## Final Regulatory Analysis
**Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites** 

**Contract No.: GS**  **- 10F** **- 0269K**  **Order No.: DTOS59**  **- 09**  **- F** **- 100**  **94 Project No.:**  **10 30**  **- 000** 
**Submitted To:** 

## Office of the Assistant General Counsel **Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings**  **U.S. Department of Transportation**  **1200 New Jersey A** **venue, SE West**  **Building Washington, DC**  **20590 Submitted By:**  

## Econom**etrica, Inc. 7475 Wisconsin Avenue**  **Suite 1000 Bethesda, M**  **aryland 20814**  

## October 23, 2013**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**ii Econometrica, Inc.**  **October 23, 2013**  

## Table of Contents **Executive Summary ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **...................... 1**  **Introduction ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ...**  **5 1.**  **Guarantees of Equal Access for People With Disabilities**  **................................ .............**  **6** 1.1. Air Carrier Access Act
................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 6 1.2. Section 707 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Guidelines
............................. 6 1.3. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
................................ ................................ ..... 7 1.4. W3C Consensus Standards
................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8 **2. Passengers With Disabilities Requiring Accommodation in Air Travel**  **................... 10**  2.1. Extent and Severity

of Disabilities in the U.S. Population
................................ ................ 10 2.2. Use of Electronic Technologies b y People With Disabilities
................................ ............ 12 2.3. Travel Behavior of Pe ople With Disabilities
................................ ................................ ..... 13 **3. An Overview of the Passenger Air Transportation Sector**  **................................ .........**  **14** 3.1. Flights and Passengers
................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 15 3.2. U.S. and Foreign Air Carriers
................................ ................................ ............................ 15 3.3. Carrier Emplo yment and Revenues
................................ ................................ ................... 18 3.4. Travel Agencies and Tour Operators
................................ ................................ ................. 19 3.5. Airports
................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 20 3.6. Regulatory

Authorities
................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 20 **4. General Framework for Analysis of Benefits and Costs**  **................................ .............**  **21** 4.1. Nature of Benefits Anticipated
................................ ................................ .......................... 22 4.2. Ty pes of Compliance Costs Incurred
................................ ................................ ................. 23 4.3. General Assumptions Used to Estimate Benefits and Costs
................................ .............. 23 4.4. Components of the Requirement
- Specific Evaluations ................................ ..................... 24 **5. Evaluation of Rule Requirements for Accessible Kiosks**  **................................ ............**  **25** 5.1. Current Industry

Practices and the Need for Regulatory Requirements
............................ 25 5.2. Rule Requirements and Alternatives Considered to Address Identified Needs
................ 26 5.3. Discussion of Comments Received
................................ ................................ ................... 28 5.4. Compliance Scenarios Evaluated
................................ ................................ ....................... 37 5.5. Estimated Benefits of Rule Requirements
................................ ................................ ......... 37 5.6. Estimated Costs of Rule Requirements
................................ ................................ .............. 42 5.7. Estimated Net Benefits and Discussion of Results
................................ ............................ 48 **6. Evaluation of Rule Requirements for Accessible Web Site**  **s ................................**  **....... 49**  6.1. Current Industry

Practices and the Need for Regulatory Requirements
............................ 49 6.2. Rule Requirements and Alternatives Considered to Address Identified Needs
................ 50 6.3. Discussion of Comments Received
................................ ................................ ................... 51 6.4. Compliance Scenarios Evaluated
................................ ................................ ....................... 58**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**iii Econometrica, Inc.**  **October 23, 2013**  6.5. Estimated Benefits of Rule Requirements
................................ ................................ ......... 60 6.6. Estimated Costs of Rule Requirements
................................ ................................ .............. 65 6.7. Estimated Net Benefits and Discussion of Results
................................ ............................ 72 **Appendix A: ICT Accessibility Standards ................................**  **................................ ..............**  **A -**  **1** A.1. Web Site Technology and Accessibility
................................ ................................ ......... A
- 1 A.2. Evolution of Web Site Accessibility Standards
................................ .............................. A
- 2 A.3. WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria
................................ ...................... A
- 3 **Appendix B: Carrier Web Site Characteristics and Accessibility ................................**  **........ B**  **- 1**  B.1. Carrier Web Site Characteristics
................................ ................................ ..................... B
- 1 B.2. Carrier Web Site Accessibility
................................ ................................ ........................ B
- 2 B.3. Screen Reader Parsing of Carrier Web Sites
................................ ................................ ... B
- 3 **Appendix C: Kiosk Accessibility Standards ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **C -**  **1 Econom** **ic Analysis**  **of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites 1030**  **- 000/DTOS59**  **- 09**  **- F**  **- 10094** 

**iv Econometrica, Inc.**  **October 23, 2013**  

## List of Tables Table ES1

–Present Value of Net Benefits for Rule Requirement (millions)
................................ . 2 Table ES2

–

Unquantifiable Benefits and Costs of Kiosk Accessibility Requirements
................... 3 Table ES3

–

Unquantifiable Benefits and Costs of Web Site Accessibility Requirements
.............. 4 Table 1

– U.S. Population by

Disability

Status, 2010
................................ ................................ .... 11 Table 2

–Internet Use among Populations with and without Disabilities
................................ ...... 13 Table 3

– Selected Data for 2002 from BTS Freedom to Travel
................................ .................... 14 T able 4

– Selected Data from Open Doors Organization/Harris Interactive
................................ .. 14 Table 5

– Scheduled and Nonscheduled Passenger Service on U.S. and Foreign Carriers, 2011
.. 15 Table 6

–Passenger Service on Reporting and Other U.S. Carriers, 2011
................................ ..... 16 Table 7

– Number of U.S. Carriers by Size Class, 2011
................................ ................................ 17 Table 8

– Number of Foreign Carriers b y Size Class and Region, 2011
................................ ........ 18 Table 9

– U.S. Carrier Employ

ment and Operating Revenues, 2011
................................ ............. 19 Table 10

–Travel Agencies and Tour Operators, 2007
................................ ................................ .. 20 Table 11

–Passenger Enplanements b y Size of Airport, 2011
................................ ....................... 20 Table 12

–DOT Enforcement Orders Involving Disabi lity Issues, 2010 −2012
............................ 21 Table 13

– Number of Passengers Benefitting from Accessible Kiosks
................................ ........ 39 Table 14

–Value of Reduced Transaction Time from Accessible Kiosks
................................ ..... 41 Table 15

–Projected Number of Accessible Kiosks Installed
................................ ........................ 43 Table 16

–Estimates of Incremental Cost per Accessible Kiosk
................................ ................... 44 Table 17

–Acquisition and Applications Development Costs for Accessible Kiosks by Carrier Group
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 46 Table 18

–Estimated Compliance Costs for Accessible Kiosks
................................ .................... 47 Table 19

–Present Value in 2017 of Accessible Kiosk Benefits and Cost s, 2015

–2026
............... 48 Table 20

–Annual Time Savings per Passenger from Web Accessibility Requirements
.............. 62 Table 21

–Estimated Number of Travelers Benefitting from Web Site Accessibility
.................. 63 Table 22

–Monetized Benefits of Carrier Web Site Accessibility Requirements
......................... 64 Table 23

–Estimated Costs of Developing and Maintaining Accessible Carrier Web Sites
......... 68 Table 24

–Costs Associated with Online Service Request Form
................................ .................. 68 Table 25

–Ticket Agent Call Center Programming and Training Costs
................................ ........ 71 Table 26

–Present Value in 2016 of Accessible Web Site Benefits and Costs, 2014 −2025 (millions)
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 72 Table A
- 1

–Level A Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0
................................ ................................ ... A
- 3 Table A
- 2

–Level AA Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0
................................ ................................ A
- 6 Table B
- 1

–Carrier Web Site Element Counts
................................ ................................ ............. B
- 2 Table B
- 2

–Accessibility

Testing of Carrier Web Site Home Pages
................................ ........... B
- 3 Table B
- 3

–Carrier Web Site Screen Reader Times
................................ ................................ .... B
- 4 Table C
- 1

–Kiosk Technical Standards
................................ ................................ ....................... C
- 1**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**v Econometrica, Inc.**  **October 23, 2013** 



## Ac **rony ms and A**  **bbrev iations**  A4A Airlines for America AAI American Aviation Institute AAPA Association of Asia Pacific Airlines ACAA Air Carrier Access Act ACI Airports Council International ACS American Community Survey ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADAAG Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ANA All Nippon Airways ANPRM advance notice of proposed rulemaking ASTA American Society of Travel Agents ATA Air Transport Association ATM automated teller machine BBI Burton Blatt Institute, Syracuse University BL S Bureau of Labor Statistics BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics CCD Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities CFR Code of Federal Regulations COAT Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology CUSS common-use self
- service dB decibels DIA Denver International Airport DOJ U.S. Department of Justice DOT U.S. Department of Transportation El Al El Al Israel Airlines EU European Union EZ eas y FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCC Federal Communications Commission FR Federal Register HTML hy

pertext markup language IATA International Air Transport Association ICT information and communication technology IRFA initial regulatory flexibility

analysis IT information technology IT I In formation Technology Industry Council ITSA Interactive Travel Services Association NAICS North American Industry Classification System NFB National Federation of the Blind ODO Open Doors Organization**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**vi Econometrica, Inc.**  **October 23, 2013**  OMB Office of Management and Budget OST Office of the Secretary of Transportation OTA online travel agent OTP on-time performance PHP hy

pertext preprocessor PRA preliminary regulatory

analysis PV present value R&D research and development SBA U.S. Small Business Administration SIPP Survey

of Income and Program Participation SNPRM supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking Spirit Spirit Airlines URL uniform resource locator U.S.C. United States Code USTOA United States Tour Operators Association W3C Worldwide Web Consortium WAI Web Accessibility Initiative WCAG Web Content Accessibility Guidelines XHTML extensible hy pertext markup language**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 1**  **of 7**  **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  

### Executive Summary The U.S. Department of Transportation (here inafter, DOT or the Department) is issuing a Final Rule to ensure that automated airport kiosks and carrier Web sites are accessible to air travelers with disabilities. The provisions of this Rule are necessary to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of disability

in air travel , as required by the Air Carrier Access Act. Specific requirements are as follows:
 Beginning 3 ye ars after the effective date of the Rule, covered carriers (and airports, in the case of shared
-use kiosks) will be required to ensure that new automated airport kiosks installed at a specific airport location are models that comply with the technical standards for accessibility s et forth in the Rule until at least 25 percent of the kiosks at that location are accessible. 1
 Large U.S. and foreign carriers will be required to ensure that their primary Web sites comply with the Level A and Level AA success criteria and performance requirements included in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) version 2.0 standards. Content, forms, and applications relating to a set of core functions, including , but not limited to , flight booking and changes, flight status information, and online check
- in (where avai lable), will need to be compliant within 2 ye ars of the effective date of the Rule. The remaining portions of large
- carrier sites will need to be compliant within 3 ye ars of the effective date of the Rule. Carriers will also be required to provide (accessible) disability

accommodation request forms on their Web sites within 2 years of the effective date of the Rule
.  Large travel agents and tour operators (hereinafter referred to collectively as “ticket agents”) selling air transportation will be required to provide Web
-based discounts and other Web
-based amenities on request to passengers who contact them offline when the agents’ Web sites cannot be used b y those passengers because of their disability
. Econometrica, Inc., prepared a preliminary regulatory

ev aluation for provisions addressing kiosk and Web site accessibility that were included in a supplemental notice of proposed r ulemaking (SNPRM) published on September 26, 2011. 2 Inthis final regulatory analysis, we summarize and discuss comments received f rom the public on this preliminary evaluation and indicate how this input was incorporated into this evaluation of the revised requirements included in the Final Rule. We also provide an updated overview of current industry practices , present the Final Rul e requirements and describe the changes made from the proposed requirements in response to comments received on the SNPRM , identify the parties affected by

the Rule , develop estimates of monetized benefits and costs (Table ES1), and indicate the nature of additional benefits and costs for which no quantitative estimates could be developed. All quantified benefits and costs attributable to individual requirements were converted into current monetary

v alues for each ye ar in the 10
- ye ar analys is period beginning with the 2016

1 As discussed below, these standards are based primarily on Section 707 of the U.S. Department of Justice’s 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards, but also incorporate elements of the current Section 508 requirements for self

- contained, clos ed machines. 2 See 76 FR 59307 (September 21, 2011)
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 2**  **of 7**  **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  calendar ye ar for Web sites and the 2017 calendar year for kiosks. 3 In accordance with Office of Management and Budget guidelines, a discount rate of 7 percent is used in the primary analys is and is supplemented with overall estimates using a 3 percent discount rate as well **. Table ES1**  **– Present Value of Net Benefits for Rule**  **Requirement (millions) Estimate**  **Period and Discount Rate Kiosks** * **Web Sites*** **Rule Total*** Monetized Benefits 10 Years, 7% discounting $34.8 $ 75.9 $ 110.7

10 Years, 3% discounting $42.0 $ 90.3 $ 132.3 Monetized Costs 10 Years, 7% discounting $34.9 $ 79. 8 $ 114.7

10 Years, 3% discounting $36.1 $ 82.5 $ 118. 6 Monetized Net Benefits 10 Years, 7% discounting **($0.1) ($3.9)**  **($4.0)**

10 Years, 3% discounting $5.9 $ 7. 8 $ 13. 7 *Present value in 2016 for W eb site requirements and 2017 for kiosk requirements. **Net Benefits of Kiosk Accessibility Requirements**  The expected present value (PV) in 2017 of the benefits from 2017 through 2026 accruing as a result of the Rule requirements for accessible automated airport kiosks is estimated at $34.8 million using a 7 percent discount rate. The expected PV in 2017 of c osts incurred by c arriers and airports in 2015 through 2026 to comply with these Rule requirements is $34.9 million over the same 10
- ye ar period, discounted at 7 percent. The PV in 2017 of net benefits for the 10
- ye ar analys is period at a 7 percent discount rate is thus

–$0.1 million. Using a 3 percent discount rate, the PV in 2017 of net benefits for this 10
- year period is estimated at +$5.9 million. There are additional benefits and costs associated with the kiosk accessibility requirements for which quantitative estimates could not be developed (Table ES2)
.

3 Affected entities will incur expenditures to com ply with the Rule in 2014 through 2016 to meet the requirements that are assumed to take effect in 2016 and 2017. These costs were translated into appropriate base
-year (2017 for kiosks, 2016 for Web sites) present values using di scount rates of 7 and 3 percent.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 3**  **of 7**  **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Table ES2 –** **Unquantifiable Benefits and Costs of Kiosk Accessibility Requirements**

**Benefits** Improved access to self
- service functions (e.g., baggage tagging or boarding) expected

to be offered on airport kiosks in the future . Increased independence and self
- sufficiency for travelers with vision
- or mobility
- related disabilities . Increased sense of inclusion and reduction in the stigma of special treatment . Less congestion at ticket counters for all passengers . Potential benefits to other air travelers (e.g., those who have trouble reading English)
. **Costs** Additional costs to make peripherals and software accessible for airport kiosks that offer additional self
- service functions in the future . Sunk costs of inaccessible kiosk development programs in progress . Occasional increases in kiosk waiting times for other travelers . The benefit and cost estimates developed for the kiosk accessibility requirements indicate that the present value of monetized benefits to travelers with disabilities and cost savings to carriers is approximately

e qual to the present value of the costs that will be incurred by c arriers and airports to develop, program, install, and maintain accessible airport ki osks. The benefit and cost estimates for these requirements are sensitive to the values selected for a large number of component assumptions and estimates. Using certain reasonable alternative values for some of these component assumptions and estimates, the net benefits calculated may be positive even if a 7 percent discount rate is used, and may b e negative even if a 3 percent discount rate is used. In any event, the monetized net benefits of the kiosk accessibility requirements are very

small in magnitude, indicating that the Department must weigh the unquantifiable benefits and costs to determine if the Rule would be in the public interest. Automated airport kiosks are expected to provide an increasing set of passenger self
- service opportunities in the next few years. Some of these functions

—e.g., baggage tagging and boarding

—cannot be accomplished online or on a mobile device. This suggests that ensuring that automated airport kiosks are accessible will be increasingly important in eliminating barriers that air travelers with disabilities would otherwise face while performing a wide array of airport
based transactions. **Net Benefits of Web Site Accessibility Requirements** The expected PV in 2016 of the benefits from the carrier Web site accessibility requirements is estimated at $ 75.9 million from 2016 through 2025 using a 7 percent discount rate. The expected PV in 2016 of costs incurred by c arriers in 2014 through 2025 to comply with these Rule requirements is $ 7 9. 8 million over the same 10
- year peri od, discounted at 7 percent. The PV in 2016 of net benefits for the 10
- ye ar analys is period is estimated at

–$ 3.9 million using a 7 percent discount rate
. The PV in 2016 of net benefits for this 10
- year period is estimated at +$ 7.8 million using a 3 percent discount rate. There are additional benefits and costs associated with the Web site accessibility requirements for which quantitative estimates could not be developed (Table ES3)
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 4**  **of 7**  **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Table ES3 –** **Unquantifiable Benefits and Costs of Web Site Accessibility Re quirements** 

**Benefits** Increased independence and self
- sufficiency for travelers with vision, hearing, or motor skill

disabilities . Potentially improved accessibility for people with other types of disabilities . Reduced number of service request accommodation problems . Reduced effort and cost to comply with potential future non - U.S. accessibility requirements for multinational Web sites . Easier Web site maintenance, debugging, and documentation . **Costs** Diversion of scarce Web programming resources from other projects . Reduced Web site functionality or effectiveness . Effort required to develop or maintain separate pages, forms, or applications for covered and uncovered elements of multinational Web sites (or to make parts of these sites that are not subject to the Rule accessible). The benefit and cost estimates developed for the Web site accessibility requirements included in this evaluation indicate that the present value of monetized benefits to travelers with disabilities and cost savings to carriers is approximately e qual to the present value of the costs that will be incurred by

c arriers to develop, publish, and maintain accessible Web sites. The benefit and cost estimates for these requirements are sensitive to the values selected for a large number of component assumptions and estimates. Using certain reasonab le alternative values for some of these component assumptions and estimates, the net benefits calculated may be positive even if a 7 percent discount rate is used, and may b e negative even if a 3 percent discount rate is used. In any event, the monetized net benefits of the Web site accessibility requirements are very

small in magnitude, indicating that the Department must weigh the unquantifiable benefits and costs to determine if the Rule would be in the public interest. One important consideration is that several foreign government entities have developed or are developing Web site accessibility requirements based on the WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA standards. To the extent that these requirements are adopted or take eff ect within the time frame permitted under the Rule to bring Web sites into compliance, carriers with multinational operations (i.e. , nearly

all of those covered by

the Rule) will incur reduced costs to meet pending or future Web site accessibility requirements adopted by foreign governments. The 10
- ye ar annualized costs of the requirements for kiosks and Web sites are approximately $3.5 million and $ 8. 0 million, respectively, discounted at 7 percent. The Rule is a significant regulatory

action under DOT’s regulatory p olicies and procedures (44 FR 11034 , February 26, 1979 , as amended May

7 , 1979 , at 44 FR 28126 and restated in DOT Order 2100.5 , issued May 22, 1980). Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule with mandates that would require spending of $143 million or more in any one ye ar. The Rule does not impose enforce able duties on State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector, of $143 million or more in any one ye ar.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 5**  **of 7**  **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  

### Introduction The U.S. Department of Transportation (hereinafter, DOT or the Department) has develop ed additional regulatory

requirements that will help to ensure nondiscrimination on the b asis of disability in air travel
. The requirements in the accompanying Rule address widespread problems with the accessibility

o f automated airport kiosks and carrier Web sites to passengers with disabilities who need assistance or accommodation in one or more of the following areas:

 Hearing  Vision  Mobility  Fine
-motor dexterity  Cognition The Department proposed requirements in each of these areas in the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking ( SNPRM) published on September 26, 2011. Econometrica, Inc., provided a preliminary

regulatory analys is (PRA) and initial regulatory f lexibility analysis (IRFA) to accompany the SNPRM. Inthe PRA , we concluded that there were significant net benefits from the proposed requirements for both airport kiosks and carrier Web sites. The Department received comments on the proposed requirements from a large, diverse group of stakeholders, including carrier and ticket agent associations, individual companies, disability research and advocacy

groups, and members of the public. These comments provided valuable input for the Department, which has significantly revised and simplified the final regulatory requirements in response to many of the concerns raised by stakeholders. In this final regulatory

analysis, we summarize and discuss comments received from the public on this preliminary

evaluation and indicate how this input was incorporated into this evaluation of the revised requirements included in the Final Rule. We also provide an updated overview of current industry

practices, present the Final Rule requirements and describe the changes made from the Rule requirements in response to comments received on the Rule, identify the parties affected by

the Rule, develop estimates of monetized benefits and costs, and indicate the nature of additional benefits and costs for which no quantitative estimates could be developed. It is important to note that e conomic evaluation of regulatory requirements in these areas is complicated by

the fact that the technologies available to address many o f these disabilities are continuously

evolving. Therefore, regulatory requirements must take into account not only the technologies that may

b e available to carriers for achieving compliance , but also technologies that may provide better or more cost- effective future support options for travelers with disabilities. Consequently, an important element of this regulatory analys is is an assessment of the feasibility, characteristics, costs, and proje cted availability and efficacy

o f these new technologies.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 6**  **of 7**  **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  

### 1. **Guarantees of Equal A ccess for**  **People W**  **ith Disabilities** There are currently

no Federal statutes or regulations establishing accessibility standards for automated airport kiosks or carrier Web s ites. This section provides a brief overview of the current statutory

and regulatory

guarantees of equal access for people with disabilities that are relevant for the evaluation of the standards established in this Rule. **1.1 .**  **Ai r Carrier A** **ccess A ct**  The Department issued a final rule in 1990 implementing the 1986 Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), which prohibits discrimination in the provision of airline service on the basis of disability
. The regulations implementing the statute have been revised and extended on numerous occasions, most recently in a rule published on May 13, 2008
. The 2008 rule extended the ACAA to apply

to foreign carriers and added new provisions relating to passengers who need to use medical oxygen and passengers who are deaf or hard of hearing. The ACAA rules are designed to minimize the special problems that travelers with disabilities may f ace as they

s eek to use the air travel system. The Department attempts to achieve this objective:
 By recognizing that the physical barriers enc ountered by p assengers with disabilities can frequently be overcome by employing simple changes in layout and technology
.  By adopting the principle that many difficulties confronting passengers with hearing or vision impairments will be relieved if they are provided access to the same information that is available to all other passengers.
 By training all carrier personnel who come in day
-to - day c ontact with people with disabilities, to understand their needs and how they c an be accommodated quickly, safely, and with dignity
. 4 Inthe accompanying Rule , the accessibility requirements for automated airport kiosks will help to mitigate the physical barriers faced by users with mobility, hearing, cognitive, or fine
-motor skill disabilities, as well as make them usable by those with vision disabilities. The Rule requirements for ensuring Web site accessibility primarily address the need to provide people with vision disabilities access to online information and services related to air travel. **1. 2**  **. Section 707 of the**  **Am ericans**  **with Disabilities A ct (** **AD A** **) Guidelines**  While the ACAA governs service provision by U .S. and foreign carriers, airport
-based operations are also subject to various other Federal laws and rules, as the text of the May 2 008 Final Rule makes clear: U.S. airports are governed, for disability nondiscrimination, by

s everal Federal laws and rules, all of which coexist on the same airport real estate . The ACAA
4 DOT Office of Aviation Consumer Protection and Enforcement, “New Horizons: Information for the Air Traveler with a Disability .”**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 7**  **of 7**  **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  and DOT’s ACAA rules apply to terminal facilities owned, leased, or control led by a c arrier, specifically facilities that provide access to air transportation (e.g., ticket counters, baggage claim areas, gates)
. Title II of the ADA, and the Title II rules of the Department of Justice (DOJ) apply to terminal facilities owned by public entities like state and local airport authorities
. DOT’s rules under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 apply to those same facilities owned by public entities, if they

receive DOT financial assistance (i.e., under the FAA’s airport improvement program)
. In some cases, DOT’s 504 rules could apply to airport facilities of airlines (e.g., those air carriers who receive essential air service program funds from DOT)
. ... DOT’s Title III ADA rules apply to private transportation serving the airport (e.g., private taxi, demand
-responsive shuttle, or bus service). DOJ’s Title III ADA rules also apply to places of public accommodation on airport grounds that serve the general public (e.g., hotels, restaurants, news, and gift stores). 5 Revised regulati ons for Titles II and III of the ADA were published on September 15, 2010
. 6 Title s II and III both incorporate accessibility standards for automatic teller machines and self
service fare machines , which are set forth in Section 707 of the 2010 U.S. D epartment of Justice (D OJ) Standards for Accessible Design
. 7 The technical standards that the Department is proposing for automated kiosks are based in large part on the Section 707 requirements. **1. 3**  **. Section 508**  **of the Rehabilitation A ct of 1973**  The U.S. Access Board is an independent Federal agency devoted to accessibility

for people with disabilities
. The Board develops and maintains design criteria for the built environment, transit vehicles, telecommunications equipment, and electronic and information technologies
. The Board’s accessibility

standards for electronic and information technologies developed, procured, maintained, or used by

