This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

71914 

Vol. 76, No. 224 

Monday, November 21, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 382 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2011–0177] 

RIN No. 2105–AD96 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of 

Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at 

U.S. Airports 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (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 days from 

November 25, 2011, to January 9, 2012. 

This extension is a result of requests 

from a number of parties for additional 

time to respond to the SNPRM. The Air 

Transport Association, the International 

Air Transport Association, the Air 

Carrier Association of America, the 

Regional Airline Association, and the 

Association of Asia Pacific Airlines all 

asked to extend the comment period on 

the proposal by 120 days 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 

Interactive Travel Services Association 

requested an extension of at least 60 

days to gather the information necessary 

to provide an in-depth, comprehensive 

response to the SNPRM. An individual 

with a disability has also asked for an 

extension, citing difficulties in using the 

online comment form on the 

www.regulations.gov Web 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 by some 

individuals to date in submitting 

comments. Nonetheless, we are not 

persuaded that an additional 120 or 

even 60 days are needed to respond. In 

addition to extending the comment 

period, this action responds to questions 

posed by the Associations about certain 

aspects of the SNPRM. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

January 9, 2012. 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 

Identification Number (RIN) (2105– 

AD96) for this 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-2011- 

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) Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal Holidays. 

(4) Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

(5) Privacy Act: For comments 

submitted on www.regulations.gov, 

please see the Privacy and Use Notice at 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!privacyNotice. 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 

19477–78), 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 General 

Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366– 

9342 (phone), (202) 366–7152 (fax), 

kathleen.blankriether@dot.gov. You may 

also contact Blane A. Workie, Deputy 

Assistant General Counsel, Office of the 

Assistant General Counsel for Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings, 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 

20590, (202) 366–9342 (phone), (202) 

366–7152 (fax), blane.workie@dot.gov. 

TTY users may reach the individual via 

the Federal Relay Service 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), by requiring U.S. and foreign air 

carriers to ensure that their Web 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 ensure that all 

new orders for automated kiosks they 

own, lease, or control at U.S. airports 

that provide flight-related services and 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 71915 

information to passengers are accessible 

to people with disabilities. 76 FR 59307 

(September 26, 2011). Comments on the 

matters proposed were to be received by 

November 25, 2011. 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 ‘‘Associations’’) jointly 

submitted a request to clarify the 

proposal and to extend the comment 

period by an additional 120 days. 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 days. Eight days later we 

received another request from the 

Interactive Travel Services Association 

(ITSA) for an extension of at least 60 

days. Finally, 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 the 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 Extension 

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 would meet the proposed 

‘‘hybrid’’ 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 selected provisions 

from Section 508 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 (36 CFR 1194.25) applicable 

to self-contained closed products. The 

Associations also expressed concern 

about the difficulty of gathering 

information from entities during the 

holiday season. They note that the 

current comment deadline is the day 

after Thanksgiving and that with an 

extension of 30 days, it would be the 

day after Christmas. In light of these 

challenges, the Associations believe that 

an additional 120 days is in the public 

interest to allow all interested parties an 

opportunity to provide the most 

meaningful responses to the questions 

raised by the Department. The AAPA 

cited their agreement with the 

Associations’ 120-day extension request 

in the interest of a more thorough 

analysis and constructive comments on 

the SNPRM. 

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 Web pages of 

ITSA members, and the need to clarify 

technical matters such as sequencing 

implementation, measuring and 

verifying compliance. 

The Department concurs that an 

extension of the comment period is in 

the public interest but believes that an 

extension of 120 additional days is not 

warranted. We have decided to grant a 

45-day extension, or until January 9, 

2012, for the public to comment on the 

SNPRM. By granting 45 rather than 120 

additional days, we are balancing the 

stated need for additional time to gather 

information and consider the proposals 

with the need to proceed expeditiously 

with this important rulemaking. We 

note that with an additional 45 days, 

interested parties will have a total of 

106 days to comment. We believe this 

is sufficient time for analysis and 

coordination regarding the proposals. 

Accordingly, 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. For 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. 

