Comments - Regional Airline Association

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONWASHINGTON, DC------------------------------------------------------------------xIn the matter of ::SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED : Docket DOT-OST-2011-0177RULEMAKING CONCERNING :ACCESSIBILITY OF WEB SITES AND :AUTOMATED KIOSKS AT U.S. AIRPORTS :------------------------------------------------------------------xCOMMENTS OF THE AIRLINES FOR AMERICA, THE INTERNATIONAL AIRTRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, THE AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL-NORTH AMERICA, THE REGIONAL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION, AND THE AIRCARRIER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAAirlines for America (“A4A”), the International Air Transport Association (“IATA”), theAirports Council International-North America (“ACI-NA”), Regional Airline Association(“RAA”), and the Air Carrier Association of America submit these comments in response to theDepartment of Transportation‟s (“DOT” or “Department”) supplemental notice of proposedrulemaking (“SNPRM” or “proposal”) published on September 26, 2011, concerning accessiblekiosks and websites. 76 Fed. Reg. 59307.I. OverviewThe air transportation industry supports balanced policies that improve and encourage websiteand kiosk accessibility. Carriers are committed to providing accessible air travel to passengerswith a disability and frequently exceed current regulations; this is also true in the context ofkiosk and website access. For example, many carriers work with accessibility experts to buildaccessibility features into websites without a regulatory mandate to do so. In addition, carriersand airports participate in IATA groups that discuss and consider how accessibility features canbe built into kiosks. Providing additional accessibility to passengers with disabilities is acommon goal but as our comments show there are many ways to accomplish this task and someare much less burdensome and ultimately provide greater utility for more passengers.Unfortunately the SNPRM as drafted is very restrictive, provides only one method of compliancefor kiosks and websites and imposes very short deadlines, which will unnecessarily drive upcosts. Moreover, many of the benefits are overstated and the value of others are not assignificant as the Department states. The proposal does not consider alternative approaches thatwould strengthen the system and hold down costs. This proposal will have the effect ofinhibiting future experimentation and free enterprise development, with negative consequences3

oth for the disability community and other air carrier customers. We respectfully request theDepartment to consider several alternative approaches to this SNPRM, discussed below, thatwould more efficiently and effectively provide the same accommodations and benefits it seeks toachieve.The flexible regulatory approach we seek is, in fact, one of the cornerstones of Executive Order13563, which states:Sec. 4. Flexible Approaches. Where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatoryobjectives, and to the extent permitted by law, each agency shall identify and considerregulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choicefor the public. These approaches include warnings, appropriate default rules, anddisclosure requirements as well as provision of information to the public in a form that isclear and intelligible [emphasis added]. 1Cass Sunstein, Administrator, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently elaborated onsection 4 and reiterated its importance:Section 4 acknowledges the importance of considering flexible approaches andalternatives to mandates, prohibitions, and command-and-control regulation. Itemphasizes the potential value of approaches that maintain freedom of choice andimprove the operation of free markets (for example, by promoting informed decisions). Itdirects agencies to consider the use of tools that can promote regulatory goals throughactions that are often less expensive and more effective than mandates and outrightprohibitions. When properly used, these tools may also encourage innovation and growthas well as competition among regulated entities. 2The Department has an opportunity to reaffirm the collective efforts of the Department andindustry while addressing the needs of passengers with disabilities, but it should do so in amanner that embraces Administrator Sunstein‟s guidance and EO 13563 directives by adopting amore flexible approach rather than a traditional prescriptive regulation. Doing so would enablethe Department to more meaningfully and effectively manage its long-term goal of increasingaccessibility for air carrier passengers by harnessing the flexibility and power inherent intechnological innovations and market forces. Such an approach would also build uponinnovation and investments already made and that continue to be made by carriers and utilizedby many passengers. Finally, a flexible approach would allow carriers to continue innovatingand improving the user experience for all customers by implementing the latest technology forcustomers with disabilities.1 Executive Order 13563, January 18, 2011.2 MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, AND OFINDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCIES, M-11-10, Cass Sunstein, Administrator, Office of Management andBudget, February 2, 2011.4

In sum, this proposal does not meet the directives in EO 12866 3 or 13563 and would be an undueburden because its costs outweigh its benefits. Therefore, we offer multiple alternatives thatprovide the same benefits but with a significantly less onerous regulatory approach. Inparticular, we recommend the Department adopt “regulatory alternatives” that include specificalternative compliant options for kiosks and websites and extended compliance periods that willallow additional time to analyze and plan the development that will need to be done and absorbthe substantial costs of these accommodations. Finally, the Department should also considerdelaying this rulemaking until the U.S. Access Board and the Department of Justice finalizepending accessible kiosk and website accessibility regulations.II.BackgroundThe Air Carrier Access Act (“ACAA”), passed by Congress in 1986, prohibits discrimination inairline service on the basis of disability. The Department issued a final rule implementing theACAA, 14 CFR part 382 (Part 382) in 1990. In 2004, the Department proposed to requireaccessible website standards using the Section 508 standards in 36 CFR 1194.22 that apply tofederal government agencies. 4 In the 2008 final rule, the Department recognized that manyexisting carrier websites at that time already provided a degree of accessibility. 5 The Departmentrefrained from adopting the proposed web standards because it did not have enough informationabout the costs and technical issues involved with mandating such standards. 6 In the 2008 finalrule, the Department provided options for carriers that do not have a fully accessible website,which still apply today. Carriers that do not have an accessible website (1) must not chargepassengers with a disability a fee for booking tickets by other methods (such as by phone) and(2) must provide the same web discounted fares to passengers with a disability that cannot usethe web site and they self-identify over the phone.For kiosks, the Department asked in a 2004 NPRM if it should impose Section 508 kioskstandards to airline kiosks. 7 The Department did not adopt these standards in a 2008 final rulebecause it did not have enough information on the costs and technical issues involved withmandating accessible kiosks. 8 The 2008 final rule did require carriers that do not have accessiblekiosks to provide equivalent services to passengers with disabilities, for example by assistingpassengers in using the kiosk or allowing the passenger to come to the front of the line at thecheck-in counter.3Executive Order 12866, September 30, 1993.4 69 Fed. Reg. 64383-45 73 Fed. Reg. 26737.6 73 Fed. Reg. 27637.7 69 Fed. Reg. 64370.8 73 Fed. Reg. 27619.5

In the intervening years, carriers have continued to invest in and improve accessibility forwebsites and continue to provide assistance to passengers that are unable to use kiosks. Websiteadvancements include, in one case, building a text alternative website, in other cases buildingaccessibility features into mobile websites or in downloadable applications. Carriers frequentlywork with accessibility boards or consultants to assess websites and build in accessibilityfeatures where feasible.In addition, the IATA Common Use Working Group (IATA Group), which includes carriers,airports, and vendors, has periodically met to discuss how to incorporate accessibility featuresinto kiosks. The IATA Group analyzed the SNPRM and provided extensive information on theresearch, redesign, and reprogramming that will need to go in to an accessible kiosk (SeeAttachment 1). If the Department moves forward with a kiosk standard, this IATA Group willbe instrumental in providing an industry kiosk solution.III.KiosksA. DOT ProposalThe SNPRM proposed that all kiosks ordered 60 days after the effective date of the final rule,and to be installed in U.S. airports with 10,000 or more enplanements per year, would have tomeet new DOT accessible kiosk standards. The proposed kiosk standards are, essentially, asubjective amalgam of the U.S. Department of Justice‟s (DOJ) 2010 American with DisabilitiesAct (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design applicable to automated teller machines (Section707) and DOT-selected provisions from Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (36 CFR1194.25) applicable to self-contained closed products. The Department has expressed an interestin also imposing a retrofit requirement to existing kiosks. 9B. The Department Should Provide Additional FlexibilityAs described in the IATA Group report, no kiosks currently exist that meet the proposedSNPRM kiosk standard. The IATA Group, comprised of carrier, airports and vendorrepresentatives that meet to discuss common use kiosk technologies, states that it would take ayear of design and standard development work to develop a prototype kiosk to meet any kioskstandards in the final rule. This would not include additional time needed for the carrier todevelop software that supports airline applications. 10 They also conclude that the kioskdevelopment process could not start until the publication of a final rule that includes the finalstandards. The need for kiosk development is also supported by the Preliminary RegulatoryAnalysis (“PRA”), which states:Based on the timetable for other IATA shared-use standards development activities, itwould be reasonable to anticipate that the standards setting and applications development9 See 76 Fed. Reg. 59318.10 See Attachment 1, page 1.6

processes will take at least 1 additional year after the finalization of the hardwarespecifications before carriers can install and run fully developed and tested versions ofcompliant applications on accessible kiosk systems. 11In addition, not every kiosk needs to be accessible; designated accessible kiosks will strike theright balance of meeting passenger needs without creating an undue burden. Indeed, just as notevery parking spot, bathroom, or transit seat is required to be accessible, neither should everyairline kiosk. We note that current Access Board ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) andDOJ ADA Title III regulations permit one accessible ATM where more than one ATM of thesame type exists at a single location and the Department should take the same balanced approachin this rulemaking. 12The Department should provide additional flexibility for accessible kiosks, instead of theproposed prescriptive standard that would apply to all kiosk orders only 60 days after the finalrule effective date. A more flexible approach should consist of two components, additional timeto comply with the proposed standard and reducing the number of kiosks that must comply withthe new regulation. Such an approach would recognize the development needed to create anairline accessible kiosk and avoid the unnecessary and costly (“undue”) burden of anyrequirement that all airline kiosks be accessible.1. The Department Should Utilize “Flexible Regulatory Tools”The Department should adopt more flexible approaches to regulating accessible kiosks. Theproposed standard would unnecessarily require all airline and airport kiosks to be accessible.This approach is inconsistent with other types of accommodations, including some that alreadyexist in part 382. For example, part 382 requires one accessible bathroom on twin aisle aircraft,not all bathrooms; it also requires that 50% of aisle chair armrests are movable in all classes ofservice, not all the aisle chair armrests. 13 Each of these existing part 382 requirements balancesthe need for an accommodation with other appropriate factors such as necessity and cost.Accordingly, we urge the Department to adopt a final rule that permits either of the followingalternatively-compliant options: (1) require 10% of future kiosks ordered to include accessible11 Preliminary Regulatory Analysis page 25.12 See ADAAG, Part II ABA Application and Scoping, Chapter 2, Section 220 Automatic Teller Machines and FareMachines, which states “220.1 General. Where automatic teller machines or self-service fare vending, collection, oradjustment machines are provided, at least one of each type provided at each location shall comply with 707.”Available at http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/final.cfm#f220; See also 28 CFR 36, Appendix A to Part 36—Guidance on Revisions to ADA Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by PublicAccommodations and Commercial Facilities, Section 36.302 Modifications in Policies, Practices, or Procedures“For example, a particular bank may be in compliance with the accessibility guidelines for new constructionincorporated in appendix A with respect to automated teller machines (ATM) at a new branch office by providingone accessible walk-up machine at that location, even though an adjacent walk-up ATM is not accessible and thedrive-up ATM is not accessible.”13 See 14 CFR 382.63 and 382.61.7