F ederal agencies are compiled in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 8 The requirements in Part 1194.25 of S ection 508 pertain to “self contained, closed products,” which include automated self
- service machines , such as kiosks. Elements of these standards have been incorporated into the automated airport kiosk requirements in the accompanying Rule
. Part 1194.22 of Section 508 covers Federal agency Web
-based intranet and Internet information and applications. These requirements include 16 specific standards that are designed to ensure that Federal agency

Web sites can be processed and interpreted by assistive technology, such as screen readers. The Access Board has determined that the first 11 of these requirements are

5 DOT, 73 FR 27614, May 13, 2008, as mo dified by C orrection Notice s 74 FR 11469, March 18, 2009 , and 75 FR 44885, July 30, 2010. 6 See 75 FR 56163 (September 15, 2010) for ADA Title II standards; see also 75 FR 56236 (September 15, 2010) for Title III standards. 7 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), 2010 Standards for Accessible Design , September 15, 2010. 8 Section 508 accessibility standards, information on best practices, and links to training and technical support forums are available at www.Section508.gov
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 8**  **of 7**  **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  consistent with specific WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 checkpoints. Several of the remaining requirements address accessibility issues also covered in the WCAG 1.0 standards. InJuly 2010, the Access Board issued an advance notice of proposed r ulemaking (ANPRM) that solicited comment on revising or “refreshing” the current Section 508 standards. The Access Board stated in the ANPRM that it was considering har monizing the Section 508 standards with WCAG 2.0, and it requested public comment on a specific technical approach to doing so. In December 2011, the Access Board issued a second ANPRM seeking review and comment on the text of standards and guidelines under consideration by the Board to supersede the current S ection 508 requirements
. The December 2011 ANPRM specifically proposed to reference the WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria and conformance standards as the applicable accessibility

standard for Web sites, as well as other forms of information and communication technology

( IC T)
. The Board indicated its intention to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking further public comment after considering the comments on the second ANPRM. 9 **1. 4**  **. W3C Consensus Standards**  The Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C ) is an international community of Web programmers and users that develops technical specifications and guidelines for Web site technology
. The W3C Web Accessibility

Initiative (WAI) has developed and adopted two sets of consensus Web site accessibility

gui delines. WCAG 1.0, published in 1998, provided the foundation for a significant part of the current Section 508 standards relating to Web site (and other ICT) accessibility
. WCAG 2.0, published 10 years later on December 11, 2008, represented a comprehensive update and revision of these standards. 10 WCAG 2.0 was organized around four principles that ensure that Web sites are accessible for people with various types of disabilities: 1. In formation and user interface components must be presentable to users in waysthey c an **perceive**
. 2. User interface components and navigation must be **operable**
. 3. In formation and the operation of user interface must be **understandable**
. 4. Content must be **robust** enough that it can be interpreted reliably by awide variety

o f user agents, including assistive technologies. WCAG 2.0 applies broadly to more advanced technologies than WCAG 1.0. Iti s easier to use and understand, and is more precisely testable with automated testing and human evaluation. The performance criteria specified in each section of WCAG 2.0 are widely regarded to be

9 See 76 FR 76640 (December 8, 2011); see also Access Board, “Draft Updated Standards and Guidelines (2011) .” 10 Both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 have three nested levels of standards that afford increasing levels of accessibility. The WCAG 1.0 standards are categorized as Priority Level 1, 2, or 3. The WCAG 2.0 standards are specified at the A, AA, and AAA levels. WCAG 1.0 Priority Level 1 and WCAG 2.0 Level A represent the least extensive set of requirements.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 9**  **of 7**  **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  operationally achievable, measurable, and potentially enforceable. 11 Inc ontrast, elements of WCAG 1.0 (and the current Section 50 8 standards) that address some of the same accessibility issues are difficult to measure and evaluate consistently
. DOJ issued an ANPRM in 2010, indicating that it was considering revising the current ADA Title III regulations to establish requirements to ensure that goods, services, facilities, privileges, accommodations, or advantages offered by public accommodations via the Internet would be accessible to individuals with disabilities. The ANPRM also stated : “The Department is also considering revising the ADA Title II regulations to establish requirements for making the services, programs, or activities offered by State and local governments to the public via the Web accessible.” 12 Foreign government Web site accessibility requirements are also ty pically defined by

reference to, or are largely

b ased on, WCAG 2.0. Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, and New Zealand Government Web sites are or will be required to meet the WCAG 2.0 Level A and Lev el AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements
. France and Ger many have national standards that are based on, but not identical to, WCAG 2.0 (Level AA), while United Kingdom Government Web sites are required to comply with either WCAG 1.0 or 2.0 at the AA level. 13 O fficial Web site s of European Union institutions are currently expected to follow the WCAG 1.0 guidelines for accessible Web content, but in March 2012 European Commission Standardization Mandate M376 proposed that WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria be us ed as the basis to evaluate accessibility f or all covered Web and non-Web electronic content. These WCAG 2.0
-based Web site accessibility requirements ty

pically apply

to government and public organization Web sites and (in some cases) electronic content. However, the Australian Human Rights Commission has developed advisory requirements for nongovernment Web sites, requiring conformance with WCAG 2.0 on the following schedule: 14

 Nongovernment Web sites and Web resources whose development commences after July 1 , 2010 , should comply

with WCAG 2.0 to a minimum of Lev el AA conformance
.  Existing nongovernment Web sites or Web resources that undergo substantial change in the period July

2 010

–December 2013 should comply with WCAG 2.0 to a minimum of Level AA conformance
.  All existing non
- government Web sites and Web content should comply with WCAG 2.0 to a minimum of Level AA conformance b y December 31 , 2013.

11 Guidance , examples, best practices, and resources for com plying with the WCAG 2.0 specifications are available at http://www. w3 .org/standards/webdesign/accessibility
. 12 DOJ, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web Information and Services of S tate and Local Government Entities and Public Accommodations ,” Advanc e Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DOJ
- CRT
2010
- 0005
- 0001, July	26,	2010. 13 Mark Rogers, “ Government Accessibility Standards and WCAG 2.0 ,” Power Mapper Software Blog, posted November 13, 2012. 14 Australian Human Rights Commission, “World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes, Version 4.0 ,” October 2010.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 10**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  Therefore, the Department has based its Rule requirements for Web site accessibility on WCAG version 2 .0. 

### 2 **. Passengers**  **W ith**  **Disabilities Requiring**  **Ac commodation**  **in Ai**  **r Travel**  This section provides an overview of the data sources available to estimate the population of passengers with disabilities who may reasonably

b e expected to benefit from the Rule requirements
. Adequate public survey data are available to estimate the prevalence of specific disabilities ( such as hearing
- , mobility
- , and vision
-related disabilities ) for both the U.S. population generally and among selected age groups . E stimates of the extent of air travel by people with disabilities are available from two surveys sponsored by the Open Doors Organization
. These data sources provide a foundation for deriving the numbers of potentially affected air travelers requiring accommodation from estimates of the U.S. population with specific disabilities. **2 .1**  **. Extent and Severity**  **of Disabilities in the U.S.**  **Population** In formation on the extent and severity o f disabilities in the U.S. population is available from a variety of government data sources . The most useful of these are the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Survey o f Income and Program Participation (SIPP) , both of which provide estimates of the proportion of the U.S. population in selected age groups who have hearing or vision disabilities or who have disabilities related to mobility
. **The American**  **Community Survey** The Census Bureau conducts the ACS annually to be able to present a more detailed profile of the U.S. population than is available from the de cennial Census of Population and Housing
. The 20 10 ACS results provide more recent estimates of the proportion of the population age 18 to 64 ye ars , as well as 65 and older, respectively, who have serious difficulty seeing or hearing, or ambulatory

difficulty
. 15 One limitation of the ACS data is that the survey does not collect information on the use of assistive technologies, so it is not possible to determine the proportion of people in each of these age ranges who use wheelchairs or screen readers , for example
. In addition, the criteria used to develop estimates of the numbers of people with serious hearing or vision difficulties may not be the same as those used to define the population of individuals who may require accommodation under the ACAA , the ADA, or other Federal accessibility statutes and regulations.

15 The portion of the ACS questionnaire that collects information about disabi lities wa s revised substantially beginning with the 2008 survey, so estimates from the 2008 −2010 ACS cannot directly be com pared to the results from previous years. See Matthew Brault, “Revie w of Changes to the Measurement of Disability in the 2008 American Community Survey,” Census Bureau, September 22, 2009.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 11**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **The Survey of Income and Program Participation** The Census Bureau also periodically conducts the SIPP, which asks more detailed questions about a variety of household characteristics and finances. The 2010 SIPP included a supplement on disability

status, which was used to develop estimates of the U.S. population with specific disabilities reported to be “severe” or “not severe.” The 2010 SIPP also specifically asked about the use of wheelchairs. In contrast to the ACS, the SIPP results are reported for the U.S. population age 15 years and older (rather than 18 and older), as well as for age 65 and older. Selected results from the 2010 ACS and SIPP are compared in Table 1
. **Table 1**  **– U.S. Population by Disability Status, 2010**  **SIPP ACS**  **Age Group and Disability Status Number**  **(1,000s) Percent of** 

**Group Number** 

**(1,000s) Percent of** 

**Group Age 18 to 64** * **203,083 191,138**  With a disability 32,220 13.4% Severe disability** 21,545 8.6% 19,048 10.0% Difficulty seeing 4,295 1.8% 3,209 1.7% Severe difficulty seeing*** 960 0.4% Difficulty hearing 3,420 1.7% 3,924 2.1% Severe difficulty hearing *** 1,030 0.2% Ambulatory difficulty 11,996 6.1% 9,857 5.2% Used a wheelchair*** 1,623 0.6% **Age 65 and older**  **38,599 39,132**  With a disability 19,234 49.8% Severe disability* * 14,138 36.6% 14,352 36.7% Difficulty seeing 3,782 10.1% 2,688 18.7% Severe difficulty seeing*** 1,050 2.8% Difficulty hearing 4,152 11.2% 5,904 15.1% Severe difficulty hearing *** 66 1.5% Ambulatory difficulty 11,883 30.8% 9,315 23.8% Used a wheelchair*** 2,014 5.2% *SIPP estimates are for age 15 and older. **Asked as “serious disability” on ACS data collection instrument. ***Not included on ACS data collection instrument. Sources: Census Bureau, “Americans With Disabilities: 2010,” Current Population Reports, P70 - 131, July 2012 ; and 2010 American Community Survey, Table S
- 1810. The percentage of the population in each age range reporting any ty pe of disability

in the 2010 ACS and the percentage of the same age group reporting a severe disability in the 2010 SIPP are very c omparable, which indicates that these estimates can be reliably used to calculate the number of people who would potentially b enefit from various improvements in the accessibility of air travel.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 12**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  The 2010 SIPP estimates indicate that a significant portion of the U.S. population (and a bout half of the population age 65 and older) has some ty pe of disability
. S mall er percentages of the population have each of the ty pes of disabilities that are specifically addressed by the Rule requirements. **2.2 .**  **Use of Electronic Technologies by People**  **W ith Disabilities**  Federal Government agencies increasingly rely on Web sites, applications, and forms to provide information and facilitate transactions with individuals, businesses, and organizations. A January 2011 Pew Internet and American Life Project report presented survey-based estimates on the extent of disabilities in the U.S. population and the impact of disability on the use of technology
. The Pew report estimates on the impact of disability on the use of electronic technologies corroborate a 2010 Federal Communic ations Commission (FCC ) report, which found a large gap in Internet use rates between segments of the population with and without disabilities. However, a very small percentage of Internet users with disabilities indicated that their disability c aused prob lems with using the Internet. **Broadband Use and Adoption in America (FCC 2010)** Inrecent ye ars attention has been focused on the impact of disability status on broadband access rates. In a 2010 FCC working paper, John Horrigan found a significant gap betwe en Internet use rates for users with and without disabilities : 16 Collectively, 24 percent of respondents had an affirmative response to one of those questions and, for purposes of this report, are classified as people with disabilities. Within this group, 42 percent have broadband at home

— much lower than the 65 percent average. Some 56 percent of those with disabilities are Internet users, below the 78 percent average. Nearly half (47 percent) of nonInternet users report having some sort of disability. However, it is difficult to isolate the impact of disability f rom that of other socioeconomic characteristics that are also associated with lower rates of Internet use, as Horrigan noted :

... people with disabilities and non- adopters overlap quite a bit and in fact share many characteristics with non- adopters: They are generally

o lder and have lower incomes. For that reason, it is not a surprise that non- adopters include a disproportionately

high share of people with disabilities. Some of the difference in adoption rates is due to individuals’ disabilities and some is due to lower incomes, advanced age or other factors associated with low adoption. **Am ericans Living with Disability and**  **Their Technology Profile (Pew 2011)**  A January

2011 Pew Internet and American Life Project report presented survey-based estimates on the extent of disabilities in the U.S. population and the impact of disability on the use of

16 John Horrigan, “Broadband Use and Adoption in America,” Federal Communications Commission, OBI Working Paper No. 1, February 2010.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 13**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  technology (Table 2)
. 17 The Pew report estimates on the impact of disability on the use of electronic technologies corroborate the FCC report finding of a large gap in the Internet use rates between segments of the population with and without disabilities
. However, a very small percentage of Internet users with disabilities indicated that their disability cause d problems with using the Internet. **Table 2** **– Internet Use**  **A mong Population** **s W**  **ith and W** 

**ithout Disabilities Respondent Characteristic**  **People With**  **Disabilit ies**  **People Without** 

**Disabilit ies**  High s chool education or less 61% 40% H ousehold i ncome <$30,000/year 46% 26% Use the Internet 54% 81% Percent with use problems 2% Do not use the Internet 46% 19% Have broadband at home 41% 69% Source: Pew Internet and American Life Project, “Americans living with disability and their technology profile,” January 21, 2011. **2 .**  **3 .**  **Travel Behavior of People W**  **ith Disabilities** Relatively

f ew data sources are available to characterize the travel patterns of people with disabilities , and none of these was based on research conducted since 2005. The most useful of these are a 2003 report by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and two surveys sponsored b y the Open Doors Organization (ODO). **Freedom to Travel (BTS 2003)**  In 2002 , BTS conducted a study on the travel behavior of people with disabilities. 18 The results presented in the Freedom to Travel report indicated that people with disabilities had a lower average propensity to travel by air than did people without disabilities

—the average person with a disability in the BTS study s ample was only

7 8 percent as likely

to have traveled on a commercial airline in the past year (Table 3)
.

17 Susanna Fox, “Americans living with disability and their technology profile ,” Pew Internet and American Life Project, January 21, 2011. 18 DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Freedom to Travel, BTS03
-08, 2003.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 14**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Table 3** **– Selected Data**  **for 2002 F**  **rom BTS Freedom to Travel Respondent Characteristic**  **People With**  **Disabilities People**  **Without**

**Disabilities** Average a ge 50.7 31.9 Percent using c ommercial airline in the p ast year 31.5% 40.1% Percent using p rivate or charter airplane in the past year 1.4% 1.3% Source: BTS Freedom to Travel, 200 3 . One result worth noting is that people with disabilities in the BTS study were nearly two decades older on average than the respondents without disabilities
. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the extent to which traveler age may influence the propensity to travel by

air, irrespective of the person’s disability

status . The report also does not present travel frequencies for people with specific types of disabilities. **The Open Doors Organization/Harris Survey s**  A 2002 ODO survey

showed that about 30 percent of adults with disabilities traveled by air at least once during the previous 2 years . Travelers with disabilities reported taking an average of two trips by

air during the previous 2 ye ars, which is consistent with an estimated 9.4 million trips taken annually

b y travelers with disabilities
. 19 One
-third of travelers with disabilities who flew during the past 2 ye ars made at least three trips by air. The ODO survey was updated in 2005 (Table 4)
. The percentages of those who traveled by air in the past 2 ye ars was comparable in both surveys (as well as the percentage found in the 2002 BTS study)
. **T able**  **4 –**  **Selected Data F** 

**rom Open Doors Organization/Harris Interactive Survey Result**  **2002 2005**  Percent who traveled by air in the past 2 years: 30% 31% Average number of air trips per year 1 1 Percent of air travelers who book ed online 33% 51% Percent of air trav e lers who consult ed Internet for accessibility info rmation 46% 43% Source: Open Doors Organization/Harris Interactive Surveys, 2002 and 2005. 

### 3 **. An Overview** **of the Passenger**  **Ai r Transportation Sector**  This section provides a description and statistical profile of the following elements of the passenger air travel sector: flights and passengers, U.S. and foreign carriers, U.S. airports, jet aircraft manufacturers, and regulatory authorities.

19 The ODO survey collected data on trips. Each round trip is equivalent to approximately 3.2 flight segments, which im plies that travelers with disabilities account for approximately 30 million flight segments annually.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 15**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **3.1. Flights and Passengers** Airline passengers travel to both domestic and international destinations using both scheduled and nonscheduled (charter) service provided by U .S. and foreign carriers (Table 5)
. Car rier
specific data on the annual numbers of domestic and international departures and passengers boarded for each type of flight are available from the BTS T
- 100 segment database. 20 **Table 5** **– Scheduled and Nonscheduled Passenger**  **Service on U.S. and Foreign Carriers, 2011 Data Element**  **Domestic International**  **Combined Passengers**  U.S. c arriers 655,901,218 91,659,246 747,560,464 Foreign c arriers 419,221 74,735,225 75,154,446 **Total 656,320,439**  **166,394,471 822,714,910**  **Departures** U.S. c arriers 8,781,576 827,002 9,608,578 Foreign c arriers 2,714 517,203 519,917 **Total 8,784,290**  **1,344,205 10,128,495**  **Average Passengers**  **per Departure**  U.S. c arriers 74.7 110.8 77.8 Foreign c arriers* 154.5 144.5 144.6 **Total 74.7**  **123.8 81.2**  *Passengers on domestic segments of foreign carrier flights continu ing on to or from international destinations. Source: BTS T- 100 Segment database, 2011. Virtually all domestic flights are on U.S. carriers. Foreign carriers may transport passengers between two U.S. airports only on segments of flights that originate from or continue on to international destinations. U.S. carriers also account for a significant majority o f international departures, although the share of passengers on international flights is divided more evenly between U.S. and foreign carriers because the average number of passengers per departure is larger on flights operated by foreign carriers. The most recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aerospace Forecast projects annual increases averaging 2. 0 percent and 3. 8 percent, respectively, in the numbers of passengers flying on domestic and international flights over the next 1 0 years. 21 **3.2. U.S. and Foreign A ir Carriers**  About 100 U.S. and 150 foreign air carriers provide some combination of scheduled and nonscheduled passenger air service to U.S. and international destinations from at least one U.S.

20 Scheduled passenger service accounts for more than 98 percent of all departures and more than 99 percent of passengers enp laned. 21 Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Aerospace Forecast: Fiscal Years 201 3

–203 3
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 16**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  airport. U.S. air carriers operating any aircraft of more than 60 seats must have a certificate under 49 U.S.C. §41102 (or an exemption issued by D OT from that section) to provide scheduled passenger service. Some carriers that operate fleets consisting only o f smaller aircraft may also be “certificated carriers.” A relatively limited number of carriers operating small aircraft are authorized as “commuter air carriers” under the definition provided in 14 CFR 298.3(b). Foreign air carriers must hold permits issued under 49 U.S.C. §41302 (or an exemption issued by DOT from that section) to operate flights that arrive or depart at U.S. airports. The applicability

o f some current Part 382 requirements varies not only b etween U.S. and foreign carriers but also among different categories of carriers, based on the seating capacity o f the largest aircraft the carrier operates
. **Reporting C**  **arriers** As of January

1 , 2012, there were 13 U.S. carriers that each accounted for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passeng er service revenues, including 6 mainline carriers (Alaska, American, Delta, Hawaiian, United, and US Airways), 4 low
- cost model major airlines (AirTran, Frontier, JetBlue, and Southwest), and 3 regional carriers (American Eagle, ExpressJet, and Sky West). These “reporting carriers” are required to provide flight
- specific Form 234 on-time performance (OTP) data to BTS on a monthly b asis. Reporting carriers accounted for 84 percent of all passengers travelling on U.S. carriers in 2011 (Table 6)
. 22 **Table 6** **– Passenger Service on Reporting and Other U.S. Carriers, 201**  **1**
**Carrier Category Number of**  **Carriers Departures**  **Passengers Average**  **Passengers per**  **Departure** Reporting c arriers 13 6,492,100 630,850,367 97 Other U.S . c arriers 87 3,116,478 116,710,097 37 **Total 100**  **9,608,578 747,560,464**  **78** Reporting carrier percent of t otal 13% 68% 84%
* Source: BTS T- 100 Segment database, 201 1 . **Aircraft S**  **ize -** **B ased**  **D istinctions**  **A mong**  **C arriers**  DOT classifies carriers that provide passenger service exclusively using aircraft originally designed with 60 seats or less as small carriers (Table 7) . Some regulatory requirements for these carriers are somewhat less extensive than for larger carriers. For example, carriers are not required to provide on
-board wheelchairs on aircraft with 60 or fewer seats, nor are they required to submit annual disability
- related complaint reports to the Department.

22 The 2011 air traffic statistics include departures and passengers reported under the codes of both parties to the AirTran
- Southwest, Atlantic Southeast
- ExpressJet, and Continental
-United mergers . During the past 3 years, several regional carriers (Comair, Mesa, and Pinnacle) have dropped below the 1
-percent threshold that triggers the OTP data reporting requirements.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 17**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  Carriers that operate passenger service exclusively with aircraft having fewer than 30 seats are exempt from additional regulatory requirements, including the requirement that at least half of aisle seats in each class of service have movable armrests. These carriers are designated as “very small” carriers in this regulatory assessment. **Table 7**  **– Number of U.S. Carriers by Size Class, 201**  **1**

**Carrier Group**  **Number of**

**Seat s on**  **Largest Aircraft**  **Total**

**Carriers** ***** **Charter******

**Only** ****** **All**

**Scheduled Service**  **Carriers Contract** 

**Carriers Other** 

**Scheduled Service**  **Carriers** Large >60 43 17 26 11 15 Small 30 − 60 14 1 13 6 7 Very s mall <30 45 10 35 0 35 **Total 102**  **28 74**  **17 57**  *Excludes carriers that were no longer operating independently by the end of 201 2 . **Five charters offered some scheduled service; all are very small Alaska or sightseeing tour carriers. Five of the 7 small U.S. carriers and 29 of the 35 very small U.S. carriers that market scheduled air transportation directly to the public operate flights exclusively in Alaska or Hawaii, or among islands in the Pacific or Caribbean. In 2012, 12 U.S. car

riers required to report T
- 100 data to BTS were wholly owned subsidiaries
. 23 These carriers are treated as separate entities for some reporting and regulatory c ompliance purposes. **Mainline and R** **egional A** **irlines** Several U.S. carriers operate flights primarily or exclusively on a contract basis, providing service primarily for the largest mainline network carriers
. Most of these carriers do not sell scheduled air transportation services directly to the general public; the flights they operate are listed on the contracting carriers’ schedules under code
- share agreements. A few small regional carriers (e.g., Cape Air and Great Lakes) operate both contract and independently marketed flights. Regional carriers

—

both contract carriers and those that market flights independently — provide service to a much larger network of communities than do the mainline and low
- cost national carriers. The Regional Airlines Association estimates that its member carriers provided the only scheduled service available in 2011 at 270 U.S
. airports in the 48 contiguous States and at 206 airports in Alaska and Hawaii. 24 Regional carriers are ty pically subject to the same reporting and regulatory

requirements as other airlines in the same size classes.

23 Two of these

—AirTran and ExpressJet

—were reporting carriers. 24 Regional Airline Association, 2012 Annual Report, p. 15
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 18**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Foreign C**  **arriers** F oreign carriers operating flights to and from the United States are generally subject to the same regulatory

requirements as U.S. carriers with respect to covered flights. There are currently about 147 foreign carriers that operate scheduled or charter service to the United States (Table 8 )
. 25 Of these, 97 market scheduled service flights to U.S. passengers. **Table 8**  **– Number of Foreign Carriers by Size Class and Region, 201**  **1**

**Carrier Group**  **Number of**

**Seat s on**  **Largest Aircraft**  **Total**

**Carriers*** **Charter**

**Carriers** ****** **All**

**Scheduled Service**  **Carriers Contract** 

**Carriers Other** 

**Scheduled Service**  **Carriers** Large >60 113 9 104 8 96 Small 30 − 60 2 1 1 1 0 Very s mall <30 32 31 1 0 1 **Total 147**  **41 106**  **9 97**  Canada 14 6 8 2 6 EU 49 23 26 0 26 * Excludes carriers that were no longer operating independently by the end of 2012. * *Includes 2 charter carrier s that operated no more than 20 scheduled service flights. Carriers in Canada and European Union (EU) countries must comply with disability
- related service requirements that are in many areas comparable to, or more extensive than, those required under the applicable provisions of the ACAA. **3. 3**  **. Carrier Employ**  **ment and Revenues** The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size
- class standards for each industry s ector that are ty

pically used to assess the impact of proposed regulations on small entities under the relevant requirements of the Regulatory F lexibility

Act. SBA defines a small passenger air transportation company as one that has fewer than 1,500 employees. Small entities in other North American Industry C lassification System (NAICS) sectors are delineated with other employ

ment or revenue thresholds. This section provides data on employ ment and revenues for U.S. carriers. U.S. air carriers with operating revenues of at least $100 million must report annual employ ment data and quarterly

f inancial data on Form 41. Air carriers with operating revenues of less than $100 million are only required to provide Form 41 financial data on a semiannual basis and do not report emplo ym ent data.

