**Billing Code 4910 -**  **9X**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary**  **14 CFR Part 382 RIN No. 2105**  **- AD96**  **[Docket No. DOT -**  **OST -**  **2011 -**  **0177] Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of Web Sites and**  **Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports AGENCY:**  Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT). **ACTION:** Extension of comment period and clarification of proposed rule . **SUMMARY:** This action extends the comment period for a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on the accessibility of Web sites and automated kiosks that was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2011 . The Department of Transportation is extending the closing date for interested persons to submit comments on this rulemaking by 45 day s from November 25, 2011 , to January 9 , 2012. This extension is a result of requests from a number of parties for addition al time to respond to the SNPRM. The Air Transport Association, the International Air Transport Association, the Air Carrier Association of America, the Regi onal Airline Association, and the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines all asked to extend the comment period on the proposal by 120 day s in order to allow interested parties to fully evaluate the proposed rule, answer the numerous questions in the preamble , and develop constructive comments for the Department’s consideration. The Int eractive Travel Services Association requested an extension of at least 60 day s to gather the information necessary to provide an in depth, comprehensive response to the SNPRM. An i ndividual with a disability ha s also asked2

for an extension, citing diffi culties in using the online comment form on the www.regulations.gov W eb site. The Department acknowledges that more time to provide comments may

be warranted given the complex nature of the issues and the need to resolve problems encountered b y some individuals to date in submitting comments. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that an additional 12 0 or even 60 day s are needed to respond . In addition to extending the comment period , this action resp onds to questions posed by the Associations about certain aspects of the SNPRM . **DATES:** Comments must be received b y January 9 , 201 2 . Comments received after this date will be considered to the extent practicable. **ADDRESSES:** Please include the agency name and the docket number DOT - OST - 2011 - 0177 or the Regulatory

I dentification Number (RIN) (2105 - AD96) for th is rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. You may file comments using any of the following methods: 1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: Complete and submit the comment form for this rulemaking at http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D =DOT - OST - 2011 - 0177 - 0006 . If you are a person with a disability

and cannot access or use the online comment form, please use the alternate comment form to submit your comments , which you can access by clicking the icon for the attachment labeled “Optional Submission Form” available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT - OST - 20 11 - 0177 - 0019 . The form includes complete instructions and may be completed, saved, and sent as an email attachment to regulations.gov_helpdesk@bah.com . You can also use it to submit comments by any of the methods listed below. 2) Mail: Docket Management Facility , U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12 - 140, Washington, DC 20590 - 0001.3

3) Hand Delivery

or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12 - 140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., S E., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday , except Federal Holiday s. 4) Fax: (202) 493 - 2251. 5) Privacy

Act: For comments submitted on www.regulations.gov , p lease see the Privacy and Use Notice at http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacy Notice . All comments received on this SNPRM are posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov , including personal information provided with the comments. Personal information is viewable on www.regulations.gov and individual or organizational submitters can be identified by performing an electronic search in the docket folder. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19 477 - 78), or you may

visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov . 6) Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov (or to the street address listed above). Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** Kathleen Blank Riether, Senior Attorney , Office of the Assistant G eneral Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202

– 366

– 9342 (phone), 202

– 366

– 7152 (fax), kathleen.blankriether@ dot.gov . You may also contact Blane A. Workie, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202

– 366

– 9342 (phone), 202

– 366

–7152 (fax), b lane.workie@dot.gov . TTY users may reach the individual via the Federal Relay Service4

toll - free at 800

– 877

– 8339. You may obtain copies of this notice in an accessible format by contacting the above named individuals. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:** On September 26, 2011, the Department of Transportation ( “ Department ,” also “DOT,” “we,” or “us” ) published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register . The SNPRM proposed to amend the Department’s disability regulation implementing the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) rule, 14 CFR Part 382 (Part 382), b y requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers to ensure that their W eb sites and those of their agents are accessible to people with disabilities. The SNPRM further proposed to amend Part 382, as well as the Department’s regulation implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 49 CFR Part 27 (Part 27), by requiring U.S. airports and U.S. and foreign air carriers to en sure that all new orders for automated kiosks they own, lease, or control at U . S . airports that provide flight - related services and information to passengers are accessible to people with disabilities. 76 Fed. Reg. 59307 (September 26, 2011). Comments on the matters proposed were to be received b y November 25 , 201 1 . On October 7, 2011, the Air Transport Association , the International Air Transport Association, the Air Carrier Association of America, and the Regional Airline Association (hereinafter “ A ssoci ations ”) jointly submitted a request to clarify the proposal and to extend the comment period by an additional 120 day s . On October 20, 2011, the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA) filed a request in support of the Associations’ request to extend the comment deadline by 120 day s. E ight day s later we received another request from the Interactive Travel Services Association (I TSA) for an extension of at least 60 day s . Finall y, on November 3, 2011, we received a request from member of the disability community