features or, in the alternative, (2) require one accessible kiosk per passenger check in area at anairport. Both options should have an effective date as described below. A rule requiring 10% offuture kiosk orders to be accessible recognizes the importance of providing accessible kiosks tothose that need and will use them but better balances the costs with the benefits. The effectivedate for this option should be three years from the final rule effective date. During the interimperiod, current successful accommodation practices should apply, with carrier employeesproviding passengers with disability assistance if necessary.The second alternative would require carriers to begin the process of installing an accessiblekiosk at each passenger check in station beginning three years after the final rule effective dateand then give carriers an additional three years to procure and install an accessible kiosk at everyairport at which they have a passenger check in station. For example, if a carrier had a departurecheck in station in one terminal, the carrier must ensure there is one working accessible kiosk forpassengers with a disability at that terminal. In addition, if a passenger were to self-identify, heor she would be given priority access to the accessible kiosk. If an accessible kiosk is notworking or a passenger needs additional assistance, carrier personnel would provide theassistance.Under both scenarios, the Department should be involved in the kiosk development process,through IATA or other industry groups, to ensure kiosk prototypes meet the Department‟sexpectation as they are developed, while avoiding a potential costly retrofit. If kiosk designtakes more time than expected, the Department should use its enforcement authority to tollenforcement of accessible kiosk requirements until a compliant kiosk is developed andrealistically available to carriers seeking to comply with new DOT requirements.2. Additional Time is NecessaryThe Department should start the accessible kiosk compliance period 36 months after it adopts afinal rule. 14 This additional time is needed because industry will not know the accessible kioskstandards until the final rule is published and design of a kiosk that meets the final rule standardscannot start until the final rule is issued. This length of period is necessary because asrecognized by the PRA and based on information received from vendors, the accessible kioskdesign process alone will take a minimum of 12 months (described above) and the procurementprocess will take another 4-6 months. The PRA states:Based on our research and discussions with kiosk hardware and software vendors, ittypically takes 4 to 6 months to execute a contract for new kiosk hardware to be producedand installed at specific airport locations after the technical details are specified (andthese details can only be known after publication of the final rule). 1514 In the case of the second option we suggest, carriers would have to begin to acquire accessible kiosks after threeyears and would have an additional three years to provide one accessible kiosk per check-in station, at every airportthe carrier has a presence.15 Preliminary Regulatory Analysis page 25.8

In addition to the 12-month development process and six month procurement process, another 12months is required for carrier development of software and 6 months for the manufacture anddelivery of a new kiosk and carrier software loading and testing of the kiosk. Also, there will besupply and demand issues and associated backlog orders that will include artificial priceincreases due to spikes in demand upon initial application of a rule for new kiosks that theDepartment must include and consider before moving forward with this rulemaking. We alsonote that the Department recognized the challenges in developing website solutions by providingtwo years for carrier websites to meet web accessibility requirements yet would give carriersonly 60 days to meet kiosk accessibility requirements. Kiosks present many similar, and someunique, challenges that justify a longer implementation period.3. RetrofitThe SNPRM correctly recognized that it is costly and impractical to retrofit older kiosks: “we areaware that retrofitting existing kiosks to meet accessibility standards would involve not onlyhardware modifications but also updated carrier software applications that may not be operableon older kiosk machines.” 16 The SNPRM seeks information on expected life cycles of kiosks,but does not propose a retrofit requirement. The Department should not and cannot impose akiosk retrofit requirement in this final rule without giving the public notice and commentopportunity under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The SNPRM provides no details ofhow a retrofit would operate, such as how much time carriers and airports would have to retrofit,if the retrofit would include all the items proposed in 382.57, whether there are exemptions forolder existing technology that cannot accommodate accessibility features, whether unavailablevendor resources would impact a compliance period, etc. In fact, because of the lack of retrofitdetails in the SNPRM, the Department was not able to estimate a retrofit cost. Carriers hadsimilar difficulties in estimating retrofit costs and had to make a series of assumptions, such asall the requirements in 382.57 would have to be met and a retrofit would be due when retrofitkits are available, which would require at least one year from the final rule effective date. Anydeviation from these assumptions would significantly impact the ability to comply with a retrofitand compliance costs.4. CostsAs described in more detail in Section 5 of these comments, without changes the costs of theSNPRM would be substantial and should be revised to include the two options we suggest. Forinstance, the Department provided no cost information for retrofit of kiosks, information fromcarriers indicate a retrofit mandate could range as high as $11,400 per kiosk and many kioskscould not be retrofitted because they are at the end of their lifecycle and manufacturers havealready informed carriers that older kiosk support and spare parts will end in the next two years.In addition, carriers estimate the costs to create a new accessible kiosk to the SNPRM standardswould be as high as $20,000 in incremental costs per kiosk. The Department‟s $750 estimated16 76 Fed. Reg. 59318.9

incremental kiosk cost estimate is deficient and must be corrected. More importantly, theinformation we received on developing an accessible kiosk to the SNPRM proposed standardsindicates it would not be possible to create a prototype in less than one year. Portions of thePRA validate this development period, as described above. Therefore, there is a disconnectbetween the PRA and the SNPRM; how can the PRA include a $750 incremental cost for aproposed rule that would require accessible kiosk orders 60 days after the final rule when theprototype and cost of an accessible kiosk will not be known for at least one year after the finalrule publication? The Department should compare the accessible kiosk development timeperiods in the PRA (page 25) to the kiosk standard (orders 60 days after the final rule effectivedate) in proposed 382.57(a) and revisit the incremental cost estimate. It will be impossible toplace orders 60 days after the final rule effective date when a prototype will not be available forat least one year.The Department should also consider delaying a final rule until the U.S. Access Board finalizesits Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”) to addressaccessibility of self-service machines such as kiosks used for ticketing, check-in or check-out,seat selection or boarding passes or until the DOJ finalizes its proposal on revisions to its ADAregulations for the accessibility of electronic and information technology equipment andfurniture such as kiosks, interactive transaction machines, point of sale devices and ATMs. Wenote that the Access Board specifically asked in its latest ANPRM whether tactilely discerniblekeys should be the only input method for modern touch screen devices:Question 8: Some modern touch screen devices, such as versions of some smartphonesand tablets, have proved popular with people who are blind, despite not having keyswhich are tactilely discernible. Should the provision requiring that input controls betactilely discernible (407.3) be revised to allow for such novel input methods? Should theBoard add an exception to 407.3 to allow for input controls which are not tactilelydiscernible when access is provided in another way? If so, how should access beaddressed when the controls are not tactilely discernible? Should a particular technologyor method of approach be specified? 17This is another example of technological advances that should be considered before adopting afinal rule and another reason to delay this rulemaking to benefit from information received inother ongoing rulemaking proceedings. 1817 76 Fed. Reg. 76646.18 Even though this question is asked in the context of Information and Communication Technology Standards andGuidelines, the information received on tactilely discernible input methods will be relevant to the part 382 kioskstandards. The Department should not adopt a prescriptive standard that prohibits use of the latest technology.10

IV.WebsitesA. ProposalThe Department proposed that carriers meet certain web accessibility standards in a 3 phase or“tier” approach. The first phase or tier requires that any new or redesigned website placed onlinewithin 180 days of the final rule must conform to WCAG 2.0 Levels A and AA. The secondphase or tier would require a carrier to provide seven core functions that conform to WCAG 2.0Levels A and AA on the carrier‟s primary website or on the carrier‟s mobile website within oneyear of the final rule effective date. Phase or tier 3 would require a carrier to conform allwebpages on its primary website (any website that includes the carrier name in the url) toWCAG 2.0 Levels A and AA within 2 years of the final rule effective date. Finally, theDepartment proposed that carriers ensure that the website of ticket agents on which the carriermarkets its airline tickets also conform to WCAG 2.0 Levels A and AA within two years of thefinal rule effective date. 19B. The Department Should Adopt Regulatory AlternativesWe support taking incremental steps to provide increase access to information and functions oncarrier websites that market air transportation. However, we believe that any regulatory mandatein this area take into account and recognize the substantial efforts by carriers to date to increasepassenger access to information on carrier websites. At the same time, as in the case with thekiosks, we believe it is incumbent of DOT to offer carriers a more flexible approach to meet thisshared goal of increased access. Carriers have already made substantial efforts to increasepassenger access to information on carrier websites, without a regulatory mandate to do so.These efforts have included incorporating accessible website features in newly developedapplications such as mobile websites or creating text alternative websites to better servepassengers with disabilities. The primary goal of these efforts has been to adopt usabilityfeatures, instead of limiting website development to strict standards. The result of these effortshas been to make the core and most important features of a carrier website accessible topassengers with disabilities. Many carriers use accessible website experts to maximize usabilityof carrier websites.The best way for the Department to meet its goals in this area is to change its proposedprescriptive website standard and provide additional flexibility. The Department should permitcarriers and ticket agents to meet any existing or future web accessibility standard. Adopting astrict “one size fits all” standard will unnecessarily divert carrier resources to comply withtechnical standards, when many of the estimated benefits have already been achieved or could beachieved in a much more efficient manner. Increased accessibility should embrace theinnovation, improvements, and features all passengers enjoy, such as carrier mobile websites orapplications downloaded onto a computer or smart device. Otherwise the unintended19 We note that proposed 382.57(c)(6)(iii) inadvertently refers to paragraphs (c)(6)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section,which do not exist. The intended reference was most likely (c)(6)(iii)(A) and (B) 76 Fed. Reg. 59327.11

consequence of this prescriptive approach will be to constrain future innovation that wouldbenefit all passengers, including .passengers with disabilities. Adopting regulatory alternativeswill drastically eliminate unnecessary costs and focus on users and functionality.In adopting regulatory alternatives the Department should allow carriers to choose any of thefollowing options. Each option would provide all of the benefits included in the PRA, whilesignificantly reducing costs. Allowing this flexibility would permit each carrier to choose theoption that works best for its enterprise and its customers, while at the same time recognizingand promote airline investments already made in various web accessibility methodologies. Westress that a final rule mandating only one of the following options will not be in the passengers‟best interests because carriers have pursued a variety of approaches and invested in variousaccessibility technologies which encourages innovation and competition. Limited complianceoptions would inhibit innovation, and use of new technologies, ultimately limiting utility for allpassengers, and resulting in an undue burden for the industry.We also note, as the Department is aware, requiring WCAG 2.0 would set a very high bar thatexceeds federal government website accessibility requirements. No other government agency iscurrently required to meet the WCAG 2.0 Level A & AA standards. Only Section 508 currentlyimposes a website standard, which is WCAG 1.0 applying to the federal government. 20 Theairline industry should not be the “test case” or the first to implement WCAG 2.0, thegovernment should gain experience with this standard before imposing it on private industry.The U.S. Access Board asked in two Section 508 ANPRMs if a WCAG 2.0 standard would beappropriate to apply to the federal government. 21 The need for a second ANPRM indicates eventhe Federal government is concerned with proposing to adopt a WCAG 2.0 standard. 2220 36 CFR 1194.22 note.21 See ANPRM I, 75 Fed. Reg. 13457, March 22, 2010; ANPRM II, 76 Fed. Reg. 76640, December 8, 2011.22 For instance, there was confusion over whether strict compliance with WCAG 2.0 was proposed. See SocialSecurity Administration comments to the first ANPRM “We believe that The Board‟s solution is a good one—namely that WCAG AA equivalence, coupled with the additional requirement to meet provisions in the draft (e.g.sections 409, 413, etc.), will aid readability and understandability for many web developers. We do, however,suggest that the provision (or the advisory note) make explicit that the inverse is not true. Otherwise, members of thepublic can easily construe this to mean agency web sites should meet WCAG 2.0 (public misinterpretation on thisissue is evident today).(emphasis added). Docket ATBCB-2010-0001-0402; See also Department of HomelandSecurity comments, “The following language should be modified to ensure that the Section 508 Standards areapplicable, but that WCAG 2.0 conformance is acceptable, at the government’s discretion, as an equivalentStandard.Exception: Platforms, applications, and interactive content complying with the WCAG 2.0 Level AA SuccessCriteria and Conformance Requirements and, where applicable, 409 and 413 of this chapter shall not be required tocomply with other requirements of this chapter.Suggested replacement language:Platforms, applications, and interactive content, which meets the WCAG 2.0 definition of “Web page”, complyingwith the WCAG 2.0 Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements and, where applicable, 409 and 41312

