43460 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

rules? What are the costs and benefits, 

both quantitatively and qualitatively, of 

providing individuals with disabilities 

an equal opportunity to access health 

care, recreational facilities, exercise 

equipment, furniture in hotels, nursing 

homes, and hospitals, and electronic 

information and transactions? The 

Department seeks specific cost 

information, including information on 

the costs and benefits, as well as 

anecdotal evidence of the costs and 

benefits of accessible equipment and 

furniture. 

A. Impact on Small Entities 

Consistent with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive 

Order 13272, the Department must 

consider the impacts of any proposed 

rule on small entities, including small 

businesses, small nonprofit 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. See 5 U.S.C. 603–04 

(2006); E.O. 13272, 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 

13, 2002). The Department will make an 

initial determination as to whether any 

rule it proposes is likely to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and if so, the Department will prepare 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

analyzing the economic impacts on 

small entities and regulatory 

alternatives that reduce the regulatory 

burden on small entities while 

achieving the goals of the regulation. In 

response to this ANPRM, the 

Department encourages small entities to 

provide cost data on the potential 

economic impact of adopting a specific 

requirement for Web site accessibility 

and recommendations on less 

burdensome alternatives, with cost 

information. 

Question 23. The Department seeks 

input regarding the impact the measures 

being contemplated by the Department 

with regard to accessible equipment and 

furniture will have on small entities if 

adopted by the Department. The 

Department encourages you to include 

any cost data on the potential economic 

impact on small entities with your 

response. 

Question 24. Are there alternatives 

that the Department can adopt, which 

were not previously discussed, that will 

alleviate the burden on small entities? 

Should there be different compliance 

requirements or timetables for small 

entities that take into account the 

resources available to small entities or 

should the Department adopt an 

exemption for certain or all small 

entities from coverage of the rule, in 

whole or in part. Please provide as 

much detail as possible in your 

response. 

Dated: July 21, 2010. 

Thomas E. Perez, 

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18331 Filed 7–22–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4410–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Parts 35 and 36 

[CRT Docket No. 110] 

RIN 1190–AA61 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability; Accessibility of Web 

Information and Services of State and 

Local Government Entities and Public 

Accommodations 

AGENCY: Department of Justice, Civil 

Rights Division. 

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(Department) is considering revising the 

regulations implementing title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA 

or Act) in order to establish 

requirements for making the goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, 

accommodations, or advantages offered 

by public accommodations via the 

Internet, specifically at sites on the 

World Wide Web (Web), accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. The 

Department is also considering revising 

the ADA’s title II regulation to establish 

requirements for making the services, 

programs, or activities offered by State 

and local governments to the public via 

the Web accessible. The Department is 

issuing this advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) in order to solicit 

public comment on various issues 

relating to the potential application of 

such requirements and to obtain 

background information for the 

regulatory assessment the Department 

must prepare if it were to adopt 

requirements that are economically 

significant according to Executive Order 

12866. 

DATES: The Department invites written 

comments from members of the public. 

Written comments must be postmarked 

and electronic comments must be 

submitted on or before January 24, 2011. 

Commenters should be aware that the 

electronic Federal Docket Management 

System will not accept comments after 

Midnight Eastern Time on the last day 

of the comment period. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 1190–AA61 (or Docket 

ID No. 110), by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Web site: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web 

site’s instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Regular U.S. mail: Disability Rights 

Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. 

Department of Justice, P.O. Box 2885, 

Fairfax, VA 22031–0885. 

• Overnight, courier, or hand 

delivery: Disability Rights Section, Civil 

Rights Division, U.S. Department of 

Justice, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., 

Suite 4039, Washington, DC 20005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christina Galindo-Walsh, Attorney, 

Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, at 

(202) 307–0663 (voice or TTY). This is 

not a toll free number. Information may 

also be obtained from the Department’s 

toll-free ADA Information Line at (800) 

514–0301 (voice) or (800) 514–0383 

(TTY). 

You may obtain copies of this 

ANPRM in large print, audiotape, 

Braille, or computer disk by calling the 

ADA Information Line at (800) 514– 

0301 (voice) or (800) 514–0383 (TTY). 

This ANPRM is also available on the 

ADA Home Page at http://www.ada.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Electronic Submission of Comments 

and Posting of Public Comments 

You may submit electronic comments 

to www.regulations.gov. When 

submitting comments electronically, 

you must include CRT Docket No. 110 

in the subject box, and you must 

include your full name and address. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and should be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection online at 

www.regulations.gov. Submission 

postings will include any personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) included in the text 

of your comment. If you include 

personal identifying information (such 

as your name, address, etc.) in the text 

of your comment but do not want it to 

be posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also 

include all the personal identifying 

information you want redacted along 

with this phrase. Similarly, if you 

submit confidential business 

information as part of your comment but 

do not want it posted online, you must 

include the phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION’’ in the first 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 43461 

paragraph of your comment. You must 

also prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted on 

www.regulations.gov. 

Comments on this ANPRM will also 

be made available for public viewing by 

appointment at the Disability Rights 

Section, located at 1425 New York 

Avenue, NW., Suite 4039, Washington, 

DC 20005, during normal business 

hours. To arrange an appointment to 

review the comments, please contact the 

ADA Information Line at (800) 514– 

0301 (voice) or (800) 514–0383 (TTY). 

The reason that the Civil Rights 

Division is requesting electronic 

comments before Midnight Eastern 

Time on the day the comment period 

closes is because the inter-agency 

Regulations.gov/Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS), which 

receives electronic comments terminates 

the public’s ability to submit comments 

at Midnight on the day the comment 

period closes. Commenters in time 

zones other than Eastern may want to 

take this fact into account so that their 

electronic comments can be received. 

The constraints imposed by the 

Regulations.gov/FDMS system do not 

apply to U.S. postal comments, which 

will be considered as timely filed if they 

are postmarked before Midnight on the 

day the comment period closes. 