Request for Clarification 

In addition to requesting the comment 

period extension, the Associations 

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 issue raised by the 

Associations is the scope of the 

proposed requirements for Web site 

accessibility as they apply to U.S. 

carrier Web sites. In their request, they 

ask DOT to confirm that the proposed 

Web site accessibility requirements in 

section 382.43 do not apply to the nonU.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 proposed requirements do apply to 

all U.S. carrier Web sites maintained 

world-wide, it will add tremendously to 

their compliance burden, have a 

significant impact on their compliance 

cost estimates, and offer no benefit to 

U.S. customers. They note that the 

proposed rule exempts foreign air 

carriers from the requirements for their 

non-U.S. Web sites and assert their 

belief that the Department intended the 

same exemption to apply to the nonU.S. Web sites of U.S. carriers. 

We do, in fact, intend to apply the 

same exemption to the non-U.S. Web 

sites of U.S. carriers. Section 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, only Web 

pages on your Web site involved in 

marketing covered air transportation to 

the general public in the U.S. must be 

accessible to individuals with 

disabilities.’’ 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 sites accessible that are not 

marketing to U.S. consumers. Our 

intention in the proposal is and 

continues to be to exempt both U.S. and 

foreign carriers’ Web sites that market 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71916 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1See ‘‘Understanding Conformance’’ at http:// 

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

conformance.html#uc-conforming-alt-versionshead, October 15, 2011. 

air transportation to consumers outside 

the U.S. 

We appreciate the Associations’ 

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, 

only with respect to their primary Web 

sites marketing air 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 Web Pages 

Subject to the Proposed Web Site 

Accessibility Requirement 

The Associations 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 ‘‘public-facing Web 

page’’ as used in the SNPRM means a 

Web page intended to be accessed and 

used by the general public, as opposed 

to Web pages intended for limited 

access (e.g., by 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 by the proposed 

accessibility requirements. For carriers 

that own, lease, or control multiple Web 

sites that market air transportation and 

offer related services and 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 

synonymous. 

3. Conforming Alternate Versions and 

‘‘Text-Only’’ Features on a Primary Web 

Site 

The Associations also asked 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 by a single 

click on the homepage of the primary 

Web site, linking the user to a text-only 

page that conforms to WCAG 2.0 at 

Level 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 effectively 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,’’ while 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 access to the same content 

and functionality as a directly accessible 

Web page under WCAG 2.0.’’ See 76 FR 

59307, 59313 (September 26, 2011). 

While the WCAG 2.0 implementation 

guidance is clear that conforming 

alternate versions 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-only 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-todate as the non-conforming content, and 

d. can be reached from the nonconforming page via an accessibilitysupported mechanism, or the nonconforming version can only be reached 

from the conforming version, or the 

non-conforming version can only 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 dynamically 

generated from the non-conforming site 

content was up-to-date), and the fourth 

(was available from the non-conforming 

site via an accessibility-supported 

mechanism). The main problem we 

found with these sites was that the textonly site did not always contain the 

same information and functionality 

available on the non-conforming site. 

For example, while it was possible to 

book a flight on both the nonconforming and text-only Web sites, 

certain other functions available 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 textonly site did provide close to the same 

information and functionality as their 

counterpart pages on the nonconforming site. While none of the 

carrier text-only sites we reviewed 

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 sites. 

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, 

provides 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 required 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 71917 

2Preliminary Regulatory Analysis, ACAA SNPRM 

Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites, 1, September 7, 

2011 [Docket No. DOT–OST–2011–0177–0002]. 3 Id. at 58. 

We also invite public comment on 

whether the cost of making a carrier’s 

entire Web site directly conformant 

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 or 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 effectively to individuals 

with disabilities as to those without 

disabilities?’’ 

4. Whether 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 Operators and Carrier 

Alliances 

Noting that the term ‘‘ticket agent’’ 

was used in the preliminary regulatory 

analysis to collectively refer to travel 

agents and tour operators,2 the 

Associations 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 FR 59307, 59325 (September 26, 

2011). The Department defines ‘‘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 

arranging for air transportation.’’ See 76 

FR 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 comply with the Web 

site accessibility requirements when 

marketing travel packages to the general 

public in the U.S. that include covered 

air transportation operated by 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 their 

compliance with the accessibility 

requirements. 

