.S. and 

foreign carrier that markets scheduled 

air transportation to the general public 

in the United States will incur initial 

costs associated with identifying all 

links on the Web site that may require 

a disclaimer, developing and reviewing 

the design and language for the 

disclaimer notice, as well as developing, 

testing, and deploying the code that 

provides this notice to Web site visitors. 

However, none of these initial costs 

involves recordkeeping or reporting 

activities under the meaning of the PRA. 

The incremental labor hours associated 

with providing the required disclaimer 

may vary depending on the number of 

links on the Web site to which this 

requirement applies. The revised FRA 

estimates that it will take an average of 

6 labor hours per carrier to develop, test, 

and deploy the disclaimer notice. 

The title, a description of the 

respondents, and an estimate of the 

annual recordkeeping and periodic 

reporting burden are set forth below for 

each of these information collections: 

1. Requirement to make a disability 

accommodation service request function 

available on the primary Web site. 

Respondents: U.S. and foreign air 

carriers that own or control a primary 

Web site that markets air transportation 

within, to, or from the United States, or 

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

transportation and ground or cruise 

accommodations), or a tour component 

(e.g., a hotel stay of a tour) that includes 

air transportation within, to, or from the 

United States, and that operate at least 

one aircraft with a seating capacity of 

more than 60 passengers. 

Estimated Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 32 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

3,552 hours. 

Frequency: One time. 

2. Requirement to provide a 

disclaimer notice to users when clicking 

a link on a primary Web site to 

embedded third-party software or an 

external Web site. 

Respondents: U.S. and foreign air 

carriers that own or control a primary 

Web site that markets air transportation 

within, to, or from the United States, or 

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

transportation and ground or cruise 

accommodations), or a tour component 

(e.g., a hotel stay of a tour) that includes 

air transportation within, to, or from the 

United States, and that operate at least 

one aircraft with a seating capacity of 

more than 60 passengers. 

Estimated Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 6 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 666 

hours. 

Frequency: One time. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The requirements of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

do not apply to civil rights requirements 

mandating nondiscrimination; therefore, 

the Department has determined that the 

Act does not apply to this final rule. 

Issued this November 1, 2013, at 

Washington, DC. 

Anthony R. Foxx, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 382 

Air carriers, Civil rights, Individuals 

with disabilities, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 399 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air carriers, Air rates and 

fares, Air taxis, Consumer protection, 

Small businesses 

49 CFR Part 27 

Airports, Civil rights, Individuals 

with disabilities, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67914 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department amends 14 

CFR parts 382 and 399 and 49 CFR part 

27 as follows: 

Title 14—Aeronautics and Space 

PART 382—NONDISCRIMINATION ON 

THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR 

TRAVEL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 382 

continues to read as follows: 

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

and 41310. 

■ 2. Section 382.3 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘air 

transportation’’ and adding definitions 

for ‘‘automated airport kiosk,’’ 

‘‘conforming alternate version,’’ ‘‘flightrelated services,’’ ‘‘primary (or main) 

Web site,’’ and ‘‘shared-use automated 

airport kiosk’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 382.3 What do the terms in this rule 

mean? 

* * * * * 

Air Transportation means interstate or 

foreign air transportation or the 

transportation of mail by aircraft, as 

defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102. Generally 

this refers to transportation by aircraft 

within, to or from the United States. 

* * * * * 

Automated airport kiosk means a selfservice transaction machine that a 

carrier owns, leases, or controls and 

makes available at a U.S. airport to 

enable customers to independently 

obtain flight-related services. 

* * * * * 

Conforming alternate version means a 

Web page that allows a corresponding 

non-conforming Web page on the 

primary Web site to be included within 

the scope of conformance as long as it 

meets the WCAG 2.0 Level AA success 

criteria, is up-to-date and contains the 

same information and functionality in 

the same language as the nonconforming page. At least one of the 

following applies to a conforming 

alternative version: 

(1) The conforming version can be 

reached from the non-conforming page 

via an accessibility-supported 

mechanism; or 

(2) The non-conforming version can 

only be reached from the conforming 

version; or 

(3) The non-conforming version can 

only be reached from a conforming page 

that also provides a mechanism to reach 

the conforming version. 

* * * * * 

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. 