II. Public Hearing 

The Department will hold a hearing to 

solicit comments on the issues 

presented in this notice. The 

Department plans to hold the public 

hearing during the 180-day public 

comment period. The date, time, and 

location of the public hearing will be 

announced to the public in the Federal 

Register. 

III. Background 

A. Statutory and Rulemaking History 

On July 26, 1990, President George 

H.W. Bush signed into law the ADA, a 

comprehensive civil rights law 

prohibiting discrimination on the basis 

of disability. The ADA broadly protects 

the rights of individuals with 

disabilities in employment, access to 

State and local government services, 

places of public accommodation, 

transportation, and other important 

areas of American life. The ADA also 

requires newly designed and 

constructed or altered State and local 

government facilities, public 

accommodations, and commercial 

facilities to be readily accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities. 

42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Section 204 (a) 

of title II and section 306(b) of title III 

direct the Attorney General to 

promulgate regulations to carry out the 

provisions of titles II and III, other than 

certain provisions dealing specifically 

with transportation. 42 U.S.C. 12134; 42 

U.S.C. 12186(b). 

Title II applies to State and local 

government entities, and, in Subtitle A, 

protects qualified individuals with 

disabilities from discrimination on the 

basis of disability in services, programs, 

and activities provided by State and 

local government entities. Title II 

extends the prohibition on 

discrimination established by section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504), to 

all activities of State and local 

governments regardless of whether these 

entities receive Federal financial 

assistance. 42 U.S.C. 12131–65. 

Title III prohibits discrimination on 

the basis of disability in the activities of 

places of public accommodation 

(private entities whose operations affect 

commerce and that fall into one of 12 

categories listed in the ADA, such as 

restaurants, movie theaters, schools, day 

care facilities, recreational facilities, and 

doctors’ offices) and requires newly 

constructed or altered places of public 

accommodation––as well as commercial 

facilities (privately owned, 

nonresidential facilities such as 

factories, warehouses, or office 

buildings)––to comply with the ADA 

Standards. 42 U.S.C. 12181–89. 

On July 26, 1991, the Department 

issued its final rules implementing title 

II and title III, which are codified at 28 

CFR part 35 (Title II) and part 36 (Title 

III). Appendix A of the title III 

regulation, at 28 CFR part 36, app. A, 

contains the ADA Standards for 

Accessible Design. On September 30, 

2004, the Department published an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(2004 ANPRM) to begin the process of 

updating the 1991 regulations to adopt 

revised ADA Standards based on the 

relevant parts of the 2004 ADA/ABA 

Guidelines. 69 FR 58768. On June 17, 

2008, the Department issued a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to adopt 

the revised 2004 ADA Standards and 

revise the title II and title III regulations. 

73 FR 34466. The NPRM addressed the 

issues raised in the public’s comments 

to the ANPRM and sought additional 

comment. Although the Department did 

not propose to include Web accessibility 

provisions in the 2004 ANPRM or the 

2008 NPRM, the Department received 

numerous comments urging the 

Department to issue Web accessibility 

regulations under the ADA. Based on 

these comments and the reasons 

detailed below, the Department has 

decided to begin the process of 

soliciting comments and suggestions 

with respect to what an NPRM regarding 

Web access should contain. 

B. Legal Foundation for Web 

Accessibility 

When the ADA was enacted in 1990, 

the Internet as we know it today—the 

ubiquitous infrastructure for 

information and commerce—did not 

exist. Today the Internet, most notably 

the sites of the Web, plays a critical role 

in the daily personal, professional, 

civic, and business life of Americans. 

Increasingly, private entities are 

providing goods and services to the 

public through Web sites that operate as 

places of public accommodation under 

title III of the ADA. Similarly, many 

public entities under title II are using 

Web sites to provide the public access 

to their programs, services, and 

activities. Many Web sites of public 

accommodations and governmental 

entities, however, render use by 

individuals with disabilities difficult or 

impossible due to barriers posed by Web 

sites designed without accessible 

features. 

Being unable to access Web sites puts 

individuals at a great disadvantage in 

today’s society, which is driven by a 

dynamic electronic marketplace and 

unprecedented access to information. 

On the economic front, electronic 

commerce, or ‘‘e-commerce,’’ often offers 

consumers a wider selection and lower 

prices than traditional, ‘‘brick-andmortar’’ storefronts, with the added 

convenience of not having to leave one’s 

home to obtain goods and services. For 

individuals with disabilities who 

experience barriers to their ability to 

travel or to leave their homes, the 

Internet may be their only way to access 

certain goods and services. 

Beyond goods and services, 

information available on the Internet 

has become a gateway to education. 

Schools at all levels are increasingly 

offering programs and classroom 

instruction through Web sites. Many 

colleges and universities offer degree 

programs online; some universities exist 

exclusively on the Internet. Even if they 

do not offer degree programs online, 

most colleges and universities today 

rely on Web sites and other Internetrelated technologies in the application 

process for prospective students, for 

housing eligibility and on-campus living 

assignments, course registration, 

assignments and discussion groups, and 

for a wide variety of administrative and 

logistical functions in which students 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
43462 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and staff must participate. Similarly, in 

the elementary- and secondary-school 

settings, communications via the 

Internet are increasingly becoming the 

way teachers and administrators 

communicate grades, assignments, and 

administrative matters to parents and 

students. 

The Internet is also dramatically 

changing the way that governmental 

entities serve the public. Public entities 

are increasingly providing their 

constituents access to government 

services and programs through their 

Web sites. Through government Web 

sites, the public can obtain information 

or correspond with local officials 

without having to wait in line or be 

placed on hold. They can also pay fines, 

apply for benefits, renew State-issued 

identification, register to vote, file taxes, 

request copies of vital records, and 

complete numerous other everyday 

tasks. The availability of these services 

and information online not only makes 

life easier for the public, but also 

enables governmental entities to operate 

more efficiently and at a lower cost. 