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 flightrelated 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 

alliance Web sites are clearly 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 accompanying 

preliminary cost benefit analysis. 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 

comply with the proposed accessibility 

requirements. 

5. The Department’s Authority To 

Regulate Ticket Agent Web Sites 

Directly Under 49 U.S.C. 41712 

Concerning ticket agent Web sites, the 

Associations 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 why, in light of its 

assertion, the Department proposed 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 

effectively 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. We note 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 FR 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 accessibility of ticket agent 

Web sites. We solicit feedback on these 

questions to assist us in determining a 

course of action that would best serve 

the public interest. Today a great many 

Web sites selling air transportation, 

particularly ticket agent Web sites, are 

not accessible or are only partially 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

The Department believes that all 

stakeholders would greatly benefit as 

the number of accessible 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 Associations raise 

regarding the proposed Web site 

accessibility requirements concerns the 

ongoing cost of maintaining Web site 

accessibility. They observe that the 

Department asserts 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 FR 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 the estimated costs, and place any 

supporting documentation in the 

docket. 

The statement above indicating an 

absence of quantitative data on the 

ongoing costs of maintaining Web site 

accessibility appeared in the SNPRM 

and in the preliminary regulatory 

analysis 3 due to editing oversights and 

should have been omitted from both 

documents. Table 24 of the preliminary 

regulatory analysis 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 inadvertently 

omitted from the formula used to 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71918 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4W3C Web site Accessibility Initiative, ‘‘Reduce 

Site Development and Maintenance Time,’’ 

available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/tech.

html#maint, October 15, 2011. 5 76 FR 59325. 

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 

of 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 Associations also asked 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 

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 

airports (for shared-use automated 

kiosks). 

The Department has not proposed to 

require retrofitting of automated kiosks 

but is considering this option because of 

concern that only requiring accessibility 

of new kiosks ordered after the rule’s 

effective date could substantially delay 

the availability of accessible kiosks at 

many airport locations. The Department 

wants to ensure the availability of at 

least some accessible kiosks at every 

airport location within a reasonable 

time after the rule goes into effect. We 

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 kiosks ordered be 

accessible. 

2. Automated Ticket Scanners for 

Rebooking Flights 

The Associations also wanted 

clarification about the types of selfservice kiosks at U.S. airports that 

would be covered by the proposed 

accessibility requirements. 

Acknowledging that the Department did 

intend to cover check-in kiosks, they 

asked for confirmation that the 

Department did not intend to include 

automated ticket scanners available 

behind the security checkpoint to 

enable customers to independently 

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’’ [emphasis 

added].5 We also proposed to define 

‘‘flight-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 comment on 

whether there are compelling reasons 

not to require such machines to be 

accessible, whether accessible models 

currently exist or are under 

development, and any available cost 

information on such models. 

Requests for Supporting Documentation 

The Associations asked that a number 

of documents cited in the SNPRM and 

preliminary regulatory analysis 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 accessibility into new Web 

pages today is estimated to add only 

about 3–6 percent 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 Government Entities and Public 

Accommodations. [RIN 1190–AA61, 

Docket 110, available at DOJ–CRT– 

2010–0005–0311 on 

www.regulations.gov. ‘‘In my 

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 

significantly 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 

appreciably with the number of units 

sold.’’ 76 FR 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 Lewis, D., Suen, S.L., 

Federing, D. (2010). 

This document is available at http:// 

www.sortclearinghouse.info/cgi/view

content.cgi?article=1612&context=

research. 

5. The preliminary regulatory analysis 

cites a TRACE analysis of the 

modifications that would be required to 

produce an accessible kiosk. 

The analysis is available at http://

trace.wisc.edu/docs/kiosk_req/

minimum.htm. 

Issued this sixteenth day of November 

2011, in Washington, DC under authority 

assigned to me by 14 CFR 385.17(c). 

Neil R. Eisner, 

Assistant General Counsel, Office of 

Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–30002 Filed 11–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS