```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 186 (Monday, September 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59307-59328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24298]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 382

49 CFR Part 27

RIN 2105-AD96
[Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0177]

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: 
Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation 
(DOT).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (Department) proposes to 
revise its rule implementing the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) to 
provide greater accommodations for individuals with disabilities in air 
travel by requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers to make their Web 
sites accessible to individuals with disabilities and to ensure that 
their ticket agents do the same. It would also require U.S. and foreign 
air carriers to ensure that their proprietary and shared-use automated 
airport kiosks are accessible to individuals with disabilities. In 
addition, the Department proposes to revise its rule implementing 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to require U.S. airports to 
ensure that shared-use automated airport kiosks are accessible to 
individuals with disabilities. This supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking (SNPRM) applies to U.S. carriers and to foreign air carriers 
operating flights to, from, and in the United States. It also applies 
to U.S. airports with annual enplanements of 10,000 or more. The 
proposed rule establishes the technical criteria and procedures that 
apply to automated airport kiosks and to Web sites on which covered air 
transportation is marketed to the general public in the U.S. to ensure 
that individuals with disabilities can readily use these technologies 
to obtain the same information and services as other members of the 
public.

DATES: Comments should be filed by November 25, 2011. Late-filed 
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-
OST-2011- 0177 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow

[[Page 59308]]

the online instructions for submitting written comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number 
DOT- OST-2011-0177 or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for 
the rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. All comments received 
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including 
any personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment if submitted on behalf 
of an association, a business, a labor union, etc.). You may review 
DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published 
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street 
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Blank Riether, Senior 
Attorney, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation 
Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 
New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone), 202-
366-7152 (fax), kathleen.blankriether@dot.gov. You may also contact 
Blane A. Workie, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of the 
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 
20590, 202-366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax), blane.workie@dot.gov. 
You may obtain copies of this SNPRM in an accessible format by 
contacting the above named individuals.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pilot Project on Open Government and the 
Rulemaking Process: On January 21, 2009, President Obama issued a 
Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government in which he described 
how ``public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and 
improves the quality of its decisions'' and how ``knowledge is widely 
dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access 
to that dispersed knowledge.'' To support the President's open 
government initiative, DOT Department of Transportation has partnered 
with the Cornell eRulemaking Initiative (CeRI) in a pilot project, 
Regulation Room, to discover the best ways of using Web 2.0 and social 
networking technologies to: (1) Alert the public, including those who 
sometimes may not be aware of rulemaking proposals, such as 
individuals, public interest groups, small businesses, and local 
government entities, that rulemaking is occurring in areas of interest 
to them; (2) increase public understanding of each proposed rule and 
the rulemaking process; and (3) help the public formulate more 
effective individual and collaborative input to DOT. Over the course of 
several rulemaking initiatives, CeRI will use different Web 
technologies and approaches to enhance public understanding and 
participation, work with DOT Department of Transportation to evaluate 
the advantages and disadvantages of these techniques, and report their 
findings and conclusions on the most effective use of social networking 
technologies in this area. DOT and the Obama Administration are 
striving to increase effective public involvement in the rulemaking 
process and strongly encourage all parties interested in this 
rulemaking to visit the Regulation Room Web site, http://www.regulationroom.org, to learn about the rule and the rulemaking 
process, to discuss the issues in the rule with other persons and 
groups, and to participate in drafting comments that will be submitted 
to DOT. For this rulemaking, CeRI will submit to the rulemaking docket 
a Summary of the discussion that occurs on the Regulation Room site; 
participants will have the chance to review a draft and suggest changes 
before the Summary is submitted. Note that Regulation Room is not an 
official DOT Web site, and so participating in discussion on that site 
is not the same as commenting in the rulemaking docket. The Summary of 
discussion and any joint comments prepared collaboratively on the site 
will become comments in the docket when they are submitted to DOT by 
CeRI. At any time during the comment period, anyone using Regulation 
Room can also submit their individual views to the rulemaking docket 
through the federal rulemaking portal Regulations.gov, or by any of the 
other methods identified at the beginning of this document. For 
questions about this project, please contact Brett Jortland in the DOT 
Office of the General Counsel at 202-366-9314 or 
brett.jortland@dot.gov.

Background and Organization

    The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), passed by Congress in 1986, 
prohibits discrimination in airline service on the basis of disability. 
Since the Department of Transportation (``Department'' or ``DOT,'' also 
``we'' or ``us'') issued the final rule implementing the ACAA, 14 CFR 
part 382 (Part 382) in 1990, it has amended the rule eleven times.\1\ 
On May 13, 2008, the Department issued the most recent amendment to 
Part 382, which among other things, applied the rule to foreign air 
carriers and added new provisions concerning the onboard use of 
respiratory assistive devices and accommodations for passengers who are 
deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind. See 73 FR 27614 (May 13, 2008). 
This latest amendment consolidated three separate NPRMs,\2\ each of 
which proposed certain requirements and requested public comment on 
some issues that we did not address in the final rule due to the 
unavailability of critical cost and technical information. In the first 
NPRM [hereinafter ``2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM''], for example, we had 
proposed to require carriers to make their Web sites accessible and 
asked for public comment on the cost and feasibility of making 
automated airport kiosks accessible (we did not propose specific 
accessibility requirements for automated kiosks). See NPRM entitled 
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel,'' Docket 
DOT-OST-2004-19482, RIN No. 2105-AC97. After reviewing the public 
comments on this NPRM, we concluded that we did not have enough 
information to adequately determine the cost impact and technical 
feasibility of requiring accessibility for Web sites or automated 
airport kiosks. In the preamble to the 2008 final rule, we

[[Page 59309]]

indicated our intention to revisit these issues in a SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The dates and citations for these amendments are the 
following: April 3, 1990, 55 FR 12336; June 11, 1990, 55 FR 23539; 
November 1, 1996, 61 FR 56409; January 2, 1997, 62 FR 16; March 4, 
1998, 63 FR 10528; March 11, 1998, 63 FR 11954; August 2, 1999, 64 
FR 41781; January 5, 2000, 65 FR 352; May 3, 2001, 66 FR 22107; July 
8, 2003, 68 FR 40488; and May 13, 2008, 73 FR 27614.
    \2\ Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 69 Fed. Reg. 64364-64395 (November 4, 
2004); Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel--
Medical Oxygen and Portable Respiration Assistive Devices, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 70 Fed. Reg. 53108-53117 (September 7, 2005); 
and Accommodations for Individuals Who Are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or 
Deaf-Blind, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 71 Fed. Reg. 9285-9299 
(February 23, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the section that follows, we discuss the proposed Web site 
accessibility requirements and the questions we posed on airport kiosk 
accessibility in the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM and summarize the 
public comments we received. We then set forth the new measures we are 
proposing in this SNPRM in light of the public comments from the 2004 
Foreign Carriers NPRM and our further research since the final rule was 
issued in 2008. These measures include requirements for U.S. and 
foreign air carriers to ensure that the public-facing content of Web 
sites they own or control conforms to the Website Content Accessibility 
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Success Criteria and all Conformance Requirements 
at Level A and Level AA (discussed in detail in the next section). The 
proposed requirements would apply to foreign carriers only with respect 
to public-facing pages on Web sites they own or control that market 
covered air transportation to the general public in the U.S. A foreign 
carrier Web site would be covered by the proposed requirements if it 
advertises or sells to the general public in the U.S. air 
transportation that includes flights that begin or end in the U.S. We 
consider the following to be indicators that a foreign carrier Web site 
is likely marketing air transportation to the general public in the 
U.S., and if so, would be covered by the proposed Web site 
accessibility requirements: (1) Contains an option to view content in 
English, (2) advertises or sells flights operating to, from, or within 
the U.S., and (3) displays fares in U.S. dollars. While it is our 
intention to require all public-facing content on the Web sites of U.S. 
carriers to meet the proposed Web site accessibility requirements, only 
those pages on the Web sites of foreign carriers involved in marketing 
covered air transportation to the general public in the U.S. would be 
subject to the Web site accessibility requirements. Web content on 
foreign carrier Web sites marketing air transportation to the general 
public outside the U.S. would not be covered. We also intend that Web 
site accessibility requirements cover a carrier's new or completely 
redesigned primary Web site brought on line 180 or more days after the 
effective date of the final rule. Updating the information content on 
one or more Web pages would not be considered a complete redesign of a 
Web site, which entails technical changes to a substantial portion of 
the site (e.g., visual design (``look and feel'') of the site, an 
overall upgrade of the site to ensure compliance with technical 
standards, reorganizing the site's information architecture). By one 
year after the final rule's effective date, we propose to require Web 
pages on an existing Web site associated with booking or changing a 
reservation, flight check-in, and accessing a personal travel 
itinerary, frequent flyer account, flight status or schedules, and 
carrier contact information to be conformant either on a primary Web 
site or by providing accessible links from the associated pages on a 
primary Web site to corresponding accessible pages on a mobile Web 
site. All covered Web pages on a carrier's primary Web site would have 
to be conformant by two years from the final rule's effective date. We 
will continue to require that a carrier make discounted Web-based fares 
and other Web-based amenities available to passengers who self identify 
as being unable to use a carrier's Web site due to their disability 
even if the Web site meets the WCAG 2.0 accessibility requirements. We 
expect that only a very small segment of the disability community would 
not be able to use an ``accessible'' Web site (e.g., an individual who 
is deaf-blind).
    The Department considers marketing covered air transportation to 
the general public in the U.S. on Web sites that are inaccessible to 
individuals with disabilities to be discriminatory and a violation of 
the Air Carrier Access Act (49 U.S.C. 41705) and an unfair trade 
practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712. The Department's authority to 
prohibit unfair and deceptive practices under 49 U.S.C. 41712 applies 
not only to carriers, but also to ``ticket agents,'' (i.e., a person 
other than a carrier ``that as a principal or agent sells, offers for 
sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out as selling, providing, or 
arranging for air transportation''). See 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(45). This 
SNPRM, in addition to proposing to require U.S. and foreign air 
carriers to ensure that their Web sites are accessible in accordance 
with WCAG 2.0 standards, would explicitly require carriers to ensure 
that when their agents are providing schedule and fare information and 
marketing covered air transportation services to the general public in 
the U.S. on Web sites, such Web content also meets the WCAG 2.0 
standards. Carriers are responsible for the activities of their agents, 
and as such, this NPRM would require them to ensure that those agents 
comply with the Web site accessibility requirements, or carriers could 
face enforcement action. See 14 CFR 382.15(a). Carriers would not, 
however, be required to ensure the compliance of agent Web sites with 
WCAG 2.0 standards if the agent's annual receipts are less than the 
threshold established under the applicable small business size standard 
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). See 13 CFR 
121.201.\3\ Carriers would still be permitted to market covered air 
transportation on the inaccessible Web sites of ticket agents that meet 
the small business size standard. However, we would require carriers to 
ensure that those small ticket agents make discounted Web-based fares 
and other Web-based amenities available to passengers who self identify 
as being unable to use the agent's inaccessible Web site due to their 
disability. This NPRM would also require carriers to ensure that ticket 
agents with ``accessible'' Web sites still make discounted Web-based 
fares and other Web-based amenities available to passengers who self-
identify as being unable to use the agent's Web site due to their 
disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under 13 CFR 121.201, travel agents and tour operators are 
defined as small business concerns if their annual revenues do not 
exceed $3.5 million and $7 million, respectively (excluding funds 
received in trust for unaffiliated third party bookings/sales, but 
including the commissions earned from such bookings/sales).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for automated airport kiosks, we are proposing to require U.S. 
and foreign air carriers that own, lease, or control automated kiosks 
at U.S. airports having 10,000 or more enplanements per year \4\ to 
ensure that all kiosk orders initiated sixty (60) days after the 
effective date of the rule for installation at U.S. airports are for 
models that meet a specified accessibility standard. The accessibility 
standard for automated airport kiosks that we propose to require is 
based on the U.S. Department of Justice's 2010 ADA Standards for 
Accessible Design (2010 ADA Standards) applicable to automated teller 
machines (ATM) and fare machines and on other selected accessibility 
criteria. We propose to apply this standard to both proprietary and 
shared-use automated airport kiosks. Shared-use automated airport 
kiosks are self-service transaction machines provided by an airport, a 
carrier, or an independent service provider with which any carrier 
having a compliant data set can collaborate to enable its customers to 
independently access the flight-related services it offers. Where 
automated airport kiosks

[[Page 59310]]

are jointly owned, leased, or controlled by U.S. airports and carriers, 
we propose to require that the airport operators and carriers enter 
into written agreements spelling out the respective responsibilities of 
the parties for meeting the accessibility requirements. We also intend 
to continue to require that carriers ensure equivalent service to 
passengers with a disability who are unable to use their automated 
airport kiosks due to their disability (e.g., passenger is unable to 
use an inaccessible automated airport kiosk, passenger is unable to use 
an automated airport kiosk that meets the accessibility standard 
because the passenger cannot reach the function keys due to a 
disability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recognizes 3,364 
of the 19,847 airports in the U.S. as open to the public. Of these, 
382 are primary airports defined as having more than 10,000 
enplanements annually. Primary airports include 29 large, 37 medium, 
72 small, and 244 non-hub commercial service airports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We invite all interested parties to comment on the proposals set 
forth in this proposed rule. Our final action will be based on comments 
and supporting evidence from the public filed in this docket, and on 
our own analysis and regulatory evaluation.

Proposals and Questions in the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM on Web Site 
and Automated Airport Kiosk Accessibility

1. Web Site Accessibility

    Today's passengers increasingly rely on air travel Web sites for 
information about airline services, making reservations, and obtaining 
discounted airfares. While these Web sites are more accessible to 
people with disabilities today than ever before, the degree of 
accessibility can vary significantly not only from one Web site to 
another, but also from page to page on a given site. Not all 
information and services available to the public on these Web sites are 
accessible to people with disabilities. The Department views Web site 
accessibility as a vital step toward making the convenience and cost 
savings of booking the best airfares and checking-in online available 
to people with disabilities.
    The 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM: In the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM 
we proposed to require carriers to make their Web sites compliant with 
the accessibility standards of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973, as amended (hereinafter Section 508) as a means of ensuring that 
all domestic and international flight and other information on their 
Web sites is accessible to persons with visual impairments. For foreign 
air carriers, we proposed that only the portion of their Web sites 
displaying information related to flights serving U.S. airports would 
have to meet the Section 508 standard. The requirements were also to 
apply to multi-carrier travel service Web sites owned by groups of 
carriers or with whom carriers have contractual or agency 
relationships. Under Section 508, Federal agencies are required to make 
their electronic and information technology, including Web sites, 
accessible to persons with disabilities. Generally, this means use of 
text labels or descriptors for graphics and certain formatting 
elements. In the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM, we chose to use the 
Section 508 standard in proposing Web site accessibility requirements 
under our ACAA authority. Covered entities were to have two years from 
the final rule's effective date to make existing Web sites accessible 
and new Web sites coming on line after the effective date were to be 
accessible immediately.