The Internet also is changing the way 

individuals socialize and seek 

entertainment. Social networks and 

other online meeting places provide a 

unique way for individuals to meet and 

fraternize. These networks allow 

individuals to meet others with similar 

interests and connect with friends, 

business colleagues, elected officials, 

and businesses. They also provide an 

effective networking opportunity for 

entrepreneurs, artists, and others 

seeking to put their skills and talents to 

use. Web sites also bring a myriad of 

entertainment and information options 

for Internet users—from games and 

music to news and videos. With the 

Internet, individuals can find countless 

ways to entertain themselves without 

ever leaving home. 

More and more, individuals are also 

turning to the Internet to obtain 

healthcare information. Individuals use 

the Internet to research diagnoses they 

have received or symptoms that they are 

experiencing. There are a myriad of Web 

sites that provide information about 

causes, risk factors, complications, tests, 

and diagnoses, treatment and drugs, 

prevention, and alternative therapies for 

just about any disease or illness. 

Moreover, healthcare and insurance 

providers are increasingly offering 

patients the ability to access their 

healthcare records electronically via 

Web sites. As use of the Internet to 

provide and obtain healthcare 

information increases, the inability of 

individuals with disabilities to also 

access this information can potentially 

have a significant adverse effect on their 

health. 

The ADA’s promise to provide an 

equal opportunity for individuals with 

disabilities to participate in and benefit 

from all aspects of American civic and 

economic life will be achieved in 

today’s technologically advanced 

society only if it is clear to State and 

local governments, businesses, 

educators, and other public 

accommodations that their Web sites 

must be accessible. Consequently, the 

Department is considering amending its 

title II and title III regulations to require 

public entities and public 

accommodations that provide products 

or services to the public through Web 

sites on the Internet to make their sites 

accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities under the legal 

framework established by the ADA. 

i. Barriers to Web Accessibility 

Millions of individuals in the United 

States have disabilities that affect their 

use of the Web. Many of these 

individuals use assistive technology to 

enable them to navigate Web sites or 

access information contained on those 

sites. For example, individuals who do 

not have use of their hands may use 

speech recognition software to navigate 

a Web site, while individuals who are 

blind may rely on a screen reader to 

convert the visual information on a Web 

site into speech. Many Web sites fail to 

incorporate or activate features that 

enable users with disabilities to access 

all the site’s information or elements. 

For instance, individuals who are deaf 

are unable to access information in Web 

videos and other multimedia 

presentations that do not have captions. 

Individuals with low vision may be 

unable to read Web sites that do not 

allow the font size or the color contrast 

of the site’s page to be modified. 

Individuals with limited manual 

dexterity who may use assistive 

technology that enables them to interact 

with Web sites cannot access sites that 

do not support keyboard alternatives for 

mouse commands. These same 

individuals, along with individuals with 

intellectual and vision disabilities, often 

encounter difficulty using portions of 

Web sites that require timed responses 

from users but do not give users the 

ability to indicate that they need more 

time to respond. 

Individuals who are blind or have low 

vision often confront significant barriers 

to Web access. This is because many 

Web sites provide information visually 

without features that allow screen 

readers or other assistive technology to 

retrieve information on the site so it can 

be presented in an accessible manner. 

The most common barrier to Web site 

accessibility is an image or photograph 

without corresponding text describing 

the image. A screen reader or similar 

assistive technology cannot ‘‘read’’ an 

image, leaving individuals who are 

blind with no way of independently 

knowing what information the image 

conveys (e.g., a simple graphic or a link 

to another page). Similarly, complex 

Web sites often lack navigational 

headings or links that would facilitate 

navigation using a screen reader or may 

contain tables with header and row 

identifiers that display data, but fail to 

provide associated cells for each header 

and row so that the table information 

can be interpreted by a screen reader. 

Online forms, which are an essential 

part of accessing goods and services on 

many Web sites, are often inaccessible 

to individuals with disabilities. For 

example, field elements on forms—the 

empty boxes that hold specific pieces of 

information, such as a last name or 

telephone number—that lack clear 

labels, and visual CAPTCHAs 

(‘‘Completely Automated Public Turing 

Test To Tell Computers and Humans 

Apart’’)—distorted text that must be 

inputted by a Web site user to verify 

that a Web submission is being 

completed by a human rather than a 

computer—make it difficult for persons 

using screen readers to make purchases, 

submit donations, and otherwise 

interact with a Web site. These barriers 

greatly impede the ability of individuals 

with disabilities to fully enjoy the 

goods, services, and programs offered by 

covered entities on the Web. 

In most instances, removing these and 

other Web site barriers is neither 

difficult nor especially costly, and in 

most cases providing accessibility will 

not result in changes to the format or 

appearance of a site. The addition of 

invisible attributes known as alt 

(alternate) text or tags to an image will 

help keep an individual using a screen 

reader oriented and allow him or her to 

gain access to the information on the 

Web site. Associating form labels to 

form input fields and locating form 

labels adjacent to form input fields will 

allow an individual using a screen 

reader to access the information and 

form elements necessary to complete 

and submit a form on the Web site. 

Moreover, Web designers can easily add 

headings, which facilitate page 

navigation using a screen reader, to their 

Web pages. They can also add cues to 

ensure the proper functioning of 

keyboard commands and set up their 

programs to respond to assistive 

technology, such as voice recognition 

technology. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 43463 

ii. Web Accessibility Under the ADA 

The Internet as it is known today did 

not exist when Congress enacted the 

ADA and, therefore, neither the ADA 

nor the regulations the Department 

promulgated under the ADA specifically 

address access to Web sites. But the 

statute’s broad and expansive 

nondiscrimination mandate reaches 

goods and services provided by covered 

entities on Web sites over the Internet. 

Title III of the ADA provides that ‘‘[n]o 

individual shall be discriminated 

against on the basis of disability in the 

full and equal enjoyment of the goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, or accommodations of any 

place of public accommodation by any 

person who owns, leases (or leases to), 

or operates a place of public 

accommodation.’’ 42 U.S.C. 12182(a). 