* * * * * 

Primary (or Main) Web site means the 

Web site that is accessed upon entering 

the uniform resource locator (e.g., 

www.carriername.com, www.airline 

designator code.com) in an Internet 

browser from a standard desktop or 

laptop computer where the carrier 

advertises or sells air transportation to 

the public. 

* * * * * 

Shared-use automated airport kiosk 

means a self-service transaction 

machine that is jointly owned, 

controlled or leased by an airport 

operator and carriers and/or an 

independent service provider and that 

provides carrier software applications 

which enable customers to 

independently access flight-related 

services. 

* * * * * 

§ 382.31 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 382.31, paragraph (c) is 

removed. 

■ 4. Section 382.43 is amended by 

revising the section heading and adding 

paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 382.43 Must information and reservation 

services of carriers be accessible to 

individuals with visual, hearing, and other 

disabilities? 

* * * * * 

(c) If you are a U.S. or foreign air 

carrier that operates at least one aircraft 

having a designed seating capacity of 

more than 60 passengers and owns or 

controls a primary Web site that markets 

passenger air transportation, or a tour 

(i.e., a combination of air transportation 

and ground or cruise accommodations), 

or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) 

that must be purchased with air 

transportation, you must ensure the 

public-facing Web pages on your 

primary Web site are accessible to 

individuals with disabilities as provided 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 

section. Only Web sites that market air 

transportation to the general public in 

the United States must be accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. The 

following are among the characteristics 

of a primary Web site that markets to the 

general public in the U.S.: the content 

can be viewed in English, the site 

advertises or sells flights operating to, 

from, or within the United States, and 

the site displays fares in U.S. dollars. 

(1) Your primary Web site must 

conform to all Success Criteria and all 

Conformance Requirements from the 

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) 

Recommendation 11 December 2008, 

Web site Content Accessibility 

Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 for Level AA as 

follows: 

(i) Web pages associated with 

obtaining the following core air travel 

services and information that are offered 

on your primary Web site are 

conformant by December 12, 2015: 

(A) Booking or changing a reservation, 

including all flight amenities; 

(B) Checking in for a flight; 

(C) Accessing a personal travel 

itinerary; 

(D) Accessing the status of a flight; 

(E) Accessing a personal frequent flyer 

account; 

(F) Accessing flight schedules; and 

(G) Accessing carrier contact 

information. 

(ii) All remaining Web pages on your 

primary Web site are conformant by 

December 12, 2016. 

(2) Your primary Web site must be 

tested in consultation with individuals 

with disabilities or members of 

disability organization(s) who use or 

want to use carrier Web sites to research 

or book air transportation in order to 

obtain their feedback on the Web site’s 

accessibility and usability before the 

dates specified in paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section. Collectively, such 

individuals must be able to provide 

feedback on the usability of the Web site 

by individuals with visual, auditory, 

tactile, and cognitive disabilities. 

Consultation is required to ensure that 

your Web site is usable by individuals 

with disabilities by the date specified in 

paragraph (c)(1). 

(3) You are permitted to use a Level 

AA conforming alternate version only 

when conforming a public-facing Web 

page to all WCAG 2.0 Level AA success 

criteria would constitute an undue 

burden or fundamentally alter the 

information or functionality provided 

by that page. 

(4) You must assist prospective 

passengers who indicate that they are 

unable to use your Web site due to a 

disability and contact you through other 

channels (e.g., by telephone or at the 

ticket counter) as follows: 

(i) Disclose Web-based discount fares 

to the passenger if his or her itinerary 

qualifies for the discounted fare. 

(ii) Provide Web-based amenities to 

the passenger, such as waiving any fee 

applicable to making a reservation or 

purchasing a ticket using a method 

other than your Web site (e.g., by 

telephone), unless the fee applies to 

other customers purchasing the same 

fare online. 

(d) As a carrier covered under 

paragraph (c) of this section, you must 

provide a mechanism on your primary 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67915 

Web site for persons with disabilities to 

request disability accommodation 

services for future flights, including but 

not limited to wheelchair assistance, 

seating accommodation, escort 

assistance for a visually impaired 

passenger, and stowage of an assistive 

device no later than December 12, 2015. 

You may require individuals who 

request accommodations using this 

mechanism to provide contact 

information (e.g., name, daytime phone, 

evening phone, and email address) for 

follow-up by your customer service 

department or medical desk. 