25 There are 35 foreign carriers that operate passenger service to and from the United States exclusively with aircraft having fewer than 61 seats . These carriers do not have to com ply with requirements that apply only to carriers that provide passenger service on at least 1 aircraft that has more than 60 seats.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 19**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Table 9** **– U.S. Carrier Employment and Operating Revenues, 2011**  **Type of Carrier Number of**  **Employees Percent**  **of**

**Total Employees**  **Revenues**

**(millions) Percent**  **of**

**Total Revenues**  Mainline 274,701 69.6% 115,819 75.6% Low - c ost 66,857 16.9% 25,929 16.9% Regional (contract carriers) 50,756 12.9% 10,192 6.7% Charter 2,550 0.6% 1,191 0.8% **Total 394,864**  **100.0% 153,131**  **100.0%** Table 9 shows that the five remaining U.S. mainline carriers (American, Delta, United, Alaska, and Hawaii) account for about 70 percent of reported emp loy ment and 75 percent of operating revenues. Southwest accounted for more than half of low
- cost carrier employ ment and revenues, even before its acquisition of AirTran in mid
- 2011. American Eagle and Sky West (including its ExpressJet subsidiary) accounted for more than half of regional carrier employ ment and revenues. Charter carriers accounted for less than 1 percent of employment and revenues in 2011. **3.4. Travel A** **gencies and Tour Operators** Travel agencies and tour operators sell air travel through onl ine and offline channels. These sales sometimes are made on a standalone basis and sometimes as part of a package that may include accommodations, activities, and ground transportation. Carrier, travel agent, and tour operator Web sites also offer packages that do not include any air transportation. According to a 2009 study, about 17 percent of travel agencies have online ticketing capability
. The four largest online travel agencies (OTAs)

—Expedia, Orbitz, Priceline, and Travelocity

— reportedly account for 96 percent of all online sales by travel intermediaries in the leisure travel market segment. 26 The most recent Economic Census data indicate that there were 96 ticket agents with 500 or more employees in 2007. The Economic Census also provides estimates of the numbers of travel agents and tour operators with annual revenues firms of more than $25 million and those with $10
- 25 million in annual revenues (Table 10).

26 PhoCusWright, The Role and Value of the Global Distribution Systems in Travel Distribution , November 2009
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 20**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Table 10**  **– Travel Agencies and Tour Operators,**  **2007**
**Sector Total**  **Firms Firms**  **with 500 or More**  **Employees Firms**  **with Annual**

**Revenues of**  **$ 25**  **million or more**  **Firms with Annual** 

**Revenues of**  **$10 to $**  **25 million**  Travel Agencies 11,803 70 39 67 Tour Operators 2,627 26 22 33 **All Ticket Agents 14,430**  **96 72**  **1 00**  Source: Bureau of the Census, Economic Census , 2007. The 2013 SBA standards classify travel agencies and tour operators with no more than $19 million in annual revenues as small businesses. However, the 2007 Economic Census do es not report the numbers of travel agencies and tour operators with annual revenues that exceed this specific threshold
. For this analys is, we have assumed that travel agents and tour operators with 500 or more emplo ye es would have annual revenues in excess of $19 million annually. 27 **3. 5**  **. Ai**  **rports** The FAA classifies airports into a set of size
-based categories based on the number of passengers enplaned. There were 387 U.S. airports with at least 10,000 passenger enplanements in 20 11. About 70 percent of domestic and international passengers departed from 29 major metropolitan hubs , and another 18 percent departed from 3 5 medium
-hub airports (Table 11 )
. **Table 11**  **– Passenger Enplanements by Size of Airport, 2011** 
**Category Minimum**  **Number of**  **Passengers Number** 

**of Airports**  **Passengers**

**(millions) Percent of** 

**Total Passengers**  **Average**

**Number of Passengers per**  **Airport** Large h ub >1% of total 29 509.4 70.2% 17,565,573 Medium h ub >0.25% of total 35 130.1 17.9% 3,716,396 Small h ub >0.05% of total 74 61.0 8.4% 824,182 Non - h ub >10,000/year 249 23.7 3.3% 95,155 Other c ommercial >2,500/year 124 0.6 0.1% 5,181 **Total 511**  **724.8 100.0%**  **1,418,397** FAA, “Enplanements at Primary and Non - primary Commercial Service Airports,” Oct ober 9, 2012. **3 .**  **6 .**  **Regulatory**

**A uthorities**  DOT enforces the ACAA and other civil rights statutes and regulations that apply to carriers , conducts economic licensing of U.S. carriers and foreign carriers operating in the United States , establishes regulatory

requirements relating to advertising and provision of scheduled and
27 This is equivalent to assuming that 24 of the 100 ticket agents with between $10 and $25 million in annual revenues in 2007 had $19 million or more in revenues. It should be noted that the 2012 Economic Census data, which are not scheduled to be available until 2014, are likely to reflect further consolidation in these two industry sectors.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 21**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  nonscheduled passenger service , issues guidelines and letters to codify and clarify

D epartment enforcement policy, and enters into consent orders to enforce regulations and impose penalties for noncompliance. DOT entered into 16 enforcement orders with U.S. and foreign carriers that involve disability
-related issues during the 3
- year period from 2010 through 2012 (Table 12 )
. **Table 12** **– DOT**  **Enforcement Orders Involving Disability Issues, 2010** **− 2012**  **Carrier Order Date**  **Complaint Reporting**  **Response to**

**Complaints Wheelchair** 

**Assistance Report** 

**Filing** Virgin America, Inc. 5/22/201 2 1 1 Frontier Airlines, Inc. 4/15/201 2 1 Allegiant Air, LLC 2/10/2012 1 1 Spirit Airlines, Inc. 1/20/2012 1 1 Atlantic Southeast Airlines 7/4/2011 1 Icelandair Group 5/13/2011 1 Delta Air Lines, Inc. 2/10/2011 1 1 1 Mesaba Aviation, Inc. 1/4/2011 1 1 JetBlue Airways Corp. 12/17/2010 1 1 1 AirTran Airways 8/14/2010 1 1 1 Compa ñía Paname ñ a de Avia c i ó n 7/15/2010 1 Cayman Airways Limited 6/21/2010 1 Continental Airlines, Inc. 5/9/2010 1 Bahamasair Limited Holdings 2/27/2010 1 TAM Linhas A é reas, S.A. 1/8/2010 1 **Total 7**  **7 6**  **5** Percent of Orders 50% 50% 43% 36% Source: Econometrica review of DOT enforcement orders . Regulatory

a uthority f or matters relating to the air traffic system and airport operations is vested in the FAA. The FAA Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports has responsibility f or all programs related to airport safety and inspections and standards for airport design, construction, and operation , including accessibility o f facilities and transportation controlled by the airport operator. 

### 4. **General Framew ork for A** **nal ys**  **is of Benefits and Costs** The Rule contains requirements relating to automated airport kiosks and to carrier Web sites. Both quantifiable and unquantifiable benefits will accrue from adoption of these requirements, which will also entail costs to carriers and (in the case of kiosks) airports. Benefits and costs will also accrue from the Rule requirements for carriers and ticket agents to provide Web
-based fare discounts and other Web
-based amenities upon request to passengers who cannot use their Web sites due to their disabilities.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 22**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  While the methodology used to quantify e lements of these benefits and costs has provision
specific components, the estimates were developed using a common general framework for analys is. This section discuss es the nature of benefits that are anticipated, the ty pes of costs that will be incurred, and the general assumptions used in developing monetized estimates of the benefits and costs associated with the Rule requirements
. **4.1. Nature of Benefits A nticipated**  The ty pes of benefits that air travelers with disabilities will potentially derive from the Rule requirements include:
 T ime saved in obtaining information, purchasing tickets, and completing various aspects of the check
- in process.
 Reduction in the amount of effort and discomfort associated with use of technologies related to air travel
.  Decreased expenditures from improved access to discounted or promotional airfares.
 Improved ability

to travel without needing to rely on the assistance of others. The value of the time savings associated with improve d kiosk and Web site accessibility has been estimated and monetized in this regulatory evaluation, which also suggests the range of values that could reasonably b e used to quantify the benefits associated with reductions in the amount of effort and discomf ort associated with the use of technologies related to air travel
. The Department does not have sufficient information to quantify the potential savings on airfares, if any, that travelers with disabilities may receive as a result of improved access to di scounted or promotional airfares on accessible Web sites. Inany event, these savings will be exactly o ffset by an equal reduction in carrier revenues from providing passenger service, with the result that the net economic benefits of any such savings to travelers and carriers combined must necessarily be zero. 28 In contrast, the increased independence that will be experienced by travelers with disabilities as a result of the Rule requirements represents an important benefit , but one for which no monetary value can be assigned. Carriers will also realize benefits from the Rule requirements
. The cost savings associated with traveler use of kiosks, rather than other onsite forms of check
- in, are well documented. 29 There is also evidence that carrier Web sites could be more readily maintained and updated if the programming practices required to ensure Web site accessibility are consistently

implemented and followed, although the associated benefits are more difficult to quantify
. As the W3C WAI site notes , “ Incorporating accessibility usually increases site development time initially
. However, in the long term Web accessibility c an reduce the time an organization spends on site
28 It is possible that the reduction in the effort required to research and book flights and to check in may encourage additional people with disabilities to travel by air, or those who already travel to do so more often, which will represent a net economic benefit. However, the magnitude of this impact is not likely to be large enough to quantify. 29 See, for exa mple , Airport Business , “Analysis: Kiosk Uptime, Revenue ,” July 8, 2008.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 23**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  development and maintenance .” The W 3C also anticipates cost savings from reduced bandwidth use and server load, easier enabling of content on different configurations (e.g., mobile sites), and easier transition to the use of advanced Web technologies. 30 Comments received in response to the DOJ A

NPRM also indicated that implementing programming practices to ensure accessibility will make Web sites easier to maintain. **4.2. Ty pes of Compliance Costs Incurred**  Carriers will incur additional capital, implementation , and continuing operations and maintenance costs to comply with the Rule requirements
. Where appropriate, the estimation of these costs incorporates a life
- cycle analys is that takes into account the schedule on which compliance is projected to occur. For example, the costs for installation of new and replacement accessible kiosks are expected to be incurred over a 5
- year time frame. 31 **4.3. General A**

**ssumptions Used to Estimate Benefits and Costs** The following general assumptions were employed to develop monetized estimates of the benefits and costs associated with the Rule requirements :  Quantitative b enefits and costs were estimated assuming the Rule becomes effective on January 1 , 201 4
. Carriers have 2 ye ars to comply with the Web site accessibility requirements for core functions and 3 years to comply with these requirements for the remaining content on their primary Web sites. Carriers and airports will have 3 years to comply with the kiosk acce ssibility requirements
. Therefore, the 10
- ye ar period from 201 6 through 202 5 was chosen to evaluate the benefits and costs of the R ule requirements relating to Web sites
. Similarly, kiosk
-related benefits and costs were estimated for the period from 2017 through 2026. Costs incurred before the beginning of the analys is period were rolled forward to 2016 (Web sites) or 201 7 (kiosks) present values using the appropriate discount rate.
 Inaccordance with Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) guidelines, real discount rate s of 7 and 3 percent were used to compute the present value of net benefits for the 10
- ye ar analys is period.
 This analysis includes costs incurred by foreign carriers.
 The numbers of flights and passengers are assumed to increase annually at the rates projected in the most recent FAA Aerospace Forecast (see Section 3.1 above).

30 W3C, “Developing a Web Accessibi lity Business Case for Your Organization
. ” 31 It is our understanding from discussions with kiosk manufacturers that while in some cases, the external structure of a kiosk may remain in service for as long as 7

− 10 ye ars , extending the service life of the machine requires significant “refreshing” of com ponents, including the motherboards, printers (w here applicable), and displays. This regulatory analysis anticipates that carriers and/or airports incur the full replacement cost of a kiosk every 5 years.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 24**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**   The value of waiting time for passengers at the airport is estimated at $ 23
. 90 per hour, according to the most recent DOT guidance
. Time saved while conducting air travel
related research or transactions online is valued at $18.00 per hour. 32
 Per
-hour costs for applicable categories of carrier employees were estimated using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS ) mean wage rates, increased by 44.7 percent to account for the nonwage components (e.g., fringe benefits , employer taxes) of direct labor costs. 33
 A more detailed description and discussion of the baseline data and assumptions used in developing the specific benefit and cost estimates is provided in the relevant parts of Section s 5 (kiosks) and 6 (Web sites)
. **4.4. Components of the Requirement -** **Specific Evaluations** Sections 5 and 6 of the regulatory evaluation provide assessments of the projected benefits and costs for the specific requirements to ensure accessibility o f automated airport kiosks and carrier as well as affected ticket agent Web sites, respectively
. For each set of Rule requirements , we present the following information:
 **Current Industry**  **Practices and**  **the Need**  **for Regulat**  **ory Requirements** **.** This section presents a summary

o f current industry

practices and describes the needs addressed by the Rule. Italso includes a brief discussion of the technologies currently available to address the identified needs of travelers with disabilities , as well as information on additional or improved technologies that can reasonably b e expected to become available within the time frame used in this analysis.
 **New Requirements**  **and Alternatives**  **Considered .**  This section outlines the requirements in the accompanying Rule and describes the alternatives considered
.  **Discussion of**  **Comments Received**  **on the**  **SNPRM PRA.**  This section summarizes the comments of carrier associations, individual carriers, disability advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders and indicates how input from these comments was taken into account in this regulatory evaluation.
 **Compliance Scenarios**  **Evaluated .**  This section defines the expected impact on affected entities and specifies the most likely ways in which they

c an be expected to comply with the Rule requirements
.  **Estimated Benefits of Rule**  **R equirements** **.** This section presents the methodology used to evaluate benefits, estimates for the components that could be evaluated quantitatively, and descriptions of the benefits for which no quantitative estimates could be developed.
 **Estimated Costs**  **of Rule**  **R equirements** **.** This section presents the methodology used to evaluate costs, estimates for the components that could be evaluated quantitatively, and descriptions of the costs for which no quantitative estimates could be developed.

32 Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), “Revised Departmental Guidance for the Valuation of Travel Time in Economi c Analysis ,” September 28, 2011. 33 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Em ployer Costs for Employee Compensation ,” June 13, 20 13.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 25**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**   **Estimated Net**  **Benefits and**  **Discussion of**  **Results.** This section summarizes the bene fit and cost estimates for the Rule requirements and relevant alternatives considered. 

### 5. **Evaluation of Rule**  **R equirements**  **for Ac**  **cessible Kiosks 5**  **.1. Current Industry**

**Practices and the Need for Regulatory Requirements**  An automated airport kiosk is 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 its flight
-related services
. U se of automated airport kiosks ty pically reduces check
- in waits and, in some cases, reduces the fees paid by p assengers for checked baggage
. However, currently deployed kiosks pose significant obstacles to use by travelers with various ty pes of disabilities. 34 Machine heights and installation configurations often make access by p assengers using wheelchairs difficult or impossible. Traditional automated kiosks also pose some specific challenges to air passengers with visual impairments, cognitive disabilities, or problems with motor skills, including:
 Touch screens that are dif ficult , if not impossible , to use by travelers who have limited or no visual acuity
.  Buttons, card readers, passport readers, and other hardware controls that are not discernible b y touch.
 An alternative access method, such as audio, may not be available to travelers who have limited or no vision. Two ty pes of automated kiosks are used at airports: proprietary and shared
-use, or Common Use Self
- Service (CUSS), kiosks. Proprietary a utomated kiosks have been in use since the early 1990s. They

are specifically designed for, and operated by, a single carrier. Shared
-use automated kiosks are provided by an airport, a carrier, or an independent service provider and host carrier software applications that enable customers to access flight
-related services independently . Early implementation of airline self
- service technology

w as driven by

individual airlines placing kiosks near their airport check
- in facilities. Shared
-use kiosks were developed as a result of a collaborative effort between individual carriers and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to enable carriers to provide a range of passenger services at a shared kiosk. Shared
-use kiosks began to be deplo yed across airports worldwide in significant numbers in 2005. Inc ontrast to proprietary a utomated kiosks , shared
-use kiosks are ty pically distributed throughout the terminal, with some located at offsite locations, such as parking garages and nearb y hotels. There are several major suppliers of automated kiosk hardware and software, including NCR, IBM, and SITA. ARINC, IBM, IER, Materna, SITA , and other vendors develop, install, and

34 The inaccessibility of airport kiosks has been the subject of relatively recent lawsuits against McCarran International Airport, JetBlue, and United Airlines. See Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology (COAT), “Airlines Continue to Evade Accessibility of Check
- In Kiosks and Websites ,” August 3, 2011, for a discussion of the ruling by a California court in the JetBlue lawsuit.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 26**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  support shared
-use kiosks, “middleware,” and carrier applications, either as a complete package or on a standalone basis. It is our understanding that shared
-use terminals are ty pically purchased and maintained under contracts with airport authorities. The middleware installed on these machines provides an interface between the machine components and controls (such as the touchpad) and proprietary s oftware developed by, or on behalf of , individual carriers. The software demands in a shared
-use environment are more challenging because multiple carrier applications have to run on the s ame platform , and each must be able to protect against unauthorized access to proprietary data from other carrier applications. IBM is currently marketing a demonstration version of an automated airport kiosk that has a variety of accessibility

features, including:
 A headset jack with volume control.
 IBM Embedded Via Voice text
-to - speech output.
 Layered audio user assistance and system event sound effects.
 An EZ Access key

pad with tactilely

discernible keys.  An on
- screen visual focus indicator that highlights the selected content or control.
 Textual equivalents for all graphics. 35 As noted above in Sections 1.2 and 1.3, the accessibility standards for automated teller machines (ATMs ) and fare vending machines ( Section 707 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design) that were adopted as part of the DOJ Title II and III regulations (28 CFR Parts 35 and 36) in September 2010 do not cover automated airport kiosks. The Section 508 standard for self
contained, closed products (36 CFR 1194.25) adopted by the Access Board requires electronic information products used in or provided to the public by the Federal sector to be accessible, but it does not cover airport kiosks. 36 Currently, there are no ACAA
-based accessibility standards that apply to airport kiosks owned, leased, or controlled by carriers. **5 .2.**  **Rule Requirements**  **and Al**  **ternatives Considered**  **to Ad**  **dress Identified**  **Needs** The Rule requires all new kiosks installed at any specific U.S. airport location 3 ye ars or more after the effective date of the R ule to comply

with the accessibility requirements described below until a minimum of 25 percent of the kiosks in that location are accessible
. All U.S. carriers and all foreign carriers operating flights to and from the United States will be required to comply

35 Andi Snow
-Weaver, “Innovation That Matters: Accessible IBM Airline Self
- Service Kiosks,” presentation at the Open Doors Organizati on Universal Access in Airports Conference, October 20, 2010. Additional information is available at http://www
- 03.ibm.com/able/news/selfservkiosk.html
. 36 In 2000, the Access Board publishe d a report with the Trace Center that focused on making information and transaction machines accessible by providing guidelines that addressed issues for people with sensory, physical, and cognitive disabilities. The Access Board used these guidelines in the development of its Revised Accessibility Standards for Technology, which were discussed in the 2010 ANPRM on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and Guidelines , March 22, 2010.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 27**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  with the kiosk accessibility standards. These requirements will apply only to kiosks installed at U.S. airports with 10,000 or more enplanements per year. 37 The technical standards for accessibility in the Rule specifically address the following aspects of kiosk design, installation, and operation: 38
 **Use of**  **assistive technology**  **.** Kiosks will have to be accessible to users with visual impairments without attachment of assistive technologies other than a personal headset or audio loop. A telephone handset or an industry
- standard connector will be provided so that users with visual impairments can attach personal headsets or use a handset to listen to the speech output during a transaction while maintaining their privacy
.  **Operable parts**  . Operable parts on new kiosks will have to be tactilely discernible by users to avoid unintentional activation. Complying kiosks will also be required to alert users by s ound or touch and give them an opportunity to indicate that more time is needed where a timed response is required.
 **Outputs**
. Speech outputs will be required to be coordinated with the information on the visual display

s o that users with low vision or cognitive disabilities may benefit from using the display

along with the speech.
 **Volume control** 

**.** Where speech output is delivered through a mechanism for private listening, the kiosk will need to provide means for controlling the volume
. Where sound is delivered through speakers on the machine, incremental volume control will need to be provided with output amplification up to a level of at least 65 decibels (dB )
. Where the ambient noise level of the environment is above 45 dB, a volume gain of at least 20 dB above the ambient l evel will need to be user selectable.
 **Captioning**

**.** Multimedia content that contains speech or other audio information necessary f or the comprehension of the content will have to be open- or closed
captioned.
 **Input co** **ntrols .**  At least one tactilely discernible input control will need to be provided for each function
. Where provided, key surfaces not on active areas of display s creens will need to be raised above surrounding surfaces
. Where touch or membrane keys are the only method of input, they

will need to be tactilely discernible from surrounding surfaces and adjacent keys.  **Clear f** 

**loor or**  **g round**  **s**

**pace** . Kiosks to be installed will have to provide a clear floor or ground space that meets the 2010 DOJ ADA standards
.
37 Our review of

c arrier Web site information on kiosk locations indicates that nearly all automated airport kiosks are located in large
- , medium
- , and small
-hub airports. We were not able to identify any small or very small U.S. carriers that currently offer the option to check in at either proprietary or shared
-use kiosks. Therefore , the estimated benefits and costs associated with these requirements are limited to passengers and flights operated by large carriers from large
- , medium
- , and small
-hub airports. 38 As noted above, these requirements are drawn primarily from Section 707 of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) (the legally applicable standards under Title s II and III of the ADA), as we ll as selected elements from part 1194.25 of the Section 508 standards
. Appendix C provides a provision
-by
-provision summary listing of R ule requirements and their antecedents in the Section 707 and Section 508 standards. The Rule requirements are expected to be compatible with future Access Board standards for other types of accessible kiosks.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 28**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  The Department also considered shorter time periods for compliance

—setting a “must order” date for accessible kiosks at 60 days, 1 year, or 2 years after the effective date of the Rule. As the discussion of comments received on the SNPRM below indicates, it does not appear feasible for accessible shared
-use kiosks and IATA
- certified accessible kiosk software applications to be developed and available for order within 1 ye ar or less after the effective date. It is possible that the 3
- ye ar time frame could be shortened if the software standards development process is begun promptly after publication of the Rule, rather than being undertaken only after the kiosk hardware and machine software (“middleware”) have been developed and prototy ped. However, the additional monetized benefits of requiring accessible kiosks to be ordered 2 ye ars after the effective date or installed 30 months after the effective date would be relatively small. 39 **5 .**  **3 .**  **Discussion of Comments Received**  The Department received a substantial number of comments about various aspects of the PRA evaluation of the proposed requirements for kiosk accessibility
. Major issues addressed included the timetable for compliance , the advantages and drawbacks of allowing a phase
- in period or a less
-than
- 100 percent requirement for accessibility, and feasibility and cost concerns with retrofitting existing kiosks. The Department also received some specific comments about various aspects of the benefit and cost calculations in the PRA. Ingeneral, carriers and ticket agents indicated that the proposed compliance date would be impossible to meet , that the estimation of time savings for people with di sabilities from accessible kiosks was overstated, and that compliance costs were understated. Disability advocates supported the shortest possible time frame for compliance and stressed the unquantifiable benefits of equal access to automated airport kiosks. This section summarizes relevant comments and outline s the changes made to the Rule and the PRA to take into account these comments. Further discussion of specific issues relating to benefits and costs is provided in the following sections, which detail the estimation of monetized benefits and costs associated with the kiosk accessibility requirements in the Final Rule. **5 .3.1. Comments**  **About the**  **Compliance Timetable** In the SNPRM, the Department proposed requiring all new orders for automated kiosks installed at U.S. airports initiated 60 days or more after the effective date to comply with the proposed technical requirements. The Department received a substantial volume of comments about the feasibility o f meeting this deadline from carriers, kiosk and information technology ( IT) firms, and disability

advocates. In general, advocates supported an even tighter deadline for ordering accessible kiosks. For example: There should be no delay after the effective date of the regulation
. 40