Title III of the ADA and its 

corresponding regulations define a 

‘‘place of public accommodation’’ as a 

facility whose operations affect 

commerce and that falls within at least 

one of the following 12 categories: 

(1) An inn, hotel, motel, or other place of 

lodging, except for an establishment located 

within a building that contains not more than 

five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually 

occupied by the proprietor of the 

establishment as the residence of the 

proprietor; 

(2) A restaurant, bar, or other establishment 

serving food or drink; 

(3) A motion picture house, theater, 

concert hall, stadium, or other place of 

exhibition or entertainment; 

(4) An auditorium, convention center, 

lecture hall, or other place of public 

gathering; 

(5) A bakery, grocery store, clothing store, 

hardware store, shopping center, or other 

sales or rental establishment; 

(6) A laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber 

shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair 

service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of 

an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, 

insurance office, professional office of a 

health care provider, hospital, or other 

service establishment; 

(7) A terminal, depot, or other station used 

for specified public transportation; 

(8) A museum, library, gallery, or other 

place of public display or collection; 

(9) A park, zoo, amusement park, or other 

place of recreation; 

(10) A nursery, elementary, secondary, 

undergraduate, or postgraduate private 

school, or other place of education; 

(11) A day care center, senior citizen 

center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption 

agency, or other social service center 

establishment; and 

(12) A gymnasium, health spa, bowling 

alley, golf course, or other place of exercise 

or recreation. 

42 U.S.C. 12181(7); 28 CFR 36.104. 

Congress contemplated that the 

Department would apply the statute in 

a manner that evolved over time, and it 

delegated authority to the Attorney 

General to promulgate regulations to 

carry out the Act’s broad mandate. See 

H.R. Rep. No. 101–485(II), 101st Cong., 

2d Sess. 108 (1990); 42 U.S.C. 12186(b). 

Consistent with this approach, the 

Department stated in the preamble to 

the original 1991 ADA regulations that 

the regulations should be interpreted to 

keep pace with developing technologies. 

28 CFR part 36, app. B. 

Section 12182 of title III provides that 

no person ‘‘who owns, leases (or leases 

to), or operates a place of public 

accommodation’’ may discriminate ‘‘on 

the basis of disability in the full and 

equal enjoyment of the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, or 

accommodations of any place of public 

accommodation.’’ 42 U.S.C. 12182(a) 

(emphasis added). Similarly, title II 

provides that qualified individuals with 

disabilities shall not be excluded from 

‘‘participation in or be denied the 

benefits of the services, programs, or 

activities of a public entity.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

12132 (emphasis added). The plain 

language of these statutory provisions 

applies to discrimination in offering the 

goods and services ‘‘of’’ a place of public 

accommodation or the services, 

programs, and activities ‘‘of’’ a public 

entity, rather than being limited to those 

goods and services provided ‘‘at’’ or ‘‘in’’ 

a place of public accommodation or 

facility of a public entity. See National 

Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp., 

452 F. Supp. 2d 946, 953 (N.D. Cal. 

2006) (finding in a Web site-access case 

that ‘‘[t]o limit the ADA to 

discrimination in the provision of 

services occurring on the premises of a 

public accommodation would 

contradict the plain language of the 

statute’’); Rendon v. Valleycrest 

Productions, Ltd., 294 F.3d 1279 (11th 

Cir. 2002) (finding that discrimination 

did not have to occur on-site in order to 

violate the ADA); see also Carparts 

Distribution Ctr., 37 F.3d 12 (concluding 

that title III is not limited to provision 

of goods and services provided in 

physical structures, but also covers 

access to goods and services offered by 

a place of public accommodation 

through other mediums, such as 

telephone or mail). But see Access Now, 

Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 227 F. 

Supp. 2d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (finding 

a Web site is only covered if it affects 

access to a physical place of public 

accommodation); See Weyer v. 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 

F.3d 1104, 1114–16 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(requiring some connection between the 

goods or services complained of and an 

actual physical place); Ford v. ScheringPlough Corp., 145 F.3d 601, 612–13 (3d 

Cir. 1998) (finding no nexus between 

challenged insurance policy and 

services offered to the public from 

insurance office). Instead, the ADA 

mandate for ‘‘full and equal enjoyment’’ 

requires nondiscrimination by a place of 

public accommodation in the offering of 

all its goods and services, including 

those offered via Web sites. 

iii. Need for Department Action 

The Internet has been governed by a 

variety of voluntary standards or 

structures developed through nonprofit 

organizations using multinational 

collaborative efforts. For example, 

domain names are issued and 

administered through the Internet 

Corporation for Assigned Names and 

Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Society 

(ISOC) publishes computer security 

policies and procedures for sites, and 

the World Wide Web Consortium 

(W3C®) develops a variety of technical 

standards and guidelines ranging from 

issues related to mobile devices and 

privacy to internationalization of 

technology. In the area of accessibility, 

the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of 

the W3C® has created the Web Content 

Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). 

It has been the policy of the United 

States to encourage self-regulation with 

regard to the Internet wherever possible 

and to regulate only where selfregulation is insufficient and 

government involvement may be 

necessary. See Memorandum on 

Electronic Commerce, 33 WCPD 1006, 

1006–1010 (July 1, 1997), available at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD1997-07-07/html/WCPD-1997-07-07- 

Pg1006-2.htm (last visited June 29, 

2010); A Framework for Global 

Electronic Commerce, http://

clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Commerce 

(last visited June 29, 2010). 

Voluntary standards have generally 

proved to be sufficient where obvious 

business incentives align with 

discretionary governing standards as, for 

example, with respect to privacy and 

security standards designed to increase 

consumer confidence in e-commerce. 

There has not, however, been equal 

success in the area of accessibility. The 

WAI leadership has recognized this 

challenge and has stated that in order to 

improve and accelerate Web 

accessibility it is important to 

‘‘communicat[e] the applicability of the 

ADA to the Web more clearly, with 

updated guidance * * * .’’ Achieving the 

Promise of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act in the Digital Age— 

Current Issues, Challenges, and 

Opportunities: Hearing Before the 

Subcomm. on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Civil Liberties, H. Comm. On 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
43464 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (Apr. 22, 

2010) (statement of Judy Brewer, 

Director, Web Accessibility Initiative at 

the W3C®). It is clear that the system of 

voluntary compliance has proved 

inadequate in providing Web site 

accessibility to individuals with 

disabilities. See, e.g., National Council 

on Disability, The Need for Federal 

Legislation and Regulation Prohibiting 

Telecommunications and Information 

Services Discrimination (Dec. 19, 2006), 

available at www.ncd.gov/newsroom/ 

publications/2006/discrimination.htm 

(last visited June 29, 2010) (discussing 

how competitive market forces have not 

proven sufficient to provide individual 

with disabilities access to 

telecommunications and information 

services.) 