to delay the closing of the comment period until issues concerning access to the5

online comment form could be resolved. In the sections that follow, we respond to the requests and questions of the submitters. **Request for Comment Period Extensio n**  Citing the complexity

of the proposed rule and the many questions on which the Department seeks comment, the Associations request a 120 - day extension of the SNPRM comment period . They contend that their members will need to develop a significant amount of information to evaluate the feasibility

of the proposals and determine the accuracy of the Department’s cost assumptions . They assert that additional time is also needed to evaluate the potential impact of all the proposals on their operations and determine the availability of products that w ould meet the proposed “hy

brid” accessibility standard for automated kiosks. By “hybrid” standard, the Associations are referring to the Department ’s proposal to combine the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) 2010 American with Disabilities Act (ADA ) Standards for Accessible Design applicable to automated teller machines (Section 707) and select ed provisions from Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (36 C.F.R. 1194.25) applicable to self - contained clo sed products . The Associations also expressed concern about the difficulty of g athering information from entities during the holiday season . They not e that the current comment deadline is the day after Thanksgiving and that with an extension of 30 day s , it would be the day after Christmas . In light of these challenges, the Associations believe that an additional 120 day s is in the public interest to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide the most meaningful responses to the questions rai sed b y the Department . The AAPA cited their agreement with the Associations’ 120 - day extension request in the interest of a more thorough anal ys i s and constructive comments on the SNPRM .6

ITSA also indicated the need for additional time to determine whether WCAG 2.0 is the appropriate standard for achieving the accessibility goals of the rulemaking, the cost of implementing the standard across the many sites, platforms, and W eb pages of ITSA members , and the need to clarify

technical matters such as sequenc ing implementation, measuring and verifying compliance . The Department concur s that an extension of the comment period is in the public interest but believes that an extension of 120 additional day s is not warranted . We have decided to grant a 45 - day extension , or until January 9 , 2012 , for the public to comment on the S NPRM. By granting 45 rather than 120 additional day s , we are balancing the stated need for additional time to gather information and consider the proposals with the need to proceed exp editiously with this important rulemaking. W e note that w ith an additional 45 day s, interested parties will have a total of 1 06 day s to comment . W e believe this is sufficient time for anal ys is and coordination regarding the proposals. Accordingl y, the Department finds that good cause exists to extend the time for comments on the proposed rule from November 25 , 2011 , to January 9 , 2012 . We do not anticipate any further extension of the comment period for this rulemaking. **Concerns Regarding Access to Web site (** **www.regulations.gov** ) Since publication of the SNPRM on September 26, we have been contacted by a disability rights advocate who indicated that individuals with visual impairments have had difficulty submitting comments from the www.regulations.gov Web site. F or a variety of reasons , the Web page containing the public comment form is not easily accessed by

individuals using screen reader software. We therefore urge those who cannot use the online comment form to submit their comments using one of the alternative submission methods described in the “Addresses” section above.7

**Request for Clarification** In addition to requesting the comment period extension, the A ssociations posed a number of questions to the Department concerning the applicability and scope of certain provisions of the proposed accessibility

requirements for Web sites and automated kiosks . They also sought further information about various documents referenced in the SNPRM preamble . We respond to their questions and requests below. Issues Concerning the Proposed Web Site Accessibility Requirements 1. Scope of Applicability of Web Site Accessibility Requirements to U.S. Carrier Web Sites The initial issu e raised by the A ssociations is the scope of the proposed requirements for Web site accessibility

as they app ly to U.S. carrier Web sites. Intheir request , they ask DOT to confirm that the proposed Web site accessibility requirements in section 382.43 do not apply to the non - U.S. Web sites of U.S. carriers (e.g., country- specific Web sites maintained by U.S. carriers for the purpose of selling to consumers in countries other than the U.S. ) . Their concern is that if the pro posed requirements do appl y to all U.S. carrier W eb sites maintained world - wide , it will add tremendously

to the ir compliance burden , have a significant impact on their compliance cost estimates, and offer no benefit to U.S. customers. The y note that the proposed rule exempts foreign air carriers from the requirement s for their non - U.S. Web sites and assert their belief that the Department intended the same exemption to apply to the non - U.S. Web sites of U.S. carriers . We do , in fact, intend to apply th e same exemption to the non - U.S. Web sites of U.S. carriers . S ection 382.43( c ) of the SNPRM states: “ As a U.S. or foreign carrier that owns or controls a primary