In addition, DOJ does not have an explicit website accessibility standard under Title II (state andlocal governments) or Title III (places of public accommodation) of its ADA regulations. 23 Infact, DOJ did not impose a web accessibility standard in its recent 2010 update to Title II & IIIregulations, but instead chose to maintain a similar standard that currently exists for airlines, 24requiring state and local governments and places of public accommodation that do not have anaccessible website, to provide similar information to the public in a different format, e.g. over thetelephone. 25 The Department should strongly consider our alternative approaches and additionalcompliance time given the lack of experience in implementing WCAG 2.0 standards.Option 1One option should be a text alternative website that is one link away from the primary websiteand provides a passenger visiting the primary website using a screen reader direction at thebeginning of the primary website to the text alternative website. The text alternative websiteshould comply with any web accessibility standard, including WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0 Level A,existing Section 508 standards or Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 (if applicable). The textalternative website should include all of the tier 2 functions but not include all of the contentfrom a primary carrier website. Providing all content in a text alternative website does not makesense because many applications do not easily translate into a text version and many webpagesare infrequently visited by all passengers. We note that all web accessibility standards, includingSection 508 applicable to the federal government permit a text-only page with equivalent orfunctionality. 26Option 2The second option should be a mobile website one link away from the primary website or thatautomatically loads on a smartphone or other mobile device that meets the Mobile Web BestPractices 1.0 standard. The accessible mobile website should include all of the tier 2 functionsbut should not have to include the entire carrier primary website because many functions orapplications do not easily translate to mobile technology. The Department recognized the utilityof mobile web pages by providing it as an option for phase 2. Moreover, the flexibility andpersonalization features of smart phone, as well as the rapid pace of associated applicationdevelopment, make this an attractive option that could more quickly render accessibilityimprovements that meet the actual needs of the disability community; this approach would alsoensure that accessibility features would more quickly align with available technology and enableof this chapter shall be considered to conform with the corresponding provisions from this Chapter.” [emphasisadded], page 6, Docket ATBCB-2010-0001-0320.23 See Title II see 75 Fed. Reg. 56235-56236; For Title III see 75 Fed. Reg. 56316.24 See 14 CFR 382.31.25 See Title II see 75 Fed. Reg. 56235-56236; For Title III see 75 Fed. Reg. 56316.26 See 36 CFR 1194.22(k), “A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be provided tomake a web site comply with the provisions of this part, when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way.The content of the text-only page shall be updated whenever the primary page changes.”13

more progressive development of content and features for both accessible and non-accessiblesites.Option 3A third option should be a primary carrier website that includes accessible tier two corefunctions. Accessible in this context should include incorporating any web accessibilitystandard. As discussed above, the tier two functions provide the most important information andfunctions to passengers with a disability. All of the benefits claimed in the PRA will be realizedwith a primary website that has tier two accessible features. This option is another measure theDepartment could adopt to avoid the SNPRM undue burden, impracticable tasking andunjustified costs.Option 4A fourth option should be a primary carrier website that incorporates any web accessibilitystandard, including WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0 Level A, or existing Section 508 standards intonewly created webpages starting two years from the final rule effective date. This option wouldprovide all of the benefits recognized in the PRA while giving carriers flexibility and avoidingsome costs. In addition, this option should include exemptions for infrequently visited webpagesand exempt or allow alternatives for technologies that do not easily translate into text or otheraccessible formats, such as video or flash. Mandating this option alone would not reduce thecosts described in Section 5 of these comments and would result in the overall costs stillexceeding the benefits creating an undue burden for carriers. A mandate for only this optionwould also discourage or prevent additional technology advances from developing andbenefitting all passengers.C. DOT Should Enforce Requirements Directly Against Ticket AgentsThe Department should not adopt its proposal to require carriers to enforce the websiteaccessibility requirements against ticket agents. Carriers will have no leverage to enforce DOTregulations. If the Department is interested in regulating ticket agent websites, it should do sodirectly and not through carriers. Indirect regulation of ticket agents will cause conflicts incontractual relationships, slow implementation, and create another layer of bureaucracy that doesnot benefit consumers. We estimate it would cost a minimum of $250,000 per year per carrier to“enforce” accessibility requirements against ticket agents. 27 Carrier efforts to identify and notifya ticket agent of web accessibility shortcomings will not ultimately result in compliance. Carriersare not regulators and should not be burdened with this regulatory function.27 This cost is based on the need to have several dedicated personnel or hiring contractors to work with ticket agentsto ensure compliance. Given the potential fines for non-compliance, simply changing contractual terms with a ticketagent, without resources to ensure compliance would not be a valid option.14

D. Additional Time is NeededThe Department should provide additional compliance time for all of the four options listedabove. As observed by Mr. Maerten and as detailed in our cost/benefit comments below,converting airline websites to meet any accessibility standard is a major undertaking. Carriersneed additional time to plan, design, incorporate, and test websites after the final rule. Wetherefore recommend the Department provide a 2-year compliance period for all of the fouroptions suggested above. 28E. CostsAs described in more detail in the next section of these comments, the costs of the accessiblewebsite standards in this SNPRM would be substantial and should be revised to allow any of thefour options we suggest. The PRA vastly underestimates the costs by over $100 million andoverestimates the benefits by $40 million.The Department should also delay a part 382 final rule until the U.S. Access Board finalizes aSection 508 web accessibility standard and DOJ finalizes a Title II & III web accessibilitystandard. The PRA cost estimates are likely to be even further underestimated as this part 382SNPRM is the first federal regulatory attempt to mandate WCAG 2.0. The Department wouldbenefit from additional information gathered during the Access Board and DOJ rulemakingprocess and should implement a part 382 web accessibility after other federal efforts arecomplete.V. Cost Benefit CommentsExecutive Order 12866 directs that “[e]ach agency shall assess both the costs and the benefits ofthe intended regulation and … propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determinationthat the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.” 29 In addition, Executive Order13563 directs agencies to “identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome toolsfor achieving regulatory ends.” 30 This SNPRM does not meet either Executive Order standardbecause the costs clearly outweigh the benefits and the SNPRM includes strict mandates thatwould prevent innovation and impose an undue burden. Moreover, as explained below, the DOTproposals significantly underestimate the actual costs of implementing the contemplatedregulations. The Department should not adopt this SNPRM as proposed but must modify it toensure the benefits outweigh the costs. We have provided a road map for this goal,28 If the Department adopts the SNPRM as proposed, which it should not, we recommend a two-year tier twocompliance period and a four-year tier three compliance period. We note that The Federal Government has hadsimilar trouble complying with accessibility requirements, as most recently encountered by individuals withdisabilities using www.regulations.gov. See Transcript of United States Access Board‟s May 12, 2010 PublicHearing on the ICT Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, at 6 (available at http://www.accessboard.gov/sec508/refresh/hearingnotice.htm)(last visited Jan. 7, 2011).”29 E.O. 12866 at § 1(b)(6).30 E.O. 13563 § 1(a).15

The Department projects a 10-year monetized benefit of $86 million for kiosks and $122 millionfor websites. Ten-year monetized costs include $15.8 million for kiosks and $66.8 million forwebsites. The monetized ten-year net benefits include $70.4 million for kiosks and $55.3 millionfor websites. As our comments show, the PRA grossly overestimates the benefits and grosslyunderestimates the costs. Therefore this proposal does not meet EO 12866 and 13563 directivesand must be substantially revised before proceeding.Reproduction of Table ES1 31 Kiosks WebsitesMonetized Benefits $86.2 $122.1Monetized Costs $15.8 $66.8Monetized NetBenefits$70.4 $55.3A. Kiosks1. The Benefits Are Vastly OverstatedThe PRA assumes that the proposed requirements would make it possible for passengers withdisabilities to check in more easily and quickly, saving 13 minutes. This passenger check in timesavings would, according to the government‟s analysis, result in $122 million in benefits,discounted to $86 million.The Department offers no evidence or relevant analysis to support this assertion that accessiblekiosks will save disabled passengers 13 minutes in the check in process. One cannot concludethis time savings without comparing it to current airline practices. Part 382 requires and currentairline practices mandate that ticket agents provide personal assistance to disabled passengers,including moving them to the front of any check-in line. It defies logic to argue that accessiblekiosks will save disabled passengers any time over the current protocol, much less 13 minutes.While it is conceivable that disabled passengers would save some time using accessible kioskscompared to inaccessible kiosks, that is not the procedure currently followed by carriers orrequired under Part 382. The Department offers no evidence that disabled passengers currentlywait 13 minutes or more for access to an agent.Further, the PRA states:“For this analysis, we assumed that the time saved by the average passenger with adisability using an accessible kiosk would be similar to the time savings (13 minutes onaverage, relative to waiting in line for an agent) enjoyed when an inaccessible ATM orticketing machine is replaced by an accessible machine.” 3231 PRA page 2.32 PRA page 28.16