    We sought public comment on whether the Section 508 standard was 
the appropriate accessibility standard to apply, whether the standard 
should be modified for the airline Web site context, and whether other 
domestic or foreign accessibility standards would be appropriate. We 
also asked for comment on whether additional or specific requirements 
concerning online travel agencies (e.g., Web sites that provide 
schedule and fare information and market for carriers) should be added 
to the Part 382 section on contractor compliance (now section 382.15). 
We noted that under the proposed requirements all services offered to 
passengers on a carrier's Web site (e.g., seat selection) would have to 
be accessible to users with disabilities and asked for comment on 
whether carrier Web sites that allow passengers to request special 
services should be required to permit passengers to request disability 
accommodations.
    The Comments: Disability community commenters strongly supported 
all the proposed requirements for Web site accessibility, including 
applying the Section 508 standard to the Web sites of carriers, their 
affiliates, contractors, and agents offering air transportation. Some 
also wanted accessibility requirements specifically applicable to 
online travel agencies (OTAs) to be included in what is now section 
382.15. A few disability commenters urged the Department to consider 
the Web site Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) developed by the 
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative as an 
alternative to the Section 508 standard, since many Internet-based 
commercial transaction organizations already use those guidelines. Some 
disability commenters explicitly expressed support for requiring Web 
sites to be accessible to people with disabilities other than blindness 
and other visual disabilities. There was also a strong disability 
community response favoring a measure discussed in the NPRM preamble to 
require carriers that offer passenger services online (e.g., seat 
selection) to also allow passengers to make special service requests 
online for disability accommodations. While most disability commenters 
did not object to a two-year timeframe from the rule's effective date 
to bring existing Web sites into compliance, some favored a much 
shorter period (e.g., six months from the effective date). Most 
supported requiring carriers to make lower fares and other special 
offers on the carrier's Web site available to any passenger with 
disability who could not use an inaccessible Web site by calling a 
customer service line.
    Many carriers and carrier organizations opposed requiring Web site 
accessibility on the grounds that it would be too difficult and 
expensive to accomplish. Several made note of the fact that the 
regulatory analysis had not quantified the benefits of requiring 
carriers to make their Web sites accessible. Yet a number of carriers, 
including foreign carriers, supported the goal of Web site 
accessibility while disagreeing with the proposed standards and 
timeframes. A number of carriers supported applying the WCAG standards 
and some carriers (most of them foreign) reported already taking steps 
toward applying the WCAG standards to their Web sites.
    Many U.S. and foreign air carriers and carrier associations 
contended that the Department had greatly underestimated the initial 
and ongoing costs of Web site accessibility. While the regulatory 
evaluation of the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM estimated the cost to U.S. 
carriers of making their Web sites accessible to be a one-time cost 
over two years of about $17,600 per carrier, the Air Transport 
Association (ATA) and some individual carriers themselves put the 
actual cost of initial compliance as ranging from $300,000 to more than 
$1,000,000 per carrier, with recurring costs of $10,000 to $200,000 per 
carrier annually. Generally carriers felt that compliance would take 
much longer to accomplish initially. For example, ATA reported that two 
of their members estimated that it would require 4,700 and 6,000 hours 
respectively of planning, programming, and testing to comply. Carriers 
also felt that compliance would involve much more expense to maintain 
over the long term than the Department had estimated. Again, few 
carriers provided specific cost estimates, or when they did, few 
provided any breakdown of the cost allocation.

[[Page 59311]]

    Some smaller carriers suggested that they would remove passenger 
information from their own Web sites and place it on the Web site of a 
mainline partner rather than incur the cost of compliance themselves. 
ATA not only opposed the Web site accessibility requirements as too 
costly, but also did not support a requirement to allow passengers with 
disabilities to book special service requests online. They maintained 
that if we adopted the proposed requirements, we should limit their 
application to Web sites within the U.S., and only to the portion of 
Web sites necessary to booking a flight. They also urged that we allow 
compliance with accessibility standards other than Section 508 and 
recommended that Web site accessibility be limited to accommodating 
individuals who are blind. A few carriers wanted to expand the phase in 
period from two to five years so compliance could be accomplished 
during scheduled maintenance operations.
    Foreign carriers also disagreed with the Department's estimate of 
the cost ($1,680 per foreign carrier over two years) and of the 
difficulty of making Web sites accessible, but provided little data 
supporting their assertions that the cost would be prohibitive. Almost 
unanimously, foreign carriers opposed any requirement to ensure the 
accessibility of contractor Web sites, explaining that they generally 
lacked any control over the design of these sites. This view was shared 
by most U.S. carriers as well. Several foreign carriers, among other 
commenters, asserted that limiting the applicability of Web site 
accessibility requirements to flights covered by Part 382 was neither 
practical nor technically feasible. Foreign carriers that did not 
oppose Web site accessibility requirements still favored much longer 
implementation timeframes, limiting the Web content required to be 
accessible (e.g., text pages only, booking function only, etc.), and 
allowing them to choose among various accepted accessibility standards. 
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) took the position 
that Web site accessibility requirements should only apply to foreign 
carrier Web sites maintained in the U.S. and only with respect to 
content essential for booking a flight. IATA and a number of individual 
foreign carriers opposed requiring carriers to allow passengers with 
disabilities to book special service requests online.
    Associations representing travel agencies held similar views about 
the cost impact, insisting that our preliminary regulatory evaluation 
had missed the mark. The Interactive Travel Services Association (ITSA) 
argued that compliance for travel agencies would be far more 
technically complex than we had anticipated and estimated the cost of 
basic Web site compliance with the Section 508 standard to be $200,000-
$300,000 per company with millions more in ongoing maintenance costs. 
ITSA recommended that we (1) apply accessibility standards only to 
ticket agent sites geared to selling air transportation to persons in 
the U.S.; (2) not specify a particular Web site accessibility standard; 
and (3) allow a ``reasonableness standard'' to determine when 
infrequently visited Web pages could be exempted from accessibility 
requirements.
    The American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) reported that 90% of 
travel agencies are small businesses with 4-6 employees and that we had 
not considered the real impact of compliance on small businesses. While 
the majority of travel agencies have Web sites, ASTA noted that about 
half were created in-house, by a friend, or by using a template. ASTA 
reported that of these travel agency Web sites, only 12% enabled 
clients to book online and that bookings from online transactions 
generated only 5% of the agencies' total revenues.
    Cendant Corporation (Cendant) addressed some of the technical 
problems with ensuring accessibility on Web sites where control of Web 
page content is shared by multiple entities and offered suggestions on 
how responsibility for accessibility should be allocated. Cendant 
suggested that when a carrier enters into a marketing agreement with a 
hosting Web site, the compliance responsibility should be allocated to 
the party that deploys or controls the site's front-end code (user 
interface). They recommended that carriers in co-branding relationships 
with other carriers or marketing agents should only be responsible for 
Web site platform content that they directly develop, control, manage, 
or maintain, and that they should provide exit notices to users 
advising them when they've clicked a link to an outside Web site where 
the content may not be accessible. Cendant also endorsed requiring the 
WCAG rather than Section 508 accessibility standard.
    As a group, U.S. ticket agents opposed any Web site accessibility 
rules applying to them that did not apply to foreign ticket agents as 
well. Like ATA, they urged the Department to limit Web site 
accessibility requirements to accommodating individuals with visual 
disabilities.
    Decision in the 2008 Final Rule: We deferred final action on Web 
site accessibility requirements due to the wide range in estimated 
compliance and maintenance costs asserted by the commenters, as well as 
their varying claims regarding the level of difficulty and technical 
feasibility of bringing a Web site into compliance. We were unable to 
resolve these differences based on the record in that proceeding and 
decided the best course was to revisit the issue in a later rulemaking. 
In the interim, we adopted a provision in the final rule prohibiting 
carriers from charging fees for reservation assistance to passengers 
with disabilities who cannot use inaccessible Web sites and requiring 
carriers to make Web fare discounts available to such passengers.
    Current Proposed Rule: In this SNPRM we propose to require U.S. and 
foreign air carriers to ensure that the public-facing air 
transportation-related content of Web sites they own or control is 
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The proposed accessibility 
requirements would apply to all public-facing content on the Web sites 
of U.S. carriers. Foreign carrier Web sites would be covered only with 
respect to Web pages involved in marketing (advertising or selling) 
covered air transportation to the general public in the U.S. We would 
consider a foreign carrier Web site that has an option to view content 
in English, that advertises or sells flights operating to, from, or 
within the U.S., and/or that shows fares in U.S. dollars as likely to 
be marketing air transportation to the general public in the U.S., and 
if so, covered by the proposed Web site accessibility requirements. Web 
content on a foreign carrier Web site that markets air transportation 
to the general public outside the U.S. would not be covered.
    With respect to air transportation services advertised or sold 
online, we note that carriers offer an ever-expanding array of services 
on their Web sites today, including air travel packages. The 
Department's authority to regulate air transportation extends to the 
marketing of air travel packages that include a tour (i.e., a 
combination of air transportation and ground accommodations), or tour 
component (e.g., a hotel stays) that must be purchased with air 
transportation. See 14 CFR Part 399.84. Over the years, the Department 
has taken numerous enforcement actions against travel companies and 
tour providers selling air tour packages for violating the Department's 
advertising requirements. See, e.g., Grand Casinos, Inc., Violations of 
49 U.S.C. Sec.  41712 and 14 CFR Part 399.84, Order 2005-5-5 (May 26, 
2005); Trafalgar Tours West, Inc. d/b/a Trafalgar Tours, Violations of 
49 U.S.C.

[[Page 59312]]

Sec.  41712 and 14 CFR Part 399, Order 2007-8-24 (August 24, 2007); 
Pacific Delight Tours, Inc., Violations of 49 U.S.C. Sec.  41712 and 14 
CFR Part 399.84, Order 2008-2-13 (February 7, 2008); Unique Vacations 
Inc., Violations of 49 U.S.C. Sec.  41712 and 14 CFR Part 399.84, Order 
2010-11-7 (November 8, 2010). In this NPRM, we are proposing to require 
carriers offering travel packages online that include covered air 
transportation must ensure that their Web site pages marketing all 
package components (e.g., hotel or rental car reservations) are 
conformant with the WCAG 2.0 accessibility requirements. When carriers 
provide links on their Web sites to third party Web sites for booking 
the non-air travel components of travel packages marketed on their Web 
sites that include covered air transportation, the Department solicits 
comment on whether it should recommend or require such carriers to 
provide a notice that the third party Web site may not be accessible 
when the link is activated.
    As for the time period provided for carriers to make their Web 
sites accessible, we propose that carriers implement the Web site 
accessibility requirements for primary Web sites incrementally in three 
phases over a two-year period.
     Newly created or completely redesigned primary Web sites 
placed online 180 or more days after the effective date of the final 
rule would have to comply with WCAG 2.0 at Level A and Level AA.
     Web pages on an existing Web site that provide core air 
travel services and information (i.e., booking or changing a 
reservation, checking-in, and accessing a personal travel itinerary, 
flight status, personal frequent flyer account, flight schedules, or 
the carrier's contact information) would have to be conformant one year 
after the effective date of the final rule. These specific services 
were selected for the second phase of Web site accessibility because we 
view them as being essential and each appeared on most of the U.S. and 
foreign air carriers' mobile Web sites we reviewed. Web site 
conformance could be achieved in one of two ways. Web pages containing 
core air travel services and information could either be directly 
compliant with WCAG 2.0 at Level A and Level AA on a carrier's primary 
Web site or a carrier can provide accessible links from the non-
conforming pages on its primary Web site to the corresponding pages on 
its mobile Web site that are conformant with WCAG 2.0 at Level A and 
Level AA. In addition to ensuring its mobile site conforms with WCAG 
2.0 at Level A and Level AA, we solicit comment on whether we should 
require a carrier to follow the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) 
Recommendation 28 July 2008, Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP) 1.0, 
Basic Guidelines (see http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/) if it elects to 
provide a link from a non-conforming page on its primary Web site to a 
page on its mobile Web site.
     All covered pages on a carrier's primary Web site, 
including those made conformant during the second phase by a link to a 
conformant page on the carrier's mobile Web site, would have to meet 
the WCAG 2.0 at Level A and Level AA standard two years after the 
effective date of the final rule.
    We believe the proposed approach to implementing the requirements 
balances the carriers' need for flexibility and adequate time to fully 
implement an accessible primary Web site, while establishing priorities 
for accessibility of existing Web sites based on the online services of 
greatest interest and value to air travelers with disabilities. By 
allowing carriers to choose how to initially make certain online 
customer service functions accessible (e.g., either on their primary 
Web site or on a mobile site), carriers can determine which approach is 
most feasible for them based on factors such as the complexity of the 
Web pages associated with these functions on their primary Web sites, 
the robustness of the functions on their mobile Web sites, and how they 
wish to allocate their available resources for Web site accessibility. 
Since only entirely new or completely redesigned Web sites placed 
online starting 180 or more days after the rule's effective date would 
have to be accessible, carriers would have up to two years to make all 
covered pages on their primary Web sites accessible (i.e., if they 
chose to make the core customer service functions accessible through 
links on the associated primary Web site pages to accessible pages on 
their mobile Web sites).
    We note that many regional and charter carriers have Web sites that 
provide information related to covered air transportation (e.g., route 
maps, customer service plans, contracts of carriage, etc.) but do not 
sell airline tickets. In most instances, these carriers' Web sites 
provide links to the Web sites of their mainline partners where covered 
flights can be booked and other flight-related services obtained. 
Although the Web sites of these smaller carriers are covered for 
purposes of this rule, the carriers are not required to comply with 
interim provisions that do not apply to them (e.g., if the carrier's 
Web site does not provide booking or check-in functions or flight 
status information, the carrier need not provide such functions in 
accessible format on its Web site). Such carriers would still be 
required to ensure that the links on their Web sites to their partner 
carriers' Web sites were accessible by one year after the effective 
date of the final rule and that all the public-facing content of their 
Web sites was conformant with WCAG 2.0 by two years after the effective 
date.
    The Department considered proposing to require that carriers post 
WCAG 2.0 ``conformance claims'' on their Web sites to support easy 
identification of accessible Web pages and verification of a Web site's 
compliance status. (``Conformance claim'' is W3C's term of art for a 
statement by an entity giving a brief description of the Web page(s) on 
its Web site for which the claim is made, the date of conformance, the 
WCAG guidelines and conformance level satisfied, and the Web content 
technologies relied upon. Conformance is defined only for Web pages, 
but a conformance claim may be made to cover one Web page, a series of 
pages, or multiple related pages.) While conformance claims appear to 
be our best option for identification and compliance verification 
purposes, we are concerned that the resources involved in preparing and 
maintaining conformance claims for complex and dynamic carrier Web 
sites may not be feasible. We therefore invite public comment on 
effective alternative means for readily identifying compliant Web pages 
during the Web site conversion period and for verifying overall Web 
site accessibility after the compliance deadline.