There is no doubt that the Web sites 

of state and local government entities 

are covered by title II of the ADA. See 

28 CFR 35.102 (providing that the title 

II regulation ‘‘applies to all services, 

programs, and activities provided or 

made available by public entities’’). 

Similarly, there seems to be little debate 

that the Web sites of recipients of 

federal financial assistance are covered 

by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 

The Department has affirmed the 

application of these statutes to Web sites 

in a technical assistance publication, 

Accessibility of State and Local 

Government Web sites to People with 

Disabilities (available at www.usdoj.gov/ 

crt/ada/Web sites2.htm), and in 

numerous agreements with State and 

local governments and recipients of 

Federal financial assistance. 

The Department has also repeatedly 

affirmed the application of title III to 

Web sites of public accommodations. 

The Department first made this position 

public in a 1996 letter from Assistant 

Attorney General Deval Patrick 

responding to an inquiry by Senator 

Tom Harkin regarding the accessibility 

of Web sites to individuals with visual 

disabilities. See Letter from Deval L. 

Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, 

Civil Rights Division, Department of 

Justice, to Tom Harkin, U.S. Senator 

(Sept. 9, 1996), available at 

www.justice.gov/crt/foia/tal712.txt. The 

letter has been widely cited as a 

statement of the Department’s position. 

The letter does not, however, state 

whether entities doing business 

exclusively on the Internet are covered 

by the ADA. 

In 2000, the Department filed an 

amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit in 

Hooks v. OKbridge, Inc., which involved 

a Web-only business. The Department’s 

brief explained that a business 

providing services solely over the 

Internet is subject to the ADA’s 

prohibitions on discrimination on the 

basis of disability. See Brief of the 

United States as Amicus Curiae in 

Support of Appellant, 232 F.3d 208 (5th 

Cir. 2000) (No. 99–50891), 1999 WL 

33806215, available at http:// 

www.justice.gov/crt/briefs/hooks.htm. In 

a 2002 amicus brief in the Eleventh 

Circuit in Rendon v. Valleycrest 

Productions, Inc., the Department 

argued against a requirement, imposed 

outside of the Internet context by some 

Federal courts of appeals, that there be 

a nexus between a challenged activity 

and a private entity’s ‘‘brick-and-mortar’’ 

facility to obtain coverage under title III. 

See Brief for the United States as 

Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant, 

294 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002) (No. 01– 

11197), 2001 WL 34094038, available at 

http://www.justice.gov/crt/briefs/ 

rendon.htm. Although Rendon did not 

involve Web site access, the 

Department’s brief argued that title III 

applies to any activity or service offered 

by a public accommodation, on or off 

the premises. 

For years, businesses and individuals 

with disabilities alike have urged the 

Department to provide guidance on the 

accessibility of Web sites of entities 

covered by the ADA. While some 

actions have been brought regarding 

access to Web sites under the ADA that 

have resulted in courts finding liability 

or in the parties agreeing to a settlement 

to make the subject Web sites accessible, 

a clear requirement that provides the 

disability community consistent access 

to Web sites and covered entities clear 

guidance on what is required under the 

ADA does not exist. See generally, 

Target, 452 F. Supp. 2d 946; 

Amazon.com and National Federation 

of the Blind Join Forces to Develop and 

Promote Web Accessibility (Mar. 28, 

2007), http://www.nfb.org/nfb/NewsBot.

asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=174 (last visited 

June 29, 2010); Spitzer Agreement to 

Make Web Sites Accessible to the Blind 

and Visually Impaired (Aug. 2004), 

http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/

2004/aug/aug19a_04.html (last visited 

June 29, 2010). Two independent 

Federal agencies have also formally 

called on the Department to revise its 

regulations to make clear that the Web 

sites of entities covered under title III 

are subject to the ADA. See Federal 

Communications Commission, 

Recommendation 9.10, National 

Broadband Plan (Mar. 16, 2010), 

available at http://www.broadband.gov/ 

plan (last visited June 29, 2010) (‘‘The 

DOJ should amend its regulations to 

clarify the obligations of commercial 

establishments under title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act with 

respect to commercial Web sites’’); 

National Council on Disability, The 

Need for Federal Legislation and 

Regulation Prohibiting 

Telecommunications and Information 

Services Discrimination (Dec. 19, 2006), 

available at http://www.ncd.gov/ 

newsroom/publications/2006/ 

discrimination.htm (last visited June 29, 

2010) (urging the Department to clarify 

the ADA’s coverage of Web sites of title 

III entities). 

Although the Department has been 

clear that the ADA applies to Web sites 

of private entities that meet the 

definition of ‘‘public accommodations,’’ 

inconsistent court decisions, differing 

standards for determining Web 

accessibility, and repeated calls for 

Department action indicate remaining 

uncertainty regarding the applicability 

of the ADA to Web sites of entities 

covered by title III. For these reasons, 

the Department is exploring what 

regulatory guidance it can propose to 

make clear to entities covered by the 

ADA their obligations to make their 

Web sites accessible. Despite the need 

for action, the Department appreciates 

the need to move forward deliberatively. 

Any regulations the Department adopts 

must provide specific guidance to help 

ensure Web access for individuals with 

disabilities without hampering 

innovation and technological 

advancement on the Web. 