This assumption is faulty because the example cited compares time saved from an inaccessibleATM to an accessible ATM, this is an invalid comparison because it is not relevant to airlinepassengers; blind or low vision passengers today do not wait in line for inaccessible kiosks, theyare moved to the front of the line to wait for check-in agent assistance. A more relevant studywould compare moving from a bank teller line to an accessible ATM. Even if this latter case, thestudy would have to analyze moving from a bank teller line where the customer is moved to thebeginning of the line to moving to an accessible ATM.The use of a 13-minute wait time is also invalid as recognized by DOJ (the source of thisassumption), which discounted the 13-minute wait time by 95%, recognizing that waiting occursinfrequently.” 33 This reduced waiting time is applicable in the airline context because passengersthat cannot use kiosks that self-identify are moved to the front of the line.Also, the IATA Common Use Working Group estimated that a passenger using an accessiblekiosk would take between 10-13 minutes to check in the first time using such a device and 10minutes each subsequent check in. According to the IATA Group, agent check in times areapproximately 3 to 3.5 minutes without waiting in a line, therefore, accessible kiosks mayactually result in additional check in time.The PRA also states that airlines will be able to reduce the number of check-in agents because ofaccessible kiosks, fewer agents will be needed to assist passengers with a disability. Thisassumption is wrong; for a variety of customer service reasons, carriers will use the same numberof agents with or without accessible kiosks.In sum, the benefit section for accessible kiosks is based on the faulty assumption that accessiblekiosks will save passengers with a disability time during the check in process and that airlineswill need fewer agents to assist passengers. The Department must, at a minimum, zero out thetime savings, and remove the $122 million benefits ($86 million in discounted benefits) becausethey are unsubstantiated and incorrect.2. CostsThe PRA estimates no costs for a potential retrofit of kiosks and a $750 incremental cost to meetthe SNPRM proposed standards. The PRA does not include an incremental cost estimate forongoing annual accessible kiosk maintenance. Over a ten year period the PRA estimates thisresults in a $21 million cost or $15.78 discounted. 3433 See Department of Justice Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, page 343, ID number 61 “ATM‟s and FareMachines” available at http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/RIA_2010regs/DOJ%20ADA%20Final%20RIA.pdf34 PRA page 32. We also note the following error: the PRA states on page 25, “For purposes of this evaluation, wehave assumed that airport authorities would not have to “pull back” and revise kiosk procurements which had beeninitiated before the effective date of the rule. We therefore assume that all kiosk hardware ordered more than 6months after the effective date of the rule date would comply with the proposed requirements.” This statement is an17

The PRA assumption that the incremental cost for an accessible kiosk is $750 is underestimated.Based on a survey of airlines, the actual incremental cost ranges from $1,000 per kiosk to$20,000, with a median of $9,250. We note the kiosk enhancements, listed in the IATACommon Use Working Group paper attached to these comments, as well as additional detailsbelow, indicate incorporating accessibility features into airline kiosks will be a lengthy andcostly process:If the standards require audio, we would need to provide a plug-in option or speakerswhich might lead to network bandwidth issues.In addition to the new hardware, the application would probably need to be modified toutilize the new features. For example, if a tactile response is available on the newhardware, the application would probably need to be rewritten/modified to provide atactile response to a button push.Incorporating the new hardware would increase the development cycle/costs. Allsubsequent releases would need to be developed in a manner to support the existinghardware as well as the new hardware. Testing effort would likewise be increased.Additional training would be required for agents at the airports, call center support lines,help desk, and field technicians. (Whether you have one kiosk at a station or all kiosksat that station, additional training is still required for all personnel at that stations orsupporting that station.)Spare parts for the kiosks would need to be increased to account for the new hardwareWhen the PRA cost assumptions for kiosks are corrected, the total cost jumps from a discounted$15.78 million to $182.84 million. 35 This cost estimate significantly exceeds the estimated kioskbenefit by over $50 million. 36Retrofit costs are more difficult to estimate because there are several types of kiosks at airportsand each type has varying levels of functionality and spacing requirements. Based on a surveyof members, we estimate kiosk retrofit costs range from $2,000 per kiosk to $11,400 per kiosk,with a median cost of $7,000. As discussed above in comments, this retrofit could not take placefor at least 18 months after the effective date of the final rule because carriers and vendors wouldhave to analyze the final standards and develop retrofit solutions for each type of kiosk. We alsoreceived information that as many as 50% of all existing airline kiosks will be ending their lifecycle in the next 2 years (for example the TP2 kiosk), which means the manufacturer will nolonger support repair functions and will no longer produce replacement parts. As a practicalincorrect assumption because the proposed compliance standard is, kiosk orders 60 days after the final rule effectivedate. The department should adjust the “more than 6 months” and associated costs to “more than 60 days.”35 This $182.845 million is reached by multiplying the $9,250 median cost derived from our airline survey by thePRA 28,500 estimated “Total accessible kiosks required” in PRA Table 15 page 32. In other words, replace thePRA $750 estimated “Incremental cost of accessible kiosk” in PRA Table 15 with $9,250.36 This $50 million figure does not include a correction to the benefits, as we describe above.18

matter, many carriers would have to order new kiosks in lieu of a viable retrofit option ifretrofitting was required contrary to the current proposal.As described in section III(b)(4), there is a disconnect between the time period in the rule text,kiosk orders 60 days after the final rule effective date, and the PRA discussion on how long itwill take to develop a prototype kiosk that meets a new DOT accessible kiosk standard (one yearaccording to the PRA page 25). It is not clear how the Department estimated a $750 incrementalaccessible kiosk cost for orders 60 days after the final rule effective date, when the PRA states aprototype will not be available for one year. It will be impossible to place orders 60 days afterthe final rule effective date when a prototype will not be available for at least one year.In addition, supporting ongoing enhancements and maintenance of accessible kiosks will alsodrive additional costs. Carriers estimate a 15-20% overall increase in development costs tosupport and maintain an accessible kiosk solution. As each new enhancement is developed,additional effort will be required to create a new path for the text to speech process, and to unittest every screen, error, etc. Additional time will also be needed for functional testing this path.One major carrier estimates $300,000 to $700,000 in incremental ongoing costs on an annualbasis, depending on the specifics of the final rule.Reproduced Table 16 PRA 37KiosksTotal benefits (millions) $86.16Total costs (millions) $15.78Total Net Benefits $70.38Corrected Table 16KiosksTotal benefits (millions) $0Total costs (millions) $182.84Total Net Costs $182.84B. Websites1. BenefitsThe PRA assumes that the proposed accessible website requirements would save passengers withdisabilities an average of 1.3 hours per year in researching and booking air transportation. Thispassenger time savings would result in $171 million in benefits, discounted to $122 million overa ten-year period. 38This time savings assumption is incorrect and the Department provides only anecdotal evidenceto support this faulty assumption. The PRA states that this time savings is based onEconometrica, Inc staff reviewing carrier websites with a screen reader such as JAWS or37 PRA page 33.38 See PRA Table 21, page 45.19

Window-Eyes. 39 This is hardly a structured or objective study, which is reflected in theconflicting results. The PRA first attempts to estimate the benefit (or passenger time savings)between reading a carrier primary website (that does not meet the SNPRM standards) to readinga mobile carrier website. The PRA states the screen reader took an average of three minutes toread through the carrier primary website but took approximately 20 seconds for the screen readerto convert the mobile webpage, saving a passenger 80-85% more time.This analysis, on which the PRA relies for a significant portion of the benefits, is inherentlyflawed and must be redone. First, it appears from the analysis that the carrier primary websiteand carrier mobile website viewed are in fact already accessible because the screen reader wasable to read through the website in 3 minutes and the mobile website in 20 seconds. 40 Second, itcompares a website to a mobile website; as discussed above, mobile websites typically provideless data and therefore naturally would be viewed more quickly. Third, the analysis is invalidbecause it compares the analysis is invalid because it compares the time needed to read through acarrier webpage not in compliance with the SNPRM to the time needed to review a carriermobile website not in compliance with the SNPRM standard. This time measurement has norelation to any potential time savings a passenger with a disability may or may not have if theSNPRM standards are implemented.In addition, even if this “analysis” were a relevant proxy for time savings, which it is not, thePRA does not indicate if the mobile carrier website includes the seven “tier two” functions, sothe analysis may be comparing a primary website with a non-compliant mobile website; but thepublic cannot know because no description of the mobile carrier website is provided. The onlyway to test time savings would be to compare the time it takes for a screen reader to read aprimary carrier website to a carrier mobile website that meets the SNPRM tier two requirements.This benefit analysis must be reworked using a valid methodology. 41The PRA calculations in Table 21 also contain significant mistakes and must be corrected beforeproceeding in this rulemaking. Table 20 estimates the annual time savings for a passenger with adisability that views a tier two website and a tier three website. The tier two estimated timesavings is 1 hour (which is invalid for the reasons described above) and the tier three estimatedtime savings is 0.4 hours, which is based on a 2007 Jonathan Lazar study that shows a typicalblind web user loses 30.4% of the total time spent online due to frustrations associated with webcontent and web site technology that conflicts with screen readers. Those values are carriedforward to table 21 and multiplied by a $28.60 hourly rate and the estimated number of website39 See PRA page 43.40 It seems unlikely that a screen reader would be able to read an inaccessible primary or mobile website at all, muchless read a primary website in 3 minutes or a mobile website in 20 seconds as the PRA claims.41 The PRA also fails to account for the potential time lost if carrier main websites are no longer able to utilize themost efficient tools/applications because of the need to be fully accessible in all aspects. This would include timelost by customers without disabilities because the usability of the website is diluted by code to support unnecessarilystringent accessible website standards.20

visitors. However, Table 21 inexplicitly adds the tier two and tier three time savings beforemultiplying by the other factors. This is an invalid estimate because the PRA overstates the timesavings by failing to net out time already saved under the tier 2 requirements. It does not makesense to add the tier two and tier three values in Table 21, when the Lazar study focused ongeneral web site screen reader problems; the Lazar study did not factor in the benefit or timesavings already claimed for meeting the tier two requirements. 42 Table 21 must be revised toaccurately reflect any passenger time savings before proceeding with this rulemaking, includingthe benefits/time savings resulting from using an accessible text alternative website, mobilewebsite or carrier application. 432. CostsThe PRA estimates the SNPRM web accessibility standards will cost $2.56 million to meet tiertwo requirements, 44 $36.04 million to meet tier 3 requirements, 45 and $28.12 million for ongoingannual site maintenance costs over a ten-year period. 46The PRA costs are significantly underestimated and must be corrected before proceeding withthis rulemaking. The PRA assumes that it will cost $40,500 for a “very large” airline web site tomeet the SNPRM tier two requirements. 47 The PRA estimates there are 27 U.S. and foreigncarriers with “very large” websites, to total a combined cost of $1,093,500 for this “very large”category. 48 Adding all other carriers, the PRA total tier two compliance costs are $2.56million. 49 However, based on a survey of A4A airlines, the cost to comply with the tier twostandards for very large airline websites ranges from $75,000 to $140,500 per carrier with amedian cost of $105,000. This results in a combined “very large” carrier category cost of $2.8million and a revised total industry cost of $4.299 million. 50 This does not adjust any of thesmaller carrier categories (large, small, very small).For tier three compliance costs, the PRA estimates a $225,000 cost per “largest” carrier website. 51 The PRA estimates there are 39 “largest” carrier web sites (includes large travel agenciesand tour operators in addition to 27 U.S. and foreign airlines), resulting in $8,775,00042 In addition, we question whether a study from 2007 is relevant given the flood of smartphones and applicationssince that time. One major carrier reports a 900% increase in mobile visitors since January 2010. Mobile deviceuse was splintered across multiple devices in 2007 and not standardized. In 2011 there are standards and device usecontinues to climb.43 We also note that the PRA assumes that every visually impaired passenger would use an accessible carrier websitewhen some passengers will continue to book tickets over the phone. See PRA Table 21, page 45.44 Table 22, PRA page 5145 Table 23, PRA page 5346 Table 24, PRA page 54.47 Table 22, PRA page 51.48 Id.49 Id.50 This $4.229 million is reached by multiplying the $105,000 median cost derived from our airline survey by thePRA 27 estimated “Total number of [Very Large] sites” in PRA Table 22 page 51. In other words, replace the PRA$40,500 estimated “Cost per [Very Large] site” in PRA Table 22 with $105,000.51 Table 23, PRA page 53.21