    During the interim period while the inaccessible public-facing 
content of their Web sites is being updated in accordance with the 
implementation timeframes, the Department will continue to require 
carriers to make discounted Web-based fares and other Web-based 
amenities available to passengers who self-identify as being unable to 
use a carrier's inaccessible Web site due to their disability. This 
means, for example, that Web-based discount fares must be disclosed to 
any prospective passenger who inquires about fares through other 
channels (e.g., telephone or walk-in) and who states that he or she has 
a disability and is unable to use the inaccessible Web site, if his or 
her itinerary qualifies for the discounted fare. In addition, after 
carriers' Web sites are fully conformant with all applicable 
accessibility requirements, we will continue to require them to make 
Web-based discounts and amenities available as

[[Page 59313]]

described above to any passenger who states that due to a disability, 
he or she is unable to use a carrier's accessible Web site.
    With respect to carriers that market their airline tickets on their 
agents' Web sites, we propose to require that they ensure that their 
airline tickets are marketed and sold on ticket agent Web sites that 
conform to the accessibility standards set forth in WCAG 2.0. We are 
proposing to provide carriers two years from the effective date of the 
rule to ensure that their agents' Web sites are accessible as described 
above. After this time, the Department would take enforcement action 
against carriers that market air transportation on an agent's 
inaccessible Web site, unless the agent qualifies as a small business 
(i.e., having annual revenues less than the applicable threshold set 
forth in 13 CFR 121.201). In those situations, carriers would be 
required to ensure that those small ticket agents make discounted Web-
based fares and other Web-based amenities available on the carrier's 
behalf to passengers who self identify as being unable to use the 
agent's inaccessible Web site due to their disability (e.g., an 
individual who is deaf-blind and contacts the carrier by relay service 
to make a reservation). Methods carriers could use to ensure that 
ticket agent Web sites marketing their travel services are accessible 
include sending a notice to their agents regarding their obligations to 
have an accessible Web site and make discounted fares or other 
applicable Web-based amenities available to individuals who are unable 
to use an agent's Web site due to a disability. Carriers could also 
periodically (once or twice a year) monitor ticket agent Web sites, 
marketing their travel services to ensure that the Web sites are 
accessible. Another possibility is for carriers to monitor disability 
complaints received by its ticket agents to see if any of the 
complaints allege that a ticket agent's Web site is inaccessible or if 
a ticket agent refused to make the services discussed above available 
to individuals who cannot use their Web sites due to a disability.
    Although we asked for comment in the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM, we 
decided against proposing a requirement for carriers to provide a Web 
site function allowing passengers to add special service requests for 
disability accommodations to their passenger record. Our decision was 
based on comments from several carriers indicating the importance of 
passengers speaking directly with an agent when requesting disability 
services to avoid any misunderstandings about their specific 
accommodation needs.
    The departure from our proposal in the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM 
to require Web site conformance with the Section 508 standards is based 
in part on comments from the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM but mostly on 
developments that have occurred since the final rule was issued. 
Comments on our proposal in the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM to adopt the 
Section 508 Web site accessibility standard were mixed. Although there 
was significant support for the Section 508 standard, a number of 
commenters urged us to consider adopting the WCAG standard or at least 
allowing carriers to choose which standard to apply. We did not 
consider adopting the then current WCAG 1.0 standard, however, because 
some requirements were not testable, thus compromising compliance 
verification. In December 2008, following a lengthy development process 
with Web developers, accessibility experts, and the disability 
community, the W3C adopted WCAG 2.0, incorporating developments in Web 
technology and lessons learned since WCAG 1.0 (1999).
    WCAG 2.0 has 12 guidelines organized under four design principles: 
Perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. Each guideline has 
testable success criteria defined at three levels (A, AA, and AAA) for 
determining Web site conformance. Level A conformance is the minimum 
level of conformance for providing basic accessibility and means that 
Web pages satisfy all the Level A success criteria. Level AA 
conformance provides a stronger level of accessibility and means that 
the Web pages satisfy all the Level A and Level AA success criteria. 
Level AAA conformance provides a very high level of accessibility and 
means that the Web pages satisfy all the Level A, Level AA, and Level 
AAA success criteria. Level AA conformance provides better 
accessibility and barrier reduction for accessing Web content than 
Level A (e.g., Level AA success criteria include the capability to 
resize text up to 200% without loss of content or functionality and 
consistent identification of components that have the same 
functionality within a set of Web pages). While Level AAA conformance 
provides the most robust level of accessibility, W3C does not recommend 
requiring it for entire Web sites because it is not possible to satisfy 
all Level AAA success criteria for some content.
    For each conformance level, a non-conforming page is considered 
compliant if it provides an accessible mechanism for reaching a 
conforming alternate version of the page that meets the success 
criteria, is up to date, and contains the same information and 
functionality in the same language. A conforming alternate version of a 
Web page is intended to provide people with disabilities equivalent 
access to the same content and functionality as a directly accessible 
Web page under WCAG 2.0. Nonetheless, WCAG 2.0 implementation guidance 
notes that providing a conforming alternate version of a Web page is a 
fallback option for WCAG conformance and that the preferred method of 
conformance is to make all Web page content directly accessible. 
Therefore, the intent of these proposed accessibility requirements is 
that Web site content be directly accessible whenever possible. 
However, the proposal does not explicitly require that a conforming 
alternate version be used only when needed to provide the Web content 
as effectively to individuals with disabilities as to those without 
disabilities. The Department seeks comment on whether we should 
explicitly prohibit the use of conforming alternate versions except 
when necessary to provide the information, services, and benefits on a 
specific Web page or Web site as effectively to individuals with 
disabilities as to those without disabilities.
    In early 2010, the U.S. Access Board (Board) issued an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to update various accessibility 
standards and guidelines, including the Section 508 standard which has 
been in effect for more than a decade and that applies to electronic 
and information technology developed, procured, maintained, or used by 
Federal agencies. See 75 FR 13457 (March 22, 2010). Due to the scope 
and complexity of this rulemaking, it may take two or more years to 
issue a refreshed Section 508 standard, which we anticipate will be 
significantly different from the current version. While the timing and 
scope of the Section 508 refresh were significant factors in our 
decision to propose WCAG 2.0 as the Web site accessibility standard, 
the most important consideration was the Board's stated intention in 
the ANPRM to ``seek[s] to harmonize, to the extent possible, its 
criteria with other standards and guidelines in order to improve 
accessibility and facilitate compliance.'' See 75 Fed. Reg. 13457, 
13458 (March 22, 2010). The Board adopted this position based on the 
recommendations of the Telecommunications and Electronic and 
Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC), which it

[[Page 59314]]

established in 2006 to review the existing Section 508 standards and 
Telecommunications Act accessibility guidelines and to recommend 
changes. As part of its review, TEITAC, which represented industry, 
disability groups, standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and abroad, and 
government agencies, sought to address key issues driving the 
development of electronic information technology, including the need 
for standardization across markets globally. In its report to the Board 
in 2008, TEITAC recommended that the Board seek to harmonize the 
Section 508 standards with WCAG 2.0 (which were still being finalized) 
in order to improve accessibility and facilitate compliance. As a 
result, in the March 2010 ANPRM, the Board sought comment on a 
harmonization approach with WCAG 2.0 in which Web pages (as defined by 
WCAG 2.0), which are Level AA conformant, be deemed to be in 
conformance with the technical criteria it proposed in Chapter 4 
(Platforms, Applications, and Interactive Content), Chapter 5 
(Electronic Documents), and Chapter 6 (Synchronized Media Content and 
Players), and certain other specified provisions of the draft. See 75 
Fed. Reg. 13457, 13460 (March 22, 2010).WCAG 2.0, which is 
internationally recognized as the most up-to-date and widely used 
accessibility standard available, addresses to varying degrees, access 
issues for people with visual, hearing, motor, cognitive, and 
neurological disabilities. The WCAG 2.0 specification and detailed 
technical guidance are available to the public free of charge at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. Although the Department initially intended to 
require accessibility for visual disabilities only, recognition by 
TEITAC and other technology experts of the significant commercial and 
other benefits of harmonizing with international accessibility 
standards persuaded us to propose the more inclusive WCAG 2.0 standard 
for air travel Web site accessibility at this time. We anticipate that 
approximately 4.3 million Web site visitors with disabilities will 
benefit from these proposed Web site accessibility requirements in the 
first 10 years after the effective date of the rule.
    Request for Public Comments: Below we discuss the requirements we 
are proposing in more detail, report some preliminary findings of our 
regulatory evaluation, and pose questions for public comment.
    Applicability--We propose to apply the Web site accessibility 
requirements to the public-facing content of U.S. and foreign carrier 
primary Web sites that market air transportation and to limit the 
application to foreign carrier Web sites to Web pages involved in 
marketing covered air transportation to the general public in the U.S. 
Is there any reason to limit the applicability of this requirement to 
the largest U.S. and foreign air carriers, such as those that operate 
at least one aircraft with more than 60 seats for example? Should 
carriers that only provide charter service be subject to different Web 
site accessibility requirements than carriers that provide scheduled 
service? Should we exclude from Web site accessibility requirements 
carriers that advertise air transportation but do not sell airline 
tickets?
    We also propose to indirectly cover the Web sites of ticket agents 
that exceed the small business revenue thresholds established by the 
SBA. Should carriers not be required to ensure that the Web pages on 
which online ticket agencies market and sell their airline tickets are 
accessible? Should carriers only be required to ensure Web page 
accessibility of online ticket agencies that market and sell more than 
a certain percentage (e.g., 10%) of the carrier's total ticket sales 
annually? Should this rule apply to ticket agents directly with respect 
to ensuring that their Web pages on which they market and sell covered 
air transportation to the general public in the U.S. are accessible? 
Should DOT wait for the Department of Justice to move forward with its 
rulemaking under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
before promulgating regulations that require ticket agent Web sites to 
be accessible?
    Technical Accessibility Standard--Should the Department consider 
requiring a set of technical or performance accessibility standards 
other than WCAG 2.0? Besides the Section 508 standards, what other 
accepted Web site accessibility standards are available? In the final 
rule, should the Department permit carriers to comply with Web site 
accessibility requirements by meeting any accepted Web site 
accessibility standard? Does WCAG 2.0 Level AA conformance provide a 
sufficient level of accessibility? Are there sufficient technical 
assistance resources available to support companies in implementing the 
standard? As an alternative, should Level A conformance or Level A plus 
conformance with some number of selected Level AA success criteria be 
required as long as the result is at least as strong as the current 
Section 508 Web accessibility standard? As stated earlier, the intent 
of the proposed accessibility requirements is that Web site content be 
directly accessible whenever possible. A conforming alternate version 
of a Web page must meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria, be up to date, 
contain the same information and functionality in the same language, 
and be reachable via an accessible mechanism from the primary Web site. 
The Department seeks comment on whether it should explicitly prohibit 
the use of conforming alternate versions except when necessary to 
provide the information, services, and benefits on a specific Web page 
or Web site as effectively to individuals with disabilities as to those 
without disabilities. The Department is also interested in public 
comment on what circumstances would make it necessary to use a 
conforming alternate version to provide the information, services, and 
benefits on a specific Web page or Web site as effectively to 
individuals with disabilities as to those without disabilities. With 
respect to specific technical criteria, we ask for comment on whether 
timeouts present barriers to using Web sites and on the cost or 
difficulty potentially associated with providing timeout capability.
    In addition to a requirement to comply with the proposed technical 
accessibility criteria for Web sites, we are considering requiring 
covered entities to also ensure their Web sites are usable by 
individuals with disabilities. During a meeting between DOT officials 
and representatives of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) held 
on June 29, 2011, NFB recommended that any DOT proposal on Web site 
accessibility contain not only technical standards but also a 
performance standard to ensure that a Web site that meets specific 
technical criteria is also useable by people with visual impairments. 
NFB emphasized that compliance with a technical standard without a 
clear understanding of the underlying accessibility goal can lead to 
implementing the standard in a way that hinders access for people with 
disabilities. For example, the WCAG 2.0 requirement for headings to 
identify items on a Web page (information, navigation controls, 
graphics, etc.) can result in a Web page with so many headings that it 
cannot be efficiently navigated by a screen reader. Similarly, full 
compliance with the WCAG 2.0 requirement to label links on a Web page 
with an ``alt-tag'' is not helpful if the alt-tags do not adequately 
explain the link's purpose. Because implementing the WCAG 2.0 
requirements for headings and alt-tags to label Web page content is 
somewhat subjective, there is a need to ensure that a Level AA-
compliant Web page is usable by persons with a disability. To

[[Page 59315]]

ensure that Web pages are technically compliant in a manner that 
ensures accessibility and usability to people with disabilities, NFB 
recommends that, in addition to any proposed technical accessibility 
standards, covered Web pages meet a performance standard such that the 
Web pages ensure that persons with disabilities ``may access or acquire 
the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the 
same products and services'' offered to Web site users without 
disabilities ``with a substantially similar ease of use.'' We recognize 
that whether ease of use is ``substantially similar'' depends to a 
significant extent on the user's screen reader or other assistive 
technology, which is beyond the control of the carrier. For this 
reason, we may need to specify the types and versions of various 
assistive technologies to which the performance standard must apply. 
The Department, therefore, seeks comments on the adoption of a 
performance standard in the final rule, in addition to the proposed 
technical standards, as well as on the types and versions of assistive 
technologies to which a performance standard should apply. We also seek 
comment on the feasibility and value of requiring airlines to work with 
the disability community (e.g., establish a committee on Web site 
accessibility) to assist them in maintaining the accessibility of their 
Web site through periodic monitoring and feedback on the Web site's 
usability.
    Scope of the requirements--We are proposing the accessibility 
standards to cover public-facing content on Web sites owned or 
controlled by U.S. carriers and foreign carriers where air 
transportation is marketed to the general public in the U.S. Should 
accessibility requirements cover all public-facing Web site content on 
the Web sites, or only the portion(s) of the Web site necessary to book 
a flight? Should the accessibility requirements apply to either mobile 
Web sites or primary Web sites, or to both? Are the services and 
information available on mobile Web sites generally as easy to use as 
their counterparts on a carrier's main Web site or not? We also solicit 
comment on whether the Department should require carriers to ensure 
that their mobile Web sites are conformant with WCAG 2.0 at Level A and 
Level AA, or follow the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendation 
28 July 2008, Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP) 1.0, Basic Guidelines, 
or both?
    Should carriers be required to ensure that any third party software 
that is downloadable from a link on the carrier's Web site (e.g., deal 
finding software) is accessible? Can mobile applications be programmed 
to comply with WCAG 2.0 accessibility standards? Should the Department 
require electronic communications generated by a carrier, such as 
reservation confirmation, flight status notifications, and special 
offer e-mails to be accessible? What are the costs and technical 
difficulties of ensuring that such content is accessible?
    Costs and Benefits--Our preliminary regulatory evaluation estimates 
the net benefits of the proposed air travel Web site accessibility 
requirements over the entire 10-year analysis period at $55.3 million 
using the 7 percent discount rate and $74.7 million using the 3 percent 
discount rate. The total estimated benefits of $122.1 million 
discounted at 7% and $147.3 million discounted at 3% were calculated 
based on the expected time savings for people with disabilities who can 
use an accessible Web site, as well as the savings to carriers 
resulting from avoided calls (assisting passengers with disabilities 
who cannot use their Web sites). The monetized value of the time 
savings for individuals with disabilities and cost savings to carriers 
associated with compliant air travel Web sites is estimated at more 
than $14 million in the first year after air travel Web sites become 
fully compliant with the proposed Web site accessibility standards. Our 
preliminary regulatory analysis underscores that many unquantifiable 
benefits are also expected to result from the proposed requirements, 
including increased air travel by persons with disabilities, reaching 
more consumers with disabilities, and improved understanding by 
carriers of their Web sites' content, structure, and performance 
issues.