39 Based on the comments received and interviews with kiosk manufacturers, airport kiosks are typically ordered 3 to 6 months prior to installation. 40 Burton Blatt Institute, Sy racuse University (here inafter, BBI), “ Comments on the 2011 Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Airline Websites and Kiosks , ” January 4, 2012, p. 6.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 29**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  To ensure that accessible kiosks are available as soon as possible, we believe, however, that all kiosks ordered 30 days after the effective date of the rule should be accessible, not 60 days. 41 Only one of these comments addressed the feasibility o f ordering kiosks with hardware components and software applications that are not currently offered for sale: If possible, the technical standards should be finalized, published, and provided to all interested parties in advance while the provisions make their way through the Office of Management and Budget and other steps in the process. This “advance notice” of the technical standards would give vendors and other organizations a “stable target” f

or design and more than ample time to develop and test (and potentially

deplo y)accessible kiosks in advance of the actual effective date.
... In addition, requirements should be worded so that accessible kiosks must appear in airports shortly

after the final rule. 42 It should be noted that this recommended procedure assumes that the development of the technical requirements adopted in the Final Rule would not alter this “stable target . ” However, the Trace Center comments include several suggestions for change s in these requirements, highlighting the need for the industry to have the final requirements in hand before attempting to begin complying with the Rule . Carrier and IT association comments stressed the need to be able to review the final requirements bef ore proceeding with development of hardware and software solutions : The Department should start the accessible kiosk compliance period 36 months after it adopts a final rule. This additional time is needed because industry will not know the accessible kio sk standards until the final rule is published and design of a kiosk that meets the final rule standards cannot start until the final rule is issued. This length of period is necessary because as recognized by the PRA and based on information received from vendors, the accessible kiosk design process alone will take a minimum of 12 months (described above) and the procurement process will take another 4

− 6 months. 43

41 Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Transportation Task Force, Letter providing comments on the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking announced by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning DOT’s proposal to revise its rule im plementing the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) to provide greater access of websites and automated kiosks for people with disabilities in air travel, January 9, 2012, p. 2
. 42 Trace R&D Center, University of Wisconsin
-Madison (here inafter, Trace Center), “Co mments on the Department of Transportation SNPRM on Accessible Airline Kiosks , ” January 9, 2012, p. 4
. 43 Airlines for America, International Air Transport Association, Airports Council International
-North America, Regional Airline Association, and the Air C arrier Association of America (hereinafter, A4A et al. or “joint carrier association comments”), “Comments in the Matter of S upplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports,” January 201 2, p. 8
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 30**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  From a product development and manufacturing perspective, 18

− 36 months should be a reasonable amount of time to delay the effective date. 44 Econometrica conducted a series of interviews with companies that manufacture, market, and develop applications for travel and transportation
-related kiosks to establish more precisely the time frame in which development of compliant machines and software applications could be reasonably expected. The input we received indicates that the lead time required to develop and produce compliant hardware and software applications will vary substantially, depending on the nature of current carrier or airport systems (proprietary or shared) and applications development capabilities (in
-house or contracted)
. Customers who have proprietary kiosks and have immediate access to adequate applications programming capabilities may b e able to develop and deploy c ompliant machines and applications within 18 months, the low end of the time frame suggested in the Information Technology Industry Council ( IT I) comments. However, carriers and airports with CUSS kiosks are not likely to be able to meet this deadline. IATA CUSS standards for both machines and compliant software applications will need to be revised

—a process that can be expected to take the better part of a ye ar. In addition, we understand from several sources that the current marketplace for CUSS developers is limited to very f ew firms, suggesting that carriers and airports without current projects may f ace delays in securing the requisite technical resources. Finally, CUSS software applications must be certified, which c an add another 3 months to the time required for deplo yment. Faced with this disparity, the Department has settled on a 3
- ye ar deadline after the effective date for installation of accessible kiosks. Meeting this deadline will require some concurrent effort in the development of compliant machines and applications, and carriers and airports will need to be active participants in the IATA standards development and approval process to achieve closure within a time frame that supports the development, prototy ping, and marketing of accessible kiosks and software applications. At the same time, allowing a 3
- ye ar period before accessible kiosks must be installed will allow sufficient time for manufacturers and programmers not already engaged in development of ac cessible solutions to participate in the market. This broadening of the market can be expected to mitigate the incremental costs of acquiring and installing accessible kiosks. Based on the input we received, shortening the compliance deadline to 2 ye ars or less may restrict the number of firms that would be able to supply c ompliant products. Inaddition, some airports and carriers that deploy

CUSS kiosks would not be able to comply with this deadline and would need to seek extensions or waivers from the Dep artment. Ultimately, the Department is persuaded that there is a benefit to travelers with disabilities from providing kiosk manufacturers and software programmers with a longer period to develop, prototy pe, test, and deploy

accessible kiosks that meet the Rule requirements.

44 Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), Letter providing comments on the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, January 9, 2012, p. 6
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 31**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **5 .3.2.**  **Comments About**  **Transitional Phase -** **In Requirements** Inthe SNPRM, the Department requested comment on whether carriers and airports should be allowed to order specified percentages of kiosks after the order deadline that would not meet the proposed technical standards for accessibility
. In part , this alternative was presented for consideration because the proposed order deadline in the SNPRM was only 6 0 days after the effective date. However, the Department was also interested in determining whether a phased
- in approach would be likely to reduce implementation costs and minimize the potential for market shortages. Some carrier comments supported a phased
- in timetable with increasing percentages of kiosks required in successive ye ars: The best approach is to require a certain percentage of future kiosk orders to be accessible, giving industry enough time to develop a compliant prototy pe. Requiring all kiosks ordered 60 days after the effective date of the final rule would ignore ind

ustry e fforts needed to create a prototy pe. Creating a low percentage of accessible kiosk orders would not be problematic if delayed 36 months. 45 DIA RECOMMENDS that an airport or airline have TEN YEARS following the effective date of the rule to bring 100 % of existing kiosks into compliance with accessibility

requirements: 25% by

Y ear 3; 50% within 5 years; 75% within 7 ye ars; 100% within 10 years. Airlines with dormant accessibility f eatures such as microphone jacks should have 5 ye ars to activate such fe atures when new programming is required and 1 year when no programming is required. 46 B oth comments on the docket and our subsequent research indicate that there are not likely to be significant cost savings from an extended phase
- in period. The unit cost for compli ant hardware components is expected to be relatively small, and the cost of installing accessible software applications on additional machines is likely to be significant. From a development and manufacturing perspective, the timelines and resources required for the development and incorporation of new accessibility solutions will be the same, regardless of whether all, or a percentage of, kiosks are required to comply with the new rules
... . Development resources required to make any updates for compliance with new rules will be the same, regardless of how the requirements are phased in. From that perspective, no meaningful cost reduction will apply

to kiosk producers as a result of a phased approach. 47 S ome of the manufacturer representatives indicated that the costs of installing, supporting, and maintaining diverse sets of compli ant and noncompliant kiosks in single locations might exceed those associated with the “all accessible” approach. Nonetheless, carrier organizations endorsed

45 A4 A et al. comments , item 73 on back table
. 46 Denver International Airport, “Comments on Propose d Rule Making web sites and kiosks accessible to individuals with disabilities,” undated , p. 2
. 47 ITI comments, pp . 5 and 7
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 32**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  this approach, in part because of the minimal impact on waiting times from less
-than
- 100
-percent accessible kiosks: The impact (on wait time of having fewer than 100% of kiosks be accessible) would be negligible because carriers would give a passenger with a disa bility who self identifies priority

to accessible kiosks, so the only p otential wait time would be the time it takes for someone already using the accessible kiosk to finish their transaction. In the unlikely event that several disabled passengers were waiting for an accessible kiosk, carriers would offer agent assistance. 48 Requiring less than 100 percent of kiosks to be accessible creates the need for carriers and airports to develop procedures to govern priority use of the accessible kiosks by travelers with disabilities in locations with mixed installations of accessible and inaccessible kiosks. Several comments suggested different approaches to handling this situation, while some advocacy organization comments indicated that avoiding this special treatment was precisely the point of requiring accessible kiosks as an alternative to “front
- of
-the
- line” service from carrier personnel: There is a popular misconception that blind people want or need special treatment, and that the best way to provide equal service to disabled passengers is to let them cut in line, or give them a special priority line. This is a my

th. Blind people simply

w ant access to the same equipment at the same time as sighted people, and special treatment is viewed as degrading rather than helpful. 49 However, the Department recognizes that the issues of identification and priority access requirements , which arise from mixed installations of accessible and inaccessible kiosks , have been previously addressed in the context of ATMs and fare vending machines. **5 .3.3. Comments**  **About Retrofitting Existing Kiosks**  The Department did not propose a requirement to retrofit some or all existing kiosks in the SNPRM, but it did request comment on the feasibility, benefits, and costs of doing so. A retro fit requirement would eliminate the need for passengers with disabilities to identify which locations or units were accessible at any given point in time, a benefit stressed in s everal comments: Therefore, we urge DOT to apply the graduated retrofitting requirement to “kiosks currently in use at every snakeline and cluster and stand
- alone units behind security

in every U .S. airport with 10,000 or more enplanements per year.” This will provide comprehensive coverage, so that when 50 percent of kiosks currently in use are retrofitted for accessibility, blind passengers will be able to use at least half of the kiosks deployed at every c lass at the check
- in counter, at the curb, in other clusters throughout the terminal, and in every airport where the accessibi lity

rule for kiosks will be applied. 50
48 A4 A et al. comments , item 97 on back table
. 49 National Federation of the Blind (NFB), Letter providing comments on the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Non
-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of W eb Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports, January 9, 2012, p. 11
. 50 NFB comments , p. 5
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 33**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  To ensure that retrofitting is done proportionately across an airline’s service areas and not just in major hubs, the DOT should address the locations of retrofitting with the following proposed language: “kiosks cur rently in use at every

snakeline or cluster or stand
- alone units behind security in every U.S. airport with 10,000 or more enplanements per year. 51 Carrier association comments focused on the potentially high costs involved in retrofitting existing kiosks: The SNPRM correctly recognized that it is costly and impractical to retrofit older kiosks
. 52 The costs for retrofitting an existing kiosk are difficult to quantify
. For example, some older kiosks (7 ye ars +) may have operating systems not compatib le with speech technology

and may not support software needed for voice guidance. For retrofitting of hardware, costs will be incurred through parts and installation of equipment. Furthermore, certification costs will vary depending on requirements and how they

align with existing 3rd party requirements. 53 The costs and other drawbacks of retrofitting were also highlighted in the Trace Center comments: Retrofitting existing kiosks can be significantly more expensive than deploying accessible kiosks from the start. In addition to losing the economies of scale and the lower costs for doing it in a production environment, retrofitting can also involve transport of the kiosks back to a warehouse or travel of a technician to the kiosk location to carry

out the retrofit. 54 Several vendor representatives also indicated that retrofitting could involve significant feasibility issues. Therefore, the Department has determined not to add a retrofitting requirement to the Rule. **5.3. 4**  **. Comments About**  **Kiosk Accessibility B**  **enefit s**  Some carriers expected that eliminating the current priority f or counter check
- in will mean that the kiosk accessibility

requirements will increase waiting time for travelers with disabilities , not reduce it.

51 BBI comments , p. 6
. 52 A4 A et al. comments , p. 9
. 53 ITI comments, p. 8
. 54 Trace Center comments , pp. 5

–6
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 34**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  Even with IBM’s yet unproven technology, access to and use of kiosks likely will slow the check
- in process for all passengers and undermine the purpose for which they were installed. 55 A passenger with a disability would not save any

time by using an accessible automated kiosk because now carriers assist these passengers with an agent, which involves no or very little time. The Department should exclude these time savings benefits. 56 It is important to keep in mind that while some travelers who are blind or have motor- skill disabilities may

take longer than average to complete transactions on kiosks, this is not likely to be the case for passengers with other vision problems or those who use wheelchairs or other powered mobility

devices. Iti s also not clear that air travelers with these disabilities routinely seek “front
- of

-the
- line” counter service. Some disabilities (low vision, speech impediments) may not be apparent to ticket counter staff. In addition, the “special treatment” currently afforded to passengers with s ome disabilities is not a preferred solution for many of these travelers , as explained in the following comment: Priority access for people with disabilities may s eem like a good solution for some people. However, this solution will be stigmatizing for many p eople with disabilities. Travelers without disabilities may feel that people with disabilities are getting unnecessary

special treatment by

be ing able to use a shorter line, etc. This is especially true since not everyone who would require an accessibl e kiosk has a disability that is visible or obvious. 57 Some c omments made the case that reduced waiting time benefits were substantially overstated in the PRA : The PRA assumes that the proposed requirements would make it possible for passengers with disab ilities to check in more easily and quickly, saving 13 minutes. This passenger check in time savings would, according to the government’s analys is, result in $122 million in benefits, discounted to $86 million
... . The Department offers no evidence or relevant analysis to support this assertion that accessible kiosks will save disabled passengers 13 minutes in the check in process. One cannot conclude this time savings without comparing it to current airline practices. Part 382 requires and current airline practices mandate that ticket agents provide personal assistance to disabled passengers, including moving them to the front of any

check
- in line. It defies logic to argue that accessible kiosks will

55 Spirit Airlines (hereinafter , Spirit), “Co mments to the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports, ” January 9, 2012, p. 14
. 56 A4 A et al. comments , item 95 on back table
. 57 Trace Center comments , p. 8
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 35**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  save disabled passengers any time over the current protocol , much less 13 minutes. 58 In this SNPRM, Econometrica states that 100% of analyz ed passengers realize the 13
-minute b enefit. This is incorrect. Because Econometrica applies this metric to all passengers with visual disabilities, it must use an average value to accuratel y present the source material. Multiplying 13 minutes by the 5% realization rate results in an average savings of 39 seconds and an overall public benefit far below compliance costs. 59 The American Aviation Institute (AAI) comment is correct that the DOJ report from which the 13
-minute time saving estimate was obtained indicated in a separate appendix that the estimated reduction in waiting time would be applicable only to the 5 percent of ATM and ticketing machine users who are waiting at the busiest time periods. Based on these comments, the monetized value of reduced time spent waiting in line was not estimated or included in this final regulatory evaluation. However, data from kiosk manufacturers indicated that the reduction in time spent at the counter checking in can be quantified. The monetized value of these (more limited) time savings was quantified and included in the benefits estimates presented in this evaluation. The joint carrier association c omments also ques tion the existence of potential gate agent cost savings: There will be no cost savings because carriers have agents at check in now that serve all passengers. The Department should exclude any cost savings in this area. 60 This is precisely

the point

—if these agents do not have to spend time serving passengers with disabilities who are able to check in at accessible kiosks, they are available to assist other passengers or perform other functions that reduce waiting time for passengers or reduce the probability

that the flight departure may b e delayed
. These benefits can be monetized using the applicable labor cost of the personnel who now have more time to check in other passengers or perform other functions. **5.3.5. Comments A** **bout Kiosk Accessibility Costs** Several comments addressed the PRA estimate of the incremental cost of adding ac cessibility features to a kiosk: Depending on the final requirements from the rule, the hardware
- only cost could range from $400

− $2000 per unit. 61
58 A4 A et al. comments , p. 16
. 59 American Aviation Institute (here inafter, AAI), “Co mments in the Matter of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of W eb Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports ( Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) , ” January 3 , 2012, p. 5
. 60 A4 A et al. comments , item 51 on back table
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 36**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  The cost difference ranges f rom a low of $2000 to a high of $20,000, with a median cost difference of $9,250 per kiosk. 62 The stated fixed cost figure of $750 per kiosk for adding accessibility to a single kiosk seems very

high especially for orders in bulk. 63 Additionally, the PRA failed to address the adverse effects of the expansion of automated kiosk footprints
. 64 Depending on the final requirements in the rule and the wide range of applications that exist, e stimated application costs will range between $50,000 and $500,000 per s olution. 65 One problem with evaluating these alternative estimates is that p er-unit costs depend on the number of kiosks ordered. It is not clear how the fixed costs of kiosk and software applications development were taken into account in the estimates presented in these comments. Inaddition, the higher estimates of per-unit increases in kiosk costs are not consistent with the information we received in a series of interviews with kiosk manufacturers and applications developers. 66 However, the IT I comment specifically addressing applications development costs is, in our view, sufficient to support the inclusion of an estimate of the initial development and testing costs in the regulatory

evaluation. The approach used to estimate the se costs is discussed in Section 5.6 , below. Finally, there was a diversity o f views on whether the PRA correctly or incorrectly estimates the life cycle of airport check
- in kiosks
. The Department’s assumption about the life cycle of a kiosk is correct
... . Industry practice varies from 2

− 3 years to 5 years. 67 Experience indicates that the ty pical life cycle for an airport kiosk is 7

− 10 years. 68 ...the kiosk service lifespan of 5

– 10 ye ars . ... 69 The PRA assumption of an average service life of 5 ye ars was retained in the final regulatory evaluation
.

61 ITI comments, p. 7
. 62 A4 A et al. comments , item 120 on back table
. These estimates include nonhardware
-related costs. 63 Trace Center comments , p. 7
. 64 Spirit comments , p. 13
. 65 ITI comments, p. 8
. 66 In addition, two proprietary market research reports we reviewed indicated that check
- in kiosks currently cost an average o f $8,000 −$10,000 to install. It is unlikely that complying with the accessibility requirements in the Rule wo uld cause the cost of each installed kiosk to double. 67 A4 A et al. comments , items 71 and 110 on back table
. 68 ITI comments, p. 6
. 69 Trace Center c omments, p. 5
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 37**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **5 .**  **4 . Compliance Scenarios Evaluated**  The Rule requirements specify that all kiosks installed in a specific airport location beginning 3 ye ars after the effective date will need to comply with the accessibility standards until at least 25 percent of the machines in that location are accessible
. Based on carrier, airport, and kiosk manufacturer comments, as well as supplementary research we conducted, it is feasible for carriers and airports to meet this deadline. 70 It should be noted that somewhat more than 25 percent of the kiosks installed beginning 3 years after the effective date will be accessible, because kiosks are not uniformly installed in multiples of four in each airport location. Inl ocations with fewer than four (or five to seven) kiosks, more than 25 percent of the total machines would need to be accessible. For purposes of this evaluation, we have assumed that 40 percent of the total number of kiosks installed after the effective date would comply with the Rule requirements for hardware and software accessibility
. The Department also considered requiring carriers and airports to order only accessible kiosks 3 ye ars after the effective date
. Carriers and airports would incur higher costs to install the additi onal accessible units, while the benefits of having additional accessible kiosks at each airport location cannot be quantified. However, kiosk design and software applications costs are fixed with respect to the number of units installed
. It is possible that the difference in variable hardware costs between an accessible and a non
- accessible kiosk may b e small enough for many carriers and airports to install only accessible kiosks in some airport locations. If this is the case, the 25
-percent accessibility requirement may

result in nearly

as many accessible kiosks being installed as would have been the case if all new kiosks were required to be accessible. **5 .**  **5 . Estimated Benefits of**  **Rule Requirements Benefits to Passengers**  **W ith Disabilities**  The Rule requirements will make it possible for air travelers with certain disabilities , including travelers who use wheelchairs and those who are blind or have other vision impairments, to check in more quickly and easily when using an accessible automate d kiosk, affording them the convenience , privacy, and time savings currently experienced by travelers without disabilities who choose to use an automated kiosk
. The number of travelers who can be expected to benefit depends on the number of trips taken annually by p assengers with disabilities that will be addressed by

the Rule requirements, the proportion of these passengers who will be able and willing to use accessible kiosks to check in, and the speed with which accessible kiosks will become widely avail able after the effective date. The estimated number of air travelers who will potentially b enefit annually from the availability of accessible automated kiosks is calculated from the following components:
70 This time interval can be divided into two approximately equal subintervals. During the first of these, the purchasing entity must develop specifications to supply its existing vendor (in the best case) or incorporate into the requirements specified in a solicitation (which typically involves a more extended procurement process). The remaining lead time is required for the kiosk vendors to determine how b est to incorporate these hardware requirements into existing kiosk platforms (again, the best case) or, alternatively, to design and im plement mo difications to existing kiosk models that will accommodate the required accessibility features.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 38**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**   The estimated number of check
- ins annually by all passengers departing from U.S. airports, which is equal to the total number of departures (“segments”) divided by the average number of segments per one -way trip (1.37) and the average travel party size (1.4) to account for connecting flights and combined check
- ins by travelers flying as a group, respectively
. 71
 The proportion of the adult population with disabilities that will make it difficult or impossible to use an inaccessible kiosk, which was assumed to be measured by the percentages of adults who use a wheelchair or other powered mobility
- assistance device and those who are blind or have other vision problems that cannot be corrected with glasses or contact lenses ( 1.4 percent and 3.4 percent, respectively)
. 72
 An adjustment factor (0.7853) derived from the 2002 BTS Freedom to Travel study that takes into account that people with disabilities are somewhat less likely to travel by

air in a given year than are people without disabilities. 73
 The estimated share of travelers (approximately 20 percent) who are expected to use automated airport kiosks to check in during Year 1 of the analys is period, based on data from the 2010 SITA Airline IT Survey results
. This share of airport kiosk check
- ins is assumed to remain stable though Year 5 of the analysis period and then decline by one percentage point annually thereafter. 74 T able 13 summarizes the calculations used to estimate the number of passengers who will benefit from the availability

of accessible kiosks.

71 The parameters used in these calculations are identical to those used in Econometrica, Inc., “Final Regulatory Analysis ,” April 8, 2011, which accom panied the April 29, 2011, final rule on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections (“EAPP2”). The number of trips can also be estimated using the BTS Origin and Destination (O&D) data on ticket purchases instead of the T
- 100 flight segments data. Both approaches yield similar results. 72 See the results presented in Section 2.1, above. Additional benefits may accrue to people with fine mo tor skill or cognitive disabilities. These benefits could not be quantified because adequate data on the prevalence of these disabilities were not available. 73 As noted in the discussion in Section 2.3, above, this is largely attributable to the fact that p eople with disabilities are older and have lower incomes on average than do people without disabilities, rather than to any specific im pediment to travel posed by their disabilities. 74 Airports Council International (ACI) Airline Business and SITA, “Airline IT Trends Survey : 2010 .” It is im portant to note that this estimated percentage is much lower than the corresponding estimate from the com panion survey of airport operators. This is because the latter includes only check
- ins at airport locations, while the estimate used in this analysis takes into account the rapid growth of online and mobile check
- in options. Use of these offsite check
- in options was projected to overtake all type s of airport
-based check
- ins com bined in 2013.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 39**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Table 13** **– Number of Passengers Benefitting**  **F rom Accessible Kiosks**  **Calculation Component 2017**  **2017 −**  **2026** Total passenger flight segments 917,284,061 10,136,333,962 Average segments per one -way trip 1.37 1.37 One - way trips taken 669,550,409 7,398,783,914 Average travel party size 1.4 1.4 **Total check** **- ins by air travelers**  **478,250,292 5,284,845,653**  Percent of population benefitting from accessible kiosks* 4.8% 4.8% Air travel rate adjustment (see text) 0.7853 0.7853 **Total check -**  **ins by travelers with disabilities 18,027,358**  **199,209,086** Share of check
- ins at airport kiosks 20% 19% Percent of locations with accessible kiosks 20% 80% **Total check -**  **ins enabled by**  **accessible kiosks 721,094**  **29,274,241** * Percent of adult population who use wheelchairs or have vision problems. Under the baseline proposal in the accompanying Rule, an average of 2 0 million travelers with disabilities will be able to use accessible kiosks in each of the 10 ye ars of the analys is period
. However, there will be a phase
- in period during the first 5 years as the current generation of kiosks is partly replaced with accessible units
. Air travelers who could use accessible kiosks will benefit from reduced check
- in transaction times. Quantitative estimates of these benefits were developed for this evaluation. In addition, the availability

o f accessible kiosks will also remove the potential embarrassment some passengers with disabilities may f eel when needing the assistance of an attendant at the kiosk. There also may

b e complementary

b enefits in the form of reduced waiting times for passengers without disabilities who are required or who choose to use the airline service counters for ticket purchase or check
- in. Monetized estimates of these benefits were not developed for this evaluation. For the final regulatory evaluation , we used data from carrier and kiosk manufacturer case studies indicating that it takes an average of 4 minutes for a passenger to check in at the counter, but only 2minutes to check in using an automated airport kiosk. 75 The value of time saved per traveler from using an accessible kiosk is calculated by multiplying the average amount of time saved by the value of time ($ 23
. 9 0) for reductions in airport waiting time recommended in the most recent Department guidance
. 76 **Benefits to Carriers**  While carriers will incur costs to purchase, install, and maintain accessible kiosks, they can also be expected to experience a reduction in per-person check
- in time , as more people with

75 A 2007 case study , “ SITA Airport Services Custom Self Check
- in Kiosk,” estimated a transaction time savings of 2 minutes per passenger from using a kiosk. Clearly, most travelers with mobility
-related disabilities (who represent the majority of

those benefitting from the kiosk accessibility requirements) will be able to realize similar time savings, in addition to s ome reduction in waiting time prior to using the machine. 76 OST, op cit.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 40**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  disabilities use accessible kiosks instead of requiring the assistance of gate agents to check in. The se benefits are calculated using the average hourly rate of ticket agent wages and benefits to value the 2
-minute
-per-passenger reduction in time spent checking in each additional traveler who is able to use an accessible kiosk
. Itshould be noted that the estimate d reduction in carrier costs of $0.88 per passenger obtained from this calculation is well below the cost savings estimates reported in manufacturer case studies and trade press articles. 77 Based on these estimates and assumptions, the combined benefits to air travelers with disabilities and to carriers from adoption of the kiosk accessibility requirements are expected to be $ 1.2 million in 201 7 and $ 49.0 million for the entire 10
- ye ar analys is period (Table 14 )
. The present value of these benefits in 2015 is estimated at $ 34
. 8 million using a discount rate of 7 percent.