(e) As a carrier covered under 

paragraph (c) of this section, you must 

provide a disclaimer activated when a 

user clicks a link on your primary Web 

site to an external Web site or to thirdparty software informing the user that 

the Web site or software may not follow 

the same accessibility policies no later 

than December 12, 2016. 

■ 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 comply with 

the following requirements with respect 

to any automated airport kiosk you own, 

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

10,000 or more enplanements per year. 

(1) You must ensure that all 

automated airport kiosks installed on or 

after December 12, 2016, are models that 

meet the design specifications set forth 

in paragraph (c) of this section until at 

least 25 percent of automated kiosks 

provided in each location at the airport 

(i.e., each cluster of kiosks and all standalone kiosks at the airport) meets this 

specification. 

(2) You must ensure that at least 25 

percent of automated kiosks you own, 

lease, or control in each location at a 

U.S. airport meet the design 

specifications in paragraph (c) of this 

section by December 12, 2022. 

(3) When the kiosks provided in a 

location at the airport perform more 

than one function (e.g., print boarding 

passes/bag tags, accept payment for 

flight amenities such as seating 

upgrades/meals/WiFi access, rebook 

tickets, etc.), you must ensure that the 

accessible kiosks provide all the same 

functions as the inaccessible kiosks in 

that location. 

(4) You must ensure that a passenger 

with a disability who requests an 

accessible automated kiosk is given 

priority access to any available 

accessible kiosk you own, lease, or 

control in that location at the airport. 

(5) You must ensure that each 

automated airport kiosk that meets the 

design specifications in paragraph (c) of 

this section is: 

(i) Visually and tactilely identifiable 

to users as accessible (e.g., an 

international symbol of accessibility 

affixed to the front of the device). 

(ii) Maintained in proper working 

condition. 

(b) As a carrier, you must comply 

with the following requirements for any 

shared-use automated airport kiosks you 

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

airport with 10,000 or more 

enplanements per year. 

(1) You must ensure that all shareduse automated airport kiosks you jointly 

own, lease, or control installed on or 

after December 12, 2016, meet the 

design specifications in paragraph (c) of 

this section until at least 25 percent of 

automated kiosks provided in each 

location at the airport (i.e., each cluster 

of kiosks and all stand-alone kiosks at 

an airport) meet this specification. 

(2) You must ensure that at least 25 

percent of shared-use automated kiosks 

you own, lease, or control in each 

location at the airport meet the design 

specifications in paragraph (c) of this 

section by December 12, 2022. 

(3) When shared-use automated 

kiosks provided in a location at the 

airport perform more than one function 

(e.g., print boarding passes/bag tags, 

accept payment for flight amenities such 

as seating upgrades/meals/WiFi access, 

rebook tickets, etc.), you must ensure 

that the accessible kiosks provide all the 

same functions as the inaccessible 

kiosks in that location. 

(4) You must ensure that each 

automated airport kiosk that meets the 

design specifications set forth in 

paragraph (c) of this section is: 

(i) Visually and tactilely identifiable 

to users as accessible (e.g., an 

international symbol of accessibility 

affixed to the front of the device; and 

(ii) Maintained in proper working 

condition. 

(5) As a carrier, you are jointly and 

severally liable with airport operators 

and/or other participating carriers for 

ensuring that shared-use automated 

airport kiosks are compliant with the 

requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section. 

(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 must be operable without 

requiring the user to attach assistive 

technology. 

(2) Clear floor or ground space. A 

clear floor or ground space complying 

with section 305 of the U.S. Department 

of Justice’s 2010 ADA Standards for 

Accessible Design, 28 CFR 35.104 

(defining the ‘‘2010 Standards’’ for title 

II as the requirements set forth in 

appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 

and the requirements contained in 28 

CFR 35.151) (hereinafter 2010 ADA 

Standards) must be provided. 

(3) Operable parts. Operable parts 

must comply with section 309 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, and the following 

requirements: 

(i) Identification. Operable parts must 

be tactilely discernible without 

activation; 

(ii) Timing. Where a timed response is 

required, the user must be alerted 

visually and by touch or sound and 

must be given the opportunity to 

indicate that more time is required; 

(iii) Status indicators. Status 

indicators, including all locking or 

toggle controls or keys (e.g., Caps Lock 

and Num Lock keys), must be 

discernible visually and by touch or 

sound; and 

(iv) Color. Color coding must 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 

must provide the opportunity for the 

same degree of privacy of input and 

output available to all individuals. 