    The total estimated costs associated with the proposed 
accessibility requirements were based on the Web site size (class sizes 
of largest, large, small, smallest), estimated number of revision hours 
by type of task (site layout and home page reorganization, conformance 
evaluation/certification, per individual site page) and the cost per 
hour for programming and overhead. The estimated cost per site for 
making primary Web sites completely accessible is estimated at $225,000 
for the largest sites having an average of 900 pages (1,500 hours), 
$105,000 for large sites having an average of 300 pages (700 hours), 
$50,400 for small sites having an average of 120 pages (420 hours) and 
$31,200 for the smallest sites having an average of 60 pages (260 
hours). These costs for bringing the Web sites into initial compliance, 
which are based on a review of carrier Web sites using a collection of 
Web development tools, would be incurred during the first 2 years of 
the 10-year analysis period. Thereafter, U.S. and foreign carriers 
would incur an estimated $2.0 million annually and ticket agents an 
estimated $2.6 million annually in costs to ensure that their primary 
Web sites remain fully compliant. We are seeking comment on whether 
these cost estimates for Web site compliance are reasonable and address 
the relevant cost components. Total compliance costs for all entities, 
including U.S. and foreign carriers and their agents that are not small 
business concerns, to comply with the proposed Web site accessibility 
standards are estimated at $66.8 million using the 7 percent discount 
rate, and $72.6 million using the 3 percent discount rate. As with the 
estimated benefits, potentially important categories of cost identified 
for which no quantitative data are available include the cost of 
maintaining Web site accessibility, reallocating resources used to 
create Web pages to ensuring regulatory compliance, and possible 
impacts on Web site innovation options.
    We note that the Air Transport Association (ATA) reported 
significantly higher estimated hours and overall costs for making 
carrier Web sites accessible in its comments on the Web site 
accessibility requirements proposed in the 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM 
(e.g., two member carriers estimated that it would require 4,700 and 
6,000 hours respectively for planning, programming, and testing to 
comply with the Web site requirements). In a similar vein, the 
Interactive Travel Services Association (ITSA) estimated the cost of 
basic Web site compliance with the Section 508 standard to be $200,000-
$300,000 per company with millions more in ongoing maintenance costs. 
There are several factors accounting for the differences between our 
current cost estimates and the earlier estimates of both ATA and ITSA. 
The number of hours needed to comply depends on the size, type of 
programming, and current accessibility of a carrier's Web site. Carrier 
and travel agent Web sites vary significantly with respect to these 
factors, particularly Web site size and current level of accessibility. 
We believe very few carriers, if any, would need up to 6,000 hours to 
comply with the proposed accessibility standards; the vast majority 
would be able to achieve fully accessible Web sites within the number 
of hours we've estimated above. Another key factor driving the 
difference in estimated costs for both initial compliance and 
maintenance is

[[Page 59316]]

that the programming tools available in Web design software were far 
less sophisticated in 2004 than today. For example, Cascading Style 
Sheets (CSS), which make maintenance and updating of Web pages far 
easier and less time-consuming, were just beginning to be used in 2004 
and now are nearly universal. Building accessibility into new Web pages 
today is estimated to add only about 3-6 percent to the cost, making 
the ongoing costs for maintaining an accessible Web site significantly 
less than for achieving initial compliance. Yet another factor in the 
cost difference is that the section 508 accessibility standard we 
proposed in 2004 was not as widely used in the private sector, nor as 
well supported as WCAG 2.0, which today is widely recognized as a more 
robust, more current, better-supported, and more easily implemented 
standard.
    In light of the above, the Department seeks input from the public 
on the following questions. Do any carriers currently have Web sites 
that conform to the WCAG 2.0 standard? If so, what was the cost the 
carriers incurred in bringing their Web site into conformance with this 
standard? Is there agreement or disagreement with the Department's cost 
per site estimate? If not, what is an accurate estimate and on what 
specific component costs is the estimate based? What is a reasonable 
estimate of the time required to make embedded content (such as PDFs 
and multimedia) accessible? Does the initial cost of creating 
accessible Web content differ in any significant way from non-
accessible Web content? Do the maintenance costs of an accessible Web 
site differ in any significant way from those of an inaccessible Web 
site once the conversion is completed? What would be the cost and 
technical difficulty associated with conforming mobile Web content to 
the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard or any other accessibility 
standard? How much time is needed to make an existing mobile Web site 
or primary Web site entirely accessible? What is the cost impact of 
disclosing Web-based fare discounts and other Web-based amenities to 
passengers with disabilities who indicate they are unable to use a 
carrier's Web site due to their disability and who inquire about air 
transportation with the carrier using another means? Are there any 
unintended impacts, positive or negative, that could result from 
requiring carrier and ticket agent Web sites to be accessible?
    Implementation Approach and Time Frame--The Department seeks 
comment on alternative time frames and approaches for implementation of 
Web site accessibility requirements. We are proposing a three-phase 
approach that attempts to expedite accessibility of Web pages on a Web 
site based on when individual Web pages were created as well as the 
relative importance of the information or service (functionality) 
carriers make available for air travelers. For the initial phase,, we 
propose to require that a carrier's new or completely redesigned 
primary Web site be accessible if placed online 180 or more days after 
the effective date of the final rule. By one year after the final 
rule's effective date, we propose to require Web pages associated with 
booking or changing a reservation, flight check-in, and accessing a 
personal travel itinerary, frequent flyer account, flight status or 
schedules, and carrier contact information to be conformant either on a 
primary Web site or by providing an accessible link from the associated 
pages on a primary Web site to corresponding conformant pages on a 
mobile Web site. All covered Web pages on a carrier's primary Web site 
would have to be conformant by two years from the final rule's 
effective date. We believe a gradual phasing in, deferring the most 
extensive Web site conversion tasks until last, will make the cost 
burden more manageable. Is the reservation booking mechanism more 
difficult to render accessible than other Web site functions? Is one 
year a reasonable time frame for making this function accessible? Is it 
feasible to require that just the booking function be made accessible 
within 180 days of the rule's effective date? Is a two-year time frame 
sufficient to render all public-facing content on a carrier's main Web 
site accessible? In its ANPRM on Web site accessibility for entities 
covered by the ADA, DOJ sought comment on compliance time frames based 
on when the Web sites or individual Web pages were created and on the 
feasibility of achieving compliance for new pages on existing Web 
sites. For newly created or completely redesigned Web pages--or all new 
Web sites (i.e., those placed online for the first time), DOJ asked 
about requiring compliance starting six months after the publication of 
the final rule. Recognizing that completely new or redesigned Web sites 
and pages can more easily be made fully accessible than new pages on 
existing Web sites where certain features such as navigation components 
cannot be changed or replaced without redesigning the entire Web site, 
DOJ asked whether requiring compliance to the maximum extent feasible 
for new pages on existing Web sites (which may result in pages that are 
not completely accessible) would be the appropriate standard. Finally, 
considering that existing Web sites may have hundreds to thousands of 
pages to be made accessible, DOJ also asked whether it would be 
reasonable to apply the Web site accessibility requirements to existing 
Web sites or pages effective two years after the date of publication of 
the final rule. See 75 FR 43460, 43466 (July 26, 2010). DOT requests 
comment on the approach we are proposing in this rulemaking for a 
three-phase implementation timeframe based on whether the Web page or 
site is new, which is similar to DOJ's approach, and the relative 
importance of the information or service (functionality) carriers make 
available for air travelers on existing Web sites. We also solicit 
comment on the approach DOJ proposed in its ANPRM which is based 
primarily on when Web sites/Web pages were created and the feasibility 
of compliance for new pages on existing Web sites, as well as any other 
approach for determining the time frame that should be adopted for 
carriers and ticket agents to bring their Web sites into compliance. 
Should the time frames for implementing the phased Web site 
accessibility requirements be expanded (e.g., 12 months for the first 
phase, 18 months for the second phase and 30 months for the third 
phase)?
    Identifying Accessible Web Pages on Partially Accessible Web 
Sites--Should the Department require carriers to ensure that accessible 
Web pages can be readily identified as such by people with disabilities 
(e.g., contain a tag readable by screen reader software)? If flight-
related functions that must be accessible 180 days or one year after 
the rule's effective date cannot be accessed from a carrier's 
inaccessible home page, are alternative means for accessing those 
functions (e.g., through a Google search) acceptable until the 
carrier's entire Web site is accessible?
    Compliance Verification and Web Site Usability--Can the available 
protocols and procedures for testing Web content conformance with WCAG 
2.0 be implemented cost effectively by carriers? The Department 
believes that requiring carriers to post and maintain WCAG 2.0 
conformance claims on their Web sites may be too costly given the size, 
complexity, and dynamic nature of many carrier Web sites. We are 
seeking comment on alternative means to readily identify a Web site's 
conformance with applicable accessibility requirements. What methods 
might DOT use to ensure/verify compliance with the applicable 
standards? Should the Department initiate random ``spot'' 
investigations of

[[Page 59317]]

carrier and online ticket agency Web sites to monitor compliance after 
the rule becomes effective? Are there any specific technical barriers 
to maintaining air carrier Web site accessibility after full Web site 
compliance is initially achieved?
    Among the issues raised by NFB in the aforementioned June 29 
meeting with the Department was the need for accessibility training for 
airline employees involved in programming, coding, or editing a 
carrier's Web site so that the underlying goals of technical 
accessibility requirements are well understood by those who develop and 
maintain the carriers' Web sites. Should the Department require 
carriers to develop guidance manuals for such personnel on how to 
implement technical accessibility standards so that their Web sites are 
also functionally usable by individuals with disabilities (i.e., they 
are able to access or acquire the same information, engage in the same 
interactions, and enjoy the same products and services as non-disabled 
users of their Web site with substantially equivalent ease of use)?
    Ensuring Ticket Agents Meet Web Site Accessibility and Service 
Obligations--The Department seeks public comment on the specific 
methods carriers might use to ensure that their ticket agents marketing 
air transportation to the general public in the U.S. are complying with 
both the requirements to make the Web pages on their Web sites related 
to covered air transportation accessible and to provide Web-based 
discounts and amenities to individuals who are unable to use their Web 
sites due to a disability. With respect to ensuring Web site 
accessibility, should we require carriers to notify their agents that 
their Web sites must be in compliance with WCAG 2.0 by two years after 
the rule's effective date? Would such notification to agents be 
sufficient, or should we require carriers to obtain certification from 
their agents by two years after the rule's effective date that their 
Web sites are compliant? Should we permit carriers to rely solely on 
their agents' certifications of Web site compliance, or should we also 
require carriers to monitor their agents' Web sites once or twice a 
year? What about simply requiring carriers to bring any inaccessible 
agent Web sites that they become aware of to the attention of the those 
agents, and if the agent does not respond, bring those agent Web sites 
to the Department's attention? What would be the costs associated with 
any of the approaches discussed above?
    Regarding accessible agent Web sites that cannot be used by certain 
individuals due to a disability or inaccessible Web sites of small 
ticket agents, should the Department require carriers to notify agents 
of their obligations to provide Web-based discounts and amenities as of 
the rule's effective date to individuals who cannot use an agent's Web 
site? Should the Department require that carriers verify their agents' 
compliance with these obligations through test calls or some other 
method? Would it be sufficient to allow carriers to rely on a written 
statement from their agents certifying that as of a certain date the 
agent provides these services? Should we require carriers to monitor 
complaints against ticket agents alleging that an agent refused to 
provide these services to consumers who could not access its Web site 
due to a disability? What would be the costs associated with any of 
these approaches? Are there any other methods of monitoring/ensuring 
ticket agents' Web sites are accessible and discounted fares are 
available to individuals who can't use the ticket agent's Web site 
because of a disability that we should consider?
    Other Issues--Should the Department require carriers and ticket 
agents to provide a mechanism for passengers to provide online 
notification of their requests for disability accommodation services 
(e.g., enplaning/deplaning assistance, deaf/hard of hearing 
communication assistance, escort to service animal relief area, etc.)?

2. Automated Airport Kiosk Accessibility

    Most airlines today are using automated kiosks at airports to 
perform customer service functions such as automated flight check-in 
and printing of boarding passes. The speed and efficiency of automated 
airport kiosks make them the check-in option of choice for many air 
travelers. Participants in the Airline IT Trends Survey 2009 reported 
that over half of all travellers use an automated airport kiosk to 
check-in, making it the primary means for passenger processing at 29% 
of airports. By 2012, automated airport kiosks are expected to be the 
primary passenger check-in method at more than 75% of airports. Of 116 
carriers (both U.S. and foreign) responding to the 2009 Airline IT 
Trends Survey, 60% had automated check-in kiosks at airports and 86% 
planned to have them by the end of 2012. See SITA, Airports Council 
International, & Airline Business, (June 2009). The Airport IT Trends 
Survey 2009 Executive Summary. SITA and Airline Business Magazine. 
Retrieved February 11, 2011, from http://www.sita.aero/content/airport-it-trends-survey-2009.
    Increasingly, carriers are implementing kiosk technology for other 
customer service functions at airports such as bag tag printing, 
rebooking passengers from cancelled flights, and reporting lost 
luggage, resulting in significant cost savings. But the trend has 
bypassed a significant number of passengers with visual and mobility 
impairments for whom automated airport kiosks remain largely 
inaccessible. While Part 382 currently requires carriers to provide 
equivalent service to passengers with disabilities when automated 
airport kiosks are inaccessible, such service typically involves 
assistance from carrier personnel in operating the kiosk or permitting 
a passenger to move to the first class ticket counter line. Many 
passengers with disabilities consider these solutions inadequate 
because they do not allow for independent access and call attention to 
a passenger's disability. Indeed, advocacy organizations for 
individuals with visual disabilities have initiated lawsuits against 
carriers and an airport for failure to provide accessible automated 
airport kiosks. In addition, the trend in the air travel industry 
toward self-service and technology-driven service models has continued 
to grow rapidly since the 2008 final rule was issued.
    The 2004 Foreign Carriers NPRM: The Department sought comment on 
whether automated kiosks operated by carriers in airports or other 
locations (e.g., for ticketing and dispensing of boarding passes) are 
sufficiently accessible to people with vision and mobility impairments, 
whether the final rule should mandate specific accessibility 
requirements, and if so, what accessibility standards should apply. The 
Department asked specifically if it should adopt the Section 508 
standard for self-contained closed products (36 CFR 1194.25) by 
reference for electronic kiosks, but did not propose any rule text.