77 SITA provides an estimate of $2.50 in per-passenger cost savings in its summary of passenger processing solutions on http://www.sita.aero/products
- solutions/solutions/passenger
-processing
. The $3.70 per-transaction cost savings estimate used in the PRA was based on Airport Business, “Analysis: Kiosk Uptime, Revenue ,” July 8, 2008.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 41**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Table 14** **– Val** **ue of Reduced Transaction Time F**  **rom Accessible Kiosks Calculation Component**  **2017 2017**  **− 2026**  **Monetary value of passenger time savings** Traveler check
- ins using accessible kiosks 721,094 29,274,241 Average time saved by using kiosk (minutes) 2.0 2.0 Total time saved by accessible kiosks (hours) 24,036 975,808 Hourly monetary value of reduced travel waiting time* $23.90 $23.90 Monetary value of time savings per check
- in $0.80 $0.80 **Monetized value of reduced transaction time to passengers using**  **accessible kiosks $574,472**  **$23,321,812 Value of reduced counter check** **- i**  **n time to carriers** Additional passengers using accessible kiosks 721,094 29,274,241 Average hourly wage rate** $18.17 $18.17 Average fully loaded labor hourly rate*** $26.29 $26.29 Per- passenger reduction in carrier costs $0.88 $0.88 **Estimated reduction in labor costs $631,802**  **$25,649,254 Total monetized benefits**  **$1,206,274 $48,971,066**  Discounted benefits of accessible kiosks (millions)**** $34.77 *Per updated DOT guidance issued September 28, 2011. **BLS mean wage rate for computer occupations, NAICS 481000, May 2012. ***Includes benefits and other direct labor costs equal to 44.7 percent of mean wage rate, per BLS May 2013.  Present value of benefits calcul ated using a discount rate of 7 percent. ** Unquantifiable Benefits** Finally, it should be recognized that there are potentially important categories of benefits for which monetary

v alues cannot be estimated from the available data, as well as those that are intrinsically

qualitative
. Among these are the following:
 **Increased access**  **to self**  **- service**  **functions that**  **are expected**  **to become**  **more widely**  **available on**  **automated airport**  **kiosks in**  **the future**  **.** While online and mobile check
- in options are expected to erode the share of passengers who check in at the airport in the future, larger percentages of automated airport kiosks are expected to be deplo yed to handle transactions , such as baggage tagging and boarding , that require the traveler to be present at the airp ort. Travelers with disabilities will have equal access to these capabilities as they

are deployed more widely . However, it is not possible to quantify these potential benefits , because we do not have adequate data on the expected rate at which kiosks with these additional capabilities are expected to be deplo ye d.
 **Increased independence and**  **s elf**  **- s** **ufficiency**

**.** Accessible self

- service kiosks will provide travelers with a greater range of check
- in options. Travelers with disabilities could choose to use either the self
- service option or the check
- in counter, depending on the anticipated transaction time or individual’s personal preference. Having this choice available clearly has value to the traveler, but the monetary value of this choice cannot be quantified.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 42**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**   **Increased sense**  **of inclusion.**  The availability o f accessible kiosks will also remove the potential embarrassment some passengers with disabilities may f eel when needing the assistance of an attendant at the kiosk
.  **Less congestion**  **at ticket**  **counters** . Access ible kiosks will lessen the demands on customer service agents at the check
- in counter. Customer service agents will be freed from the routine tasks of check
- in and seat assignments and will have more time available to address individual ticketing and bagg age issues. The net effect will be an increased level of customer service to the passengers who need special attention.
 **Benefits to**  **travelers with**  **neither severe**  **vision impairment**  **nor disabilities**  **requiring wheelchair**  **use.** Other travelers

— both with and without disabilities

— may benefit from the ergonomic design of accessible kiosks. For example, travelers who have difficulty reading English may

benefit from having the ability to hear the kiosk instructions. **5 .**  **6 . Estimated Costs of**  **Rule Requirements** Carriers and airports incur costs to purchase, install, and maintain automated airport kiosks and can be expected to continue to do so , even in the absence of the Rule. Therefore, the total costs specifically attributable to complying with the Rule requirements are equal to the incremental life
- cycle cost per current model kiosk to add the required accessibility f eatures, multiplied by the number of kiosks required to be compliant. A recent proprietary

m arket research report estimated that the top 10 U.S. carriers had approximately

9 ,000 kiosks deployed in U.S. airports in 2011. 78 Based on this estimate, we have assumed that there are currently about 1 0 ,000 automated airport kiosks in operation. While both NCR and IBM have recently announced contracts for new installations, it seems clear that the continuing growth in online and mobile check
- in will ultimately s erve to limit future growth in the size of the airport kiosk market. There are varying estimates of the growth rate in recent ye ars, but it appears that no more than 500 new kiosks are being added to the installed base annually
. The cost estimates in this analys is assume that the stock of automated kiosks will continue to increase at the rate of 500 per year until the total installed base reaches 1 5 ,000 machines in 2021
. Based on these assumptions and a 5
- ye ar average machine service life , the numbers of accessible kiosks installed in each year is computed as presented in Table 15
.

78 Lee Holman and Greg Buzek, Market Study: North American Self
-Service Kiosks , IHL Group, August 21, 2012. A preview of the report is available at no charge, and the full report is availabl e for purchase.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 43**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Table 15** **– Projected**  **Number of Accessible Kiosks Insta lled**  **Calculation Component 2017**  **2022 2017**  **− 2026**  **Automated airport kiosks** Kiosks i n use at start of year 13,000 15,000 15,000 Kiosks a dded 500 0 2,500 Kiosks r eplaced 2,500 3,000 27,500 Kiosks i n use at end of year 13,500 15,000 15,000 **Installations of accessible kiosks** New installations 200 0 1,000 Replacements of inaccessible kiosks 1,000 0 5,000 Replacements of accessible kiosks 0 1,200 6,000 **Total accessible kiosk**  **installations 1,200**  **1,200 12,000**  Total installed base of accessible kiosks 1,200 6,000 6,000 **Percent of**  **accessible kiosks**  **9% 40%**  **40%** Carriers and airports will incur incremental compliance costs for installing each accessible kiosk, which are properly

measured as the difference in cost between an inaccessible kiosk and an accessible kiosk. Incremental hardware and software costs will be incurred to develop and produce accessible kiosks. The Department does not have any information to determine whether these costs will differ between proprietary s ystems owned or leased and operated by individual airlines and shared
-use kiosk installations, which are shared by multiple airlines at an individual airport and are typically owned or leased b y local airport authorities. Based on conversations with kiosk vendors, the bulk of the incremental costs associated with making kiosk hardware, middleware, and software applications accessible are fixed

—in other words, they

do not vary

a ppreciably

with the number of units sold. For the preliminary analys is, we estimated that these fixed costs will add $750 to the cost of each new or replacement kiosk installed. The variable costs for kiosk hardware modifications (e.g., key pads, audio output jacks) were expected to account for no more than 10

–20 percent of this amount. S everal stakeholders provided comments indicating that per-kiosk acquisition costs for accessible machines were overstated or underestimated in the preliminary analys is. The Trace Center indicated that the hardware cost of $750 per kiosk “ seems very high especially

f or orders in bulk,” but the Trace Center did not provide an alternative estimate of these costs. 79 On the other hand, the joint carrier association comments report on the results of a member survey that provided median estimates of $7,000 per kiosk to retrofit accessibility and $9,250 to incorporate accessibility

into a new kiosk. There are two obvious concerns with these estimates:

79 It should be noted that the $750 estimate is the midpoint of the range of c osts ($303 −$1,193) in a Trace Center analysis of

the mo difications that will be required to produce an accessible kiosk. However, the mo difications assumed in the Trace Center analysis do not exactly match those that will be required to comply with the standards in the Rule.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 44**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**   No documentation was provided for the survey, so it is possible that some respondents were provided total cost figure s for new kiosks, rather than estimating the incremental difference in costs between accessible and inaccessible units. This would account for the survey results indicating that incorporating accessibility in a new kiosk would be more costly than retrofitting an existing unit, which contradicts the statements about the relative cost of the two approaches provided elsewhere in the joint carrier comments.
 It is not clear how fixed hardware design and software costs were taken into account in these estimates. Attached to the joint carrier comments were estimates of incremental kiosk accessibility c osts provided by

the IATA Working Group

—$2,000 per kiosk for new units and $3,000 for retrofitting
. These estimates include kiosk design and software development costs, although not the hardware costs for input devices and other operable parts. These estimates are somewhat higher than , but broadly consistent with, the estimate provided in the preliminary evaluation, which separate ly estimated costs for software development. Table 16 compares all of the unit cost estimates. **Table 16** **– Estimates of Incremental Cost per Accessible Kiosk**  **Estimate Source**  **Estimate** Trace Center <$750 P reliminary regulatory analysis (with software development costs included) $1,171 IATA Working Group (new)* $2,000 IATA Working Group (retrofit)* $3,000 ATA/IATA Survey (retrofit)* * $7,000 ATA/IATA Survey (new)* * $9,250 *Includes hardware, software, and design costs; does not include input devices or operable parts . **Median estimate . Another consideration is that the proposed rule called for only accessible kiosks to be ordered beginning 2 ye ars after the effective date. The Final Rule ultimately requires at least 25 percent of kiosks installed in each airport location to be accessible, so the volume of accessible kiosks ordered will be substantially l ower than projected in the preliminary evaluation. Consequently, the number of units over which fixed kiosk design and software development costs can be spread will be smaller, and the per
-unit incremental costs of accessible kiosks will be higher. For this analysis , we developed a revised approach that separately estimates the costs of hardware design, parts, and software development costs for four categories of carriers:
 The largest four U.S. carriers (American/US Airways, Delta, Southwest, and United) are assumed to have the most extensive portfolio of software applications and thus higher software development costs. However, these carriers are expected to order and install the**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 45**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  largest numbers of accessible kiosks, which can be expected to lower the per-unit cost associated with hardware components required to provide accessibility
. 80
 The remaining 11 large U.S. carriers are also assumed to support both proprietary and share d
-use applications, but these applications may b e less extensive or less customized than those deployed by

the four largest U.S. carriers.
 The largest foreign carriers are defined as those with more than 1.5 million U.S. enplanements annually

—the approximate number of passengers enplaned annually b y all but the single smallest U.S. carrier covered by the Rule. Foreign carriers are assumed to develop and support only share d
-use applications.
 Large foreign carriers with between 0.5 and 1.5 million U.S. passenger enplanements annually are assumed to develop and support less extensive shared
-use applications. 81 The projections shown in Table 14 indicate that approximately 12,000 accessible kiosks will be ordered and installed over the 10
- ye ar analys is period. We assumed that one -half of these units would host proprietary applications for a single large U.S. carrier, and the other half would be shared
-use kiosks hosting applications for multiple U.S. and foreign carriers. The total numbers of proprietary

and shared
-use kiosks were allocated among the four groups of carriers included in this analysis. The four largest U.S. carriers were assumed to install 75 percent of the acc essible kiosks hosting proprietary applications, with the other 11 large U.S. carriers accounting for the remaining 25 percent of proprietary kiosks. Iti s our understanding that airport authorities ty pically purchase and deploy shared
-use kiosks, which are leased to carriers who develop customized applications. Consequently, the allocation of hardware design and parts costs for shared
-use kiosks is somewhat arbitrary . F or this analys is , we have assumed that equal shares of these costs are ultimately b orne by

e ach of the four groups of large U.S. and foreign carriers described above. H ardware design, parts, and software applications costs were estimated separately f or each of these four carrier groups based on cost information provided in comments and industry research:
 The IATA Working Group indicated that new software applications cost between $1 million and $4 million to develop, test, and deploy
. Incorporating accessibility into these applications was assumed to increase costs by 20 percent per applicati on.  The four largest U.S. carriers were assumed to have the most extensive applications, with an estimated average incremental cost of $800,000 (20 percent of $4 million) per application to incorporate the required accessibility f eatures. The other large U .S. carriers and the largest foreign carriers were assumed to incur an average of $400,000 per application in additional software development costs. The remaining foreign carriers included in this assessment were assumed to incur an average of $200,000 per application in additional software development costs.

80 Shortly before this evaluation wa s finalized, DOJ f ile d an antitrust lawsuit challenging the proposed merger b etween U
. S
. Airways and American Airlines . This analysis assumed that the merger would be completed. 81 Foreign carriers with fewer than 0.5 million passenger enplanements annually that develop and support shared
-use applications were assumed to rely on alliance partners for any applications hosted on kiosks in U.S. airports.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 46**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**   U.S. carriers were assumed to incur separate applications development costs for the software hosted on proprietary and shared
-use kiosks, while foreign carriers were assumed to incur these costs only f or software on shared
-use kiosks.
 The IATA Working Group indicated that kiosk redesign costs could be expected to average between $500 and $1,000 per kiosk. This analys is uses the midpoint of this range ($750) for the per
-unit kiosk redesign cost.
 The IATA Working Group estimated that the overall cost of making kio sks accessible would be $2,000, which is about $200 larger than the sum of the per-kiosk software development and kiosk redesign costs estimated for the largest four U.S. carriers. We assumed that this residual amount would be sufficient to cover the variable costs of hardware modifications, such as the E
- Z access key pad and the headset jack. It is likely that kiosks manufacturers would offer better pricing on the (larger) orders from these four carriers, we have estimated variable hardware costs at $200 per kiosk for units ordered by the four largest U.S. carriers and $300 per kiosk for other large U.S. and foreign carriers. Using this approach, the incremental costs per kiosk to incorporate access ibility are estimated in Table 17 for each of the four carrier groups
. **Table 17**  **– Acquisition and Applications Development Costs for Accessible Kiosks by Carrier**  **Group**
**Calculation Component Largest**  **Four U**  **. S**  **. Carriers**  **Other**

**Large U**  **. S**  **. Carriers**  **Largest**

**Foreign Carriers** * **Other**

**Large Foreign**  **Carriers  ** All** **Carriers** Number of c arriers in group 4 11 12 27 54 Number of p roprietary kiosks 4,500 1,500 0 0 6,000 Number of s hared
- use kiosks *** 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 6,000 **Total number of accessible kiosks**  **6,000 3,000**  **1,500 1,500**  **12,000** Per- application development cost $800,000 $400,000 $400,000 $200,000 $329,630 Number of applications per carrier 2 2 1 1 1.3 Total applications development cost $6,400,000 $8,800,000 $4,800,000 $5,400,000 $25,400,000 Average applications cost per kiosk $1,067 $2,933 $3,200 $3,600 $2,117 Average kiosk redesign cost $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 Average kiosk hardware cost $200 $300 $300 $300 $250 **Total cost per kiosk $2,017**  **$3,983 $4,250**  **$4,650 $3,117**  *More than 1.5 million passenger enplanements at U.S . airports in 2011. **Between 0.5 and 1.5 million passenger enplanements at U.S . airports in 2011. * * * Number s and c osts were assumed to be equally divided among four carrier groups . These costs are assumed to be incurred on the following timetable:**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 47**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**   Kiosk design and software development costs will be incurred equally in the 2 years preceding installation of the first accessible kiosks. 82
 Hardware costs will be incurred as the kiosks are installed.
 A se cond generation of accessible kiosks begins to be installed in the 6th ye ar of the 10
- ye ar analys is period. Costs associated with kiosk design and applications development will be incurred in the 2 years preceding the first installation of these kiosks. Based on these component estimates and assumptions, Table 18 presents the estimated total compliance costs for the Rule requirements for accessible kiosks
. **Table 18**  **– Estimated**  **Compliance Costs for Accessible Kiosks Calculation**  **Component 2017** * **2017 −**  **2026** Proprietary accessible kiosks acquired 600 6,000 Shared
- use accessible kiosks acquired 600 6,000 **Total accessible kiosks acquired 1,200**  **12,000** Total redesign cost** $4,500,000 $9,000,000 Total hardware cost $300,000 $3,000,000 Total applications cost** $12,700,000 $25,400,000 **Total cost of accessible kiosks $17,500,000**  **$37,400,000** Discounted cost of accessible kiosks (millions)*** $34.88 *Includes pre
- acquisition costs incurred in 2015 and 2016. **Redesign and applications development costs are assumed to be incurred equally in each of the 2 years before the 5
-year acquisition cycle. ***Present value of costs calculated using a discount rate of 7 percent. Based on these estimates and assumptions, the costs incurred by c arriers and airports to comply with the kiosk accessibility requirements are expected to be $ 17.5 million through 2017 and $ 37.4 million for the 10
-ye ar analysis period from 2017 to 2026
. The present value of these costs in 201 7 is estimated at $ 34.9 million using a discount rate of 7 percent, assuming that the first round of kiosk redesign and software applications costs are incurred equally in 201 5 and 201 6 , the 2 years before the beginning of the analys is period. Kiosk acquisition c osts would be higher for the 10
- ye ar analys is period if the Department were to require 100 percent of kiosks installed 3 ye ars after the effective date of the Rule to be accessible
. 83 However, the per-unit cost of purchasing accessible kiosks would be lower under this scenario, because the kiosk redesign and software development costs incurred would be spread over a larger number of units sold.

82 The first year after the Rule becomes effective is assumed to be largely devoted to development of specific ations and standards. It should be noted that the kiosk manufacturers will initially incur the hardware design costs, which will then be recovered from carriers over a 5
-year stream of accessible kiosk orders. 83 Based on an average cost of $250 per kiosk, the variable hardware costs for all 30,000 new and replacement kiosks installed from 2017 through 2026 would be $7.5 million, or $4.5 million more than in the baseline scenario in this evaluation.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 48**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Unquantifiable Compliance Costs** As with the benefits analysis, there are potentially important categories of costs for which monetary values cannot be estimated from the available data, as well as those that are intrinsically

qualitative, including:
 **A dditional**  **costs associated**  **with peripherals**  **and software**  **for new**  **self -** **service functions** **.** As noted above in the discussion of benefits, larger percentages of automated airport kiosks are expected to be deplo yed to handle transactions , such as baggage tagging and boarding , that require the traveler to be present at the airport. Kiosk manufacturers, carriers, and airports may incur additional hardware and software costs to support these capabilities. However, we do not have adequate data on the expected rate at which kiosks with these additional capabilities are expected to be deplo ye d.
 **Sunk costs**  **of inaccessible**  **kiosk development**  **programs in**  **progress .**  Carriers that have new hardware acquisition or software development programs in progress may determine that these programs no longer provide a positive return on investment before compliance with the accessibility

standards is required
.  **Occasional increases**  **in kio** **sk waiting**  **times for**  **other travelers** **.** Travelers who are familiar with kiosks may occasionally experience longer waiting times initially as new users become familiar with kiosk features and applications
. **5 .**  **7 . Estimated Net Benefits and Discussion of Result** **s** Taking into account the benefits both to air travelers with disabilities and to carriers from adoption of the kiosk accessibility requirements, as well as the incremental costs to carriers and airports to purchase and install the required number of acce ssible kiosks, the present value of net benefits in 201 7 from the Rule requirements is expected to be

–$ 0
. 1 million for the 10
- year analys is period using a discount rate of 7 percent and $ 5 .9 million for the same time period using a discount rate of 3 perc ent (Table 19 )
. **Table 19** **– Present Value**  **in 201 7**  **of Accessible Kiosk Benefits and Costs , 20** **15 –**  **2026 Estimated Present Value**  **7 Percent Discount Rate**  **3 Percent**

**Discount Rate** Total monetized benefits (millions) $34.77 $42.02 Total monetized costs (millions) $34.88 $36.13 **M onetized net benefits (millions)**  **($0.12) $5.89**  The benefit and cost estimates developed for the kiosk accessibility requirements indicate that the present value of monetized benefits to travelers with disabilities and cost savings to carriers is approximately

e qual to the present value of the costs that will be incurred by c arriers and airports to develop, program, install, and maintain accessible airport kiosks. The benefit and cost estimates for these requirements are sensitive to the values selected for a large number of component assumptions and estimates. Using certain reasonable alternative values for some of these component assumptions and estimates, the net benefits calculated may be positive even if a 7 percent discount rate is used, and may b e negative even if a 3 percent discount rate is used. In any event, the monetized net benefits of the kiosk accessibility requirements are very

small in**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 49**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  magnitude, indicating that the Department must weigh the unquantifiable benefits and costs to determine if the Rule would be in the public interest. 

### 6. **Evaluation of Rule Requirements for A ccessible Web Sites**  **6.1. Current Industry**

**Practices and the Need for Regulatory Requirements**  Air travelers increasingly rely on carrier Web sites to research flight schedules and airfares, book and change reservations, and, in many c ases, check in for flights before arriving at the airport. The share of passengers conducting these transactions online is increasing rapidly. F or example, a 2010 Airline Business/S ITA airline survey indicated that the share of passengers checking in online was expected to increase from 21.6 percent in 2010 to 35.5 percent in 2013. 84 Carrier sites also ty

pically o ffer Web
- only fare specials for flights and complete tour packages. Those with online booking engines (including all large carriers and an increasing share of smaller carriers) provide prospective purchasers with the ability to search for the most attractive combinations of flight dates and times, connections, and fares. Many passengers with disabilities, including those with mobility impairments or hearing loss, are able to take full advantage of the information and services offered. However, travelers with vision
-related disabilitie s, as well as some with motor- skill disabilities that require the use of pointing devices other than a mouse, currently have much more limited ability to obtain information or services on most carrier Web sites. At present, there are no statutory or regulatory

requirements to ensure that carrier Web sites are accessible to consumers with these types of disabilities. We conducted an extensive review of the characteristics and accessibility o f U.S. and foreign carrier Web sites in May

2 011 to support the PRA that accompanied the SNPRM. A summary of the result from this review was provided in the PRA. An updated version of this summary i s included in this evaluation for reference in Appendix B. The appendix also provides some background on the technical aspects of Web sites that are relevant for assessing the impact of the Rule requirements in this area. Among the carrier Web sites included in our review, only D elta Airlines appeared to have a specific option that converts its default home page into a version adapted for screen readers and other technologies that make it more accessible for users with severe vision impairments. Other carrier Web sites afforded different degrees of accessibility f or air travelers with disabilities. Most of the home pages of the carrier Web sites we reviewed had violations of 8 or more WCAG 2.0 accessibility

guidelines and more than 50 separate issues that will need to be addressed to meet the Level A and Level AA compliance standards. 85

84 Airline Business/SITA, op. cit., 2010. 85 Similar results have been reported in other research. See , for example, Jonathan Lazar et. al., “Up in the Air: Are Airlines Following the New DOT Rules on Equal Pricing for People with Disab ilities When Websites are Inaccessible ?” Government Information Quarterly , 27(4), 329 −336, 2010, and Léonie Watson and Emily C oward, “Is yo ur Holiday All
- Inclusive? Investigation into the accessibility of travel com

pany websites ,” Bristol, England: Nomensa, June 2011, for recent studies of U.S. and United Kingdom carrier Web sites, respectively.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 50**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  Current Department regulations require car riers to offer Web
- only fares and other promotions to callers with disabilities who indicate that they are not able to use an inaccessible Web site. However, carriers sometimes fail to do so, even when this regulatory requirement is specifically cited during the course of the reservation request. 86 **6.2. Rule**  **Requirements and**  **Al ternatives**  **Considered to**  **Ad dress**  **Identified Needs**  The Rule require s all large U.S. and foreign carriers that market air travel to the general public in the United States to ensure that the content on their primary Web sites is completely c ompliant with the WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA performance criteria within 3 ye ars of the effective date of the Rule
. Web pages, forms, and applications relating to core functions, such as booking a flight, checking in online, getting flight status information, and accessing frequent flyer accounts, will need to be compliant with these standards within 2 ye ars of the effective date of the Rule
. Carriers will also be required to ensure that their authorized ticket agents make available all Web
-based special fares or services upon request to customers who indicate that they c annot use a ticket agent’s Web site due to their disability
. 87 These requirements are different in some important respects from thos e proposed in the SNPRM:
 The first of the three “tiers” of requirements proposed in the SNPRM was that new or substantially

overhauled Web sites would have been required to be accessible 6 months after the effective date. This requirement has been dropped in the Rule.
 Pages, forms, and applications supporting core functions would have had to be available in an accessible form on either the carrier’s primary W eb site or the carrier’s mobile version of its Web site within 1 ye ar after the effective date under the proposed rule. The Rule requires that these functions be accessible on the primary Web site within 2 years of the effective date.
 All content, forms, and applications were to be accessible on the primary W eb site 2 ye ars after the effective date of the proposed rule. The Rule extends the compliance deadline to 3 years after the effective date.
 Carriers will be required to include (accessible) disability accommodation request forms on their Web sites.
 Small carriers that do not operate any aircraft originally

designed with more than 60 seats and carriers that do not market air transportation to the general public in the United States will not be required to ensure that their Web sites are accessible. Small carriers would