However, if an option is provided to 

blank the screen in the speech output 

mode, the screen must blank when 

activated by the user, not automatically. 

(5) Output. Automated airport kiosks 

must comply with paragraphs (c)(5)(i) 

through (iv) of this section. 

(i) Speech output enabled. Automated 

airport kiosks must provide an option 

for speech output. Operating 

instructions and orientation, visible 

transaction prompts, user input 

verification, error messages, and all 

other visual information for full use 

must be accessible to and independently 

usable by individuals with vision 

impairments. Speech output must 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 output must be recorded or 

digitized human, or synthesized. Speech 

output must be coordinated with 

information displayed on the screen. 

Speech output must comply with 

paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (F) of 

this section. 

(A) When asterisks or other masking 

characters are used to represent 

personal identification numbers or other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67916 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

visual output that is not displayed for 

security purposes, the masking 

characters must be spoken (‘‘*’’ spoken 

as ‘‘asterisk’’) rather than presented as 

beep tones or speech representing the 

concealed information. 

(B) Advertisements and other similar 

information are not required to be 

audible unless they convey information 

that can be used in the transaction being 

conducted. 

(C) Speech for any single function 

must be automatically interrupted when 

a transaction is selected or navigation 

controls are used. Speech must be 

capable of being repeated and paused by 

the user. 

(D) Where receipts, tickets, or other 

outputs are provided as a result of a 

transaction, speech output must include 

all information necessary to complete or 

verify the transaction, except that— 

(1) Automated airport kiosk location, 

date and time of transaction, customer 

account numbers, and the kiosk 

identifier are not required to be audible; 

(2) Information that duplicates 

information available on-screen and 

already presented audibly is not 

required to be repeated; and 

(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 are not 

required to be audible. 

(ii) Volume control. Automated kiosks 

must provide volume control complying 

with paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of 

this section. 

(A) Private listening. Where speech 

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

section is delivered through a 

mechanism for private listening, the 

automated kiosk must provide a means 

for the user to control the volume. A 

function must be provided to 

automatically reset the volume to the 

default level after every use. 

(B) Speaker volume. Where sound is 

delivered through speakers on the 

automated kiosk, incremental volume 

control must 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 must be user 

selectable. A function must 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 must be 

open or closed captioned. 

Advertisements and other similar 

information are not 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 

must have an orientation that is tactilely 

discernible if orientation is important to 

further use of the ticket or boarding 

pass. 

(6) Input. Input devices must comply 

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

this section. 

(i) Input controls. At least one input 

control that is tactilely discernible 

without activation must be provided for 

each function. Where provided, key 

surfaces not on active areas of display 

screens, must be raised above 

surrounding surfaces. Where touch or 

membrane keys are the only method of 

input, each must be tactilely discernible 

from surrounding surfaces and adjacent 

keys. 

(ii) Alphabetic keys. Alphabetic keys 

must be arranged in a QWERTY 

keyboard layout. The ‘‘F’’ and ‘‘J’’ keys 

must be tactilely distinct from the other 

keys. 

(iii) Numeric keys. Numeric keys must 

be arranged in a 12-key ascending or 

descending keypad layout or must be 

arranged in a row above the alphabetic 

keys on a QWERTY keyboard. The ‘‘5’’ 

key must be tactilely distinct from the 

other keys. 

(iv) Function keys. Function keys 

must comply with paragraphs 

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

(A) Contrast. Function keys must 

contrast visually from background 

surfaces. Characters and symbols on key 

surfaces must contrast visually from key 

surfaces. Visual contrast must be either 

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

tactile symbols required by (c)(6)(iv)(B) 

are not required to comply with 

(c)(6)(iv)(A) of this section. 

(B) Tactile symbols. Function key 

surfaces must 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 

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

and (ii) of this section. 

(i) Visibility. The display screen must 

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 must be in a sans serif 

font. Characters must be 3/16 inch (4.8 

mm) high minimum based on the 

uppercase letter ‘‘I.’’ Characters must 

contrast with their background with a 

minimum luminosity contrast ratio of 

3:1. 