    The Comments: Comments from disability community representatives 
were universally supportive of requiring automated airport kiosks to be 
accessible for people with visual and mobility impairments. Some 
disability commenters urged that accessibility be required for those 
with hearing, cognitive, and dexterity disabilities. A number of large 
disability advocacy organizations strongly supported applying the 
standards in section 707 of the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines of 
2004 for automated transaction machines (ATM) and fare machines, as 
well as the Section 508 requirements for self-contained closed

[[Page 59318]]

products, to both built-in and freestanding automated airport kiosks.
    The public comments did not, however, provide any specific 
technical or cost information on which to determine the feasibility of 
imposing accessibility requirements for automated airport kiosks. The 
Air Transport Association (ATA) opposed including any accessibility 
requirements for automated airport kiosks in the final rule, asserting 
that the technology was still maturing and adopting standards at that 
stage would be inappropriate. In ATA's view, a kiosk should be 
considered accessible as long as airline personnel are available to 
assist passengers with a disability in accomplishing kiosk ticketing 
and check-in processes. A number of carriers emphasized the cost burden 
of retrofitting automated airport kiosks for accessibility, including 
increased airport facilities charges due to expansion of the automated 
kiosk footprint. IATA cited not only the prohibitive cost of adapting 
existing automated kiosks, but also the complications arising from 
shared ownership of automated kiosks by airlines, airport operators, 
and even government entities at foreign airports and the difficulty of 
allocating the costs of adapting such kiosks when not all of the kiosk 
owners must comply with Part 382. Some individual foreign carriers 
pointed out their inability to control the operation and use of 
automated airport kiosks through contractual provisions at foreign 
airports where kiosks are provided by airport operators.
    The Decision in the 2008 Final Rule: We determined that we did not 
have sufficient information to accurately estimate the cost and 
technical impact of imposing accessibility standards on automated 
airport kiosks and concluded that new requirements for kiosk 
accessibility were not appropriate at that time. As an interim measure, 
we did require carriers whose automated airport kiosks are not 
accessible to provide equivalent service to passengers with 
disabilities who cannot use the kiosks and announced our intention to 
seek further comment about kiosk accessibility in an SNPRM.
    The Proposed Rule: The Department believes that accessibility for 
people with disabilities cannot be viewed as a dispensable design 
feature. Increasingly, the business community also is recognizing the 
importance of accessibility as a baseline technology design factor to 
support expansion of customer bases and market shares. IBM, a leading 
manufacturer of kiosks and other self-service applications, has 
developed an automated airport kiosk equipped with an industry standard 
audio connector, accessible hardware controls, and text-to-speech 
output. The model was tested by dozens of people with vision and 
mobility impairments who were able to complete the check-in process 
with an unprecedented level of independence. In this SNPRM, we propose 
to amend section 382.57 to require U.S. and foreign air carriers at 
every U.S. airport with 10,000 or more enplanements per year where they 
own, lease, or control automated kiosks providing flight-related 
services to their customers (e.g., ticket purchase, seat selection, 
issuance of boarding passes, bag tags, etc.) to ensure that all new 
kiosk orders initiated 60 days after the rule's effective date are for 
accessible units. This means that carriers would be required to ensure 
that all new automated kiosk orders initiated 60 days after the 
effective date of the final rule, including those to be installed at 
new locations and those replacing existing automated kiosks taken out 
of service in the normal course of operations (e.g. due to end of life 
cycle, a general equipment upgrade, a terminal renovation, etc.), are 
for models that meet the technical accessibility criteria set forth in 
this proposal.
    Research conducted in conjunction with the regulatory evaluation 
for this SNPRM indicates that the average life cycle for airport kiosks 
is five years.\5\ The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) indicated 
in a meeting with the Department on June 29, 2011, that a major U.S. 
airline disclosed to them that the average life cycle of its automated 
airport kiosks is seven to ten years. The same carrier also disclosed 
that automated airport kiosks may have various components replaced or 
upgraded (e.g., printer, motherboard) during the life cycle before the 
equipment is taken out of service. Assuming a longer functional life 
cycle for automated airport kiosks, NFB recommended that the Department 
consider requiring carriers to retrofit some portion of their kiosk 
fleet at each airport location to meet any proposed accessibility 
standards. At the same time, we are aware that retrofitting existing 
kiosks to meet accessibility standards would involve not only hardware 
modifications but also updated carrier software applications that may 
not be operable on older kiosk machines. In light of the variations in 
the life cycle estimates and the software issues, the Department is 
considering requiring either retrofitting or replacement of a certain 
percentage or number of airport kiosks (e.g., retrofit 25% of existing 
kiosks or retrofit at least one kiosk at each airport location by a 
certain date). Given the estimated five- to ten-year life cycle of 
automated airport kiosks, we are concerned that our proposal may take 
too long for accessible kiosks to be available to individuals with 
disabilities. We are seeking additional information from the public on 
the accuracy of our assumption about the life cycle of automated 
airport kiosks and to determine the ability of the manufacturing sector 
to meet the demand for accessible automated airport kiosks. Such 
information will enable us to determine the appropriate timeframe for 
achieving accessibility of all automated airport kiosks. Although we 
are not proposing to require retrofitting or replacement of existing 
kiosks at this time, if the average life cycle for automated airport 
kiosks is seven to ten years, the transition time to achieve 
accessibility of all such kiosks at each airport location could be more 
than a decade. In such a situation, should the Department require 
carriers to retrofit or replace a certain portion of their kiosk fleet 
to meet the accessibility standards during the interim period until 
100% of all automated airport kiosks are accessible?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Visitor and 
Immigrant Status Indicator and Technology (US-VISIT) Program. Air/
Sea Biometric Exit Project Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington, 
DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. VISIT Program, 2008. 
http://airlineinfo.com/dhspdf/3.pdf (accessed May 27, 2011.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the advantages of the various incremental approaches we 
considered, there were difficulties with any proposed requirement that 
would result in less than 100% accessible automated kiosks at an 
airport. For example, if we required only 25% of a carrier's automated 
kiosks in an airport location to be accessible, would we also need to 
require that the carrier give priority access to any individual who 
needs an accessible kiosk? If the accessible automated airport kiosks 
at an airport location are used by all passengers, the wait time for 
passengers who need an accessible automated kiosk may end up being 
significantly longer than the wait for non-disabled passengers who can 
use any available automated kiosk at that location. At the same time, 
any mandate to reserve accessible automated kiosks at an airport 
location exclusively for passengers who need an accessible kiosk 
carries the potential of segregating and stigmatizing such passengers. 
In terms of independent use, passengers with visual impairments would 
still need assistance from carrier personnel in identifying an 
accessible model at

[[Page 59319]]

airport locations where the carrier owned, leased, or controlled both 
accessible and inaccessible automated kiosks. Since these outcomes 
would undermine some of the benefits we are seeking to achieve, we view 
our best alternative as requiring that all new automated airport kiosks 
ordered after a certain date be accessible so that eventually 100% of 
kiosks at all airport locations will be accessible. We nonetheless seek 
public comment on the need to require that all new automated airport 
kiosks be accessible, and on any alternative approaches we should 
consider in addition to those discussed above (e.g., requiring only 25% 
of a carrier's automated kiosks in an airport location to be 
accessible).
    As mentioned above, while we are not requiring any retrofitting of 
existing kiosks, we are cognizant of the market impact of a requirement 
that would create a significant demand for a product that may not yet 
be widely available. We have posed a number of questions for public 
comment related to these potential impacts in the next section.
    Until all automated kiosks in an airport location are accessible, 
we are also proposing to require carriers to ensure that each 
accessible automated kiosk they own, lease, or control at an airport 
location is visually and tactilely identifiable as such to users (e.g., 
a raised international symbol of accessibility affixed to the front of 
the device) and is maintained in proper working condition. These 
requirements will no longer be applicable when 100% of the automated 
kiosks in an airport location are accessible, since it will not be 
necessary for automated kiosks to be identifiable as accessible to 
users, and carriers will have a business incentive to maintain their 
automated kiosks in working condition throughout the airport. During 
the transition to accessible kiosks, carriers would continue to be 
responsible to provide equivalent service as is required under the 
current rule (e.g., by assistance from carrier personnel in using the 
kiosk or allowing the passenger to come to the front of the line at the 
check-in counter) to any passenger who cannot use a carrier's 
inaccessible automated kiosk at an airport location where the carrier 
has not yet installed an accessible kiosk. We also propose to require 
that carriers provide equivalent service during and after the 
transition is complete to passengers who cannot readily use an 
accessible automated airport kiosk due to his or her disability (e.g., 
passenger is unable to reach the function keys on an automated kiosk 
that meets the accessible reach range requirement).
    The Department is aware that not all automated kiosks at airports 
are owned by carriers and that some number of them are shared-use 
automated kiosks, owned, leased, or controlled jointly with the airport 
authority or other carriers. Our intention is that the same technical 
specifications and similar implementation requirements apply to shared-
use automated airport kiosks. Carriers that jointly own, lease, or 
control shared-use automated kiosks with the airport operator at a U.S. 
airport with 10,000 or more enplanements per year would be required to 
enter into and implement a written, signed agreement with the operator 
by 60 days after the effective date of the final rule. The agreement 
must allocate responsibility among the parties for ensuring that all 
new orders for shared-use automated airport kiosks initiated 60 days 
after the effective date of the final rule, including replacements for 
older installed models, meet the technical accessibility criteria set 
forth in this proposal. The agreement would also have to spell out the 
respective responsibilities of the parties for ensuring that the 
accessible shared-use automated airport kiosks are maintained in proper 
working condition until all shared-use automated kiosks at each airport 
location are accessible. The Department's intention is to hold carriers 
and U.S. airport operators jointly and severally responsible for the 
timely and complete implementation of the agreement provisions.
    We are proposing to apply parallel requirements to U.S. airport 
operators receiving Federal financial assistance that jointly own, 
lease, or control shared-use automated airport kiosks with carriers by 
amending our regulation implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973 in 49 CFR part 27. Provisions nearly identical to those we 
propose to apply under 14 CFR 382.57 to carriers that jointly own, 
lease, or control shared-use automated kiosks with airport operators 
would also apply to those operators under proposed sections 49 CFR 
27.71(j) and (k). The provisions applying to the carriers and the 
airport operators respectively would become effective at the same time 
to avoid any delays in implementing accessible shared-use automated 
kiosks. We estimate that under these proposed requirements travelers 
with disabilities will check-in using an accessible kiosk more than 
12.4 million times in the first 10 years after the effective date of 
the rule, resulting in time savings to them and reduced labor costs to 
airlines having a total monetized value of nearly $123 million.
    Since carriers and airport operators that own, lease, or control 
shared-use automated airport kiosks must comply with the applicable 
requirements under Part 382 and Part 27, respectively, the burden will 
be on them both to ensure that any outside vendors with whom they have 
contracts to supply shared-use automated airport kiosks provide 
accessible models in accordance with the rule's provisions.
    Currently there is no ACAA-derived accessibility standard that 
applies to automated airport kiosks owned, leased, or controlled by 
carriers. Accessibility standards for ATMs and fare vending machines 
(Section 707 of the 2010 ADA Standards), which were adopted as part of 
the Department of Justice's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 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 also does not cover 
automated airport kiosks.
    In addition to proposing changes to the Section 508 standards and 
section 255 guidelines for electronic and information technology on Web 
site accessibility, the ANPRM issued by the Access Board in March 2010, 
proposed to revise its ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to address, 
among other things, accessibility of self-service machines (kiosks) 
used for ticketing, check-in or check-out, seat selection, or boarding 
passes. See 75 FR 13457 (March 22, 2010). The comment period closed on 
June 21, 2010; however, further revisions to the ADAAG are not expected 
to become final for several years and will not become enforceable 
thereafter until adopted by DOT and DOJ. In July 2010, DOJ also 
published an ANPRM seeking comment on revisions to the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations to ensure, among other things, the 
accessibility of electronic and information technology equipment and 
furniture such as kiosks, interactive transaction machines, point of 
sale devices and ATMs. See 75 FR 43452 (July 26, 2010). The ANPRM 
comment period closed on January 24, 2011, but a final rule amending 
the DOJ regulations is unlikely to become effective for some time. The 
DOJ ADA rules would have some application to automated airport kiosks, 
(e.g., shared-use automated kiosks owned, leased, or controlled by 
publicly operated airports).

[[Page 59320]]

    Given the agencies' separate rulemaking activities concerning self-
service transaction machines, the Access Board, the Department of 
Justice, and the Department of Transportation formed an informal 
interagency working group and began collaborating in 2010 on the 
appropriate accessibility criteria for such machines generally, 
regardless of the type of services and information they are designed to 
provide to users. The accessibility standard proposed in this SNPRM for 
automated airport kiosks is based on DOJ's 2010 ADA Standards 
applicable to ATMs and fare machines (section 707 of the 2010 ADA 
Standards) and on selected provisions from the current Section 508 
standard for self-contained closed products (36 CFR 1194.25). 
Collectively, these technical criteria address accessibility for 
individuals with visual, mobility, tactile, and hearing disabilities. 
For purposes of this SNPRM, proposed section 382.57(a) indicates how 
these common technical criteria generally apply in the airport 
environment. The accessibility standard in this proposed rule is 
intended to apply to automated airport kiosks with respect to their 
physical design and the functions they perform. Some common technical 
criteria included in the proposed standard do not presently apply to 
automated airport kiosks as they are currently configured, but may 
apply to them at some time in the future (e.g., criteria for biometric 
security features, captioning of multi-media content). We intend that 
those technical criteria addressing the accessibility of functions not 
currently available on automated airport kiosks will not apply until 
those functions are available on kiosks in the future.
    Request for Public Comment: The Department is seeking public 
comment on the following questions concerning factors affecting the 
costs and benefits of the proposed requirements.
    Applicability--The requirements for accessible automated airport 
kiosks are proposed to apply only at U.S. airports with 10,000 or more 
enplanements per year. To the extent that kiosks located at hotel 
lobbies and other non-airport venues in the U.S. are owned, leased, or 
controlled by carriers, DOT has authority under the ACAA to require the 
carriers to ensure that such kiosks be accessible. The Department 
recognizes that such venues may also be places of public accommodation 
to which DOJ regulations under title III of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) apply. As such, title III entities would have to 
ensure that self-service transaction machines located in their 
facilities (e.g., ATMs, information kiosks, airline check-in kiosks) 
also meet any technical and scoping requirements applicable under the 
ADA. (The 2010 DOJ ADA standards for new ATMs and fare machines become 
effective on March 15, 2012, and standards applicable to other self-
service transaction machines used in programs and services provided by 
public entities and public accommodations are being addressed in a DOJ 
rulemaking now in progress.) In instances where airline kiosks are 
located in the facility of a title III entity, the airline and title 
III entity would have to comply respectively with the ACAA rules 
applicable to automated kiosks and the DOJ ADA standards applicable to 
self-service transaction machines. In light of the overlapping scope of 
the ACAA and the ADA rules, should automated kiosks that are owned, 
leased, or controlled by carriers and perform functions similar to 
airport kiosks, but are located in non-airport venues (e.g., hotel 
lobbies), be covered in this rulemaking?