Web site that markets air transportation, you must ensure the public - facing Web pages on your Web site are accessible to individuals with disabilities in accordance with this section. As a foreign carrier, onl y Web pages on your Web site involved in marketing8

covered air transportation to the general public in the U.S. must be accessible to in dividuals with disabilities. ” We inadvertently included the word “foreign” before “carrier” in the second sentence of proposed section 382.43(c). The preliminary regulatory

evaluation does not include costs to U.S. carriers associated with making Web sit es accessible that are not marketing to U.S. consumers. O ur intention in the proposal is and continues to be to exempt both U.S. and foreign carriers’ Web sites that market air transportation to consumers outside the U.S. We appreciate the A ssociations’ request for clarification on this point and encourage comments from the public on whether the Web site accessibility requirements should apply to U.S. and foreign carriers , as proposed, onl y with respect to their primary Web sites marketing ai r transportation to the general public in the U.S. , or be expanded to cover all their Web sites regardless of whether they are marketing air transportation mainly to non - U.S. consumers. 2. Clarification of the terms “primary , ” “main , ” and “public -

facing” as they apply to Web sites and We b pages subject to the proposed Web site accessibility requirement The A ssociations noted that the terms “public - facing Web pages ,” “primary Web site ,” and “main Web site , ” were not defined in the SNPRM and asked for clarification of the terms as used in proposed section 382.43(c) and in the preamble to describe the applicability of the proposed requirements to carrier Web sites . The term “p ublic - facing W eb page ” as used in the SNPRM means a Web page intended to be accessed and used by the general public, as opposed to W eb pages intended for limited access (e.g., b y carrier employees, private companies, or entities other than the general public) . Any Web page on a carrier’s primary commercial Web site that is intended to provide air transportation information or services to consumers is a “public - facing” Web page covered b y the proposed accessibility requirements. For carrier s that own, lease, or control multiple Web site s that market air transportatio n and offer related services and9

information , the Web site that is accessed when the “www.carriername.com ” uniform resource locator (URL) is entered to an Internet browser from a standard desktop or laptop computer would be the “primary” or “main” Web site . The terms “main Web site ” and “primary Web site ” as used in the SNPRM are sy nony mous. 3. Conforming alternate versions and “text- only” features on a primary Web site The A ssociations also ask ed for clarification of the term “conforming alternate version,” which they

believe is undefined in the SNPRM, and asked whether a text - only feature offered by some carriers on their primary Web sites would be considered an alternate conforming version. They describe the text - only

feature as one that is compatible with screen - reader technology and is activated b y a single click on the homepage of the primary Web site, linking the user to a text only page that conform s to WCAG 2.0 at L evel A and AA . They note that the SNPRM asks for public comment on whether the Department “ should explicitly prohibit the use of conforming alternate versions except when necessary to provide the information, services, and benefits on a specific Web page or Web site as effectivel y to individuals with disabilities as to those without disabilities .” Anticipating that the Department might adopt such a restriction, they ask whether the Department has the cost - benefit data that would support a requirement to completely redesign a primary

Web site when the text - only feature provides Web content at the required level of accessibility . The term “conforming alternate version,” whil e not defined in the proposed rule text, is described in the SNPRM preamble as a Web page or Web site “ that meets the [WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA] success criteria, is up to date, and contains the same information and functionality in the same language [as the non - conforming page on the primary Web site] . A conforming alternate version of a Web page is intended to provide people with disabilities equivalent access10

to the same content and functionality as a directl y accessible Web page under WCAG 2.0. ” S ee 76 Fed. Reg. 59307, 59313 (September 26, 2011). While the WCAG 2.0 implementation guidance is clear that conforming alternate version s are not the preferred method of conformance 1 , the Department did not propose to explicitly restrict their use in the proposed rule . We are aware of serious concerns about the emergence of parallel carrier Web sites that may be screen - reader accessible but may not provide all the information and content available on the non - conforming Web site . A review of some text - onl y versions of carrier Web sites indicates that these versions meet some, but not all, of the four requirements below for a conforming alternate version: a. conforms at the designated level (e.g., meets Level A and Level AA success criteria) , and b. provides all of the same information and functionality in the same human language , and c. provides content that is as up - to - date as the non - conforming content, and d. can be reached from the non - conforming page via an accessibility- su pported mechanism , or the non - conforming version can onl y be reached from the conforming version, or the non - conforming version can onl y be reached from a conforming page that also provides a mechanism to reach the conforming version. The sites we reviewed met three of the four requirements for conforming alternate versions: the first (text - only content met all the WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria), the third (the text - only content that was dy