86 Lazar et al., op. cit., 2010. 87 This regulatory evaluation does not include any costs incurred by ticket agents in providing Web
-based amenities to passengers who cannot access their Web sites due to a disability.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 51**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  have been required to have access ible Web sites under the requirements in the proposed rule.
 The Final Rule does not require ticket agent Web sites to be accessible. The proposed requirements for Web site accessibility in the SNPRM would have applied to all ticket agents with annual receipts in ex cess of the 2011 SBA size
- class thresholds for small business ($3.5 million annually for travel agents and $7.0 million for tour operators). In addition to the proposed requirements in the SNPRM and the requirements adopted in the Final Rule, the Department requested an evaluation of the impact of some alternative accessibility

compliance timetables. Specifically, we were asked to evaluate the feasibility, benefits, and costs of the following options:
 Requiring all carrier Web sites to comply with the WCAG 2.0 Level A and Lev el AA guidelines and success criteria 1 year after the effective date.
 Requiring all carrier Web sites to be compliant with the WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA standards 2 ye ars after the effective date. **6. 3**  **. Discussion of Comments Received**  The Department received a substantial number o f comments about various aspects of the PRA evaluation of the proposed requirements for Web site accessibility
. Major issues addressed included the timetable for compliance , the nature and extent of the benefits and costs , and the data and procedures used to quantify these benefits and costs. Ing eneral, carriers and ticket agents indicated that the tiered compliance requirements would be difficult to meet and would increase compliance costs , that the estimation of time savings for people with disabilities from accessible Web sites was overstated, and that compliance costs were understated. Disability advocates supported the shortest possible time frame for compliance and stressed the unquantifiable benefits of equal access to online air travel
-related infor mation and services. This section summarizes relevant comments and outline s the changes made to the PRA to take into account these comments. Further discussion of specific issues relating to benefits and costs is provided in the following sections, which detail the estimation of monetized benefits and costs associated with the Web site accessibility requirements in the Final Rule. **6.3.1. Comments**  **A bout**  **Compliance Timetable** Several comments indicated that the proposed compliance timetable in the SNPRM was not feasible for carriers with large, complex Web sites: C onverting airline websites to meet any accessibility

standard is a major undertaking. Carriers need additional time to plan, design, incorporate, and test websites after the final rule. We therefore recommend the Department provide a 2
- ye ar compliance period for all of the four options suggested above. 88

88 A4 A et al. comments , p. 15
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 52**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  With at least a two ye ar period before the first effective date, airlines can build a common WCAG 2.0 Level AA standard into core website functions and avoid costly retrofit of existing pages. 89 More time is needed after adoption of a final rule to ensure the Department can provide this necessary

guidance before airlines are required to be fully compliant with whatever standard is adopted. A longer imp lementation will result in better accessibility

b ecause airlines will have a longer time to work out issues, lower costs, and not create any significant disadvantage for passengers with disabilities. 90 El Al is particularly

c oncerned about the timeframe for implementation of the Web site accessibility

requirements, particularly the changes that the Department has proposed to be implemented one year after the effective date of the final rule. As the Department has learned over the ye ars, the ability o f a c arrier to comply with the Department’s Web site regulations is dependent, particularly for smaller carriers, upon the ability

and willingness of outside vendors to make changes in a Web site to meet a regulatory deadline. Carriers are similarly dependent u

pon software companies and their rollout schedules to meet regulatory deadlines, thus forcing carriers to purchase an old version of a particular platform to meet a compliance date even if a new version of the platform would improve compliance with the new regulation. Lastly, it is axiomatic that, the tighter the regulatory deadlines within which to comply with a regulation involving significant amounts of reprogramming, the greater will be the cost of compliance and more technical obstacles will stand in the carriers' way
. 91 The longest time frames suggested in the SNPRM comments and those submitted in response to the DOJ ANPRM comments were 18 months for new pages and 36 months for existing pages . Others indicated that these targets could be accomplished in 12 and 24 months, respectively. Requiring compliance of all pages , forms, and applications relating to core functions within 24 months

—the timetable required in the Final Rule for large U.S. and foreign carriers

—is generally recognized as feasible in the carrier comments. In contrast, disability

advocates believe that the compliance time frame should be much shorter: The proposed rule gives carriers one year to make pages providing core air travel services accessible, but we believe this is unnecessarily l ong. Newegg.com, an e commerce business, made its entire retail/transactional path fully accessible in less than six months, illustrating that the technology already exists to accomplish

89 AAI comments , p. 1
. 90 Spirit comments , pp . 9 −10
. 91 El Al Israel Airlines (here inafter, El Al), “Comments in the Matter of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports,” January 9, 2012, p. 3
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 53**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  the task in a rather short period of time. We suggest shortening the timeline for existing pages that offer core services from one year to 180 days. 92 The Newegg.com site is not necess arily a valid benchmark, because it is substantially l ess complicated than existing airline Web sites
. 93 Inaddition, Web developers will have to be able to work with a variety

of airline
- specific database and transaction functions
. Carrier associations, individual carriers, and ticket agent representatives all indicated that a single deadline to meet all of the Web site accessibility requirements was much more feasible than having to develop multiple interim solutions : AAPA submits that the 2
- ye ar implementation deadline be applied to all enhancements rather than breaking the implementation deadline to different phases. This would allow carriers the flexibility to conduct their respective project plan and management based on their resources and objectives. 94 ANA envisions that it could complete all of the necessary measures within 2 ye ars, the proposed accelerated 1
- ye ar timeframe for implementing changes to “core” web pages (i.e., associated with changing or booking a reservation) is not feasible; these are in fact the most complicated of the tasks to be performed, and deferring work on other pages would not enable their enhancement to occur any faster. Preferably, the 2
- ye ar deadline should apply to all enhancements, and not just to non
- core pages. 95 The tiered implementation timelines for new sites, booking pages, and older sites is not feasible. Hence, ITSA would urge the Department to impose one single implementation date, as opposed to a phased
- in requirement. 96 Based on this input, the Department has modified the staged compliance deadlines in the Rule. Web content, forms, and applications relating to core functions would have to be compliant within 2 years of the effective date. The Department expects that most primary Web sites of covered carriers wil l be completely c ompliant within 2 ye ars. However, an additional ye ar was added for non- core functions to accommodate carriers with atypically large or complex Web sites.

92 NFB comments , p. 3. 93 A recent review by Web site acces sibility experts found that accessibility problems remain, even on online retail sites, including those that were the subject of previous accessibility settlements or negotiations. See Donald Evans, Preety Kumar, and Jim Thatcher, “The Current State of Accessibility among the Top On
- line Retail Sites ,” last updated November 30, 2011. 94 Association of Asia Pacific Airlines (here inafter, AAPA), “Comments in the Matter of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of D isability in Air Travel: Accessibility of W eb Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports ( Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) , ” January 9 , 2012, p. 5. 95 All Nippon Airways (here inafter, ANA), “Comments in the Matter of Nondiscrimination on the Bas is of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports,” January 9, 2012, p. 5. 96 Interactive Travel Services Association (here inafter, ITSA), Letter providing comments on the Department’s September 26, 2011 , Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, January 9, 2012, p. 4.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 54**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **6.3.2. Comments**  **A bout Benefit Estimates**  The joint carrier association comments indicated that the PRA overstated the search time savings : This time savings assumption is incorrect and the Department provides only anecdotal evidence to support this faulty assumption. The PRA states that this time savings is based on Econometrica, Inc staff reviewing carrier websites with a screen reader such as JAWS or Window
- Eyes. This is hardly a structured or objective study, which is reflected in the conflicting results...
. Table 21 inexplicitly

adds the tier two and tier three time savings before multiplying by

the other factors. This is an invalid estimate because the PRA overstates the time savings by failing to net out time already saved under the tier 2 requirements. It does not make sense to add the tier two and tier three values in Table 21, when the Lazar study f ocused on general website screen reader problems; the Lazar study did not factor in the benefit or time savings already claimed for meeting the tier two requirements. 97 We believe that the PRA time savings for both primary and mobile Web site homepages were developed using reasonable sources and tools. The joint carrier association comments do not provide an alternative estimate or evidence that the PRA estimate was incorrect. Also, the time savings from Tier 2 accessibility were in fact netted out of the Tier 3 benefits, as was explained in the PRA. However, we have developed a single set of benefit estimates to analyz e the impact of the Rule. Another comment argued that the PRA overestimates the number of passengers with low vision who would benefit from accessible Web sites: This estimate assumes that all visually impaired passengers benefit from accessible websites, even if they never visit airline sites and book via telephone, ticket counter, or travel agency . Econometrica assumed that all blind/severe visual impaired passengers (2,001,197) who travel by air (31.5%, from Table 4) and who are online (54% in 2012, from Table 3) benefit. This overstates benefits since many Internet- connected passengers will book directly with live agents at call centers or agencies with no discernible difference in benefits. 98 Inaddition to booking flights, Internet
- connected passengers use carrier Web sites to obtain information before booking and conduct other transactions (such as online check
- in). These passengers also benefit from accessible Web sites. Inaddition, the information gained online may significantly

reduce the amount of time required to book with live agents at call centers. It is worth pointing out that recent industry studies indi cate that the proportion of air travelers who book flights and conduct other transactions online is increasing rapidly
. For example, a
97 A4 A et al. comments , pp . 19 −21
. 98 AAI comments , p. 9
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 55**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  recent PhoCusWright study indicated that 84 percent of discretionary travelers (i.e., those who travel more than 3 times per year and who select their own destinations) book flights online. 99 **6.3.3. General Comments A** **bout Cost Estimates** A large number of comments suggested that the PRA underestimate s the overall costs of converting existing Web site s, especially for the “very l arge” and “largest” categories: The PRA costs are significantly underestimated and must be corrected before proceeding with this rulemaking. For tier three compliance costs, the PRA estimates a $225,000 cost per “largest” carrier web site
. ... However, bas ed on a survey o f A4A airlines, the cost to comply with the tier three standards for the “largest” airline web sites ranges from $241,000 to $1.9 million per carrier with a median cost of $1.1 million. 100 DOT’s cost estimates for airline compliance continue to be unreasonably l ow. While DOT cites changes in website technology that may streamline WCAG 2.0 compliance, DOT does not account for new capability in airline websites that have significantly increased the number of pages and back
- end databases that must be altered for compliance. DOT identifies this complexity in the SNPRM, stating “carriers offer an ever- expanding array o f services on their Web sites today .” DOT must incorporate comment from carriers in this rulemaking with current estimates for WCAG 2.0 Level AA compliance. We believe that previous industry e stimates of $300,000 to $1 million per airline continue to be realistic starting points for compliance costs. 101 Bringing Spirit’s Web site into compliance with WCGA 2.0 Lev el AA Criteria Standards will cost $412,800. That is four times the PRA’s cost estimate for a large website. 102 El Al is concerned that the Department has significantly understated the actual costs of compliance that will be incurred by the airlines in meeting the Department’s proposed regulation. El Al’s preliminary analys is of the costs that it may b e required to incur to comply with this proposed Web site accessibility standard could be as high as $2 million, a significant expenditure for a company that operates a total of only 38 aircraft and provides less than 10% of its total worldwide service to the United States. 103 DOT has drastically

underestimated the costs that the proposed regulations would impose on ANA, and presumably on other carriers
. . . . ANA expects that 2500 content pages on its website, and 350 dy namic booking engine pages, would need
99 Carroll Rheem, “Empowering Inspiration: The Future of Travel Search ,” PhoCusWright study for Amadeus, February 2012. 100 A4 A et al. comments , pp . 21 −22. 101 AAI comments , p. 9
. 102 Spirit comments , p. 4
. 103 El Al comments , p. 4
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 56**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  to be updated
. ANA expects that the initial process of reviewing the WCAG requirements and the current features of its website to which they would need to be applied would by

itself re quire at least 6 months and at least $250,000. Further, ANA estimates that actually implementing the changes would require at least an additional 12 months (2 months for coordination, 8 months for production and development, and 2 months for testing) and would cost $6 million (of which $5.5 million would be needed for revisions to the booking engine and $500,000 would be needed for other elements of the website; considerably more time and effort would be required to ensure the compliance of dynamic pages). In support of this project, ANA expects that more than 20 employees would need to be devoted to this project, either full
- or part-time. Additionally, ANA estimates that ensuring ongoing compliance of both the content pages on its website as well as the bo oking engine would cost more than $1.5 million per year. 104 However, it is not clear which of these reported cost estimates, if any, are specified in terms of the incremental costs of building accessibility into new or overhauled primary Web sites, rather than retrofitting existing Web sites. For example, ITexperts estimate that accessibility requirements increase development and programming costs by 5 to 7 percent. If this i s correct, the ANA estimate implies that overhauling a large carrier Web site could cost as much as $100 million, which does not appear to be reasonable. Inaddition, it should be noted that the range of estimated costs provided in various carrier and ass ociation comments is very large. For example, the median cost estimate from the A4A survey is larger than the top end of the range of previous industry e stimates cited in the AAI comments. 105 However, the cost estimates in the final regulatory evaluation have been revised to take into account information provided in these comments. Some comments also specifically indicated that the PRA underestimates the ongoing annual costs of updating and maintaining accessible Web sites: The PRA estimates the ongoing annual web site maintenance costs to be $912,600 for the largest carriers (39 total) as each website was assumed to incur $23,400 in annual maintenance expense. ... Based on a survey o f A4A airlines, the corrected “largest” carrier web site annual maintenance cost would range between $76,000 and $575,000 with a median cost of $326,000 per carrier
. 106 The analys is contained in the Preliminary Regulatory

Analys is (at 54) has understated, in Table 24, the ongoing annual site maintenance costs for large, small, and the smallest carriers. This understatement came about because the calculation of the total hours required for the large, small, and smallest entity

104 ANA comments , pp . 4 −5
. 105 No explanatory detail on the survey methodology or results wa s provided in the A4 A comments , nor wa s a copy of the survey questionnaire and instructions attached. 106 A4 A et al. comments , item 31 on back table.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 57**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  failed to include the 0.2 hours for “each site page” that was properly c alculated for the largest entities. 107 Because no supporting documentation was provided for the A4A survey, it is not possible to determine whether the cost estimates provided include amounts that would have been spent on Web maintenance functions in the absence of accessibility requirements. However, the annual maintenance cost estimates used in the final regulatory evaluation have been revised to respond to this concern. In addition, the revised estimates no longer rely on the calculations that contained the error noted in the Virgin comment
. Finally, the joint carrier association comments argue that the PRA underestimates the number of pages on large carrier Web sites: As discussed further in our cost/benefit comments, the Departments’ estimates grossly underestimate the scope and impact o f the proposal. Given the clarification that the proposal applies, at a minimum to all webpages that contain the carrier’s name in the URL, 900 pages for the largest sites is understated between a factor of 10 and 100. Also, 1,500 hours to modify the large st websites is off by a f actor of 35. Marco Marten is quoted in the SNPRM comment period extension as describing a 50 to 300 webpage project as “small.” 108 It is correct that some of these sites have a very l arge number of pages . However, the sites we reviewed either generate these pages dy namically (e.g. , populating a single page using a serverside database) or use common templates to create a large number of similar pages. The per-page costs of ensuring this content meets the accessibility requirements are much lower than for other ty pes of pages. However, the compliance cost estimates in this regulatory evaluation are developed from overall site revision cost estimates for different categories of carrier Web sites, rather than being calculated on a fixed cost plus per
-page charge basis. **6.3.4. Comments A** **bout Cost Impact on Ticket Agents** Travel agent and tour operator association comments indicated that the PRA underestimates the number of pages and costs of making the booking system accessible on ticket agent Web sites: Of the 328 large agencies estimated by D OT to be impacted by this part of the rule, four (4) companies (Expedia, Orbitz, Priceline and Travelocity) according to PhoCusWright, account for 96 percent of all online leisure sales. The remaining 324 large agencies account for just 4 percent of travel agency online leisure sales. These agents will be required to upgrade their online booking tool and website to meet DOT’s accessibility standards. This group will be significantly impacted by the r ule, as they

will not have the resources of the large Online Travel Agents. They also must compete with four major OTAs that account for 96 percent of all leisure online sales, while at the same time they c ompete with the 1,277 agencies

107 Virgin America Airlines , “ Comments in the Matter of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports ,” January 9 , 2012, p. 2. 108 A4 A et al. comments , p. 22.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 58**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  that have online bo oking engines that are not subject to the economic burden of this rule. 109 M any o f USTOA’s members have more than double the number of impacted pages than assumed under the PRA, in particular members that operate separate brands, each with its own Web site. Inthis regard, USTOA submits that a more realistic estimate is 2,490 impacted pages for the “largest” tour operators, 830 impacted pages for “large” tour operators, 330 impacted pages for “small” tour operators, and 275 covered pages for the “smallest” tour operators . ... The PRA acknowledges that costs for training (other than for conformance evaluation and certification) were not included in the estimate. PRA at 49

− 50. Additionally, the maintenance costs of checking to ensure that a Web site complies with the new standards each time it is updated, which the PRA states may “make updating the Web site more time consuming,” were not included. Similarly, the cost of requiring “[e]xisting and new personnel
... to undergo extra training before starting work on a covered air travel Web site” were excluded. Id
. USTOA estimates all of these excluded costs will likely average $27,000 per tour operator each ye ar, reflecting the co st of equipping internal Web design and maintenance teams with the knowledge and skill sets necessary to maintain accessible pages. As a consequence, the ongoing maintenance costs over a ten ye ar period are further increased by at least $25 million. 110 The Department has decided not to require the travel agent and tour operator Web sites to comply with the accessibility

requirements for reasons set forth in the Rule preamble. However, ticket agents with annual revenues that exceed the limit set forth in the applicable SBA small business size class standards ($19.0 million for both travel agents and tour operators in 2013) will be required to disclose and offer Web
-based discount fares to prospective passengers who contact the agent through other channels (e.g ., by telephone or at the ticket counter) and indicate they are unable to use an agent’s Web site due to a disability
. **6. 4**  **. Compliance Scenarios Evaluated** The benefits and costs associated with Web site accessibility requirements depend on the time frame during which carriers may bereasonably anticipated to achieve compliance and the extent to which compliance can be achieved as part of a Web site overhaul or redesign that would have taken place in the absence of the Rule. Accordingly, we collected data on the frequency with which large and small carrier Web sites have been substantially redesigned or overhauled in

109 American Society of Travel Agents (here inafter, ASTA), “Comments in the Matter of Nondis crimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of W eb Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports, ” January 6 , 2012, pp . 4 −5. 110 United States Tour Operators Association (here inafter, USTOA), “Comments in the Matter of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports, ” January 9 , 2012, pp . 13 −14.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 59**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  recent ye ars. Estimates of the time required for site overhaul were provided in the SNPRM comments, as well as in comments in response to the previous DOJ ANPRM. **Frequency of Site Overhaul** All carriers that market air transportation directly to the general public currently maintain public
facing Web sites. Nearly all reporting carriers appear to have undertaken significant “facelifts” of their sites every

1 to 2 ye ars, based on review of screenshots of selected carrier home pages viewed using the “Way back Machine” at www.archive.org
. 111 Several other large carriers (Allegiant, Spirit, and Sun Country) have made systematic revisions to their Web sites within the past ye ar. Accordingly, it is appropriate to assume that most large carriers will undertake complete overhauls of their Web sites during the 2
- year interval in 2014 and 2015 before the accessibility

standards become effective. Incorporating accessibility into these comprehensive revisions will substantially reduce compliance costs for most large carriers. Smaller U.S. carriers appear to overhaul their Web sites somewhat less frequently than do larger carri ers. Of the 18 sites reviewed on www.archive.org , 4 (22 percent) had not been overhauled during the past 3 years. Inthe PRA, we found that the majority o f these carriers operate relatively simple Web sites that do not offer online booking, check
- in, or flight status updates. However, a recent review indicates that online booking engines have been added to a significant number of these Web sites during the past 15 months. Inf act, all 7 small carriers and half of the 3 0 very small carriers that market scheduled air transportation to the general public offer the capability to book flights online. Given the recent addition of these new capabilities and the relatively small number of passengers on small carriers who market air transportation to the general public in the United States, the Department has decided not to require small carrier Web sites to comply

with the accessibility

requirements in the Rule. **Time Window for Sites That Can B**  **e Made Compliant** Carriers that deve lop and launch new versions of their Web sites before the effective date will incur lower compliance costs than those that will need to retrofit existing Web sites. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the ability to realize these savings may result in delayed launches of some new sites in the first year after the Rule is published. 112 Similarly, some carriers that would have otherwise undertaken full
- scale Web site revisions 2 ye ars after the effective date of the Rule will be likely

to accelerate this timetable to avoid having to retrofit current Web pages.

111 Among reporting carriers, only the AirTran and Southwest Web sites had retained the same home page structure and “look and feel” for more than 2 years at the time this review was conducted. 112 Web site design timelines available on the Internet are often based on start-to - finish im plementation times of between 4 and 6 mo nths. However, given the com plexity of

l arge carrier Web sites, weassumed that sites overhauled within 1 year of the effective date of the Rule will need some supplemental work to achieve full compliance with the standards.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 6**  **0 of**  **7 2**  **Pages Econometrica, Inc.**  **October 23, 2013** Consequently, it would be reasonable to assume that no large carriers will undertake substantial retrofitting of current Web pages. For the remaining sites, compliance with the accessibility requirements would be accomplished as part of the next major site overhaul. 113 **Alternative Compliance Time Frames Considered** The Department explored the feasibility of requiring large
- carrier compliance with the applicable accessibility

standards within 12 months. However, several of the carrier and association comments on the SNPRM indicated they would not be able to develop Web site components (particularly booking engines) that comply with the Level A and Level AA accessibility standards within this compressed time frame. Per
- carrier costs of retrofitting current Web sites on an accelerated time frame would be expected to be two to four times larger than those estimated in this evaluation for integrating accessibility into the next major revision or overhaul. The Department also considered requiring carriers to bring their entire primary Web sites into compliance with the Level A and Level AA standards within 2 years of the effective date of the Rule. Under this alternative, a few large carriers may b e required to undertake retrofitting of portions of their current Web sites. Because the core functions on these Web sites will be accessible within 2 ye ars of the effective date, the bene fits to users of accessible Web sites will not be substantially

diminished by

extending the compliance date for remaining portions of large carriers’ primary

Web sites to 3 years after the effective date. **6. 5**  **. Estimated Benefits of Rule Requirements**  **Benefits to Passengers W** **ith Disabilities** The Rule requirements will permit travelers with disabilities to benefit from increased access to the full range of information and services available to online customers, including:
 More consistent access to the lowest airfares and other Web
- only discounts and promotions, as well as expanded capabilities to search for more convenient flight dates, times, and connections.
 More efficient and sometimes less costly ways to conduct routine transactions, such as purchasing preferred seating, pre
-paying baggage fees, and checking in online.
 Easier access to personal and general air travel information and policies, including trip itineraries and flight status inquiries, frequent flyer accounts, and relevant carrier policies and restrictions. In addition, the Rule would enable travelers with disabilities to request disability accommodations online. Monetizing the value of these benefits directly is difficult, particularly in light of the documented willingness of travelers with vision
-related disabilities to persist in accomplishing tasks online , even when confronted with obstacles posed by inaccessible Web sites and conflicts between

113 This is the approximate percentage of large carrier Web sites that did not appear to have undergone a major overhaul within the past 3 years. Because this percentage was very low, we did not explicitly estimate the additional increment of cost that these limited number of carriers would incur to retrofit certain pages on their Web site s.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 61**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  Web site technologies and screen readers. 114 Removing or reducing these barriers to access will reduce the amount of time it will take for travelers with disabilities to realize the reduced expenditures, more efficient transactions, increased availability o f information, and other benefits associated with access to carrier Web sites. The estimated benefits to travelers with disabilities in the form of time saved from being able to use accessible carrier Web sites depend on several factors, including:
 The number of current and future air travelers who use screen readers, other assistive technologies, and user
- controlled browser settings to access carrier Web sites.
 The extent to which these customers will use accessible carrier Web sites.
 The amount of time that could be saved annually b y the ty

pical traveler who benefits from the availability

of access ible Web sites.
 The monetary

value of each unit of time saved. For this analysis, we assumed that each air traveler with a disability who could use (and therefore benefit from) accessible carrier Web sites would visit an average of six sites per trip: four during the planning and booking phase of the trip, one to obtain flight information and/or check in, and one to check or sign up for flight status updates. 115 Each of these visits was assumed to take an average of nearly 10 minutes, the average time spent by visitors to the top five travel company sites in April 2012. 116 Based on these assumptions and estimates, air travelers with disabilities who would be able to use accessible carrier Web sites would save an average of 17.3 minutes per trip (Table 20 )
.