IV. Request for Public Comments 

Before the Department seeks comment 

on specific regulatory text, the 

Department is seeking input from the 

public. In addition to seeking comments 

in response to the specific questions 

raised in this ANPRM, the Department 

is particularly interested in receiving 

comments from all of those who have a 

stake in ensuring that the Web sites of 

public accommodations and public 

entities are accessible to people with 

disabilities or would otherwise be 

affected by regulations requiring Web 

site access. The Department appreciates 

the complexity and potential impact of 

this initiative and therefore also seeks 

input from experts in the field of 

computer science, programming, 

networking, assistive technology, and 

other related fields whose feedback and 

expertise will be critical in developing 

a workable framework for Web site 

access that respects the unique 

characteristics of the Internet and its 

transformative impact on everyday life. 

In your comments, please refer to each 

question by number. Please provide 

additional information not addressed by 

the proposed questions if you believe it 

would be helpful in understanding the 

implications of imposing ADA 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 43465 

regulatory requirements on the Web 

sites of public accommodations and 

State and local government entities. 

A. Accessibility standards to apply to 

Web sites of covered titles II and III 

entities 

As previously mentioned, the Web 

Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the 

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C®) 

has created recognized voluntary 

international guidelines for Web 

accessibility. These guidelines, set out 

in the Web Content Accessibility 

Guidelines (WCAG), detail how to make 

Web content accessible to individuals 

with disabilities. The most recent and 

updated version of the WCAG, the 

WCAG 2.0, was published in December 

2008 and is available at http:// 

www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (last visited 

June 29, 2010). According to the WAI, 

the WCAG 2.0 ‘‘applies broadly to more 

advanced technologies; is easier to use 

and understand; and is more precisely 

testable with automated testing and 

human evaluation.’’ See WAI, Web 

Content Accessibility Guidelines 

(WCAG) Overview, available at http:// 

www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php (last 

visited June 29, 2010). 

The WCAG 2.0 contains 12 guidelines 

addressing Web accessibility. Each 

guideline contains testable criteria for 

objectively determining if Web content 

satisfies the guideline. In order for a 

Web page to conform to the WCAG 2.0, 

the Web page must satisfy the criteria 

for all 12 guidelines under one of three 

conformance levels: A, AA, or AAA. 

The three levels of conformance 

indicate a measure of accessibility and 

feasibility. Level A, which is the 

minimum level of conformance for 

access, contains criteria that provide 

basic Web accessibility and that are the 

most feasible for Web content 

developers. Level AA, which is the 

intermediate level for access, contains 

enhanced criteria that provide more 

comprehensive Web accessibility and 

yet are still feasible for Web content 

developers. Level AAA, which is the 

maximum level of access, contains 

criteria that may be less feasible for Web 

content developers. In fact, WAI does 

not recommend that Level AAA 

conformance be required as a general 

policy for entire Web sites because it is 

not possible to satisfy all Level AAA 

criteria for some content. See W3C®, 

Understanding WCAG 2.0: 

Understanding Conformance (Dec. 

2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/

UNDERSTANDING–WCAG20/

conformance.html (last visited June 29, 

2010). 

Standards for Web site accessibility 

also exist for Federal government 

agencies, which are required to make 

their Web sites accessible under section 

508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 

U.S.C. 794(d) (section 508). Specifically, 

the Web sites of Federal government 

agencies must comply with the 

Electronic and Information Technology 

Accessibility Standards (section 508 

standards) published by the U.S. Access 

Board, 36 CFR 1194, available at 

http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/ 

standards.htm (last visited June 29, 

2010). The Access Board is currently 

revising the section 508 standards, in 

part to harmonize the standards with 

model guidelines, such as the WCAG. 

Question 1. Should the Department 

adopt the WCAG 2.0’s ‘‘Level AA 

Success Criteria’’ as its standard for Web 

site accessibility for entities covered by 

titles II and III of the ADA? Is there any 

reason why the Department should 

consider adopting another success 

criteria level of the WCAG 2.0? Please 

explain your answer. 

Question 2. Should the Department 

adopt the section 508 standards instead 

of the WCAG guidelines as its standard 

for Web site accessibility under titles II 

and III of the ADA? Is there a difference 

in compliance burdens and costs 

between the two standards? Please 

explain your answer. 

Question 3. How should the 

Department address the ongoing 

changes to WCAG and section 508 

standards? Should covered entities be 

given the option to comply with the 

latest requirements? 

Question 4. Given the ever-changing 

nature of many Web sites, should the 

Department adopt performance 

standards instead of any set of specific 

technical standards for Web site 

accessibility? Please explain your 

support for or opposition to this option. 

If you support performance standards, 

please provide specific information on 

how such performance standards should 

be framed. 

B. Coverage limitations 

It is the Department’s intention to 

regulate only governmental entities and 

public accommodations covered by the 

ADA that provide goods, services, 

programs, or activities to the public via 

Web sites on the Internet. Although 

some litigants have asserted that ‘‘the 

Internet’’ itself should be considered a 

place of public accommodation, the 

Department does not address this issue 

here. The Department believes that title 

III reaches the Web sites of entities that 

provide goods or services that fall 

within the 12 categories of ‘‘public 

accommodations,’’ as defined by the 

statute and regulations. Because the 

Department is focused on the goods and 

services of public accommodations that 

operate exclusively or through some 

type of presence on the Web—whether 

hosting their own Web site or 

participating in a host’s Web site—the 

Department wishes to make clear the 

limited scope of its regulations. For 

example, the Department is considering 

proposing explicit regulatory language 

that makes clear that Web content 

created or posted by Web site users for 

personal, noncommercial use is not 

covered, even if that content is posted 

on the Web site of a public 

accommodation or a public entity. This 

would include individual participation 

in popular online communities, forums, 

or networks in which people upload 

personal videos or photos or engage in 

exchanges with other users. The 

Department could also make clear that 

public accommodations and public 

entities are not liable for inaccessible 

content posted to their sites by 

individuals not under their control as 

long as they provide their Web site users 

the ability to make their posts 

accessible. 