compliance costs. 52 Adding all carrier categories together results in a PRA estimated $36.04million to meet tier three requirements. 53 However, based on a survey of A4A airlines, the costto comply with the tier three standards for the “largest” airline web sites ranges from $241,000 to$1.9 million per carrier with a median cost of $1.1 million. 54 With the updated value, theestimated costs increase to $42.90 million for the “largest” carrier category, a sharp contrast tothe $8.8 million estimated under the PRA, and a total industry cost of $70.12 million. 55The PRA estimates the ongoing annual web site maintenance costs to be $912,600 for the largestcarriers (39 total) as each website was assumed to incur $23,400 in annual maintenanceexpense. 56 Combined with “large”, “small” and “smallest” carrier website maintenance costs,the total annual industry cost was $4.65 million with a ten-year cost of $39.52 million,discounted to $28.12 million. 57 Based on a survey of A4A airlines, the corrected “largest”carrier web site annual maintenance cost would range between $76,000 and $575,000 with amedian cost of $326,000 per carrier, a sharp contrast to the $23,400 value assumed under thePRA. This results in an estimated “largest” website annual cost increase to $12.28 million,which escalates to an annual industry cost of $16 million when combined with “large,” “small,”and “smallest” carriers, a ten-year cost of $136 million, discounted to $91 million. 58The result of the web site accessibility cost corrections is to more than double the costs from$66.81 million to $165.41 million. This cost estimate exceeds the estimated web site benefits byapproximately $40 million, even if the PRA does not correct the web site benefit estimate of$122, which it should.Reproduced Table 25 59WebsitesTotal benefits (millions) $122.11Tier 2 compliance costs (millions) $2.65Tier 3 compliance costs (millions) $36.04Ongoing site maintenance costs $28.12Total costs (millions) $66.81Net Benefits $55.3052 Id.53 Id.54 We note some of this additional cost results from the PRA vastly underestimating the number of webpages a“Largest” website contains. Based on a survey of A4A members, largest carrier websites are between 9,000 and90,000 pages, not 900.55 This $42.90 million is reached by multiplying the $1.1 million median cost derived from our airline survey by thePRA 39 estimated “Total number of [Largest] sites” in PRA Table 23 page 53. In other words, replace the PRA$225,000 estimated “Cost per [Largest] site” in PRA Table 23 with $1.1 million.56 Table 24, PRA page 54.57 PRA page 54. Note that PRA assumed that ongoing costs “begin to be incurred halfway into Year 2.”58 See correction made to “Largest” carrier “Maintenance cost per site,” $23,400 to $326,000 based on a carriersurvey.59 PRA page 55.22

Corrected Table 25WebsitesTotal benefits (millions) $82.00Tier 2 compliance costs (millions) $4.29Tier 3 compliance costs (millions) $70.12Ongoing site maintenance costs $91.00Total costs (millions) $165.41Net Costs $83.41The results of all the corrections to the PRA costs and benefits are presented in the Table below,which modifies Table ES1:Corrected Table ES1 KiosksWebsitesMonetized Benefits $0 $82.00Monetized Costs $182.84 $165.41Monetized Net Costs $182.84 $83.41 $266.25In sum, the corrected table shows that instead of a $125.70 million in net benefits, the SNPRM asproposed would result in $266.25 million in costs, thus failing the Executive Order 12866directive that requires the Department to only adopt regulations where the benefits outweigh thecosts.We also note the following correction in the PRA:The PRA states, “The Department intends to allow carriers to provide „alternative conformingversions‟ of inaccessible Web pages instead of requiring that all pages be accessible. Pages thatqualify under this provision would have to offer the full information and functionality of theinaccessible versions of these pages. For this evaluation, we have assumed that Delta‟sdynamically-generated Web site pages would meet this requirement, but that very little if anymobile Web site content would qualify under this standard.” 60 The Department stated in thecomment period extension request “A review of some text-only versions of carrier Web sitesindicates that these versions meet some, but not all, of the four [WCAG 2.0] requirements…While none of the carrier text-only sites we reviewed qualified as conforming alternate versions,we were nonetheless encouraged by the extent to which the text-only sites mirrored the contentof the non-conforming sites.” 61 Therefore the PRA estimates should reflect the results of thisadditional research and should not be limited to text alternative web sites but should includeresearch on mobile carrier web sites and carrier applications that can be downloaded.60 PRA page 38.61 76 Fed. Reg. 71916.23

VI. ConclusionFor the reasons discussed in these comments, we recommend that the Department substantiallyrevise the SNPRM to adopt regulatory alternatives. As proposed, the SNPRM imposes an undueburden on airlines and does not meet EO 12866 and 13563 directives. The comments developedherein provide flexible alternatives that will assist the Department in providing additionalaccommodations while balancing the impact on industry.We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to the Department. In the event thatwe have additional input on the SNPRM we will file supplemental comments.Sincerely,Douglas MullenA4ADouglas LavinIATAJames BriggsACI-NARoger CohenRAAEd FabermanACAAAttachments(1) IATA Group Kiosk Input(2)Answers to Preamble Questions24

Attachment 1

IATA Common Use Kiosk Working Group InformationI. Background to the current kiosk designThe current design of self-service kiosks has evolved since the late 1990’s (seeFigure 1) from a device with very limited functionality and text-richapplications, to a more visually based experience though the use of images andicons, but with additional functions including machine readable documentcapability, provision of baggage tags and lately, the introduction of commercialtransactions such as paid upgrades and additional bags. Due to the competitivemarket for kiosk devices, local market requirementsand the pursuit of a visual interaction via touchscreens, the design of kiosks is left to meet localconditions (see Figure 2) since there is nostandardised interface other than a touch screen (i.e.unlike ATMs with the side buttons and numericalpad).Figure 1Figure 2Due to recent advances and greater use of off-airport processing (Weband Mobile check-in) and the provision of travel documentrequirements facilitated by airline web sites, the reliance on kiosks forthe purposes of checking-in is reducing. However, there is stronggrowth on other airport processes such as bag tagging and documentscanning (passports, ID’s) at the self-service kiosks.II.International kiosk standardsThe majority of airport kiosks follow the international IATA (RP1706c) and ATA (30.100)Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) Standards determined by the IATA Passenger ExperienceManagement Group, comprised of the world’s airlines. Changes and amendments to thestandards occur annually through the auspices of the IATA/ATA Joint Passenger ServicesConference (JPSC) held annually in October. The changes envisaged to provide a fully accessiblekiosk would require major amendments to these standards that cover hardware, platformsoftware and application software interfaces. It is estimated that this work would take aminimum of one year to complete and allow for testing of components during this process. Theoutcome of this standards amendment would be to provide the standards to allow thedevelopment of new devices to provide accessibility, the development of the platform softwareto accommodate the new devices and software interfaces required and the software interfacesto support airline applications.1

IATA Common Use Kiosk Working Group InformationIII.Changes to ensure kiosk accessibilityPrior to any detailed research into the actual requirements, it is estimated that the followingchanges would have to be investigated and/or specified. These are covered under three distinctareas namely, kiosk hardware devices, platform software specification amendments andapplication software interfaces.A. Kiosk Hardware DevicesA headset jack that detects when a headset is inserted. The headset jack mustbe placed and designed according to “best practices” taken from other selfserviceindustries such as ATMsManual volume control of headset jackAn external navigation device that is not part of the kiosk touch screen. Thisdevice can consist of a PIN-pad style key block, side navigation keys (like ATMs),or a specialized navigation device. No specific type would be mandatedo NOTE: A suitable navigation device will have to be selected by eachcommercial hardware provider and subsequently developed – thiswould require a redesign of the kiosk that is expected to add around500-1000 usd per kiosk before the cost of the devices.Non-accessible kiosks should have a Braille label indicating suchA Braille keyboard as required to replace the traditional on-screen ‘soft’keyboard for data entry e.g. Passport or PNR detailsClear floor or ground space requirements, IATA guidance does not have aspecific standard but defers to individual country standards.“Operable parts,” tactilely discernable operable parts are not standard optionstoday and will have to be researched to determine what might be appropriate2

IATA Common Use Kiosk Working Group InformationIt is likely that an airline would have to re-write the application completely – thisis likely to cost in the region of USD$ 1M per application not including testing,certification and implementation costs, which could be additional USD $ 2-3 Mdollars per application.Specific functionality should be offered to solicit an agent for help or assistance,even though this is not a specific regulatory requirementWe recommend an airline have a completely separate “accessible application”that has vastly simplifies flow and screens.Include an audio accommodation for the Pipeline and Hazardous MaterialsSafety Administration passenger hazardous materials information requirementsand a method for the passenger to acknowledge they understand the hazmatinformation presented that takes effect on January 1, 2013. See 49 CFR175.25(c)(1).D. General items / questions Will there be a review body to certify application/platform. Who decides what isdeveloped meets the requirement? Additional time and cost of a certificationprocess would have to be added.o What proportion of new kiosks deployed must be accessible?o Must airlines applications offer every feature in their application topassengers with a disability, or is restricted functionality, whereappropriate, sufficient e.g. restricted seat for safety issues (emergencyexits). Is there a need to harmonize with other federal regulations such as Section 508? Define required events, codes, characteristics and interfaces within CUSS-TS forproposed hardware requirements Agree on Text To Speech control interfaces using existing TTS industry standards(individual platforms free to choose implementation of their choice) Define common, accepted behavior for Common Launch Application running onan Accessible Kiosks Document CUSS-TS changes as Addendum to existing version, or as an updatespecification release Validate new interfaces with CUSS test applications/harness4

IATA Common Use Kiosk Working Group InformationE. Carrier software interaction with kiosk hardwareCUSS PROCESS FLOW DETAIL AND OPTIONSNote: None of the following is predicated on a certain type of traveler; only major difference willbe audio for all steps throughout the processThe following details and options listing is a guideline for content of each page.Process for Kiosk TodayAdditional ProcessSteps and timeestimate forAccessible KioskStep 1 SELECT AIRLINE Processtime for allstepsSELECT AIRLINEEstimatedProcess time –all steps /accessiblekiosks withfull audioSingle application mode ormulti-application mode byagreement between platformowner & airlinesDecision on mode can be timerelated, terminal related orairline related.Options if more airlines on CUSS kioskthan fit on one launch screen:A second or third launchscreen with alphabetic order ofairlines with ‘caching’ of lastlaunch screen coming up next.Scroll option; show a windowsscroll bar or a scroll ‘wheel’.Also with ‘caching’ of the lastlaunch screen.]SELECT LANGUAGETypically anairline kioskcheck-inprocesstakesbetween60 and 90secondsfor acompletetransactionincludingseatselectionLocate audio jack by brailledirection.Initial audio instructions (inEnglish) – how to navigateand where to find keypadaudio for airlines hosted atkioskIt is difficult toestablish a fullprocess timefor anaccessibleapplication,but it isestimated tobe about 15-20 minutes fora first timeuser for acompletetransaction,but this mightbe improved to10 minutes forfrequent usersskipping manyof the audioinstructionsFirst screen (and followingscreens) with buttons to selectlanguage include ‘cancel’ or‘back’ buttonDisplay a flag next to the nameNavigation keys will beutilized to list languageoptions and added audio willadvise how to select a5