114 Jonathan Lazar et al., “What Frustrates Screen Reader Users on the Web: A Study of 100 Blind Users ,” International Journal of Human
- Computer Interaction , 22(3), pp. 247 −269, 2007. 115 Of course, some individual travelers may use carrier sites more extensively than others or use different services. 116 Nielsen Top 10 U.S. Online Brands and Travel Websites ,” April 2012. Travel search on such sites as Google and Yahoo! wa s not included because these s ites do not provide services and functionality that are com parable to those of carrier Web sites.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 62**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Tab le**  **20 –**  **Annual Time Savings**  **per Passenger F**  **rom Web Accessibility**  **Requirements Calculation Component**  **Number Number of Web site visits per trip**  Trip planning and booking 4 Flight information or check
- in 1 Flight status information 1 **Total number of site visits per trip 6**  Average minutes spent per site 9.5 **Minutes per trip spent on carrier Web sites 57**  Percent of time saved by accessibility 30.4% Minutes saved by accessibility 17.3 **Time saved per traveler (hours)*** **0.29** *Applies only to travelers using online booking and other core Web site functions. The number of potential beneficiaries who would realize these time savings is calculated using the following assumptions and estimates:
 Potential beneficiaries include people with vision difficulties ( 8.1 million adults in 2010 ), with severe hearing problems (1.1 million adults), and us ing a wheelchair (3.4 million adults). The population of potential beneficiaries increases in each subsequent year by the forecast FAA passenger growth rates for U.S. carriers
. 117
 Some people with these disabilities have limitations that are not completely addressed by the Web site accessibility requirements. Others have disabilities that do not limit the utility o f current inaccessible Web sites. There are also some people with other disabilities (such as fine
-motor- skill limitations or certain cognitive disabilities) who may also benefit from accessible Web sites. For this analysis, we assumed that 50 percent of the people in each of the three disability c ategories listed above will benefit from the availability

of accessible carrier Web sites.
 Not all people with disabilities addressed by the Web site accessibility requirements travel by air in a single ye ar, and not all who do so would use the Web sites of carriers that are covered by

the Rule. The number of people who would actually use accessible carrier Web sites to plan and book air travel within a ye ar was estimated by taking into account: o The BTS estimate of the percentage of people with disabilities who have traveled by air in the past year (31.5 percent) o The proportion of people with disabilities who are online (54 percent in 2010, according to the 2011 Pew Internet and American Li fe study), adjusted by the proportion of people who book travel online (81 percent). The share of travelers with disabilities is assumed to increas e by 2 percent each year, consistent with the observed increase in the online rates of people with disabilities over the past 10 ye ars.
117 These estimates are presented and discussed in Sections 2.1 and 3.1, above.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 63**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  Using these estimates and assumptions, the total number of beneficiaries is calculated as presented in Table 21
. **Table 21**  **– Estimated Number of Travelers Benefitting**  **F rom Web Site Accessibility**  **Calculation Component 2016**  **2016 −**  **2025** People with vision problems* ( age 15 or older ) 9,113,005 101,026,243 People with severe hearing problems ( age 15 or older ) 1,236,579 13,664,664 People using wheelchairs ( age 15 or older ) 3,798,871 41,978,952 Total people with selected disabilities 12,540,000 156,669,859 Assumed share potentially addressed by standards 50% 50% Total people potentially benefitting from accessibility 7,074,228 78,334,930 Percent traveling by air annually 31.5% 31.5% Percent traveling on covered carriers 94.8% 94.8% Percent visiting online travel sites 55% 61% **Total number of passengers**  **who benefit 1,161,736**  **15,057,067** *Vision problems not correctable with glasses or contact lenses. Based on these estimates and assumptions, an estimated 1.2 million passengers with disabilities would benefit in 2016, the first ye ar in the 10
- ye ar analysis period. Approximately 1 5.0 million people with disabilities would benefit from the availability o f accessible carrier Web sites over the entire 10
- ye ar analys is period. The time savings estimated for these passengers is valued at $18.00 per hour, the rate used for valuing nonair intercity travel time improvements in the most recent DOT guidance. 118 **Cost Savings to Carriers** While carriers will incur costs to develop, publish, and maintain accessible Web sites, they can also be expected to experience a reduction in the number of calls to customer service representatives from people with disabilities who are unable to conduct transactions or locate information online. The se benefits are calculated based on an average savings per avoided call of $ 3. 43 , the average of five estimates of direct and supervisory labor costs reported in two analys es of call center costs . 119 For this analysis, we assumed that the number of calls from p assengers with disabilities who are projected to use accessible Web sites would be reduced b y 50 percent.

118 Air travel time savings are valued at a higher rate, reflecting the larger proportion of air travel that is for business purposes. Because travelers with disabilities are more likely to be over 65 or unemployed, the lower hourly rate associated with other forms of intercity travel was used in this analysis. See the discussion in OST , op cit. 119 Average of Barry

and Company low ($1.39) and high ($4.75) and Strategic Contact large ($3.72), medium ($3.33), and small ($4.97) contact center labor costs per call. See Jeffrey Barry, “Managing Your Cost per Call ,” F. Curtis Barry

&C o., 2012; and Lori Bocklund and Brian Hinton, “ Cost Structure and Distribution in Today’ s Contact Centers,” Strategic Contact, March 2008. The PRA estimated cost savings of $5.50 per avoided call wa s cited from a Forrester Research study by M egan Burns with Moira Dorsey and Angela Beckers, “Need T o Cut Costs? Improve The Web Site Experience ,” December 1, 2008
.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 64**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Monetized Benefits of Web Site Accessibility** Based on these component estimates and assumptions, monetized benefits accruing to passengers with disab ilities and carriers from accessible carrier Web sites were calculated as presented in Table 22
. **Table 22** **– Monetized**  **Benefits of Carrier Web Site Accessibility**  **Requirements Calculation Component**  **2016 2016**  **− 2025**  **Total number of site visitors who benefit**  **1,161,736 15,057,067**  Hours saved per person annually 0.3 0.3 Value of time saved per hour $18.00 $18.00 **Total benefits to site visitors $6** **,039,167 $78** **,272,655 Estimated benefits from call center savings**  Percent reduction in calls from accessible site users 50% 50% Total number of avoided calls 580,868 7,528,533 Cost savings per avoided call $3.43 $3.43 **Total cost savings from avoided calls $1**  **,993,539 $25**  **,837,926 Total monetized benefits**  **$8 ,032,706**  **$104 ,110,581**  Present value of benefits in 2016 (millions)* $75.92 *Present value of benefits calculated using a discount rate of 7 percent. Total benefits are estimated at $8.0 million during 2016 and $ 104.1 million for the 10
- year analys is period from 2016 through 2025. The present value in 2016 of benefits realized during this period is estimated at $ 75.9 million using a discount rate of 7 percent. **Additional Benefits F**  **rom Accessible Web Sites** In addition to the monetary v alue of the time saved from Web site accessibility, there is a separate and distinct value associated with the reduced amount of frustration experienced by users during the time that they continue to spend on carrier Web sites. Although we did not do so for this evaluation, the value of this benefit could potentially b e monetized. Travelers with disabilities will also benefit from an increased sense of independence as a result of being able to conduct a standard transaction or obtain travel information without assistance, although it is not possible to estimate a monetary value for this benefit. Carriers may

also benefit from adding travelers with disabilities to their passenger base and reducing direct customer service assistance costs ass ociated with researching and booking flights, conducting post-purchase transactions, and responding to flight and general travel information requests. This analysis estimates the amount of time saved only f or people who are blind or have severe difficulty seeing. Additional benefits may b e realized by people with less severe vision impairments, as well as those who find navigating and finding information on current Web sites difficult for other reasons (such as people who cannot use a mouse). Notwithstanding the conservative nature of these estimates, the monetized benefits of the Rule requirements are substantial

—

beginning at approximately $ 8 million in the first ye ar after most carrier Web sites become fully compliant with the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standards.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 65**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Unquantifiable Benefits** As noted in the discussion above, there are potentially important categories of benefits for which monetary values cannot be estimated from the available data, as well as some that are intrinsically

qualitative, including:
 **Inc reased**  **independence and**  **s elf**  **- s** **ufficiency.** Accessible Web site s will provide travelers with a greater range of trip planning, booking, and information
. Having this expanded set of choice s available clearly has value to travelers with disabilities , but the monetary value of this choice cannot be quantified.
 **Improved accessibility**  **for people**  **with other**  **disabilities**
. Making Web pages meet WCAG 2.0 AA standards will help users with disabilities other than severe vision impairment. A Web site with a cleaner layout and less content per page may b e more readily usable by

travelers with less severe vision disabilities, cognitive disabilities, or epilepsy
.  **Reduced problems**  **with service**  **accommodation requests**  . The Rule requires large carriers to provide an accessible online service accommodation request form. Requests submitted in this fashion will provide both passengers and carriers with a standardized electronic record of the request, which may reduce the number of problems that arise in handling these requests and ensuring that the requested services are provided
.  **Reduced effort**  **and cost**  **for international**  **carrier Web**  **sites to**  **comply with**  **future non**  **** **U.S. accessibility**  **requirements**
. As noted above in Section 1.4, many f oreign governments have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, Web site accessibility requirements based on the WCAG 2.0 standards. Carriers that have Rule
- compliant Web sites will be able to comply with these requirements without having to revise the portions of their Web sites that market transpor tation to the general public in the United States.
 **Easier Web**  **site ma** **intenance, debugging,**  **and documentation** 
. Several of the WCAG 2.0 standards require use of coding procedures that will improve Web developers’ ability to understand and clean up existing errors and performance issues. For example, our review of carrier Web sites turned up many instances of broken links, circular references, and, in one case, hidden links to gray market pharmacy

Web sites. It is worthwhile to reiterate that many foreign government entities have developed or are developing Web site accessibility requirements based on the WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA standards. To the extent that these requirements are adopted or take effect within the time frame permitted under the Rule to bring Web sites into compliance, carriers with multinational operations (i.e., nearly all of those covered by the Rule) will incur reduced costs to meet pending or future Web site accessibility requirements adopted by foreign governments. **6. 6**  **. Estimated Cost s of**  **Rule Requirements** Carriers may

b enefit from adding travelers with disabilities to their passenger base and reducing direct customer service assistance costs associated with researching and booking flights. However, complying with the likely requirements for Web site accessibility will cause carriers to incur costs associated with making it possible for visually impaired users to read Web sites using commercially available software. Carriers and their agents will face direct, indirect, and opportunity

c osts for increasing Web site accessibility
. There are direct costs associated with**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 66**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  programming and site redesign for greater accessibility, indirect costs related to program management and training, and potential opportunity costs in applying technical res ources toward accessibility

rather than other Web
-based business strategies (e.g., social networking). **Determinants of Compliance Costs** Compliance costs for ensuring Web site conformance with applicable accessibility standards will depend on several factors:  The number and complexity of pages included on the current Web site.
 The ty

pe of technology

used (e.g., HTML (hypertext markup language) , PHP (hy pertext preprocessor) , asp.net).
 The extensiveness of the revisions required to achieve conformance.
 The current Web site development and maintenance staff or contractor’s level of expertise and training in accessibility issues. Based on our review of the W3C WAIs ite and other online programming guides, it is clear that the time involved to “retrofit” existing Web pages is much l onger than that associated with ensuring new pages comply with accessibility

guidelines. Inf

act, many experts regard many of the requirements to ensure accessibility as merely

good programming practices that should be more consistently

followed by

Web developers in any

event. 120 The analys is presented in the PRA included compliance cost estimates for one -time revisions of the current carrier and ticket agent Web sites. Work required to revise inaccessible sites will include, but not be limited to, the following tasks:
 Review and assessment of current Web site features that require remediation.
 Development of a compliant site design template and style sheet.
 Revision or alternative programming of JavaScript
-based menus and navigation.
 Creation of alternative displays for site graphics, images, and video material.
 Development of alternative versions of forms and scripts.
 Conformance verification, evaluation, and certification. While the PRA acknowledged that the training and exp ertise in accessibility issues of carrier and ticket agent Web development teams for affected carriers will vary, no provision for training or outside consultants (other than for conformance evaluation and certification) was included in the cost estimates. **Web Site Accessibility Compliance Cost Estimates** Carrier associations and individual carriers provided a wide range of compliance cost estimates, from a low of $241,000 (the lowest estimate in the A4A survey) to an ANA estimate of $6 million. No documentation was provided for the A4A survey, and it is not clear that the survey instructions asked respondents to estimate incremental costs , or those above and beyond the
120 See, for example, W3C, “Technical Factors in Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization .”**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 67**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  costs associated with a normal Web site overhaul. The high
- end estimate of $1.9 million f rom the A4A survey

i s suspect on these grounds. Similarly, the ANA estimate is not plausible

—the 20 full
-time and part-time employees ANA estimates would be required to overhaul its Web site are charged at a cost of $300,000 each. The cost estimates in the PRA were built up from detailed data and assumptions about the number of pages on carrier Web sites, the number of hours required for various components of the revision process, and the number of carriers in each Web site size category . Based on the comments, it appears that this detailed approach may not be necessary to derive reasonable estimates of initial compliance costs. For this analysis, we reviewed the estimates of compliance costs provided in several industry comments, as well as the observation in many o f the comments that the largest portion of the costs are associated with revising the content and functionality associated with online booking engines and other online transaction processes. Based on this review, we adopted the following per- site costs for three categories of carriers:
 $500,000 per site for large carriers (including foreign carriers with more than 0.5 million U.S. enplanements in the 2011 T
- 100 data) offering scheduled passenger service. 121
 $250,000 per site for all other carriers with online booking engines. 122
 $50,000 per site for carriers that do not offer online booking (i.e., large U.S. charter carriers). 123 Carriers will also incur ongoing costs in connection with maintaining and updating their primary Web sites to ensure that ac cessibility i s not degraded as a result of any changes. This regulatory evaluation incorporates estimated annual costs equal to 10 percent of the initial site revision costs for each ye ar in the 10
- year analys is period. Based on these preliminary assumptions and estimates, the costs to make primary Web sites fully accessible are calculated as presented in Table 23
.

121 This is more than double the per- site estimate for the largest carriers in the PRA, and slightly larger than the estimate provided by Spirit in its comments. 122 This is slightly larger than the per
- site cost estimate used for the largest carriers in the PRA. It is also close to the low end of the range reported by A4 A members, all of which are included in the largest group in this regulatory evaluation. 123 This per
- site cost estimate wa s used for small U. S. carriers in the PRA. Note that this group does not include any contract carriers. These carriers wo uld not have to ensure that their Web sites are accessible under the requirements published in the Rule because they do not market transportation to the general public.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 68**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Table 23** **– Estimated**  **Costs of Developing and Maintai ni**  **ng Accessible Carrier Web**  **S ite** **s**
**Calculation Component Largest**  **Carriers*** **Other**

**Carrier s**  **W ith Online**  **Booking Other**  **Carrier s** 

**W ithout**  **Online Booking** ** **All Carriers**

**Covered by Rule**  Number of U.S. carrier s ites 15 0 17 32 Number of foreign carrier s ites 39 57 0 96 **Total number of covered carrier**  **sites 54**  **57 17**  **128 Average pre**  **- launch cost per site**  **$500,000 $250,000**  **$50,000 $328,906**  U.S. carrier pre - launch cost s $7,500,000 $0 $850,000 $8,350,000 Foreign carrier pre - launch cost s $19,500,000 $14,250,000 $0 $33,750,000 **Total pre**  **- launch**  **costs $27,000,000**  **$14,250,000 $850,000**  **$42,100,000 Average annual maintenance cost**  **per site**  **$50,000 $25,000**  **$5,000 $32,891**  U.S. carrier annual maintenance cost s $750,000 $0 $85,000 $835,000 Foreign carrier annual maintenance cost s $1,950,000 $1,425,000 $0 $3,375,000 **Total annual maintenance costs $2,700,000**  **$1,425,000 $85,000**  **$4,210,000 Total costs**  **$84 ,**  **20 0,000**  Present value of costs in 2016 (millions)*** $78.26 *Large U.S. and foreign carriers with more than 0.5 million U.S. scheduled service enplanements annually. **Large U.S. charter carriers. Foreign charter carriers typically do not market to the general public in the United States. ***Assumes 50 percent of initial revision costs are incurred in 2014 and the remainder in 2015. Annual maintenance costs begin in 2016. Present value of costs calculated using a discount rate of 7 percent. Under reasonable assumptions about the resources that will be required to comply with the Rule requirements, large carrier Web site accessibility costs are estimated at $84.2 million over the 10
- ye ar analys is period. Approximately half of these estimated costs will be incurred in 2014 and 2015, prior to the beginning of the analys is period. The present value of compliance costs in 2016 is estimated at $78.3 million using a discount rate of 7 percent. **Costs Associated W** **ith Developing Online Service Request Forms** Carriers will also incur costs to develop and publish the online service accommodation request forms required by

the Rule. For this analys is, preliminary e stimates of the average hours of developer time per carrier that would be required to complete each identified component task were developed as shown in T able 24
. The costs of these labor hours were valued at the mean wage rate for software developers and programmers in the air transportation sector (NAICS 481000), adjusted to account for the additional cost of benefits and other direct labor costs , and aggregated for all U.S. and foreign carriers that would need to comply with this requirement
. **Table 24** **– Costs Associated**  **W ith Online Service Request Form**  **Cost Calculation Element Value**  **Hours per carrier Econom** **ic Analysis**  **of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites 1030**  **- 000/DTOS59**  **- 09**  **- F**  **- 10094** 

**Page 69**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  Initial form design/approval 16 Develop/code form 8 Integrate into Web site/test 4 Program database to collect data 4 Add service referral links 4 Revise service handling procedures 24 **Total hours per carrier 60**  Average hourly wage rate* $38.13 Employment cost multiplier** 1.45 Average fully loaded labor hourly rate $55.17 **Request form cost per carrier**  **$3,674** Number of covered U.S. carriers*** 15 Number of covered foreign carriers 96 **Total number of covered carriers 111**  **Total online service request form costs $407,839**  Present value of costs in 2016 (millions)**** $0.44 *BLS mean wage rate for software developers and programmers, NAICS 481000, May 2012. **Accounts for benefits and other direct labor costs (44.7 percent of mean wage rate, per BLS May 2013). ***Large U.S. charter carriers typically do not market air transportation online.  Costs are assumed to be incurred in 2015. Costs incurred to develop and publish online service request forms, collect request data, and refer requests for appropriate service handling are estimated at $0.4 million. These costs are expected to be incurred in 2015, the year prior to the beginning of the 10
- year analys is period. 124 ** Equivalent Service** **Costs Incurred by Large Ticket Agents** Ticket agents that market air transportation to the general public in the United States would not be required to ensure that their Web sites are accessible. However, the Rule requires ticket agents with annual revenues that exceed the limit set forth in the applicable SB A small business size class standards ($19.0 million for both travel agents and tour operators in 2013) to disclose and offer Web
-based discount fares to prospective passengers who contact the agent through other channels (e.g., by

telephone or at the ticket counter) and indicate they are unable to use an

124 The Department has used the labor hours estimated in this analysis for carriers to create and publish online service request forms to estimate the data collection, reporting, or recordkeeping burden under the applicable requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Hours required to add service referral links and revise service handling procedures were not included in these burden estimates because these activities do not involve data collection, reporting, or recordkeeping. OMB and DOT requested Paperwork Reduction Act burden estimates for the Rule provision requiring notice to users that em bedded or linked third
-party content, forms, or applications may not be accessible. The incremental burden of developing the disclaimer notice and adding the appropriate links to the disclaimer is likely to be very mo dest

—estimated at 4 to 8 labor hours per carrier on a standalone basis. However, the time required to develop the disclaimer notice and add code to ensure its display when required is included in the overall estimates of the costs associated with developing and maintaining accessible sites in this analysis.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 70**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  agent’s Web site due to a disability
. 125 Large ticket agents will incur two ty pes of costs to ensure that call center and ticket counter employee interactions with prospective travelers comply with this requirement:
 Call center and counter computer displays will require new programming to ensure that ticket agent employees are informed of applicable Web
-based fares and promotions if a prospective passenger indicates that he or she is unable to use the Web site because of a disability
.  Sales/travel agents and reservation/ticket agents or clerks wi ll need to be trained on the new requirements. For this analys is, these costs were estimated as follows:
 Ticket agents were assumed to require an average of 80 hours of programming time to ensure that their call center and ticket counter computer displays inform employees of applicable Web
-based fares and promotions when required.
 The fully loaded hourly c ost of these hours was calculated as the product of the mean wage rate for travel agent software developers and programmers and the average private sector employ

ment cost multiplier (1.447) to account for benefits and other labor costs. 126
 About 7 0 percent of all travel agency workers are sales/travel agents and reservation/ticket agents or clerks
. Weighted by the numbers of employees in these three occupational categories, the mean hourly wage rate for workers who will require training was $18. 5 2 in May

2012.
 Each emplo ye e is assumed to require one
-half hour of training on the Rule requirements. These cost calculations are shown in Table 25:

125 Carriers have been required to disclose and offer Web
-based discount fares to prospective passengers who contact the agent through other channels and indicate they are unable to use an agent’s W eb site due to a disability under the ACAA rule that took effect in May 2009. 126 Industry
- specific em

ployment data were not available for the tour operator sector, so the wage rate for travel agent so ftware developers and programmers was used for all ticket agent programming hours.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 71**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Table 25** **– Ticket Agent Call Center Programming and Training Costs**  **Cost Component Value**  Average programming hours per ticket agent 80 Average hourly wage rate* $41.57 Employment cost multiplier** 1.45 Average fully loaded labor hourly rate $60.15 **Programming cost per ticket agent $4,812**  Number of large travel agents 70 Number of large tour operators 26 **Total number of covered ticket agents 96**  **Total ticket agent programming cost $461,966**  Number of ticket agent employees in firms with 500 or more employees 62,173 Percent employed as sales/travel agents or reservation /ticket agents/ clerks 70 % **Total number of employees requiring training 43,673**  Average training time per employee (hours) 0.5 Average hourly wage rate*** $18. 52 Employment cost multiplier** 1.45 Average fully loaded labor hourly rate $26. 79 **Total cost of employee training $**  **585,071 Total ticket**  **agent equivalent service costs $1**  **,047,037** Present value of costs in 2016 (millions )**** $1. 12 *BLS mean wage rate for software developers and programmers , NAICS 561510, May 2012. **Includes benefits and other direct labor costs (44.7 percent of mean wage rate, per BLS May 2013). ***Weighted average of BLS mean wage rates for travel agents, customer service representatives, and ticket/reservation clerks.  Costs are assumed to be incurred in 2015. Initial Rule c ompliance costs for large travel agents and tour operators are estimated at $1. 0 million. Large ticket agents may also incur some continuing costs to ensure that call center and ticket counter employees have adequate information and training to comply with this Rule requirement. However, these costs could not be estimated for this analys is. ** Unquantifiable Compliance Costs** As with the benefits analysis, there are potentially important categories of costs for which monetary values cannot be estimated from the available data, as well as those that are intrinsically

qualitative, including:
 **Diversion of**  **Web development**  **resources.** Carriers will need to devote resources to creating or updating Web pages to ensure regulatory c ompliance. These resources could otherwise be used to provide more or better functionality on their Web sites.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page 72**  **of 7** **2 Pages**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**   **Reduced Web**  **site functionality**  **or effectiveness** **.** Ensuring all elements of a carrier Web site adhere to WCAG 2.0 standards may reduce the carrier’s options in creatively presenting Web content and may limit the adoption of innovative content and techniques.
 **Enforcement costs.**  The Department will have to invest resources in acquiring and maintaining the ability

to monitor and review covered carrier Web sites, conduct testing and verification periodically, and work with site publishers to understand and remedy identified violations of the accessibility standards. **6. 7**  **. Estimated Net Benefits and Discussion of Results** The present value of net benefits in 2015 from the Web site accessibility requirements is expected to be slightly

negative (

–$ 3.9 million) for the 10
- ye ar analys is period using a discount rate of 7 percent and slightly p ositive (+$ 7. 8 million) for the same time period using a discount rate of 3 percent (Table 26 ) . The estimated net benefits of the Rule requirements would be larger if the values of improvements in access for people with disabilitie s other than blindness or severe visual impairments could be estimated and included in the regulatory evaluation. **Table 26** **– Present Value**  **in 2016 of Accessible Web Site Benefits and Costs**  **, 201 4** **− 2025**  **(millions) Estimated Present Valu**  **e 7 Percent**  **Discount Rate 3 Percent** 

**Discount Rate** Total monetized benefits $75.92 $90.28 Web site accessibility costs $78.26 $81.00 Online service request costs $0.44 $0.42 Ticket agent equivalent service costs $1.12 $1.08 Total monetized costs $79.82 $82.50 **Present value of monetized net benefits ($3.90)**  **$7.78** The benefit and cost estimates developed for the Web site accessibility requirements included in this evaluation indicate that the monetized benefits to travelers with disabilities and cost savings to carriers are approximately e qual to the costs that will be incurred by c arriers to develop and publish accessible Web sites. Itshould be noted that the benefit and cost estimates for these requirements are sensitive to a l arge number of component assumptions and estimates. Using certain reasonable alternative values for some of these component assumptions and estimates, the net benefits calculated may b e positive even if a 7 percent discount rate is used, and may b e negative even if a 3 percent discount rate is used. In either event, the monetized net benefits provided by

this Rule are very

small, indicating that the Department must weigh the unquantifiable benefits and costs to determine if the Rule would be in the public interest.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page A -**  **1 Econometrica, Inc.**  **October 23, 2013** 

### Ap **pendix A**  **: ICT A** **ccessibility Standards**  The World Wide Web has continually evolved since the first Web pages were published 20 years ago. Early sites were primarily text-based, but images, multimedia, and applications were developed and incorporated into Web sites within a few ye ars. Responding to the accessibility challenges posed by

these developments, the W3C finalized the WCAG 1.0 recommendations in May 1 999. Shortly thereafter, the Access Board published the current Section 508 standards, which include accessibility requirements for Web site s and other forms of ICT. The W3C published updated consensus standards

—the WCAG 2.0 recommendations

—in December 2008. This appendix provides a brief description of Web site basics , describes the evolution of Web accessibility

standards , and summarizes the WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA requirements. **A. 1. Web Site Technology**  **and Ac**  **cessibility Web Site Basics**  Web sites are a collection of individual, related, linked Web pages. Web pages are electronic documents consisting of media content (such as text, images, and video) and computer code that determines how the content is rendered on a monitor. Web browsers, such as Firefox and Internet Explorer, process the computer code and display the Web page content. Web browsers have a large number of optional add
- ons, extensions, and plug
- ins that expand browser capabilities to read and run specific computer code and to display a larger range of media content. Increases in personal computing power and telecommunications speed, along with new Web browsers, sophisticated programmers, dy namic Web site content and design, and new media formats, have overwhelmed efforts to develop and maintain Web site technology standards. Differences in browsers, Web site code, and media content can result in some Web sites be ing partly inoperable , unless opened with a specific browser or unless a specific add
- on, extension, or plug
- in is installed. The evolution of Web sites into more visually complex displays with complex navigation options and functional capabilities has provided benefits for air travelers , especially those who are deaf , have limited hearing , or have limited mobility
. However, these features pose additional challenges for airline passengers with visual or cognitive disabilities, and carrier and ticketing agent Web site s often provide these passengers with a phone number for customer assistance and ticket purchase. Among the largest network and low
- cost U.S. carriers, only Delta appears to have a specific option that converts its default home page into a vers ion adapted for screen readers and other technologies that make it more accessible for individuals who are blind and those with severe vision impairments. 127 The full versions of other carrier Web sites currently afford different degrees of accessibility

for consumers with various ty pes of disabilities.