namically generated from the non - conforming site content was up to - date), and the fourth (was available from the non - confo rming site via an accessibilitysupported mechanism). The main problem we found with these sites was th at the text - only site did not alway s contain the same information and functionality available on the non - conforming

1 See “Understanding Conformance” at http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING WCAG20/conformance.html#uc - conforming - alt - versions - head , October 15, 2011.11

site. For example, while it was possible to book a flight on both the non - conforming and text only Web site s , certain other functions avail able on the non - conforming site were not available on the text - only

site (e.g., ability

to prioritize flights listed by price over schedule, ability to indicate that your travel dates are flexible, ability to enter cities as well as airport codes, “live chat” assistance , etc. ). At the same time, we found that some pages on the text - only site did provide close to the same information and functionality as their counterpart pages on the non conforming site. While none of the carrier text - only sites we revi ewed qualified as conforming alternate versions, we were nonetheless encouraged by the extent to which the text - only sites mirrored the content of the non - conforming site s . Unless a carrier’s text - only Web content can be reached from the carrier’s primary Web site via an accessible link , conforms with WCAG 2.0 success criteria at Level A and AA , provide s the same content and functionality , and is promptly updated to reflect changes to content available to its non - disabled customers , it will not meet the re quired level of accessibility and will not be considered a conforming alternate version. Given the concerns about carriers consistently

maintaining the quality

of text - only

content to meet this stringent standard, we asked for comment on whether existing text - only Web sites meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria at Level A and AA. In particular, we solicit comments from consumers with disabilities on their experiences in using text - only carrier Web sites and any gaps they

are aware of in the available information and functionality on such sites as compared with that on the corresponding non conforming site . We also invite public comment on whether the cost of making a carrier’s entire Web site directly

co nformant would be substantially greater ( or less ) than providing a text - only version of the carrier’s Web site that is conformant with WCAG 2.0 standards at Level A and AA and meets the definition of conforming alternate version. What other advantages or12

disadvantages are there to allowing the use of conforming alternate versions without restriction, or to restricting their use to circumstances in which it is “ the only way to provide the content on specific Web pages or Web sites as effectivel y to individuals with disabilities as to those without disabilities ? ” 4. Wh ether the scope of carrier responsibility under the proposed requirement to ensure that ticket agent Web sites comply with the Web site accessibility standards extends to large tour operato rs and carrier alliances Noting that the term “ticket agent” was used in the preliminary regulatory anal ys is to collectively

refer to travel agents and tour operators 2 , the A ssociations also asked the Department to confirm whether the requirement in proposed section 382.43(d) to require carriers to ensure the accessibility

of ticket agents’ Web sites would include Web sites operated by tour operators . See 76 Fed. Reg. 59307, 59325 (September 26, 2011). The Department defi nes “ticket agent” in the SNPRM preamble by citing the definition found at 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(45), as a person other than a carrier that “as a principal or agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out as selling, providing, or arran ging for air transportation.” See 76 Fed. Reg. 59307, 59309 (September 26, 2011). Both travel agents and tour operators engaging in these activities, therefore, are “ticket agents” for purposes of the SNPRM’s provisions. Under proposed section 382.43(d), carriers would be responsible to ensure that the Web sites of ticket agents compl y with the W eb site accessibility requirements when marketing travel packages to the general public in the U.S. that include covered air transportation operated b y the carriers. We invite comments from the public on the feasibility of requiring carriers to monitor the Web sites of large tour operators to ensure the ir compliance with the accessibility requirements.