IATA Common Use Kiosk Working Group Informationof the language (or countryrepresenting this language).The default language can bethe language of the countrywhere kiosk is installedlanguageStep 2 PASSENGER VERIFICATION PASSENGERVERIFICATIONShow and visualize the devicesavailable on kiosk for passenger toprovide a form of identification.Examples:Passport (scanner or OCRreader)Identity cardCredit CardFrequent Flyer cardE ticket numberATB-2Booking referenceBar code readerBiometric deviceBiometric Passport (withbiometric identification ‘chip’included)‘E’- Frequent Flyer cardAudio assistance describingthe features available toassist with passengerverificationAudio assistance describingthe location and instructionfor using other devices onthe kioskSelection of mode ofpassenger verification fromexamples listedIf manual entry navigation ofa 6 digit booking reference ora passenger nameManual entry of data couldbe required for each of thefollowing options:Step3 Passengers name Booking reference Et number FF (frequent flyer)number For scanneddocument options: Passport Bar code Biometric device Mobile phone e-ff card oridentification cardFLIGHT or DESTINATION DETAILSPassengers can use either flight number ordestination to check in (if not automatically foundAudio instructions describe the purpose of thescreen and manual entry is required by the same6

IATA Common Use Kiosk Working Group Informationafter passenger verification):Flight number (this is only the departingflight from the airport, applications mayshow connecting flights and/or returnflights)Flight number can be either operational orcommercial (code share/partner) Destination can be typed either in code (3character IATA or first 3 (or more) lettersof the destination's real name) or can bewritten in full.If a city code is used at a multi airportdestination, a prompt appears withpossible airports in that citymethods used by inaccessible kiosksOnce destination is confirmed full audio reading ofthe entire itineraryIf there is more than 1 passenger traveling,confirmation is necessary to determine whichpassenger is checking inAudio representation of any reason or explanationof why the person may be unable to check in(such as too early, too late, etc.)Step4API/APP DATAWhere data for Advanced PassengerInformation/Processing is required, the ways toprovide API/APP data should be as simple aspossible.API/APP data to be obtained from eitherpassport or identity card, preferably usinga reader.Required API/APP data elements notincluded in the passport or identity cardare to be completed manuallyIf no passport reader is available, allAPI/APP data elements are to becompleted manuallyAudio instructions to describe why this informationis required and manual entry to input anyadditional information is required after thatAudio description of data currently on hand andconfirmation of identificationIf passport cannot be read, manual entry usingtactilely discernable keys will be requiredAudio instructions for using the passport scannerwill be includedStep5BAGGAGE PROCESSING (optional)Ask if passenger is checking in baggageAsk if passenger has bags intransit/transferAsk number of piecesAsk security questionsPrint bag tag (depends on localprocedure) Advice on oversized / excess baggage /limited releaseAudio description of options and instructions onhow to proceed7

IATA Common Use Kiosk Working Group InformationSignage / directions for passengers tobag drop areaStep 6CONFIRM DETAILSConfirm details:Name and flight details (Gatenumber /boarding time)Seat assignmentSeat change (optional)Frequent Flyer details (optional)Full audio description of what is on the screenand full check in detailsIf a special seat is required for disabledpassenger, as with any passenger requiring aspecial seat, agent assistance is requiredThe seat map function for this is quite complexFinishPRINT DOCUMENTSAll documents are printedBoarding pass(es)E-ticket receipt (optional)Bag tags (optional)Frequent Flyer receipt (optional)Lounge invitation (optional)Directions or signage for way finding(optional)Directions for attaching bag tags (ifapplicable)Directions for passengers with excessbaggage/oversized baggage to handler (ifapplicable)Audio of what documents are printed,how and where to collect (output bins)and instruction on next stepsOBJECTIVES AND GENERAL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTSFUNCTIONSSelf service facilities should enable a passenger, or group of passengers, to perform without, or witha minimum of staff assistance, any, some, or all of the following functions:• Display schedules• Fare quotation• Make a reservation• Verify a reservation• Purchase ticket• Obtain boarding pass• Obtain baggage tags• Boarding access8

IATA Common Use Kiosk Working Group Information• General service information• Change of reservations/revalidation• Automated reissuanceIV.Cost informationa. Retrofitting existing non-accessible kiosks to be accessible – e.g. kiosks that meet theSNPRM proposed standardsi. The IATA Common Use Working Group estimates it will cost at least $3000.00per kiosk to retrofit to meet the SNPRM proposed standards to cover:Braille KeyboardNavigation DeviceHeadphone Jack / Audio controlAdditional software development and license costsLabor costs to retrofitThis estimate does not include the following items that need to be furtherresearched:Ground and space clearanceOperable partsInput devicesScreen displaysAdditional costs may result depending on answers to questions insection III(D).b. Buying new accessible kiosks, e.g. kiosks that meet the SNPRM proposed standardsi. DOT says this proposal would add $750 to the cost of each new or replacementkiosk installed.ii. The IATA Common Use Working Group estimates the SNPRM proposed kioskstandards will add incremental costs of $2000.00 per kiosk to coverBraille KeyboardNavigation DeviceHeadphone Jack / Audio controlAdditional software development and license costsThis estimate does not include the following items that need to be furtherresearched:• Ground and space clearance• Operable parts• Input devices9

IATA Common Use Kiosk Working Group Information• Screen displays• Additional costs may result depending on answers to questions insection III(D)10

Attachment 2

Applicability Questions4. Is there is any reason to limit the applicability of thisrequirement to the largest U.S. and foreign air carriers,such as those that operate at least one aircraft with morethan 60 seats for example?5. Should carriers that only provide charter service besubject to different Web site accessibility requirementsthan carriers that provide scheduled service?6. Should we exclude from Web site accessibilityrequirements carriers that advertise air transportation butdo not sell airline tickets?7. Should carriers not be required to ensure that the Webpages on which online ticket agencies market and selltheir airline tickets are accessible?8. Should carriers only be required to ensure Web pageaccessibility of online ticket agencies that market andsell more than a certain percentage (e.g.10%) of thecarrier’s total ticket sales annually?9. Should this rule apply to ticket agents directly withrespect to ensuring that their Web pages on which they25 RAA believes the costs of requiring smaller air carriers operating aircraftwith fewer than 60 seats to comply with website accessibility requirementswould be higher than those estimated by DOT and would far outweigh thebenefits of doing so. DOT offers no support for the conclusion in theInitial Regulatory Analysis that “it is reasonable to expect that [smaller]carriers have staff members or contractors with the professional skills tomeet the proposed requirements.” Indeed, the IRA concedes “it is notclear that [small carrier] employees or contractors have the specificexpertise and professional skills that may be required to ensure that airtravel Web sites would comply with the proposed accessibilityrequirements.” 125 No comment.25 Yes; DOT should exclude from Web Site accessibility requirementscarriers that “advertise” air transportation but do not sell airline tickets.The use of different terms and standards for coverage will confusecompliance obligations without increasing consumer benefits. The term“marketing” should apply only to carriers that both offer and sell airtransportation. Carriers with websites that provide only flight schedules orservice information, especially those without fare information, should notbe subject to accessibility requirements.25-26 If DOT has the authority to regulate accessible ticket agent websites, DOTshould regulate ticket agent websites directly. There is no need to furthercomplicate enforcement of these regulations by forcing carriers into themiddle of a DOT/ticket agent relationship.26 No, carriers should not be held accountable for 3 rd party websites.26 Yes, direct regulation of ticket agent websites is the most efficient andpractical method of enforcement.1 DOT Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, ACAA SNPRM Accessible Kiosks and Web Sites at p. 9, Submitted by Econometrica, Inc. in Docket DOT-OST-2011-0177, August 30, 2011

market and sell covered air transportation to the generalpublic in the U.S. are accessible?10. Should DOT wait for the Department of Justice to moveforward with its rulemaking under Title III of theAmericans with Disabilities Act before promulgatingregulations that require ticket agent Web sites to beaccessible?Technical Accessibility Standard11. Should the Department consider requiring a set oftechnical or performance accessibility standards otherthan WCAG 2.0?12. Besides the Section 508 standards, what other acceptedWeb site accessibility standards are available?13. In the final rule, should the Department permit carriers tocomply with Web site accessibility requirements bymeeting any accepted Web site accessibility standard?14. Does WCAG 2.0 Level AA conformance provide asufficient level of accessibility?15. Are there sufficient technical assistance resourcesavailable to support companies in implementing thestandard?16. As an alternative, should Level A conformance or LevelA plus conformance with some number of selected LevelAA success criteria be required as long as the result is atleast as strong as the current Section 508 Webaccessibility standard?26 No comment.26 Yes, the Department should adopt regulatory alternatives that allow arange of options and is not prescriptive. It should allow WCAG 2.0 LevelA or Level AA, Section 508, a full text conforming alternative website, anaccessible mobile website, and other options as detailed in our comments.26 Other standards include WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0 Level A, an alternativeconforming webpage as permitted by WCAG Level AA, Mobile Web BestPractices (MWBP) 1.0, Basic Guidelines (seehttp://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/), and an all text version of the primarycarrier website.26 Yes, a flexible approach is the best method of regulating this issue and islikely the only scheme where benefits may outweigh the costs, aftercorrecting the PRA cost estimates.26 WCAG Level AA exceeds Section 508 and Title II & Title III webaccessibility standards, the Department should consider and allow othercompliance options.26 It is not clear if there are enough resources available because we do notknow the final website standard. If DOT requires a very prescriptivesingle standard it is likely there will not be enough resources and weexpect DOT would research and factor-in availability of resources before itproceeds with a prescriptive standard. Regulatory alternatives permittingseveral options and additional time is not likely to place a demand onresources.26 The Department should adopt regulatory alternatives and allow carriers toconform to Section 508, WCAG 1.0, 2.0 Level A, WCAG Level AA, a textalternative website or a mobile website that includes tier 2 accessibilityfeatures.17. The Department seeks comment on whether it should 27 No. The Department should not restrict alternative compliance options,