    Effective Date--Should the proposed time frame for accessible 
kiosks (i.e., kiosks ordered 60 days after the effective date of the 
rule) be reduced or increased assuming the rule is effective 30 days 
after publication in the Federal Register? Is it reasonable to require 
that all new kiosk orders initiated after the effective date of the 
rule be for accessible models? Should there be a delay in the effective 
date of this provision? If so, what is a reasonable amount of time to 
delay the effective date of this provision? Should the effective date 
for carriers to enter into and implement agreements with airport 
operators concerning the provision and maintenance of accessible 
shared-use automated airport kiosks be more than 60 days after the 
final rule's effective date? If so, what is a reasonable time to enter 
into such agreements and commence implementation?
    Alternatives--Should less than 100% of new automated airport kiosks 
ordered after the effective date of the rule be required to be 
accessible? If so, what is a reasonable percentage to be accessible at 
each airport location? If only some kiosks are accessible at each 
location, how would carriers ensure that the accessible kiosks are 
available to passengers with disabilities when needed? Would a phasing 
in period over 10 years, gradually increasing the percentage of 
automated airport kiosks required to be accessible, meaningfully reduce 
the costs of implementing this requirement (e.g., 25% of new automated 
kiosks must be accessible within 3 years of the rule's effective date, 
50% within 5 years, 75% within 7 years and 100% within 10 years)?
    Should existing automated airport kiosks be required to be 
retrofitted? What percentage or number of existing kiosks should we 
require to be retrofitted? How much time should be provided to 
carriers/airports to retrofit existing automated airport kiosks? What 
about automated airport kiosks currently in use that have inactive 
accessibility features (e.g., equipped with headset jack but lacks 
internal software to use this accessibility feature)? Should airlines 
be required to activate any dormant accessibility features on existing 
automated airport kiosks immediately upon the effective date of the 
rule or does the activation of such features require extensive 
programming? What would be the cost of activating dormant accessibility 
features on existing automated airport kiosks? What alternative 
requirements for automated airport kiosk accessibility might be 
proposed and what would be the associated benefits and costs for each?
    Costs and Benefits--Our preliminary regulatory evaluation estimates 
the net benefits of time saved by air travelers with disabilities and 
reduced labor costs to carriers from adoption of the proposed automated 
airport kiosk accessibility requirements at $70.4 million at the 7 
percent discount rate and $86.2 million at the 3 percent discount rate 
over the entire 10-year analysis period. This estimate assumes that an 
average of 1.2 million travelers with disabilities would be able to use 
accessible kiosks in each of the first 10 years after the effective 
date of the rule (more than 12.4 million total), with a five-year 
phase-in period as accessible kiosks installations gradually increase.
    Quantitative estimates of the benefits to air travelers with 
disabilities who can use accessible automated kiosks were developed for 
the evaluation based on an average reduction of 13 minutes in check-in 
waiting times. The value of time saved using an accessible kiosk by a 
traveler with a disability was calculated by multiplying this average 
amount of time saved by the standard value of time for air travel 
passengers specified in the applicable FAA guidance ($28.60 per hour). 
See ``Preliminary Regulatory Analysis: ACAA SNPRM Accessible Kiosks and 
Web Sites,'' July 29, 2011, p. 27.
    The preliminary regulatory analysis also assumes that carriers will 
experience a reduction in per-person check-in costs, as more persons 
with disabilities use accessible kiosks instead of requiring check-in 
assistance from agents. The value of the reduced

[[Page 59321]]

assistance costs benefits were calculated using the average carrier 
savings per passenger when using an automated airport kiosk to check-in 
instead of going to the counter (estimated at $3.70 per transaction in 
a recent trade publication), multiplied by the number of passengers 
with disabilities who are projected to use accessible kiosks. See 
``Preliminary Regulatory Analysis: ACAA SNPRM Accessible Kiosks and Web 
Sites,'' July 29, 2011, p. 27.
    Information obtained from kiosks vendors indicates that the bulk of 
the incremental costs associated with making kiosk hardware, 
middleware, and software applications accessible are fixed, therefore 
they do not vary appreciably with the number of units sold. The 
preliminary regulatory analysis estimates that these modifications 
would add $750 to the cost of each new kiosk installed at a new 
location or replacing an existing older model, with the variable costs 
for kiosk hardware modifications (e.g., keypads, audio output jacks) 
representing no more than 10 to 20 percent of this amount. Total 
compliance costs were estimated at $21,375,000 based on a $750 cost 
increase per accessible unit and the number of newly added and 
replacement kiosks (28,500) projected to be installed during the 10-
year analysis period See ``Preliminary Regulatory Analysis: ACAA SNPRM 
Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites,'' July 29, 2011, p. 30-31. Costs 
associated with the kiosk accessibility requirements are not expected 
to accrue until six months after the effective date of the rule when 
the initial deliveries of accessible kiosks ordered 60 days after the 
rule's effective date would take place.
    In light of the above, the Department seeks additional information 
and comment from the public in response to the following questions. 
What would be the average amount of time a passenger with a disability 
would save by using an accessible automated airport kiosk? Would the 
amount of time saved vary by airport and what airport-specific factors 
could affect the amount of time saved? What would be the estimated 
impact on average wait times for an accessible automated kiosk at 
airport locations where only 25% are accessible as compared to 
locations where 100% are accessible? Would the wait time for a 
passenger with a disability to use an accessible automated kiosk be 
less if such passengers were given priority access to such kiosks in 
airport locations where less than 100% of the automated kiosks are 
accessible? If such passengers are not given priority access to 
accessible automated kiosks, how much longer would their wait time be 
versus non-disabled passengers who can use any available machine? What 
factors have the greatest impact on wait time for an automated airport 
kiosk (e.g., number of flights scheduled for departure, distance of the 
flight, destination of the flight, time between scheduled departures, 
number of passengers per flight, etc.)?
    What percentage of persons with a disability who cannot use an 
inaccessible automated airport kiosk would use an accessible one if 
available? Do passengers with disabilities prefer to check-in online at 
home to using an automated airport check-in kiosk? Is there a 
quantifiable benefit associated with reduced risk in having to provide 
sensitive personal information to strangers in order to receive 
assistance at an inaccessible kiosk? Is there a quantifiable benefit 
associated with reduced risk of legal action related to kiosk 
inaccessibility?
    What cost savings can be expected from the reduction in resources 
carriers will have to allocate to provide equivalent alternative 
service to passengers with disabilities who cannot use a carrier's 
inaccessible kiosk at an airport location (e.g., assisting passengers 
at the ticket counter or at an inaccessible kiosk versus directing 
passengers to the carrier's accessible automated kiosk at that airport 
location)? What is the cost impact of requiring carriers to provide 
equivalent service to passengers who cannot use an accessible kiosk due 
to their disability at airport locations where all automated kiosks are 
accessible?
    Would a requirement for accessible automated airport kiosks have a 
significant impact on the cost, inventory, or delivery of such kiosks, 
and if so, for how long? Can manufacturers of accessible automated 
airport kiosks meet the market demand if 100% of new kiosks ordered 
starting 60 days after the final rule's effective date be accessible? 
If not, up to what percentage of new automated airport kiosks could the 
Department require to be accessible (e.g., 50% or 75%) before the 
demand would exceed what the manufacturers could meet? How often are 
automated airport kiosks replaced typically? How many manufacturers 
currently make automated airport kiosks? How many manufacturers 
currently make accessible automated airport kiosks? How many 
manufacturers that make inaccessible automated airport kiosks are 
capable of making an accessible model? How much lead-time does a 
company that manufactures inaccessible automated airport kiosks need to 
develop and start manufacturing an accessible model as proposed in this 
SNPRM? What is the size of companies that manufacture automated airport 
kiosks? How many manufacturers of automated airport kiosks are small 
businesses? Do these smaller companies manufacture products other than 
automated airport kiosks? Do smaller companies have the capital and 
technology available to make accessible automated airport kiosks? Would 
smaller companies be able to handle the market demand for accessible 
automated airport kiosks resulting from this rule or might cost or 
other reasons delay the manufacturing technology for such kiosks 
causing these companies to be pushed out of the market? What is the 
cost difference between manufacturing a new automated airport kiosk 
that meets accessibility standards and one that does not? What is the 
cost of retrofitting an existing kiosk to meet accessibility standards 
versus manufacturing a new accessible kiosk? What are the costs of 
developing accessible carrier software applications that are capable of 
running on proprietary or shared-use kiosks that have accessible 
hardware features?
    Are there significantly greater quantitative and qualitative 
benefits and lower costs associated with requiring carriers to ensure 
that only 50% versus 100% of the automated airport kiosks are 
accessible? Do airlines anticipate an increase in the number of 
automated airport kiosks used for check-in and other services? If so, 
what would be the percentage of increase in the number of automated 
airport kiosks and what additional types of services are anticipated 
and over what period of time?
    Shared-Use Automated Airport Kiosks--As discussed above, automated 
airport kiosks used by carriers may be either proprietary or shared-
use. Is the term ``shared-use automated airport kiosk'' adequately 
described in the rule text? What are the most common kiosk ownership 
arrangements at airports? What is the current number of automated 
check-in kiosks that are proprietary, that are jointly owned, leased, 
or controlled with airports, and that are jointly owned, leased, or 
controlled by carriers only? Who typically is responsible for the 
purchase, operation, and maintenance of shared-use automated kiosks at 
airports? What are the procurement and maintenance costs incurred by 
carriers for proprietary automated airport kiosks? What are the 
procurement and maintenance costs incurred by carriers that provide the 
shared-use automated kiosk hardware at an airport? What are the 
procurement and maintenance costs incurred by

[[Page 59322]]

carriers that collaborate with shared-use automated airport kiosks 
using compatible software and data sets? What are the procurement and 
maintenance costs incurred by airports for shared-use automated kiosks? 
Carriers and airport operators would be jointly and severally 
responsible for ensuring that new orders for automated shared-use 
kiosks initiated 60 days after the rule's effective date are for 
accessible units and that the automated kiosks are maintained in proper 
working condition. Are there potential difficulties associated with 
meeting this requirement given that responsibility for the hardware and 
middleware components of shared-use automated kiosks generally falls to 
airports and the responsibility for compatible software applications 
and data sets to carriers? If a single carrier is the provider of 
shared-use automated kiosks at a given airport, is a written agreement 
needed between the provider carrier and the collaborating carriers 
concerning the accessibility and maintenance of the kiosks? If so, 
would additional time be needed after the rule's effective date for 
carriers to enter into such a written agreement? We understand that 
some shared-use automated airport kiosks are owned neither by the 
airport nor a carrier, but by an outside service provider. It is our 
intention that carriers and airports ensure that their orders initiated 
60 days after the effective date of the rule for automated airport 
kiosks to be supplied by such service providers are for accessible 
models.
    Technical Criteria--As discussed above, the proposed accessibility 
standard for automated airport kiosks is based on the technical 
specifications in Section 707 of the 2010 ADA Standards that apply to 
fare machines and ATMs. It also includes certain specifications from 
the Section 508 standard for self-contained closed products (36 CFR 
1194.25). We propose to apply this accessibility standard to automated 
airport kiosks with respect to their physical design and the functions 
they perform. Is the term ``automated airport kiosk'' adequately 
described in the rule text? What functions other than those described 
in the rule text and the preamble are presently performed by automated 
airport kiosks? Are there any other accessible features not covered by 
the proposed standard that should be included?

1. Use of Assistive Technology

    The standard would require that automated airport kiosks be 
accessible to those with visual impairments without attaching assistive 
technologies other than a personal headset or audio loop. A telephone 
handset or an industry standard connector would 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. What are the costs associated with providing 
a handset or industry standard connector on the kiosk? Is technology 
available that would allow people with disabilities to use wireless 
technology such as mobile phones and Bluetooth at an automated airport 
kiosk in lieu of requiring the kiosk itself to have a handset or 
headset connector? If so, should we require that automated airport 
kiosks use such technology?

2. Operable Parts

    We propose to require that the operable parts on new automated 
airport kiosks be tactilely discernable by users to avoid unintentional 
activation and request comment regarding the cost of meeting the 
requirement. This specification is based on the current Section 508 
standard 36 CFR 1194.25(c) and 1123.23(k). We are also proposing that 
where a timed response is required, the automated airport kiosks alert 
the user by sound or touch and give the user an opportunity to indicate 
that more time is needed. We ask for comment on whether timeouts 
present barriers to using automated airport kiosks and on the cost or 
potential difficulties associated with meeting this requirement.

3. Outputs

    Speech outputs will be required to be coordinated with the 
information on the visual display so that users with low vision or 
cognitive disabilities may benefit from using the display along with 
the speech. Regarding the exceptions and the advisory listed under 
proposed section 382.57(c)(5)(i)(2) ``Receipts, Tickets, and 
Transaction Outputs,'' are there any other types of information that 
should be required on the printed output other than the types listed in 
the advisory or that may be excluded from the required printed output 
listed in the exceptions? Should speech output be required through 
either a handset, standard connector headset, or an audio loop? Are 
considerations for speech output other than those defined in proposed 
section 382.57(c)(5)(i) needed? What about requiring volume control for 
the automated airport kiosk's speaker only, without requiring any other 
mode of voice output? What about privacy concerns under such an 
arrangement? What are the costs/benefits of requiring a speaker only, 
without handset and headset output capabilities?

4. Volume Control

    If both volume control and the ability to use a personal audio loop 
are mandated accessibility features, can the same industry-standard 
connector be used for both speech navigation and the automated airport 
kiosk's audio output? If so, how would users select the function that 
meets their particular disability-related needs? Would volume controls 
similar to those provided in speech-enabled ATMs be useful in the 
airport environment? Should the dB amplification gain associated with 
the volume control for private listening be specified? Is incremental 
volume control up to an output amplification of at least 65 dB 
sufficient for voice output in public areas? When ambient noise at the 
airport is above 45 dB, is a selectable volume gain up to 20 dB 
sufficient? Should the same decibel gains apply to outputs delivered 
both in public areas and through assistive listening headsets or should 
different amplification gains apply to each output type? If volume 
control is required, are the specified dB gains appropriate to address 
the needs of individuals who are hard of hearing? See proposed section 
382.57 (c)(5)(ii)2).

5. Captioning

    For automated airport kiosks having certain multi-media content, 
captioning would be required. See (c)(5)(iii). This proposed 
requirement is based on the Section 508 standard for video and multi-
media products. See 36 CFR 1194.24(c).

6. Input Controls

    Software applications are now available to give individuals who are 
blind access to touch screen-based technology, including entering and 
reviewing text via a touch screen. As a result, certain touch screen 
devices (e.g., recent versions of Apple's iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad; 
mobile devices with Google's Android platform; etc.) are becoming very 
popular with consumers who are blind. These devices are equipped with a 
screen-reading technology that uses built-in voiceover software and a 
touch-sensitive track pad to give the user a spoken description of what 
is on the display screen as he/she drags a finger over the track pad. 