127 Moreover, a 2011 review o f the Delta text- only version of its primary W eb site indicated that it lacked some of the functionality of the carrier’s primary Web site and did not meet all of the WCAG 2.0 conformance standards.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page A -** **2 Econometrica, Inc.**  **October 23, 2013 Web Site Technology and Accessibility Standards**  Making Web site content accessible to people with disabilities is based on the same principles used by Web browsers to display c ontent. A program processes the c omputer code and media content to render the information on a Web site in an accessible manner. One can consider a Web browser itself a program that makes Web content accessible, albeit not for all disabilities. The first Web sites were documents written in HTML
. An HTML document consists of text interspersed with “tags,” code that defines the display properties of the text. For example, the tags <B> and </B> surround text that should be bold when displayed. Early Web browsers interpreted the HTML tags and displayed the Web page content. The concept of tagging content remains important to current Web site technology, and it is fundamental to making Web content accessible to people with disabilities
. However, advances in technology, computing power, and content have made Web site technology increasingly complex. Making Web sites accessible requires specific and comprehensive use of tags to determine how to present the Web site information in an accessible form. For example, a table on a Web site should be tagged as a table, with each header, row , and cell also tagged. This allows the table to be presented, row by

row and cell by

c ell, with headers properly indicated. Other examples of accessibility

e lements are providing alternate text descriptions for image s and navigation that allows for key

board input. Both of these modifications can also be implemented using tags. Like Web site technology standards as a whole, Web site accessibility standards have struggled to keep pace with advances in technology, tele communications, and computing power. At the same time, such advances have increased the potential and actual accessibility o f Web sites. Often complex, inaccessible content can be creatively reprogrammed or reformatted as accessible content without changing how it is displayed in a standard Web browser. **A. 2.**  **Ev ol**  **ution of Web Site A ccessibility**  **Standards Current Section 508 Standards Evolved**  **F rom WCAG 1.0**  WCAG 1.0 has three priority l evels (1 through 3) that correspond to the A, AA, and AAA levels in WCAG 2 .0. A substantial portion of the current Section 508 standards for Web sites, and in many instances other forms of ICT, was adopted from the WCAG 1.0 recommendations. A Section 508 compliant Web site could require additional remediation in a few areas (inc luding audio description, dy

namic updating of text equivalents, and use of clear language) to meet the WCAG 1.0 Priority

1 recommendations. F ive provisions in Part 22 of the Section 508 standards do not have close analogs to WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 checkpoints , but they w ere incorporated in the development of WCAG 2.0. Some Section 508 requirements are similar but not identical to the analogous provisions in WCAG 1.0 (scripting, applets/plug
- ins, forms), and others (flicker, navigation by pass) are more specific than their WCAG 1.0 counterparts. Only one Section 508 requirement (the need to provide users with**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page A -** **3 Econometrica, Inc.**  **October 23, 2013** adequate time to respond when a timed response is required) was not addressed at all in the WCAG 1.0 Priority

1 recommendations. 128 **W CAG 2.0**  **Standards Evolved**  **F rom Current Section 508**  **Requirements** New technologies, techniques, and accessibility i ssues have emerged since the current Section 508 standards were published. WCAG 2.0 recommendations were developed to address specific gaps in the current Section 508 standards , including a requirement for a logical reading order, the ability to resize text , the ability to turn off background audio that might interfere with comprehension , and compatibility with screen reading software. One important aspect of the WCAG 2.0 standards is that they are generally

more testable than those in Section 508 or WCAG 1.0 because WCAG 2.0 establishes a set of success criteria for defining conformance to the WCAG 2.0 standards. WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written as testable statements that are not technology
- specific. **A. 3. WCA** **G 2.0 Level A**  **and Level AA Success Criteria**  **WCAG 2.0 Level A**  WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria provide a minimal level of accessibility without necessarily requiring any changes in the underlying design of the ICT. Table A
- 1 lists the Level A success criteria and describes what is required to ensure that each criterion is satisfied in the context of an HTML
- coded Web site. **Table A**  **- 1**  **– Level A**  **Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0 Guideline Heading/Link**  **Description (Application in HTML)** 1.1.1 Non -Text Content All images, form image buttons, and image map hot spots have appropriate, equivalent alternative text. Embedded multimedia is identified via accessible text. 1.2.1 Prerecorded Audio
- Only and Video
- Only A descriptive text transcript is provided for non
- live, Web
based audio. A text or audio description is provided for non - live, Web
- based video only. 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded) Synchronized captions are provided for non
- live, Web
based video (YouTube videos, etc.)
. 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded) A descriptive text transcript OR audio description audio track is provided for non
- live, Web
- based video . 1.3.1 Info and Relationships Semantic markup is used to designate headings, lists, and emphasized or special text. Tables are used for tabular data. Where necessary, data cells are associated with their headers. Table captions and summaries are used where appropriate. 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence The reading and navigation order (determined by code order) is logical and intuitive.

128 JimThatcher.com provides a provision
-by
-provision comparison and discussion of the Section 508 and WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 provisions in “ Side by S ide WCAG vs. 508 .”**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page A -** **4 Econometrica, Inc.**  **October 23, 2013 Guideline Heading/Link**  **Description (Application in HTML)** 1.3.3 Se nsory Characteristics Instructions do not rely upon shape, size, or visual location (e.g., “ Click the square icon to continue ” or “ Instructions are in the right
- hand column ”). 1.4.1 Use of Color Color is not used as the sole method of conveying content or distinguishing visual elements. 1.4.2 Audio Control A mechanism is provided to stop, pause, mute, or adjust volume for audio that automatically plays on a page for more than 3 seconds. 2.1.1 Keyboard All page functionality is available using the keyboard, unless the functionality cannot be accomplished in any known way using a keyboard. 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap Keyboard focus is never locked or trapped at one particular page element. The user can navigate to and from all navigable page elements usi ng only a keyboard. Page - specified shortcut keys do not conflict with existing browser and screen reader shortcuts. 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable If a page or application has a time limit, the user is given options to turn off, adjust, or extend that time limit . This is not a requirement for real
-time events (e.g., an auction), where the time limit is absolutely required, or if the time limit is longer than 20 hours. 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide Automatically moving, blinking, or scrolling content that lasts longer than 5 seconds can be paused, stopped, or hidden by the user. Automatically updating content can be paused, stopped, or hidden by the user, or the user can manually control the timing of the updates. 2.3.1 Three Flashes or Below Threshold No page content flashes more than three times per second unless that flashing content is sufficiently small and the flashes are of low contrast and do not contain too much red. (See general flash and red flash thresholds
. ) 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks A link is provided to skip navigation and other page elements that are repeated across Web pages. 2.4.2 Page Titled The Web page has a descriptive and informative page title. 2.4.3 Focus Order The navigation order of links, form elements, etc. , is logical and intuitive. 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) The purpose of each link (or form image button or image map hotspot) can be determined from the link text alone, or from the link text and its context (e.g., surrounding paragraph, list item, tabl e cell, or table headers). 3.1.1 Language of Page The language of the page is identified using the HTML lang attribute. 3.2.1 On Focus When a page element receives focus, it does not result in a substantial change to the page, the spawning of a pop
- up window, an additional change of keyboard focus, or any other change that could confuse or disorient the user.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page A -** **5 Econometrica, Inc.**  **October 23, 2013 Guideline Heading/Link**  **Description (Application in HTML)** 3.2.2 On Input When a user inputs information or interacts with a control, it does not result in a substantial change to the page, the spawning of a pop
- up window, an additional change of keyboard focus, or any other change that could confuse or disorient the user, unless the user is informed of the change ahead of time. 3.3.1 Error Identification Required form elements or form elements that require a specific format, value, or length provide this information within the element's label or within the element's title attribute. If utilized, form validation errors are presented in an efficient, intuitive, and accessible manner. 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions Sufficient labels, cues, and instructions for required interactive elements are provided via instructions, examples, properly positioned form labels, and/or fieldsets/legends. 4.1.1 Parsing Significant HTML/XHTML validation/parsing errors are avoided. Check at http://validator.w3.org/ 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value Markup is used in a way that facilitates accessibility. This includes following the HTML/XHTML specifications and using forms, form labels, frame titles, etc., appropriately. Source: Adapted from WebAIM.org WCAG 2.0 checklist for HTML documents . **WCAG 2.0 Level AA**  Implementing accessibility at Level AA may

require changes in design or programming that will afford more complete accessibility to users with various ty

pes of disabilities. Table A
- 2 lists the Level AA success criteria and describes what is required to ensure that each criterion is satisfied in the context of an HTML
- coded Web site.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page A -** **6 Econometrica, Inc.**  **October 23, 2013 Table A**  **- 2** **– Level AA Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0**  **Guideline Heading/Link Description**  1.2.4 Captions (Live) Synchronized captions are provided for all live multimedia that contain audio (audio
- only broadcasts, Web casts, video conferences, Flash animations, etc.). 1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded) Audio descriptions are provided for all video content. NOTE: These are o nly required if the video conveys content visually that is not available in the default audio track. 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) Text and images of text have a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1. Large text (over 18 point or 14 point bold) has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1. 1.4.4 Resize Text The page is readable and functional when the text size is doubled. 1.4. 5 Images of Text If the same visual presentation can be made using text alone, an image is not used to present that text. 2.4.5 Multiple Ways Multiple ways are available to find other Web pages on the site — at least two of a list of related pages, table of contents, site map, site search, or list of all available Web pages. 2.4.6 Headings and Labels Page headings and labels for form and interactive controls are informative. Avoid duplicating headings (e.g., "More Details") or label text (e.g., "First Name"), unless the structure provides adequate differentiation between them. 2.4.7 Focus Visible It is visually apparent which page element has the current keyboard focus (i.e., as you tab through the page, you can see where you are). 3.1.2 Language of Parts The language of page content that is in a different language is identified. 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation Navigation links that are repeated on Web pages do not change order when navigating through the site. 3.2.4 Consistent Identification Elements that h ave the same functionality across multiple Web pages are consistently identified. For example, a search box at the top of the site should always be labeled the same way. 3.3.3 Error Suggestion If an input error is detected (via client
- side or server
- side validation), provide suggestions for fixing the input in a timely and accessible manner. 3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data) If the user can change or delete legal, financial, or test data, the changes/deletions can be reversed, verified, or confirmed. Source: Adapted from WebAIM.org WCAG 2.0 checklist for HTML documents .**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page B**  **- 1**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  

### Ap **pendix B**  **: Carrier Web Site Characteristics and Ac**  **cessibility** In April and May

2 011, Econometrica, Inc., conducted an extensive review of the characteristics and accessibility

o f a large, diverse sample of U.S. and foreign carrier Web sites. Inthis appendix, we present and discuss the results from thi s review. **B .**  **1 . Carrier Web Site Characteristics**  The costs associated with providing accessibility to the full versions of carrier Web sites depend on their extent and complexity
. Over the past several ye ars, corporate Web sites have grown substantially

l arger —in terms of both the number of pages and the average page size (i.e., amount of content displayed). 129 Using Xenu’s Link Sleuth site evaluation tool, we inventoried the total number of HTML pages in a broad spectrum of carrier Web sites, including: 130
 Al l 12 reporting carriers that market scheduled passenger service to the general public.
 The other six U.S. carriers that market scheduled passenger service on at least one aircraft with more than 60 seats.
 All six U.S. carriers that market scheduled passenger service on at least one aircraft with between 30 and 60 seats (but none with more than 60 seats).
 Eleven of the 27 U.S. carriers that market scheduled passenger service exclusively on aircraft with fewer than 30 seats.
 Twelve foreign carriers that had 1 million or more passengers depart from U.S. airports in 2009.
 Twelve foreign carriers that had fewer than 1 million passengers depart from U.S. airports in 2009. For each of these Web sites, Xenu’s Link Sleuth tool was used to tabulate:
 The total number of pages, measured as the number of HTMLor related ty pes of files, accessible on the site.
 The total number of images in .jpg and similar formats for which alt text captions might need to be included.
 The number of downloadable documents in PDF.
 The number of links to external URLs or other elements. The results of these tabulations are presented in T able B
- 1.

129 See, for example, WebSiteOptimization.com, “Average Web Page Size Quintuples Since 2003 .” 130 Xenu ’s Link Sleuth checks a W eb site by visiting the home page, compiling a list of links on that page, then visiting each of those pages ; it repeats the process until all pages in a W eb site are cataloged. Xenu ’s Link Sleuth wa s designed to find broken links in a Web site , but the process also produces many useful statistics.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page B**  **- 2**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Table B -** **1 –** **Carrier Web Site Element Counts** 
**Carrier Category Web Site Element Counts**  **Pages Images**  **PDFs External**  **Links**

**Domestic** Reporting carriers 914 759 26 1,025

Other large carriers (>60
- seat aircraft) 303 604 16 388 Small carriers (30
− 60 - seat aircraft) 58 93 23 140 Very small carriers (only <30
- seat aircraft) 71 112 4 60 **Foreign** Carriers with >1 million U.S.

passengers/year 1,414 267 29 1,863 Carriers <1 million U.S. passengers/year 792 530 44 1,284 Source: Econometrica, Inc., site testing using Xenu’s Link Sleuth, April − May 2011. The most notable results of these tabulations include:
 The average number of pages for reporting carrier Web sites is three times larger than that of other large U.S. carriers.
 The largest foreign carrier sites are bigger than the sites of most U.S. carriers.
 Most sites have links to relatively few downloadabl e PDFs.
 Large U.S. and foreign carrier sites ty pically have several hundred links to URLs and content hosted on other sites. **B .**  **2 . Carrier Web Site A** **ccessibility** Another determinant of the costs that will be incurred in complying with the Rule requirements is the extent and diversity of accessibility i ssues that will need to be addressed. To characterize the potential scope of the revisions that will potentially be required, we reviewed the home pages of each carrier in the six groups described above using the Qompliance add
- in for the Firefox browser (Table B
- 2)
. 131 The following tabulations were compiled from the site
- specific reports generated b y Qompliance:
 The total number of issues identified that represent definite or potential violations of WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA standards.
 The number of different WCAG 2.0 guidelines violated.

131 Qom pliance is a Firefox Extension that gives Firefox users direct access to Deque’s Worldspace, a W eb
-based enterprise tool that automates testing for accessibility (Section 508 and WCAG), privacy, quality, and security.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page B**  **- 3**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**   The number of issues identified that represent violations only o f Level AA
- specific standards. **Table B -** **2 –** 

**Accessibility Testing of Ca rrier Web Site Home Pages** 
**Carrier Category Average Number of Violations**  **(WCAG 2.0 A/AA Level s**  **) Total**  **Issues Total** 

**Guidelines AA** **- Level** 

**Issues Domestic**  Reporting carriers 80 11 12

Other large carriers (>60
- seat aircraft) 116 12 31 Small carriers (30
− 60 - seat aircraft) 59 9 6 Very small carriers (only <30
- seat aircraft) 46 8 15 **Foreign** Carriers with >1 million U.S. passengers/year 67 9 7

Carriers <1 million U.S. passengers/year 78 9 20 Source: Econometrica, Inc., site testing using Qompliance add
- in on Firefox 3.6 browser, April − May 2011. These results indicate that the home pages of U.S. carriers in all size classes, as well as foreign carriers, have significant numbers of accessibility i ssues, most of which involve violations or potential violations of Level A standards. Small U.S. carrier sites have lower average numbers of total accessibility

i ssues that will need to be addressed, but the required revisions will still involve a substantial number of different WCAG 2.0 guidelines. **B .**  **3 . Screen Reader Parsing of Carrier Web Sites**  Finally, we used the aDesigner application to estimate the amount of time that it would take for a ty pical screen reader to read each carrier home page included in this review (Table B
- 3) . 132

132 Home pages of

c arrier Web sites are ty pically among the mo st com plicated to render in fully accessible form, since they include the initial user interface for online booking engines and links to the remaining pages on the site. The aDesigner is a tool that Web authors can use to ensure that the Web pages they create are accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page B**  **- 4**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **Table B**  **- 3** **– Carrier**  **Web Site Screen Reader Times Carrier Category**  **Screen Reading Time (seconds)**  **for Home Page Domestic**  Reporting carriers 199

Other large carriers (>60
- seat aircraft) 231 Small carriers (30
− 60 - seat aircraft) 116 Very small carriers (only <30
- seat aircraft) 185 **Foreign** Carriers with >1 million U.S. passengers/year 225

Carriers <1 million U.S. passengers/year 144 Source: Econometrica, Inc. , site testing using Xenu’s Link Sleuth and aDesigner, April − May 2011. These results demonstrate that a significant amount of time is required for a screen reader to parse current carrier home pages, indicating that improvements in the accessibility of these pages would reduce the amount of time and decrease the amount of frustration experienced by s ite visitors using these assistive technologies.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page C**  **- 1**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  

### Ap **pendix C**  **: Kiosk**  **Ac cessibility**  **Standards** As noted in the evaluation, the technical standards for kiosk accessibility have been developed from the existing requirements for ATMs and fare machines under Section 707 of the 2004 ADA Accessibility

Guidelines and for self
- contained, closed products under part 1194.25 of the Section 508 standards. Table C
- 1 provides a list of the specific technical standards in the Rule and indicates their analogues or antecedents in the Section 707 or Section 508 standards. **Ta ble**  **C -**  **1 –** **Kiosk Technical Standards 382.57(c)**  **/ 27.71(k) Reference**  **Heading Section**  **508 or 707 Reference**  **Requirement Stated in Reference** 1 Self
contained 1194.25(a) Self
- contained products shall be usable by people with disabilities without requiring an end
- user to attach assistive technology to the product. Personal headsets for private listening are not assistive technology. 2 Clear floor or ground space 707.2 A clear floor or ground space complying with 305 shall be provided. 3(i) Operable

parts 707.3 Operable parts shall comply with 309. Unless a clear or correct key is provided, each operable part shall be able to be differentiated by sound or touch, without activation. 3(ii) Timing 1194.25(b) When a timed response is required, the user shall b e alerted and given sufficient time to indicate more time is required. 3(Iii) Status

indicators 1194.23(k)

(4) The status of all locking or toggle controls or keys shall be visually discernible, and discernible either through touch or sound. 3(iv) Color 1194.25(g) Color coding shall not be used as the only means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element. 4 Privacy 707.4 Automatic teller machines shall provide the opportunity for the same degree of privacy of input and output available to all individuals. 4 Privacy

(screen blanking) 707.4 -A Advisory: Speech output users can benefit from an option to render the visible screen blank, thereby affording them greater personal security and priva cy.

5(i) Speech

output 707.5 Machines shall be speech enabled. Operating instructions and orientation, visible transaction prompts, user input verification, error messages, and all displayed information for full use shall be accessible to and independently usable by individuals with vision impairments. Speech shall be delivered through a mechanism that is readily available to all users, including, but not limited to, an industry standard connector or a telephone handset. Speech shall be recorde d or digitized human, or synthesized.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page C**  **- 2**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **382.57(c) / 27.71(k)**  **Reference Heading**  **Section 508 or 707**  **Reference Requirement Stated in Reference**  5(i)(C)/(ii) Speech

output (user control) 707.5.1 Speech shall be capable of being repeated or interrupted. Volume control shall be provided for the speech function. 5(i)(D) Speech

output (receipts) 707.5.2 Where receipts are provided, speech output devices shall provide audible balance inquiry information, error messages, and all other information on the printed receipt necessary to complete or verify the transaction. 5(ii)(A) Private

listening 1194.25(e) When products provide auditory output, the audio signal shall be provided at a standard signal level through an industry standard connector that will allow for private listening. The product must provide the ability to interrupt, pause, and restart the audio at any time.
5(ii)B Speaker

volume 1194.25(f) When products deliver voice output in a public area, incremental volume control shall be provided with output amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB. Where the ambient noise level of the environment is ab ove 45 dB, a volume gain of at least 20 dB above the ambient level shall be user selectable. A function shall be provided to automatically reset the volume to the default level after every use. 5(iii) Captioning 1194.22(b) (updated to conform with WCAG 2.0) Multimedia content that contains speech or other audio

information necessary for the comprehension of the content shall be open or closed captioned.

5(iv) Tickets and

boarding passes 707.1 -A Advisory: If farecards have one tactually distinctive corne r they can be inserted with greater accuracy. Token collection devices that are designed to accommodate tokens which are perforated can allow a person to distinguish more readily between tokens and common coins. Place accessible gates and fare vending mach ines in close proximity to other accessible elements when feasible so the facility is easier to use. 6(i) Input

controls 707.6.1 At least one tactilely discernible input control shall be provided for each function. Where provided, key surfaces not on active areas of display screens shall be raised above surrounding surfaces. Where membrane keys are the only method of input, each sha ll be tactilely discernible from surrounding surfaces and adjacent keys. 6(ii) Alphabetic

keys Industry

standard Alphabetic keys shall be arranged in a QWERTY keyboard

layout. The “ F ” and “J ” keys shall be tactilely distinct from the other keys.**Econom ic**  **Analysis of Final Rule on Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites**  **1030 -** **000/DTOS59 -** **09 -** **F -**  **10094**

**Page C**  **- 3**  **Econometrica, Inc. October 23, 2013**  **382.57(c) / 27.71(k)**  **Reference Heading**  **Section 508 or 707**  **Reference Requirement Stated in Reference**  6(iii) Numeric

keys 707.6.2 Numeric keys shall be arranged in a 12
- key ascending or descending telephone keypad layout. The number five key shall be tactilely distinct from the other keys. 6(iv)(A) Function

keys (contrast) 707.6.3.1 Function keys shall contrast visually from background surfaces. Characters and symbols on key surfaces shall contrast visually from key surfaces. Visual contrast shall be either light
- on - dark or dark
- on - light. 6(iv)( B ) Function

keys (tactile symbols) 707.6.3.2 Function key surfaces s hall have specified tactile symbols. 7(i) Display

s creen (visibility) 707.7.1 The display screen shall be visible from a point located 40 inches (1015 mm) above the center of the clear floor space in front of the machine. 7(ii) Display

s creen (characters) 707.7.2 Characters displayed on the screen shall be in a sans serif font. Characters shall be 3/16 inch (4.8 mm) high minimum based on the uppercase letter “ I. ” Characters shall contrast with their background with either light characters on a dark background or dark characters on a light background. 8 Braille instructions 707.8 Braille instructions for initiating the speech mode shall be provided. 9 Biometrics 1194.25(d) When biometric forms of user identification or control are used, an alternative form of identification or activation, which does not require the user to possess particular biological characteristics, shall also be provided.