In addition, the Department does not 

intend to propose regulatory text that 

reaches the informal or occasional 

trading, selling, or bartering of goods or 

services by private individuals in the 

context of an online marketplace. The 

Department could distinguish such 

occasional trading activity by 

individuals acting in a private capacity 

from legally established business 

entities, ranging from sole 

proprietorships to limited liability 

companies and corporations. As long as 

these business entities offer the goods or 

services of a public accommodation 

online, they would be responsible for 

making such offerings accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. Lastly, a 

public accommodation or public entity 

would not be required to ensure the 

accessibility of Web sites that are linked 

to its site, but that it does not operate 

or control. However, to the extent an 

entity requires users of its Web site to 

utilize another Web site in order to take 

part in its goods and services (e.g., 

payment for items on one Web site must 

be processed through another Web site), 

the entity may be liable for the 

accessibility of other sites it requires its 

patrons to use even if it does not operate 

or control the site. 

Question 5. The Department seeks 

specific feedback on the limitations for 

coverage that it is considering. Should 

the Department adopt any specific 

parameters regarding its proposed 

coverage limitations? How should the 

Department distinguish, in the context 

of an online marketplace, between 

informal or occasional trading, selling, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
43466 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

or bartering of goods or services by 

private individuals and activities that 

are formal and more than occasional? 

Are there other areas or matters 

regarding which the Department should 

consider adopting additional coverage 

limitations? Please provide as much 

detail as possible in your response. 

C. Compliance Issues 

Question 6. What resources and 

services are available to public 

accommodations and public entities to 

make their Web sites accessible? What 

is the ability of covered entities to make 

their Web sites accessible with in-house 

staff? What technical assistance should 

the Department make available to public 

entities and public accommodations to 

assist them with complying with this 

rule? 

Question 7. Are there distinct or 

specialized features used on Web sites 

that render compliance with 

accessibility requirements difficult or 

impossible? 

The Department has taken the 

position that covered entities with 

inaccessible Web sites may comply with 

the ADA’s requirement for access by 

providing an accessible alternative, such 

as a staffed telephone line, for 

individuals to access the information, 

goods, and services of their Web site. 

See Accessibility of State and Local 

Government Web sites to People with 

Disabilities, available at http:// 

www.ada.gov/Web sites2.htm. In order 

for an entity to meet its legal obligation 

under the ADA, an entity’s alternative 

must provide an equal degree of access 

in terms of hours of operations and 

range of information, options, and 

services available. For example, a 

department store that has an 

inaccessible Web site that allows 

customers to access their credit 

accounts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 

in order to review their statements and 

make payments would need to provide 

access to the same information and 

provide the same payment options in its 

accessible alternative. 

Question 8. Given that most Web sites 

today provide significant amounts of 

services and information in a dynamic, 

evolving setting that would be difficult, 

if not impossible, to replicate through 

alternative, accessible means, to what 

extent can accessible alternatives still be 

provided? Might viable accessible 

alternatives still exist for simple, nondynamic Web sites? 

D. Effective Date 

Following the publication of a final 

rule, the Department must set an 

effective date for the application of any 

new title II or title III regulations 

requiring the Web sites of entities 

covered by the ADA to be accessible. 

When the ADA was enacted, the 

effective dates for various provisions 

were delayed in order to provide time 

for covered entities to become familiar 

with their new obligations. Under the 

1991 regulations, new construction 

under title II and alterations under 

either title II or title III had to comply 

with the design standards of the 

Department’s new regulations by 

January 26, 1992, six months after the 

regulations were published. See 28 CFR 

35.151(a)–(b); 28 CFR 36.402(a). For 

new construction under title III, the 

ADA requirements applied to facilities 

of public accommodations designed and 

constructed for first occupancy after 

January 26, 1993—–eighteen months 

after the ADA Standards were published 

by the Department. See 28 CFR 

36.401(a). 

The Department is considering an 

effective date of six months after the 

publication of the final rule for newly 

created Web sites or pages, i.e., those 

that have been placed online for the first 

time six months after the publication of 

the final rule. Under such a proposal, 

newly created or completely redesigned 

Web sites will have to come into total 

compliance with any Web access 

requirements adopted by the 

Department. New pages on existing Web 

sites would need to comply with the 

Web access requirements to the 

maximum extent feasible. The 

Department is considering this 

provision for new pages on existing Web 

sites because the Department recognizes 

that certain features on existing Web 

sites—such as navigation components or 

use of integrated Web technology with 

limited capacity for accessibility— 

cannot be completely altered or 

replaced without a complete redesign of 

the entire site. For this reason, the 

Department is considering requiring 

new pages on existing Web sites to 

comply with the accessibility 

requirements to the maximum extent 

feasible. The Department recognizes, 

however, that in some cases this may 

result in incomplete accessibility of new 

pages. For existing Web sites or pages, 

the Department is considering having 

the Web site access requirement apply 

two years after the date of publication 

of the final rule. The Department is 

considering this period of time for 

existing Web sites because it recognizes 

that many Web sites have hundreds 

(and some thousands) of pages that will 

need to be made accessible. 

Question 9. The Department seeks 

comment on the proposed time frames 

for compliance. Are the proposed 

effective dates for the regulations 

reasonable or should the Department 

adopt shorter or longer periods for 

compliance? Please provide as much 

detail as possible in support of your 

view. 

Question 10. The Department seeks 

comment regarding whether such a 

requirement would cause some 

businesses to remove older material 

rather than change the content into an 

accessible format. Should the 

Department adopt a safe harbor for such 

content so long as it is not updated or 

modified? 

Question 11. Should the Department 

take an incremental approach in 

adopting accessibility regulations 

applicable to Web sites and adopt a 

different effective date for covered 

entities based on certain criteria? For 

instance, should the Department’s 

regulation initially apply to entities of a 

certain size (e.g., entities with 15 or 

more employees or earning a certain 

amount of revenue) or certain categories 

of entities (e.g., retail Web sites)? Please 

provide as much detail and information 

as possible in support of your view. 