explicitly prohibit the use of conforming alternateversions except when necessary to provide theinformation, services, and benefits on a specific Webpage or Web site as effectively to individuals withdisabilities as to those without disabilities.18. The Department is also interested in public comment onwhat circumstances would make it necessary to use aconforming alternate version to provide the information,services, and benefits on a specific Web page or Website as effectively to individuals with disabilities as tothose without disabilities.19. With respect to specific technical criteria, we ask forcomment on whether timeouts present barriers to usingWeb sites and on the cost or difficulty potentiallyassociated with providing timeout capability.20. For this reason, we may need to specify the types andversions of various assistive technologies to which theperformance standard must apply. The Department,therefore, seeks comments on the adoption of aperformance standard in the final rule, in addition to theproposed technical standards, as well as on the types andversions of assistive technologies to which aperformance standard should apply.21. We also seek comment on the feasibility and value ofrequiring airlines to work with the disability community(e.g., establish a committee on Web site accessibility) toassist them in maintaining the accessibility of their Website through periodic monitoring and feedback on theWeb site’s usability.Scope of Requirements22. Should accessibility requirements cover all public-facingWeb site content on the Web sites, or only the portion(s)of the Web site necessary to book a flight?doing so will result in a final rule where the costs greatly outweigh thebenefits, as described in our cost/benefit comments. A prescriptiveregulation will also inhibit develop and use of technologies that willbenefit passengers with a disability.27 As the Department is aware, carrier websites are extremely complex withconstantly evolving functionality and unique booking engines. In addition,as the Department acknowledges, modifying an existing website is muchmore complex and expensive than creating a new website. Requiringevery function and every piece of information on a carrier website toconform to WCAG 2.0 Levels A and AA is unnecessary and an undueburden.27 Many members responded that their websites do use timeouts for securitypurposes and most do not require a prompt for additional time; this isconsidered an added security feature. Timeouts do present one of manytechnical challenges in meeting this proposal.28 The Department need only adopt regulatory alternatives; any otherprescriptive accessibility requirements would unnecessarily impactcompliance options and would be an undue burden. We advocate forregulatory alternatives that allow a carrier to choose one of several optionsbecause different carriers have already heavily invested in differenttechnologies to provide accessible web services. A prescriptive regulationwill also inhibit develop and use of technologies that will benefitpassengers with a disability.28 Most carriers already have disability boards that advise on accessibilityitems like web sites or contract with consultants. If the Department wereto adopt a requirement here it should take a flexible approach thatrecognizes and allows varying disability community input, instead ofmandating one approach that may unnecessarily change a successfuladvisory relationship.28 In order to keep the regulations less confusing and keep consistent with theADA standards, DOT should wait for DOJ website regulations to publishin the future to determine the standards and testing methodology. If theDepartment does not wait for DOJ website regulations, part 382 websiteaccessibility requirements should include regulatory alternatives. A part

23. Should the accessibility requirements apply to eithermobile Web sites or primary Web sites, or to both?24. Are the services and information available on mobileWeb sites generally as easy to use as their counterpartson a carrier’s main Web site or not?25. We also solicit comment on whether the Departmentshould require carriers to ensure that their mobile Websites are conformant with WCAG 2.0 at Level A andLevel AA, or follow the World Wide Web Consortium(W3C) Recommendation 28 July 2008, Mobile WebBest Practices (MWBP) 1.0, Basic Guidelines, or both?26. Should carriers be required to ensure that any third partysoftware that is downloadable from a link on the carrier’sWeb site (e.g., deal finding software) is accessible?27. Can mobile applications be programmed to comply withWCAG 2.0 accessibility standards?382 standard should not apply to all public-facing website content as sucha requirement will be an undue burden, with costs exceeding benefits.28 The Department should adopt regulatory alternatives that allow flexibilitywhen it comes to website accessibility requirements, carriers should have achoice that permits adopting one of several options. An accessible mobilewebsite or accessible primary website with tier 2 functions should be onlytwo of several compliance options.Yes, generally, the services and information on mobile web sites are aseasy to use as their counterparts on a carrier’s main web site. Accessiblewebsite experts have examined various carrier mobile websites and foundthey are usable, which is more important than a strict mandate to meetprescriptive website standards29 The Department should permit regulatory alternatives that permit carriersto comply with any website accessibility standard and choose theapplication that can best deliver accessibility and utility to all passengers.For instance, the carrier should be able to choose to make its mobilewebsite accessible, the core functions of its primary website that will allowpassengers to complete transactions and find essential travel information(the core functions should include the “tier 2” requirements in the SNPRM,found in 382.43(c)(2)), a text alternative website, etc.29 No, carriers cannot and should not be responsible for ensuring theaccessibility of third party software that is downloadable from a link on thecarrier’s web site. Our suggested regulatory alternatives will allowpassengers with a disability the ability to book and manage reservationsand find discounted airfare the same as other passengers. In addition, theDepartment should retain the existing requirement that a carrier cannotcharge a fee for using an alternative booking mechanism (other than awebsite) and the same discounted airfares available on the web must beavailable to passengers with a disability who book by other means such asby telephone. The Department should not put carriers in the role ofregulator, if the Department’s authority extends to these entities, it shoulddirectly regulate them.29 While it may be possible to program some webpages and some mobilewebsites to comply with WCAG 2.0, we do not believe the Departmentshould limit carrier options to only this standard because the cost to do sowill outweigh the benefits; it should allow compliance with any web

28. Should the Department require electroniccommunications generated by a carrier, such asreservation confirmation, flight status notifications, andspecial offer emails to be accessible?29. What are the costs and technical difficulties of ensuringthat such content is accessible?Costs and Benefits30. The estimated cost per site for making primary Web sitescompletely accessible is estimated at $225,000 for thelargest sites having an average of 900 pages (1,500hours), $105,000 for large sites having an average of 300pages (700 hours), $50,400 for small sites having anaverage of 120 pages (420 hours) and $31,200 for thesmallest sites have an average of 60 pages (260 hours).These costs for bringing the Web sites into initialcompliance, which are based on a review of carrier Websites using a collection of Web development tools, wouldbe incurred during the first 2 years of the 10-yearanalysis period. Thereafter, U.S. and foreign carrierswould incur an estimated $2.0 million annually andticket agents an estimated $2.6 million annually in coststo ensure that their primary Web sites remain fullycompliant. We are seeking comment on whether thesecost estimates for Web site compliance are reasonableand address the relevant cost components.31. We believe very few carriers, if any, would need up to6,000 hours to comply with the proposed accessibilitystandards, the vast majority would be able to achievefully accessible Web sites within the number of hoursaccessibility standard. Certain airline webpage content will requireextensive efforts to comply with WCAG 2.0 and we therefore stronglyrecommend that alternative methods of compliance are permitted, asWCAG 2.0 contemplates. See WCAG 2.0 “conforming alternate version.”29 No, the Department did not propose an electronic communication standardin the SNPRM or cost and benefits in the PRA. The Department wouldhave to issue another proposal that includes the specifics of an electroniccommunications standard to provide notice, receive input and make aninformed decision.29 Like the costs and technical difficulties in creating accessible carrierwebsites, electronic communications were built to maximize consumeroptions and utilize new technology. Requiring carriers to modify existingsystems will be difficult and drive costs.30 The estimated website accessibility costs are significantly underestimatedin the PRA. As described in more detail in Section 5 of our comments,based on a survey of A4A members the cost of converting the largestcarrier websites to WCAG 2.0 would be $1.1 million per carrier. The U.S.and foreign carrier annual website maintenance and upgrading costs arealso underestimated. Adjusting only the largest website maintenance costsin PRA Table 24, we estimate annual largest website maintenance costs of$12.28 million. The total annual website maintenance costs will likely bemuch higher if the “Large,” “Small,” and “Smallest” website costs are alsoadjusted in PRA Table 24.31 As discussed further in our cost/benefit comments, the Departments’estimates grossly underestimate the scope and impact of the proposal.Given the clarification that the proposal applies, at a minimum to allwebpages that contain the carrier’s name in the url, 900 pages for the

we’ve estimated above. largest sites is understated between a factor of 10 and 100. Also, 1,500hours to modify the largest websites is off by a factor of 35. Marco Martenis quoted in the SNPRM comment period extension as describing a 50 to300 webpage project as “small.” See 76 Fed. Reg. 71918.32. Building accessibility into new Web pages today isestimated to add only about 3-6 percent to the cost,making the ongoing costs for maintaining an accessibleWeb site significantly less than for achieving initialcompliance.33. Do any carriers currently have Web sites that conform tothe WCAG 2.0 standard?34. If so, what was the cost the carriers incurred in bringingtheir Web site into conformance with this standard?35. Is there agreement or disagreement with theDepartment’s cost per site estimate?36. If not, what is an accurate estimate and on what specificcomponent costs is the estimate based?37. What is a reasonable estimate of the time required tomake embedded content (such as PDFs and multimedia)accessible?38. Does the initial cost of creating accessible Web contentdiffer in any significant way from non-accessible Webcontent?39. Do the maintenance costs of an accessible Web sitediffer in any significant way from those of an31 The Department cites Marco Maertens’ as the source of this information inthe SNPRM comment period extension. However, there is no indicationthat Mr. Maerten meant to apply his estimate for building accessibility intonew web pages to maintaining websites. Therefore, we recommend theDepartment clarify or correct this statement.32 No, no carrier currently has a website that conforms to the WCAG 2.0Level A & AA standard. Compliance with this standard will be asignificant undertaking for every carrier and will result in more costs thanbenefits. Therefore, the Department should adopt regulatory alternativesand not mandate only WCAG 2.0.32 Because no carrier has modified its primary website to meet the WCAG2.0 Level A & AA standard, we do not have this cost, instead we provideestimates in Section 5 of these comments.32 There is disagreement; the Department’s estimated costs per website aregrossly underestimated as described in our cost/benefit section comments.32 See our cost/benefit questions.32 The Department should not adopt the SNPRM as proposed because it willlimit technology develop and use for passengers with a disability and itwill be an undue burden. We recommend that the Department permitalternatives that do not include all website content. The Departmentshould provide a two-year delayed effective date for an accessible websitestandard that permits regulatory alternatives.32 Yes, the initial cost of creating accessible content is significant, especiallyif the Department does not permit regulatory alternatives as suggested inthese comments. The more prescriptive the web accessibility standard,such as WCAG 2.0 Level A & AA, the greater the cost and impact. Forinstance, special skill sets specific to accessibility such as training costs,coding time to implement additional requirements, testing of that code toinsure compliance all add to the initial costs to implement accessible sites.32 Yes, maintenance costs will be significantly increased for each carrier onceconversion is completed because of the ongoing effort required to maintain

inaccessible Web site once the conversion is completed?40. What would be the cost and technical difficultyassociated with conforming mobile Web content to theWCAG 2.0 accessibility standard or any otheraccessibility standard?41. How much time is needed to make an existing mobileWeb site or primary Web site entirely accessible?42. What is the cost impact of disclosing Web-based farediscounts and other Web-based amenities to passengerswith disabilities who indicate they are unable to use acarrier’s Web site due to their disability and who inquireabout air transportation with the carrier using anothermeans?43. Are there any unintended impacts, positive or negative,that could result from requiring carrier and ticket agentWeb sites to be accessible?each of the WCAG 2.0 Level A & AA standards. Additional time fordevelopment and testing is required to ensure ongoing accessibility,especially if HTML is changing.32 Carrier websites were developed to maximize consumer options andexperiences. Most carrier websites include complex search and bookingengines and constantly updating applications, much of this content wouldrequire re-engineering to incorporate accessibility requirements. Airlinewebsites are some of the most complex and innovative publicly availablewebsites, regulatory alternatives would allow carriers to balance theinteractive applications consumers are used to while also providing anaccessible website. We provide cost information in our cost/benefitcomments.32 The Department should not require an accessible website standard toinclude all website content because doing so will take a significant amountof time and effort, where regulatory alternatives permitting several optionswould provide the same benefit with much less time and cost as describedin our cost/benefit comments. If the Department were to allow carriers tochoose one of several compliance options, we recommend a two-yearcompliance period for every option.32 No cost, because section 382.31(c) already requires this accommodationand all carriers already provide it.32 Yes, there will be several negative impacts. First, the Department shouldnot regulate ticket agent website through carriers because requiring carriersto enforce the Department’s regulations will unnecessarily complicate thecarrier ticket agent contractual relationship and provide a much lesseffective enforcement mechanism. Second, a prescriptive accessiblewebsite requirement will discourage and degrade advanced applicationfunctions for all passengers, when regulatory alternatives would achievethe same benefits. From a technical perspective, for example, if javascript would have to be disabled, the design and overall functionality of aweb purchase process would break and in some situations, customerswould not be able to complete a purchase.