The location of a verbal descriptor on the track pad corresponds to its 
location on the display screen. Should the requirement that input 
controls be tactilely discernable be revised to allow for input methods 
similar to the Apple devices? Are most users who are blind or who have 
low vision familiar with

[[Page 59323]]

how to use such touch screens? Proposed section 382.57 (c)(6)(ii) 
specifies an arrangement of the numeric keypad which typically is 
provided at ATMs. How should symbols be indicated on a numeric input 
keypad? Automated airport kiosks generally provide a touch screen 
keyboard or sometimes a physical alphabetic keyboard. When either a 
virtual alphabetic or a physical keyboard is provided, should the 
arrangement of the keys be specified? Are the function keys specified 
in proposed section 382.57 (c)(6)(iii) sufficient to address the types 
of functions typically available on automated airport kiosks? Besides 
the keypad functions and corresponding tactile symbols indicated in 
proposed section 382.57 (c)(6)(iii)(2), what other function keys are 
needed and what tactile symbols should identify them? Should the status 
of all locking or toggle controls be required to be visually 
discernable and discernable through either touch or sound?

7. Biometric Systems

    Where automated airport kiosks employ biometrics as a means of user 
identification, we are including a requirement in proposed section 
382.57 (c)(9) that at least two options using different biological 
characteristics be available. This will ensure that where finger print 
identification is used, for example, a person without arms can still 
use an alternate biometric method (e.g., iris scanner) provided by the 
kiosk. We are requesting comment on the importance of this provision 
and the costs associated with implementing it.

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

A. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), 
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This action has been determined to be significant under Executive 
Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures. It has been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget in accordance with Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation 
and Regulatory Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation 
and Regulatory Review) and Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning 
and Review) and is consistent with the requirements in both orders. 
Among other things, Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to use the 
best possible techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. Where appropriate and 
permitted by law, agencies may consider values that are difficult or 
impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, and fairness. 
In developing this proposed rule, the Department has sought to use the 
best possible techniques to quantify the benefits and costs.
    We have produced a preliminary regulatory evaluation addressing the 
economic impact the proposed requirements in this SNPRM would impose on 
U.S. and foreign air carriers covered by the ACAA rule, as well as on 
their agents. We recognize that compliance with the accessibility 
standards for Web sites and automated airport kiosks set forth in this 
SNPRM will incur both implementation and ongoing operational costs, as 
well as potentially lead to the expanded customer bases and reduced 
customer service personnel costs for carriers. Our preliminary 
regulatory evaluation estimates benefits and costs over the 10-year 
period starting 6 months after the effective date of the rule, because 
no Web site benefits (and no kiosk benefits or costs) will accrue until 
6 months after the effective date of the rule. Some carriers may need 
to incur costs to comply with the proposed Web sites accessibility 
requirements starting as early as 6 months before the 10-year analysis 
period begins. These ``Year 0'' compliance costs have been included in 
the 10-year estimates of benefits and costs.
    We estimate the expected present value (PV) of the benefits of the 
proposed automated airport kiosk accessibility requirements at $86.2 
million over the 10-year analysis period, using a 7 percent discount 
rate and $104.8 million, using a 3 per cent rate. The expected PV of 
compliance costs incurred by carriers and airports over the same period 
to meet these proposed requirements is $15.8 million, discounted at 7 
percent and $18.6 million, discounted at 3 per cent. The expected PV of 
net benefits for these proposed requirements over the 10-year analysis 
period, therefore, is estimated at $70.4 million using the 7 percent 
discount rate and $86.2 million using a 3 percent discount rate.
    With respect to the proposed requirements to ensure air travel Web 
site accessibility, our preliminary regulatory evaluation estimates the 
expected PV of the benefits at $122.1 million over the 10-year analysis 
period, discounted at 7 percent and $147.3 million, discounted at 3 per 
cent. The expected PV of costs incurred by carriers and airports to 
comply with these proposed requirements over the same period is 
estimated to be $66.8 million, discounted at 7 percent and $72.6 
million, discounted at 3 per cent. The expected PV of net benefits to 
accrue from the proposed Web site accessibility requirements over the 
10-year analysis period, therefore, is estimated at $55.3 million, 
using a 7 percent discount rate and $74.7 million, using a 3 percent 
discount rate.
    We believe this rule would have important benefits in support of 
values that are difficult to monetize or quantify, including 
independence and promoting a more inclusive society. We have carefully 
considered these values in developing this SNPRM. The benefits we seek 
to achieve include greater access for individuals with disabilities to 
conveniences and services offered to the general public that currently 
either are not available to them or are not independently accessible by 
them. The value of time spent comfortably using accessible Web sites 
and automated airport kiosks, as well as the value of avoiding time 
spent struggling with or seeking assistance in using inaccessible 
technologies, are benefits in addition to the conventional measurement 
of time saved by the use of accessible technologies. (Lewis, D., & 
Suen, S. L., & Federing, D. (2010). Countering the economic threat to 
sustainable accessibility. Paper presented at the 12th International 
Conference on mobility and transport for elderly and disabled persons 
(TRANSED 2010) held in Hong Kong on 2-4 June 2010.) This rulemaking 
affirms the human dignity of individuals with disabilities by affording 
them greater independence overall in accessing air travel. In keeping 
with the guidelines in Executive Order 12866 as amended, we believe 
that enhanced independence is a viable consideration in assessing the 
benefits of these proposed measures. We further believe that these 
measures requiring Web site and automated airport kiosk accessibility 
may eventually lead to the permanent removal of existing access 
barriers for people with disabilities to use these services and 
eliminate the costs associated with providing alternative forms of 
assistance to compensate for the widespread inaccessibility of these 
technologies. These are important factors to consider in estimating the 
benefits we expect would be achieved by ensuring that airline Web sites 
and automated kiosks at airports conform to the applicable 
accessibility standards. The Department seeks comment on the 
Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, its approach, and the accuracy of 
its estimates of costs and benefits. A copy of the Preliminary 
Regulatory

[[Page 59324]]

Evaluation has been placed in the docket.

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance 
with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 
(``Federalism''). This proposed rule does not propose any regulation 
that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. It 
does not propose any regulation that imposes substantial direct 
compliance costs on State and local governments. It does not propose 
any regulation that preempts state law, because states are already 
preempted from regulating in this area under the ACAA and the Airline 
Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the consultation and 
funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

C. Executive Order 13175

    This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 
(``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). 
Because none of the proposals on which we are seeking comment would 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal 
governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the 
funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not 
apply.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an 
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities 
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The regulatory initiatives discussed in this SNPRM would have some 
impact on small carriers and some indirect impact on small ticket 
agents. However, based on our small entity economic evaluation, I 
certify that they would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. We invite comment to facilitate 
our assessment of the potential impact of these initiatives on small 
entities.
    This SNPRM would require small U.S. carriers that own, lease, or 
operate proprietary or shared-use automated kiosks at U.S. airports 
with 10,000 or more annual enplanements to begin ordering and 
installing accessible models when adding or replacing automated kiosks 
in the normal course of business operations. The same requirement would 
apply to operators of airports with 10,000 or more annual enplanements 
that own, lease, or operate shared-use automated kiosks. Based on our 
preliminary research, however, it appears that no small airports or 
small U.S. carriers own, lease, or operate shared-use automated kiosks, 
and that no small U.S. carriers own, lease, or operate proprietary 
automated airport kiosks at covered U.S. airports. At this time, 
therefore, it appears that neither small airports nor small carriers 
would incur any costs associated with the kiosk requirements. We are 
seeking public comment on these findings.
    There are 50 U.S. carriers meeting the DOT definition of ``small 
carrier'' that would have to comply with the proposed Web site 
accessibility requirements at a cost of $37,800 to $61,200 over the 
two-year implementation period, depending on the number of pages on the 
site. The annual revenues for these carriers appear to range from $10 
million to over $100 million, indicating that the cost impact on small 
carriers would not be significant. Although the proposal would not 
require small ticket agents that sell air transportation to ensure that 
their Web sites are accessible, it would require carriers to ensure 
that their agents that are small business entities provide Web-based 
fares and other Web-based amenities to passengers who self-identify as 
being unable to use the agents' Web sites due to a disability. Carriers 
already must provide this service to passengers who cannot use their 
Web sites due to a disability under the current rule, but they would be 
required to ensure that their agents that are small business entities 
do so for the first time under the proposed rule. We anticipate that 
there will be some indirect compliance costs on 1,704 small travel 
agencies and 384 small tour operators that have Web sites with online 
booking capability, and on as many as 9,921 small travel agencies and 
2,336 small tour operators without online sales capability that will 
have to make any discounted fares advertised on their Web sites and any 
other amenities that may be offered on these Web sites available upon 
request to passengers who are unable to use the agents' Web sites due 
to their disabilities. Our research indicates that about 90% of these 
small entities employ less than ten people, and 80% employ less than 
five. Given that the requirement would rely largely on existing 
employee skills to find and book Web-based discount fares and 
amenities, and considering the small number of employees in the 
majority of these businesses, we believe the economic impact on most 
covered entities to implement the requirements would not be 
significant. We also request public comment on the cost impact of this 
proposed requirement.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This SNPRM proposes a new collection of information that would 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 49 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, before an agency submits a 
proposed collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal 
Register providing notice of and a 60-day comment period on the 
proposed collection of information. This SNPRM proposes to require 
airlines and U.S. airport operators to enter into agreements outlining 
their joint responsibilities for implementing the accessibility 
requirements for shared-use automated kiosks. These agreements will 
help ensure that the accessibility requirements for shared-use 
automated airport kiosks are effectively implemented by the parties at 
each U.S. airport and provide information to assist the Department in 
assessing carrier compliance with these requirements. The Department 
intends to publish a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting 
OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies to comment on this 
new information collection requirement. As prescribed by the PRA, the 
requirements will not go into effect until OMB has approved them and 
the Department has published a notice announcing the effective date of 
the information collection requirement.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which does not apply to 
nondiscrimination civil rights requirements, do not apply to this 
proposed rule.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 382

    Air carriers, Civil rights, Individuals with disabilities, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 27

    Airports, Civil rights, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

[[Page 59325]]

    Issued this 15th day of September, 2011, at Washington, DC.
Raymond H. LaHood,
Secretary of Transportation.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes 
to amend 14 CFR part 382 and 49 CFR part 27 as follows:

TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

PART 382--NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR 
TRAVEL

    1. The authority citation for Part 382 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41702, 41705, 41712, and 41310.

    2. Section 382.3 is amended by adding definitions for ``automated 
airport kiosk'', ``flight-related services'' and ``shared-use automated 
airport kiosk'' In alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  382.3  What do the terms in this rule mean?

* * * * *
    Automated airport kiosk means a self-service transaction machine 
that a carrier owns, leases, or controls and makes available at a U.S. 
airport to enable customers to independently obtain flight-related 
services.
* * * * *
    Flight-related services mean functions related to air travel 
including, but not limited to, ticket purchase, rebooking cancelled 
flights, seat selection, and obtaining boarding passes or bag tags.
* * * * *
    Shared-use automated airport kiosk means a self-service transaction 
machine provided by an airport, a carrier, or an independent service 
provider with which any carrier having a compliant data set can 
collaborate to enable its customers to independently access the flight-
related services it offers.
* * * * *

Sec.  382.31  [Amended]

    3. Section 382.31(c) is removed.
    4. Section 382.43 is amended by revising the section heading and 
adding paragraphs (c) through (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  382.43  Must information and reservation services of carriers be 
accessible to individuals with visual, hearing, and other disabilities?

* * * * *
    (c) As a U.S. or foreign carrier that owns or controls a primary 
Web site that markets air transportation, you must ensure the public-
facing Web pages on your Web site are accessible to individuals with 
disabilities in accordance with this section. As a foreign carrier, 
only Web pages on your Web site involved in marketing covered air 
transportation to the general public in the U.S. must be accessible to 
individuals with disabilities. Covered Web pages and Web sites must 
conform to all Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and all 
Conformance Requirements from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) 
Recommendation 11 December 2008, Web site Content Accessibility 
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) 
of this section:
    (1) A new or completely redesigned primary Web site placed online 
on or after [insert date 180 days from the effective date of the final 
rule] shall be conformant. A complete redesign means technical changes 
affecting a substantial portion of the site such as its visual design 
(the site's ``look and feel''), upgrading the site to ensure its 
overall compliance with technical standards, or reorganizing the site's 
information architecture. Updating the information content of one or 
more Web pages alone would not constitute a Web site redesign.
    (2) Web pages on an existing Web site associated with obtaining the 
following services and information shall either be directly conformant 
on your primary Web site or have accessible links from the non-
conforming pages on your primary Web site to corresponding pages on 
your mobile Web site that are conformant by [insert date one year from 
the effective date of the final rule]:
    (i) Booking or changing a reservation;
    (ii) Checking-in for a flight;
    (iii) Accessing a personal travel itinerary;
    (iv) Accessing the status of a flight;
    (v) Accessing a personal frequent flyer account;
    (vi) Accessing flight schedules; and
    (vii) Accessing carrier contact information.
    (3) All covered Web pages on your primary Web site, including those 
made conformant during the second phase by a link to a conformant page 
on your mobile Web site, shall be conformant by [insert date two years 
from the effective date of this rule].
    (d) As a carrier, when marketing your airline tickets on the Web 
site of a ticket agent whose annual receipts exceed the maximum 
established in 13 CFR 121.201, you must ensure that the Web pages on 
which such tickets are marketed conform to all WCAG 2.0 Level A and 
Level AA Success Criteria and all Conformance Requirements by [insert 
date two years from the effective date of the final rule]. You are not 
required to apply this requirement with respect to ticket agents whose 
annual receipts do not exceed the maximum established in 13 CFR 
121.201; however, you must ensure that Web-based fare discounts and 
other Web-based amenities provided to customers by such agents on your 
behalf are made available to a person with a disability who indicates 
that he or she cannot use the agents' Web sites and who purchases a 
ticket using another method.
    (e) As a carrier, until your Web sites are fully accessible in 
accordance with the requirements of this section, you must assist a 
prospective passenger who contacts you through another channel (e.g., 
telephone or walk-in) and indicates that he or she is unable to use 
your inaccessible Web site due to a disability as follows:
    (1) Disclose Web-based discount fares, if his or her itinerary 
qualifies for the discounted fare.
    (2) Waive any applicable fee to make a reservation or purchase a 
ticket using a method other than your Web site (e.g., by phone).
    (f) As a carrier, you must assist a prospective passenger who 
indicates that he or she is unable to use your accessible Web site due 
to a disability and contacts you through another channel (e.g., 
telephone or walk-in) in accordance with paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) 
of this section.
    5. Section 382.57 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  382.57  What accessibility requirements apply to automated 
airport kiosks?

    (a) As a carrier, you must ensure that the requirements set forth 
below are followed for any automated airport kiosk you own, lease, or 
control for which an order is initiated after [insert date 60 days 
after the effective date of the rule] for installation at a U.S. 
airport with 10,000 or more enplanements per year.
    (1) You shall ensure that all new orders for automated airport 
kiosks are for models that meet the design specifications set forth in 
paragraph (c) of this section. You are not required to retrofit 
existing kiosks.