E. Cost and Benefits of Web Site 

Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

Federal agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ to the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) for review and approval prior to 

publication in the Federal Register. See 

E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 

1993), as amended; OMB Budget 

Circular A 4, http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars/ 

a004/a-4.pdf (Sept. 17, 2003) (last 

visited June 29, 2010). A proposed 

regulatory action is deemed to be 

‘‘economically significant’’ under section 

3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 if it has 

an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more. Id. Regulatory actions 

that are deemed to be economically 

significant must include a formal 

regulatory analysis––a report analyzing 

the economic costs and benefits of the 

regulatory action. A formal cost-benefit 

analysis must include both qualitative 

and quantitative measurements of the 

benefits and costs of the proposed rule 

as well as a discussion of each 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternative. Since this is an 

ANPRM, the Department is not required 

to conduct certain economic analyses or 

written assessments that otherwise may 

be required for other more formal types 

of agency regulatory actions (e.g., 

notices of proposed rulemaking or final 

rules). If any proposed rule the 

Department issues regarding Web access 

is likely to have an economically 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 43467 

significant impact on the economy, the 

Department will prepare a formal 

regulatory analysis. 

Question 12. What data source do you 

recommend to assist the Department in 

estimating the number of public 

accommodations (i.e., entities whose 

operations affect commerce and that fall 

within at least one of the 12 categories 

of public accommodations listed above) 

and State and local governments to be 

covered by any Web site accessibility 

regulations adopted by the Department 

under the ADA? Please include any data 

or information regarding entities the 

Department might consider limiting 

coverage of, as discussed in the 

‘‘coverage limitations’’ section above. 

Question 13. What are the annual 

costs generally associated with creating, 

maintaining, operating, and updating a 

Web site? What additional costs are 

associated with creating and 

maintaining an accessible Web site? 

Please include estimates of specific 

compliance and maintenance costs 

(software, hardware, contracting, 

employee time, etc.). What, if any, 

unquantifiable costs can be anticipated 

from amendments to the ADA 

regulations regarding Web site access? 

Question 14. What are the benefits 

that can be anticipated from action by 

the Department to amend the ADA 

regulations to address Web site 

accessibility? Please include anticipated 

benefits for individuals with 

disabilities, businesses, and other 

affected parties, including benefits that 

cannot be fully monetized or otherwise 

quantified. 

Question 15. What, if any, are the 

likely or potential unintended 

consequences (positive or negative) of 

Web site accessibility requirements? For 

example, would the costs of a 

requirement to provide captioning to 

videos cause covered entities to provide 

fewer videos on their Web sites? 

Question 16. Are there any other 

effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives to making the Web sites of 

public accommodations accessible that 

the Department should consider? If so, 

please provide as much detail about 

these alternatives, including 

information regarding their costs and 

effectiveness in your answer. 

F. Impact on Small Entities 

Consistent with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive 

Order 13272, the Department must 

consider the impacts of any proposed 

rule on small entities, including small 

businesses, small nonprofit 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. See 5 U.S.C. 603–04 

(2006); E.O. 13272, 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 

13, 2002). The Department will make an 

initial determination as to whether any 

rule it proposes is likely to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and if so, the Department will prepare 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

analyzing the economic impacts on 

small entities and regulatory 

alternatives that reduce the regulatory 

burden on small entities while 

achieving the goals of the regulation. In 

response to this ANPRM, the 

Department encourages small entities to 

provide cost data on the potential 

economic impact of adopting a specific 

requirement for Web site accessibility 

and recommendations on less 

burdensome alternatives, with cost 

information. 

Question 17. The Department seeks 

input regarding the impact the measures 

being contemplated by the Department 

with regard to Web accessibility will 

have on small entities if adopted by the 

Department. The Department 

encourages you to include any cost data 

on the potential economic impact on 

small entities with your response. 

Please provide information on capital 

costs for equipment, such as hardware 

and software needed to meet the 

regulatory requirements; costs of 

modifying existing processes and 

procedures; any affects to sales and 

profits, including increases in business 

due to tapping markets not previously 

reached; changes in market competition 

as a result of the rule; and cost for hiring 

web professionals for to assistance in 

making existing Web sites accessible. 

Question 18. Are there alternatives 

that the Department can adopt, which 

were not previously discussed in 

response to Questions 11 or 16, that will 

alleviate the burden on small entities? 

Should there be different compliance 

requirements or timetables for small 

entities that take into account the 

resources available to small entities or 

should the Department adopt an 

exemption for certain or all small 

entities from coverage of the rule, in 

whole or in part. Please provide as 

much detail as possible in your 

response. 

G. Other Issues 

Question 19. The Department is 

interested in gathering other 

information or data relating to the 

Department’s objective to provide 

requirements for Web accessibility 

under titles II and III of the ADA. 

Are there additional issues or 

information not addressed by the 

Department’s questions that are 

important for the Department to 

consider? Please provide as much detail 

as possible in your response. 

Dated: July 21, 2010. 

Thomas E. Perez, 

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18334 Filed 7–22–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4410–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 36 

[CRT Docket No. 112] 

RIN 1190–AA63 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability; Movie Captioning and Video 

Description 

AGENCY: Civil Rights Division, Justice. 

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(Department) is considering revising its 

regulation implementing title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

in order to establish requirements for 

making the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, accommodations, or 

advantages offered by movie theater 

owners or operators at movie theaters 

accessible to individuals who are deaf 

or hard of hearing or who are blind or 

have low vision by screening movies 

with closed captioning or video 

description. The Department is issuing 

this Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) in order to solicit 

public comment on various issues 

relating to the potential application of 

such requirements and to obtain 

background information for the 

regulatory assessment the Department 

may need to prepare in adopting any 

such requirements. 

DATES: The Department invites written 

comments from members of the public. 

Written comments must be postmarked 

and electronic comments must be 

submitted on or before January 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 1190–AA63 (or Docket 

ID No. 112), by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Web site: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web 

site’s instructions for submitting 

comments. The Regulations.gov Docket 

ID is DOJ–CRT–0112. 

• Regular U.S. mail: Disability Rights 

Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. 

Department of Justice, P.O. Box 2885, 

Fairfax, VA 22031–0885. 

• Overnight, courier, or hand 

delivery: Disability Rights Section, Civil 

Rights Division, U.S. Department of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1