(8) Braille instructions. Braille 

instructions for initiating the speech 

mode must be provided. Braille must 

comply with section 703.3 of the 2010 

ADA Standards. 

(9) Biometrics. Biometrics must not be 

the only means for user identification or 

control, unless at least two biometric 

options that use different biological 

characteristics are provided. 

(d) 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, assisting a passenger 

who due to his or her disability cannot 

use an accessible automated kiosk by 

allowing the passenger to come to the 

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

PART 399—STATEMENTS OF 

GENERAL POLICY [AMENDED] 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 399 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41712 

■ 5. Section 399.80 is amended by 

revising the introductory text, adding 

reserved paragraphs (o) through (r), and 

adding paragraph (s) to read as follows: 

§ 399.80 Unfair and deceptive practices of 

ticket agents. 

It is the policy of the Department to 

regard as an unfair or deceptive practice 

or unfair method of competition the 

practices enumerated in paragraphs (a) 

through (m) of this section by a ticket 

agent of any size and the practice 

enumerated in paragraph (s) by a ticket 

agent that sells air transportation online 

and is not considered a small business 

under the Small Business 

Administration’s size standards set forth 

in 13 CFR 121.201: 

* * * * * 

(o)–(r) [Reserved] 

(s) Failing to disclose and offer Webbased discount fares on or after June 10, 

2014, to prospective passengers who 

contact the agent through other 

channels (e.g., by telephone or in the 

agent’s place of business) and indicate 

they are unable to use the agent’s Web 

site due to a disability. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67917 

Title 49—Transportation 

PART 27—NONDISCRIMINATION ON 

THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN 

PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES 

RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL 

ASSISTANCE 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 27 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation 

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

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

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

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

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

■ 7. Section 27.71 is amended by adding 

reserved paragraphs (h) and (i) and 

paragraphs (j) and (k) to read as follows: 

§ 27.71 Airport facilities. 

* * * * * 

(h) [Reserved] 

(i) [Reserved] 

(j) Shared-use automated airport 

kiosks. This paragraph applies to U.S. 

airports with 10,000 or more annual 

enplanements. 

(1) Airport operators that jointly own, 

lease, or control automated airport 

kiosks with carriers at U.S. airports 

must ensure that all shared-use 

automated kiosks installed on or after 

December 12, 2016 meet the design 

specifications set forth in paragraph (k) 

of this section until at least 25 percent 

of kiosks provided in each location at 

the airport (i.e., each cluster of kiosks 

and all stand-alone kiosks at the airport) 

meet this specification. 

(2) Airport operators must ensure that 

at least 25 percent of shared-use 

automated airport kiosks they jointly 

own, lease, or control with carriers in 

each location at the airport meet the 

design specifications in paragraph (k) of 

this section by December 12, 2022. 

(3) When shared-use kiosks provided 

in a location at the airport perform more 

than one function (e.g., print boarding 

passes/bag tags, accept payment for 

flight amenities such as seating 

upgrades/meals/WiFi access, rebook 

tickets, etc.), the accessible kiosks must 

provide all the same functions as the 

inaccessible kiosks in that location. 

(4) Each shared-use automated kiosk 

that meets the design specifications in 

paragraph (k) of this section must be 

visually and tactilely identifiable to 

users as accessible (e.g., an international 

symbol of accessibility affixed to the 

front of the device) and maintained in 

proper working condition. 

(5) Airport operators are jointly and 

severally liable with carriers for 

ensuring that shared-use automated 

airport kiosks are compliant with the 

requirements of paragraphs (j) and (k) of 

this section. 

(k) Shared-use automated airport 

kiosks provided in accordance with 

paragraph (j) of this section must 

conform to the following technical 

accessibility standards with respect to 

their physical design and the functions 

they perform: 

(1) Self contained. Except for personal 

headsets and audio loops, automated 

kiosks must be operable without 

requiring the user to attach assistive 

technology. 

(2) Clear floor or ground space. A 

clear floor or ground space complying 

with section 305 of the U.S. Department 

of Justice’s 2010 ADA Standards for 

Accessible Design, 28 CFR 35.104 

(defining the ‘‘2010 Standards’’ for title 

II as the requirements set forth in 

appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 

and the requirements contained in 28 

CFR 35.151) (hereinafter 2010 ADA 

Standards) must be provided. 