    (2) Until all automated airport kiosks you own, lease, or control 
at an airport location meet the design specifications in paragraph (c) 
of this section, you must ensure that each such kiosk you order is:
    (i) Visually and tactilely identifiable to users as accessible 
(e.g., a raised ADA-compliant international symbol of

[[Page 59326]]

accessibility affixed to the front of the device).
    (ii) Maintained in proper working condition.
    (b) As a carrier, you must ensure that the requirements set forth 
below are followed for any shared-use automated airport kiosk you 
jointly own, lease, or control with the airport operator for which an 
order is initiated after [insert date 60 days after the effective date 
of the rule] for installation at a U.S. airport with 10,000 or more 
enplanements per year.
    (1) By [insert 60 days after the effective date of the rule], you 
must have a written, signed agreement with the airport operator 
allocating responsibility for ensuring that the shared-use automated 
airport kiosks meet the design specifications set forth in paragraph 
(c) in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) through 
(3) of this section. Carriers and airport operators are jointly and 
severally responsible for the timely and complete implementation of the 
agreement provisions.
    (2) You shall ensure that all new orders for shared-use automated 
airport kiosks are for models that meet the design specifications set 
forth in paragraph (c) of this section. You are not required to 
retrofit existing kiosks.
    (3) Until all shared-use automated airport kiosks meet the design 
specifications in paragraph (c) of this section, you must ensure that 
each such kiosk you order is:
    (i) Visually and tactilely identifiable to users as accessible 
(e.g., a raised ADA-compliant international symbol of accessibility 
affixed to the front of the device).
    (ii) Maintained in proper working condition.
    (c) You must ensure that the automated airport kiosks provided in 
accordance with this section conform to the following technical 
accessibility standards with respect to their physical design and the 
functions they perform:
    (1) Self Contained. Except for personal headsets and audio loops, 
automated kiosks shall be operable without requiring the user to attach 
assistive technology.
    (2) Clear Floor or Ground Space. A clear floor or ground space 
complying with 36 CFR Part 1191, appendix D, section 305 of the U.S. 
Department of Justice's 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design shall 
be provided.
    (3) Operable Parts. Operable parts shall comply with subsection 
(c)(3) and 36 CFR Part 1191, appendix D, section 309 of the 2010 ADA 
Standards.
    (i) Identification. Operable parts shall be tactilely discernible 
without activation.
    (ii) Timing. Where a timed response is required, the user shall be 
alerted by touch or sound and shall be given the opportunity to 
indicate that more time is required.
    (iii) Status Indicators. Status indicators, including all locking 
or toggle controls or keys, shall be discernible either through touch 
or sound.
    (iv) Color. 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. Automated airport kiosks shall provide the opportunity 
for the same degree of privacy of input and output available to all 
individuals.
    (5) Output. Automated airport kiosks shall comply with this 
paragraph (c)(5).
    (i) Speech Enabled.
    (A) Automated airport kiosks 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 
recorded or digitized human, or synthesized. Speech shall be 
coordinated with information displayed on the screen.
    (B) Audible tones shall be permitted instead of speech for visible 
output that is not displayed for security purposes, including but not 
limited to, asterisks representing personal identification numbers.
    (C) Advertisements and other similar information shall not be 
required to be audible unless they convey information that can be used 
in the transaction being conducted.
    (D) Speech for any single function shall be automatically 
interrupted when a transaction is selected. Speech shall be capable of 
being repeated and paused.
    (E) Where receipts, tickets, or other outputs are provided as a 
result of a transaction, speech output shall include all information 
necessary to complete or verify the transaction, except that:
    (1) Automated airport kiosk location, date and time of transaction, 
customer account numbers, and the kiosk identifier shall not be 
required to be audible.
    (2) Information that duplicates information available on-screen and 
already presented audibly shall not be required to be repeated.
    (3) Printed copies of a carrier's contract of carriage, applicable 
fare rules, itineraries and other similar supplemental information that 
may be included with a boarding pass shall not be required to be 
audible.
    (F) The information necessary to complete or verify a transaction 
depends on the nature of the transaction and the automated kiosk type. 
Where automated kiosks provide boarding passes and other similar 
transactional outputs, information such as concourse, gate number, seat 
number, and boarding group is necessary to complete and verify a 
transaction.
    (G) Receipts, tickets, and similar transactional output usually are 
printed, but this is not always the case. For example, a boarding pass 
might be transferred to a smart phone or personal digital assistant. 
Regardless of the delivery method, the automated kiosk must convey to 
the user the information provided in receipts, tickets and other 
similar transactional outputs that is necessary to complete and verify 
a transaction.
    (ii) Volume Control. Automated kiosks shall provide volume control 
complying with paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Private Listening. Where speech required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) 
of this section is delivered through a mechanism for private listening, 
the automated kiosk shall provide a means for controlling the volume.
    (B) Speaker Volume. Where sound is delivered through speakers on 
the automated kiosk, incremental volume control shall be provided with 
output amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB SPL. Where the 
ambient noise level of the environment is above 45 dB SPL, a volume 
gain of at least 20 dB above the ambient level shall be user 
selectable. A function shall be provided to automatically reset the 
volume to the default level after every use.
    (iii) Captioning. Multimedia content that contains speech or other 
audio information necessary for the comprehension of the content shall 
be open or closed captioned. Advertisements and other similar 
information shall not be required to be captioned unless they convey 
information that can be used in the transaction being conducted.
    (iv) Tickets and Boarding Passes. Where tickets or boarding passes 
are provided, tickets and boarding passes shall have an orientation 
that is tactilely discernable if orientation is important to further 
use of the ticket or boarding pass.

[[Page 59327]]

    (6) Input. Input devices shall comply with paragraphs (c)(6)(i) 
through (c)(6)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Input Controls. 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 touch or membrane keys are the only method 
of input, each shall be tactilely discernible from surrounding surfaces 
and adjacent keys.
    (ii) Numeric Keys. 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.
    (iii) Function Keys. Function keys shall comply with paragraphs 
(c)(6)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Contrast. 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. However, tactile symbols required by paragraph 
(c)(6)(iii)(B) shall not be required to comply with paragraph 
(c)(6)(iii)(A) of this section.
    (B) Tactile Symbols. Function key surfaces shall have tactile 
symbols as follows: Enter or Proceed key: raised circle; Clear or 
Correct key: raised left arrow; Cancel key: raised letter ex; Add Value 
key: raised plus sign; Decrease Value key: raised minus sign.
    (7) Display Screen. The display screen shall comply with paragraphs 
(c)(7)(i) and (c)(7)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Visibility. 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 automated kiosk.
    (ii) Characters. 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. Braille instructions for initiating the 
speech mode shall be provided. Braille shall comply with 36 CFR part 
1191, appendix D, section 703.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards.
    (9) Biometrics. Biometrics shall not be the only means for user 
identification or control, except that where at least two biometric 
options that use different biological characteristics are provided, 
automated kiosks shall be permitted to use biometrics as the only means 
for user identification or control.
    (d) Until you have met the requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b), 
and (c) of this section, you must provide equivalent service upon 
request to passengers with a disability who cannot readily use your 
automated airport kiosks (e.g., by directing a passenger who is blind 
to an accessible automated kiosk, assisting a passenger in using an 
inaccessible automated kiosk, or allowing the passenger to come to the 
front of the line at the check-in counter).
    (e) You must provide appropriate equivalent service as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section upon request to any passenger, who due to 
his or her disability, cannot readily use an accessible automated kiosk 
that you own, lease, or control at a U.S. airport.

TITLE 49--TRANSPORATION

PART 27--NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN PROGRAMS 
OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

    6. The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 
amended (29 U.S.C. 794); sec. 16(a) and (d) of the Federal Transit 
Act of 1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 5310(a) and (f); sec. 165(b) of 
the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, as amended (23 U.S.C. 142 nt.).

    7. Section 27.71 is amended by adding paragraphs (j) and (k) as 
follows:

Sec.  27.71  Airport facilities.

* * * * *
    (j) Shared-use automated airport kiosks. This paragraph (j) applies 
to U.S. airports with 10,000 or more annual enplanements.
    (1) With respect to shared-use automated airport kiosks that are 
jointly owned, leased, or controlled with carriers, the airport 
operator must ensure that all automated kiosks installed at each 
airport location are accessible to passengers with disabilities by 
following the design specifications set forth in paragraph (k) of this 
section.
    (2) No later than [insert date 60 days after the effective date of 
the rule], the airport operator shall have a written, signed agreement 
with the carriers at that airport that are subject to 14 CFR 382.57(b) 
allocating responsibility for ensuring that shared-use automated kiosks 
meet the design specifications set forth in paragraph (k) in accordance 
with the requirements of paragraphs (k)(1), (3), and (4) of this 
section.
    (i) The agreements must ensure that accessible shared-use automated 
airport kiosks are maintained in proper working condition until all 
automated kiosks installed at each airport location are accessible to 
passengers with disabilities.
    (ii) Airport operators and carriers are jointly and severally 
responsible for the timely and complete implementation of the agreement 
provisions.
    (3) Airport operators that jointly own, lease, or control automated 
airport kiosks with carriers shall ensure that all new orders for 
shared-use automated kiosks initiated [insert date 60 days after the 
effective date of the rule] meet the design specifications set forth in 
paragraph (k) of this section. There is no requirement to retrofit 
existing kiosks.
    (4) Until all automated airport kiosks meet the design 
specifications in paragraph (k), each shared-use automated kiosk that 
meets the design specifications in paragraph (k) of this section shall 
be visually and tactilely identifiable to users as accessible (e.g., a 
raised ADA-compliant international symbol of accessibility affixed to 
the front of the device).
    (k) Technical standards for shared-use automated kiosks. Shared-use 
automated airport kiosks provided in accordance with paragraph (j) of 
this section must conform to the following technical accessibility 
standards with respect to their physical design and the functions they 
perform:
    (1) Self Contained. Except for personal headsets and audio loops, 
automated kiosks shall be operable without requiring the user to attach 
assistive technology.
    (2) Clear Floor or Ground Space. A clear floor or ground space 
complying with 36 CFR Part 1191, appendix D, section 305 of the U.S. 
Department of Justice's 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design shall 
be provided.
    (3) Operable Parts. Operable parts shall comply with subsection 
(c)(3) and 36 CFR Part 1191, appendix D, section 309 of the 2010 ADA 
Standards.
    (i) Identification. Operable parts shall be tactilely discernible 
without activation.
    (ii) Timing. Where a timed response is required, the user shall be 
alerted by touch or sound and shall be given the opportunity to 
indicate that more time is required.
    (iii) Status Indicators. Status indicators, including all locking 
or toggle controls or keys, shall be discernible either through touch 
or sound.
    (iv) Color. Color coding shall not be used as the only means of 
conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or 
distinguishing a visual element.

[[Page 59328]]

    (4) Privacy. Automated airport kiosks shall provide the opportunity 
for the same degree of privacy of input and output available to all 
individuals.
    (5) Output. Automated airport kiosks shall comply with this 
paragraph (k)(5).
    (i) Speech Enabled.
    (A) Automated airport kiosks 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 
recorded or digitized human, or synthesized. Speech shall be 
coordinated with information displayed on the screen.
    (B) Audible tones shall be permitted instead of speech for visible 
output that is not displayed for security purposes, including but not 
limited to, asterisks representing personal identification numbers.
    (C) Advertisements and other similar information shall not be 
required to be audible unless they convey information that can be used 
in the transaction being conducted.
    (D) Speech for any single function shall be automatically 
interrupted when a transaction is selected. Speech shall be capable of 
being repeated and paused.
    (E) Where receipts, tickets, or other outputs are provided as a 
result of a transaction, speech output shall include all information 
necessary to complete or verify the transaction, except that:
    (1) Automated airport kiosk location, date and time of transaction, 
customer account numbers, and the kiosk identifier shall not be 
required to be audible.
    (2) Information that duplicates information available on-screen and 
already presented audibly shall not be required to be repeated.
    (3) Printed copies of a carrier's contract of carriage, applicable 
fare rules, itineraries and other similar supplemental information that 
may be included with a boarding pass shall not be required to be 
audible.
    (F) The information necessary to complete or verify a transaction 
depends on the nature of the transaction and the automated kiosk type. 
Where automated kiosks provide boarding passes and other similar 
transactional outputs, information such as concourse, gate number, seat 
number, and boarding group is necessary to complete and verify a 
transaction.
    (G) Receipts, tickets, and similar transactional output usually are 
printed, but this is not always the case. For example, a boarding pass 
might be transferred to a smart phone or personal digital assistant. 
Regardless of the delivery method, the automated kiosk must convey to 
the user the information provided in receipts, tickets and other 
similar transactional outputs that is necessary to complete and verify 
a transaction.
    (ii) Volume Control. Automated kiosks shall provide volume control 
complying with paragraphs (k)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Private Listening. Where speech required by paragraph (k)(5)(i) 
of this section is delivered through a mechanism for private listening, 
the automated kiosk shall provide a means for controlling the volume.
    (B) Speaker Volume. Where sound is delivered through speakers on 
the automated kiosk, incremental volume control shall be provided with 
output amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB SPL. Where the 
ambient noise level of the environment is above 45 dB SPL, a volume 
gain of at least 20 dB above the ambient level shall be user 
selectable. A function shall be provided to automatically reset the 
volume to the default level after every use.
    (iii) Captioning. Multimedia content that contains speech or other 
audio information necessary for the comprehension of the content shall 
be open or closed captioned. Advertisements and other similar 
information shall not be required to be captioned unless they convey 
information that can be used in the transaction being conducted.
    (iv) Tickets and Boarding Passes. Where tickets or boarding passes 
are provided, tickets and boarding passes shall have an orientation 
that is tactilely discernable if orientation is important to further 
use of the ticket or boarding pass.
    (6) Input. Input devices shall comply with paragraphs (k)(6)(i) 
through (k)(6)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Input Controls. 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 touch or membrane keys are the only method 
of input, each shall be tactilely discernible from surrounding surfaces 
and adjacent keys.
    (ii) Numeric Keys. 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.
    (iii) Function Keys. Function keys shall comply with paragraphs 
(k)(6)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Contrast. 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. However, tactile symbols required by paragraph 
(k)(6)(iii)(B) shall not be required to comply with paragraph 
(k)(6)(iii)(A) of this section.
    (B) Tactile Symbols. Function key surfaces shall have tactile 
symbols as follows: Enter or Proceed key: raised circle; Clear or 
Correct key: raised left arrow; Cancel key: raised letter ex; Add Value 
key: raised plus sign; Decrease Value key: raised minus sign.
    (7) Display Screen. The display screen shall comply with paragraphs 
(k)(7)(i) and (k)(7)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Visibility. 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 automated kiosk.
    (ii) Characters. 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. Braille instructions for initiating the 
speech mode shall be provided. Braille shall comply with 36 CFR part 
1191, appendix D, section 703.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards.
    (9) Biometrics. Biometrics shall not be the only means for user 
identification or control, except that where at least two biometric 
options that use different biological characteristics are provided, 
automated kiosks shall be permitted to use biometrics as the only means 
for user identification or control.

[FR Doc. 2011-24298 Filed 9-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```