2 Preliminary Regulatory Analysis, ACAA SNPRM Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites , 1, September 7, 2011 [Docket No. DOT - OST - 2011 - 0177 - 0002] .13

With respect to the Web sites of carrier alliances, the Department views such alliances as enterprises jointly

owned by

the member carriers. A review of several carrier alliance Web sites shows that all provide extensive flight - related information, as well as online tools to assist customers in creating flight itineraries. By providing services to assist consumers in building itineraries and linking them to member Web sites to book specific flights, the al liance Web sites are clearl y marketing to consumers . However, since a carrier alliance Web site is not a primary carrier Web site as discussed above, the Department did not include such sites in its proposal or accompanyi ng preliminary cost benefit anal ys is. We therefore ask for public comment on whether carriers should be required to ensure that the Web sites of any alliances with which they are affiliated compl y with the proposed accessibility requirements. 5. The Department’s authority to regulate ticket agent W eb sites directly under 49 U.S.C. § 41712 Concerning ticket agent Web sites, the A ssociations sought clarification of the Department’s assertion in the SNPRM preamble of its authority to require accessibility of Web sites marketing covered air transportation to the general public in the U.S. under 49 U.S.C. § 41712 , the statute prohibiting carriers and ticket agents from engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices. They questioned wh y , in light of its assertion, the Department propo sed to regulate ticket agents indirectly through carriers and asked for clarification of the Department’s authority under the statute . The Department considers marketing air transportation on a Web site that effectivel y excludes a class of consumers solely due to their disabilities to be unlawful discrimination that is also an unfair trade practice . In the SNPRM, we ask for comment on whether the Department should apply the proposed Web site accessibility requirements to ticket agents directly . W e note14

that the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that it is considering whether to revise its Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations in the future to include Web site accessibility standards . See 75 Fed. Reg. 43460 (July 26, 2010). Anticipating that ticket agent Web sites may also be covered under DOJ’s future amended ADA regulation, we ask whether DOT should wait for DOJ to move forward with its rulemaking before issuing our own rules to require accessibi lity of ticket agent Web sites . We solicit feedback on these questions to assist us in determining a course of action that would b est serve the public interest. Today a great many Web sites selling air transportation, particularl y ticket agent Web sites, are not accessible or are onl y partially accessible to people with disabilities . The Department believes that all stakeholders would greatl y benefit as the number of acc essible Web sites marketing and selling air transportation to the general public in the U.S. increases across the air travel industry . We are aware that there are pros and cons to our proposal to require carriers to work with their ticket agents to create incentives to achieve this objective. We again invite all stakeholders to share the pros and cons from their perspectives of this approach . 6. Ongoing costs to maintain an accessible Web site The final issue the A ssociations raise regarding the proposed Web site accessibility requirements concerns the ongoing cost of maintaining Web site accessibility . They observe that the Department assert s that the estimated cost of ensuring full compliance of a primary Web site is $2.0 million annually for U.S. and foreign carriers and $2.6 million annually for ticket agents , but also states on the same page that there is a lack of quantitative data on the cost of maintaining Web site accessibility . See 76 Fed. Reg. 59315. They asked that the Department clarify whether it was able to quantify

ongoing recurring costs to maintain an accessible Web site, and if so, identify the source of th e estimated costs , and place any s upporting documentation in the docket.15

The statement above indicating an a bsence of quantitative data on the ongoing costs of maintaining Web site accessibility appeared in the SNPRM and in the preliminary regulatory anal ys is 3 due to editing oversights and should have been o m itted from both documents . Table 24 of the preliminary

regulatory

anal ys is shows how the ongoing annual cost of maintaining Web site accessibility was estimated . The maintenance costs per carrier or agent are assumed to be the sum of the costs associated with the following fixed and variable cost elements: site evaluation and conformance checking costs (fixed), site layout and style sheet revision costs (fixed), and per- page maintenance costs (variable). This formula was used to compute costs for the “Largest” Web site category in Table 24 . Per - page maintenance costs were inadvertentl y omitted from the formula used to compute costs for the other three size categories (Large, Small, and Smallest). Because per page maintenance costs are so small, the impact on the overall estimates shown at the bottom of Table 24 is minimal . For a general discussion o f the impact of accessibility on Web site development and maintenance over the long term , see the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web site Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Web site. 4 Issues Concerning the Proposed Accessibility Requirements for Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports 1. Retrofitting of Automated Kiosks to Meet Accessibility Requirements The A ssociations also ask ed the Department to clarify whether it is proposing a retrofit requirement for automated kiosks at U.S. airports , and if so, what would be the compliance time period . They

note that the proposed rule text explicitly states that carriers would not be required to retrofit existing kiosks, while the preamble states that the Department is considering some