(3) Operable parts. Operable parts 

must comply with section 309 of the 

2010 ADA Standards, and the following 

requirements: 

(i) Identification. Operable parts must 

be tactilely discernible without 

activation; 

(ii) Timing. Where a timed response is 

required, the user must be alerted 

visually and by touch or sound and 

must be given the opportunity to 

indicate that more time is required; 

(iii) Status indicators. Status 

indicators, including all locking or 

toggle controls or keys (e.g., Caps Lock 

and Num Lock keys), must be 

discernible visually and by touch or 

sound; and 

(iv) Color. Color coding must 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 

must provide the opportunity for the 

same degree of privacy of input and 

output available to all individuals. 

However, if an option is provided to 

blank the screen in the speech output 

mode, the screen must blank when 

activated by the user, not automatically. 

(5) Output. Automated airport kiosks 

must comply with paragraphs (k)(5)(i) 

through (iv) of this section. 

(i) Speech output enabled. Automated 

airport kiosks must provide an option 

for speech output. Operating 

instructions and orientation, visible 

transaction prompts, user input 

verification, error messages, and all 

other visual information for full use 

must be accessible to and independently 

usable by individuals with vision 

impairments. Speech output must 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 output must be recorded or 

digitized human, or synthesized. Speech 

output must be coordinated with 

information displayed on the screen. 

Speech output must comply with 

paragraphs (k)(5)(i)(A) through (D) of 

this section. 

(A) When asterisks or other masking 

characters are used to represent 

personal identification numbers or other 

visual output that is not displayed for 

security purposes, the masking 

characters must be spoken (‘‘*’’ spoken 

as ‘‘asterisk’’) rather than presented as 

beep tones or speech representing the 

concealed information. 

(B) Advertisements and other similar 

information are not required to be 

audible unless they convey information 

that can be used in the transaction being 

conducted. 

(C) Speech for any single function 

must be automatically interrupted when 

a transaction is selected or navigation 

controls are used. Speech must be 

capable of being repeated and paused by 

the user. 

(D) Where receipts, tickets, or other 

outputs are provided as a result of a 

transaction, speech output must include 

all information necessary to complete or 

verify the transaction, except that - 

(1) Automated airport kiosk location, 

date and time of transaction, customer 

account numbers, and the kiosk 

identifier are not required to be audible; 

(2) Information that duplicates 

information available on-screen and 

already presented audibly is not 

required to be repeated; and 

(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 are not 

required to be audible. 

(ii) Volume control. Automated kiosks 

must provide volume control complying 

with paragraphs (k)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of 

this section. 

(A) Private listening. Where speech 

required by paragraph (k)(5)(i) is 

delivered through a mechanism for 

private listening, the automated kiosk 

must provide a means for the user to 

control the volume. A function must be 

provided to automatically reset the 

volume to the default level after every 

use. 

(B) Speaker volume. Where sound is 

delivered through speakers on the 

automated kiosk, incremental volume 

control must 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

67918 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

the ambient level must be user 

selectable. A function must 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 must be 

open or closed captioned. 

Advertisements and other similar 

information are not 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 

must have an orientation that is tactilely 

discernible if orientation is important to 

further use of the ticket or boarding 

pass. 

(6) Input. Input devices must comply 

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

this section. 

(i) Input controls. At least one input 

control that is tactilely discernible 

without activation must be provided for 

each function. Where provided, key 

surfaces not on active areas of display 

screens, must be raised above 

surrounding surfaces. Where touch or 

membrane keys are the only method of 

input, each must be tactilely discernible 

from surrounding surfaces and adjacent 

keys. 

(ii) Alphabetic keys. Alphabetic keys 

must be arranged in a QWERTY 

keyboard layout. The ‘‘F’’ and ‘‘J’’ keys 

must be tactilely distinct from the other 

keys. 

(iii) Numeric keys. Numeric keys must 

be arranged in a 12-key ascending or 

descending keypad layout or must be 

arranged in a row above the alphabetic 

keys on a QWERTY keyboard. The ‘‘5’’ 

key must be tactilely distinct from the 

other keys. 