3 Id. at 58. 4 W3C Website Accessibility Initiative, “ Reduce Site Development and Maintenance Time ,” available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/tech.html#maint , October 15, 2011 .16

form of retrofitting. They state that clarification of this point is important because retrofitting would have a significant impact on estimating the technical feasibility and cost impact of compliance for both carriers and airport s (for shared - use automated kiosks). The Department has not propose d to require retrofitting of automated kiosks but is considering this option because of concern that only requiring accessibility

of new kiosk s ordered after the rule’s effective date could substantially delay the availability

of accessible kiosk s at many airport location s . The Department wants to ensure the availability of at least some accessible kiosk s at every airport location within a reasonable time after the rule goes into effec t. W e therefore are asking for information about the technical feasibility and cost impact of retrofitting some number of kiosks before the end of their life cycle (e.g., one kiosk at each airport location). We invite comment on whether retrofitting any number of existing kiosks is feasible and if so, whether there should be a requirement for limited retrofitting, in addition to requiring that all new kiosk s ordered be accessible . 2. Automated Ticket Scanners for Rebooking Flights The A ssociations also wanted clarification about the ty pes of self

- service kiosks at U.S. airports that would be covered b y the proposed accessibility requirements. Acknowledging that the Department did intend to cover check- in kiosks, they asked for confirmation that the Dep artment did not intend to include automated ticket scanners available behind the security checkpoint to enable customers to independentl y rebook their flights during irregular operations . Automated ticket scanners appear to fall within the scope of automated kiosks the Department intended to cover. In the SNPRM, we proposed to define “automated airport kiosk ” as “ a self - service transaction machine that a carrier owns, leases, or controls and makes available at a U.S. airport to enable customers to independently obtain flight- related services ” [emphasis17

added]. 5 We also proposed to define “ f light- related services ” as “ functions related to air travel including, but not limited to, ticket purchase, rebooking cancelled flights , seat selection, and obtaining boarding passes or bag tags ”[emphasis added]. The proposed accessibility requirements would extend to any carrier - owned or shared - use airport self - service transaction machine that enables customers to rebook their flights. We invite public comme nt on whether there are compelling reasons not to require such machines to be accessible, whether accessible models currentl y exist or are under development, and any available cost information on such models. Requests for Supporting Documentation The A ssoc iations asked that a number of documents cited in the SNPRM and preliminary regulatory

anal ys is be placed in the docket. Some of these documents are publicly available as indicated below. Other information was obtained in oral interviews and no documentation is available. 1. Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee Report to the Access Board: Refreshed Accessibility Standards and Guidelines in Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology (April 2008). This document is available at http://access - board.gov/sec508/refresh/report/ . 2. The source of the estimate that “building acce ssibility into new Web pages tod ay is estimated to add only

about 3

– 6 p ercent to the cost.” This information was obtained from comments posted by Marco Maerten, an independent Web technologies consultant, on behalf of Accessibility Associates, LLC, in response to the Department of Justice’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability : Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local 5 76 Fed. Reg. 59325.18

Government Entities and Public Accommodations. [RIN 1190 - AA61, Docket 110, avai lable at DOJ - CRT - 2010 - 0005 - 0311 on www.regulations.gov . “In m y experience , incorporating Web accessibility

from the outset with qualified personnel can add 3 - 6% or less to technical development costs for smaller projects of 50 - 300 pages. There are significant economies of scale such that larger sites could benefit from even significantl y lower costs.” 3. Any documentation that supports the following statement appearing in the SNPRM: “Information obtained from kiosks vendors indicates that the bulk of the incremental costs associated with making kiosk hardware, middleware, and software applications accessible are fixed, therefore they

do not vary

appreciabl y with the number of units sold. ” 76 Fed. Reg. 59321. This statement was obtained in oral interviews with two major kiosk manufacturers on 6/29/11 (IBM) and on 7/12/11 and 8/10/11 (NCR). No documentation was provided. 4. The document “Countering the economic threat to sustainable accessibility” by L ewis, D., Suen, S.L ., Federing, D. (2010) . This document is available at http://www.sortclearinghouse.info/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1612&context=research 5. The preliminary

regulatory

anal ys is cites a TRACE anal ys is of the modifications that would be required to produce an accessible kiosk . The anal ys is is available at http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/kiosk_req/minimum.htm . Issued this Sixteenth day

of November 2011 , in Washington, D.C. under authority assigned to me by 14 CFR Part 385.17(c).

– Original Signed

– Neil R. Eisner Assistant General Counsel Office of Regulation and Enforcement U.S. Department of Transportation