(iv) Function keys. Function keys 

must comply with paragraphs 

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

(A) Contrast. Function keys must 

contrast visually from background 

surfaces. Characters and symbols on key 

surfaces must contrast visually from key 

surfaces. Visual contrast must be either 

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

tactile symbols required by (k)(6)(iv)(B) 

are not required to comply with 

paragraph (k)(6)(iv)(A) of this section. 

(B) Tactile symbols. Function key 

surfaces must 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 

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

and (ii) of this section. 

(i) Visibility. The display screen must 

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 must be in a sans serif 

font. Characters must be 3/16 inch (4.8 

mm) high minimum based on the 

uppercase letter ‘‘I.’’ Characters must 

contrast with their background with a 

minimum luminosity contrast ratio of 

3:1. 

(8) Braille instructions. Braille 

instructions for initiating the speech 

mode must be provided. Braille must 

comply with section 703.3 of the 2010 

ADA Standards. 

(9) Biometrics. Biometrics must not be 

the only means for user identification or 

control, unless at least two biometric 

options that use different biological 

characteristics are provided. 

[FR Doc. 2013–26749 Filed 11–7–13; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 382 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2011–0098] 

RIN 2105–AD87 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability in Air Travel; Accessibility of 

Aircraft and Stowage of Wheelchairs 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation is issuing a final rule to 

allow airlines to use the seat-strapping 

method (placing a wheelchair across a 

row of seats using a strap kit that 

complies with applicable Federal 

Aviation Administration or foreign 

government regulations on the stowage 

of cargo in the cabin compartment) to 

transport a passenger’s manual folding 

wheelchair in the cabin of aircraft. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 13, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amna Arshad or Blane A. Workie, 

Office of the Assistant General Counsel 

for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings, Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

(202) 366–9342 (phone), 202–366–7152 

(fax), amna.arshad@dot.gov or 

blane.workie@dot.gov (email). 

Arrangements to receive this notice in 

an alternative format may be made by 

contacting the above named individuals. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) 

prohibits discrimination by U.S. and 

foreign carriers against passengers with 

disabilities. (See 49 U.S.C. 41705) Its 

implementing regulation, 14 CFR Part 

382 (Part 382), contains detailed 

standards and requirements to ensure 

carriers provide nondiscriminatory 

service to passengers with disabilities. A 

requirement that U.S. carriers provide 

in-cabin space for a folding passenger 

wheelchair was originally adopted in 

1990. (55 FR 8007.) At that time the 

Department’s intention was that new 

aircraft would have a designated space 

(e.g., a closet or similar compartment) in 

which one passenger’s wheelchair could 

be stowed. The practice of seatstrapping, placing a wheelchair across a 

row of seats using a strap kit that 

complies with applicable Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) or 

foreign government regulations on the 

stowage of cargo in the cabin 

compartment, was not authorized in the 

regulatory text or even mentioned in the 

original rulemaking. However, it was 

subsequently permitted under 

Department enforcement policy as an 

alternative to compliance with the 

regulation’s requirement with respect to 

accommodating a passenger’s manual 

folding wheelchair in the cabin on 

covered aircraft (aircraft with a design 

passenger seat capacity of 100 or more 

seats that were ordered after April 5, 

1990, or delivered after April 5, 1992). 

Whenever we reference passenger 

seating capacity in this or other 

economic or civil rights aviation 

rulemakings, we are referring to the 

manufacturer’s designed seating 

capacity. 

Part 382 was updated on May 13, 

2008, to cover foreign air carriers, 

among other things. (73 FR 27614.) The 

Department determined in the final rule 

issued in 2008 that it was best not to 

retain the seat-strapping policy in the 

new rule with respect to new aircraft 

(i.e., aircraft ordered after May 13, 2009, 

or delivered after May 13, 2010), and 

required, consistent with the intent of 

the original 1990 rule, that new aircraft 

be capable of accommodating a 

passenger’s wheelchair in a priority 

stowage space in the cabin. See 14 CFR 

382.123(c). The Department made this 

decision because of concerns that seatstrapping: (1) Is an awkward way of 

transporting a wheelchair in the cabin; 

(2) can result in less timely stowage and 

return of the passenger’s wheelchair; (3) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4