50. Should the time frames for implementing the phasedWeb site accessibility requirements be expanded (e.g., 12months for the first phase, 18 months for the secondphase and 30 months for the third phase)?Identifying Accessible Web Pages on PartiallyAccessible Web Sites51. Should the Department require carriers to ensure thataccessible Web pages can be readily identified as suchby people with disabilities (e.g., contain a tag readableby screen reader software)?52. If flight-related functions that must be accessible 180days or one year after the rule’s effective date cannot beaccessed from a carrier’s inaccessible home page, arealternative means for accessing those functions (e.g.,through a Google search) acceptable until the carrier’sentire Web site is accessible?Compliance Verification and Web Site Usability53. Can the available protocols and procedures for testingWeb content conformance with WCAG 2.0 beimplemented cost effectively by carriers?54. We are seeking comment on alternative means to readilyidentify a Web site’s conformance with applicableaccessibility requirements. What methods might DOTuse to ensure/verify compliance with the applicablestandards?55. Should the Department initiate random “spot”investigations of carrier and online ticket agency Websites to monitor compliance after the rule becomeseffective?56. Are there any specific technical barriers to maintainingair carrier Web site accessibility after full Web sitecompliance is initially achieved?34 The Department should not adopt the SNPRM as proposed. If theDepartment moves forward despite our recommendation, more time willbe essential. The second phase should be at least 36 months and the thirdphase should be at least 48 months. More time benefits passengers, givingindustry time to better adapt complex applications.34 Yes, this is a standard accessible website practice and should be adopted.34 Yes, the Department should consider any option that provides increasedflexibility.35 No, WCAG 2.0 standards cannot be implemented cost effectively bycarriers as explained in our cost/benefit comments. Therefore, we ask theDepartment to adopt regulatory alternatives allowing carriers to meet oneof several options.35 There are online tools and accessibility experts that can determine if awebsite meets accessibility standards. More important than determiningcompliance with strict accessibility standards, the Department should adoptregulatory alternatives that give carriers flexibility to continue the currentefforts to provide a usable accessible website.35 We suggest any initial “spot” investigations are used to provideconstructive feedback to carries on website areas that do not appear tomeet the adopted standards. This feedback can be used to resolve anyperceived glitches that will no doubt exist after this major reprogrammingeffort. The Department should not regulate ticket agent web sites throughcarriers.35 Yes, booking engines and java or flash programs used to enhanceconsumer experience on a carrier’s website do not easily translate to anaccessible environment. The Department should exempt these portions of

57. Should the Department require carriers to developguidance manuals for such personnel on how toimplement technical accessibility standards so that theirWeb sites are also functionally usable by individualswith disabilities (i.e., they are able to access or acquirethe same information, engage in the same interactions,and enjoy the same products and services as nondisabledusers of their Web site with substantiallyequivalent ease of use)?Ensuring Ticket Agents Meet Web SiteAccessibility and Service Obligations58. The Department seeks public comment on the specificmethods carriers might use to ensure that their ticketagents marketing air transportation to the general publicin the U.S. are complying with both the requirements tomake the Web pages on their Web sites related tocovered air transportation accessible and to provideWeb-based discounts and amenities to individuals whoare unable to use their Web sites due to a disability.59. With respect to ensuring Web site accessibility, shouldwe require carriers to notify their agents that their Websites must be in compliance with WCAG 2.0 by twoyears after the rule’s effective date?60. Would such notification to agents be sufficient, or shouldwe require carriers to obtain certification from theiragents by two years after the rule’s effective date thattheir Web sites are compliant?61. Should we permit carriers to rely solely on their agents’certifications of Web site compliance, or should we alsorequire carriers to monitor their agents’ Web sites onceor twice a year?62. What about simply requiring carriers to bring anyinaccessible agent Web sites that they become aware ofto the attention of the those agents, and if the agent doesnot respond, bring those agent Web sites to thea website or at least allow a text alternative version.35 No, the Department should instead adopt regulatory alternatives that givecarriers the flexibility to consider usability features. Carriers shoulddetermine how best to provide guidance for accessible websites. Anymanual requirements will further burden carrier staff that are already busyimplementing other passenger protection requirements.35 Carriers will have no leverage to enforce DOT regulations. If theDepartment is interested in regulating ticket agent websites, it should do sodirectly not through carriers. Indirect regulation of ticket agents will causeconflicts in contractual relationships, slow implementation, and createanother layer of bureaucracy that does not benefit consumers.36 No, the Department should regulate ticket agents directly for the reasonsdescribed above.36 No, the Department should regulate ticket agents directly for the reasonsdescribed above.36 No, the Department should regulate ticket agents directly for the reasonsdescribed above.36 No, the Department should regulate ticket agents directly for the reasonsdescribed above. It is not clear how a carrier may become aware of anagent’s inaccessible website. If the assumption is that carrier personnelwill investigate complaints by passengers, this would require additional

on the accuracy of our assumption about the life cycle ofautomated airport kiosks and to determine the ability ofthe manufacturing sector to meet the demand foraccessible automated airport kiosks.72. In such a situation, should the Department requirecarriers to retrofit or replace a certain portion of theirkiosk fleet to meet the accessibility standards during theinterim period until 100% of all automated airport kiosksare accessible?73. Despite the advantages of the various incrementalapproaches we considered, there were difficulties withany proposed requirement that would result in less thaninformation: The Department’s assumption about the life cycle of a kiosk iscorrect Vendors informed carriers that a kiosk does not currently exist thatwould meet the proposed kiosk standards It would take at least a year after a final rule for manufacturers tobuild and test a prototype kiosk meeting the SNPRM standards A retrofit requirement would complicate and delay industry effortsto meet the proposed kiosk standard because vendors would haveto intensely focus on whether deployed kiosks could be modifiedto meet a retrofit requirement. Vendors would not be able to meet the demand for retrofittedkiosks given the vast quantities of deployed kiosks At least 35% of deployed kiosks could not be modified to meet aretrofit requirement. These kiosks cannot be modified to includean audio function or tactile inputs or the cost to make suchmodifications would exceed the cost of a new kiosk. Several classes of kiosks are nearing the end of its life cycle, e.g.manufacturers will no longer produce the kiosk or spare parts forthe kiosk. Therefore, manufacturers may be unwilling or unable toprovide a retrofit as they focus resources on building new products If all kiosk orders 60 days after the effective date of the final rulemust be for accessible kiosks, vendors will not be able to meet thedemand. The Department should consider a more flexible approach tokiosks and permit 10% of future orders 36 months after the finalrule effective to give industry the opportunity to build and test aprototype.42 No, a requirement to retrofit kiosks in the final rule would violate the APApublic notice and comment requirements and Executive Orders 12866 and13563 requirements for public participation in rulemakings. In addition,the Department would be setting industry and vendors up for failurebecause vendors could not meet the demand for retrofitted kiosks.42 The best approach is to require a certain percentage of future kiosk ordersto be accessible, giving industry enough time to develop a compliantprototype. Requiring all kiosks ordered 60 days after the effective date of

100% accessible automated kiosks at an airport. Forexample, if we required only 25% of a carrier’sautomated kiosks in an airport location to be accessible,would we also need to require that the carrier givepriority access to any individual who needs an accessiblekiosk?74. At the same time, any mandate to reserve accessibleautomated kiosks at an airport location exclusively forpassengers who need an accessible kiosk carries thepotential of segregating and stigmatizing suchpassengers.75. We nonetheless seek public comment on the need torequire that all new automated airport kiosks beaccessible, and on any alternative approaches we shouldconsider in addition to those discussed above (e.g.,requiring only 25% of a carrier’s automated kiosks in anairport location to be accessible).Applicability76. In light of the overlapping scope of the ACAA and theADA rules, should automated kiosks that are owned,leased, or controlled by carriers and perform functionssimilar to airport kiosks, but are located in non-airportvenues (e.g., hotel lobbies), be covered in thisrulemaking?Effective Date - Kiosks77. Should the proposed time frame for accessible kiosks(i.e., kiosks ordered 60 days after the effective date ofthe rule) be reduced or increased assuming the rule iseffective 30 days after publication in the FederalRegister?the final rule would ignore industry efforts needed to create a prototype.Creating a low percentage of accessible kiosk orders would not beproblematic if delayed 36 months. Passengers with disabilities arecurrently able to find accessible bathrooms, airport shuttle services, checkin counters, gates, and other airport services through a variety of means,including airport way finding programs, assistance from travelingcompanions, assistance from carrier or airport personnel, etc.; finding anaccessible kiosk should be no different. Giving passengers with adisability who self-identify priority access to accessible kiosks is a goodpractice.42 There are many examples of separate accessible accommodations to bestserve passengers with a disability and kiosks should be treated nodifferently. Examples include accessible bathrooms, parking spots, seatson mass transit, passenger seats near a gate with accessible logos, etc.42 The best approach is to require no more than 10% of future kiosk orders 36months after the effective date of the rule to be accessible, giving industryenough time to develop a compliant prototype. Requiring all kiosksordered 60 days after the effective date of the final rule would ignoreindustry efforts needed to create a prototype.47 No, Title III already applies to hotels under ADA, conflicting standardsshould not apply.48 As described above, all industry stakeholders agree that the 60 day timeperiod is too short and will set industry up for failure because carriers andmanufacturers will need to develop a prototype before any orders can takeplace. The minimum time period needed is 36 months after the final ruleeffective date; it will take manufacturers one year to develop the prototype,carriers 12 months to develop software, 4-6 months to procure the kiosk,and 6 months to manufacture, install and test software. Any shorter time

78. Is it reasonable to require that all new kiosk ordersinitiated after the effective date of the rule be foraccessible models?79. Should there be a delay in the effective date of thisprovision?80. If so, what is a reasonable amount of time to delay theeffective date of this provision?81. Should the effective date for carriers to enter into andimplement agreements with airport operators concerningthe provision and maintenance of accessible shared-useautomated airport kiosks be more than 60 days after thefinal rule’s effective date?82. If so, what is a reasonable time to enter into suchagreements and commence implementation?Alternatives - Kiosks83. Should less than 100% of new automated airport kiosksordered after the effective date of the rule be required tobe accessible?84. If so, what is a reasonable percentage to be accessible ateach airport location?85. If only some kiosks are accessible at each location, howwould carriers ensure that the accessible kiosks areavailable to passengers with disabilities when needed?86. Would a phasing in period over 10 years, graduallyincreasing the percentage of automated airport kiosksrequired to be accessible, meaningfully reduce the costsof implementing this requirement (e.g., 25% of newperiod will not provide enough time to develop a kiosk and incorporate thekiosks into the procurement process.48 No, not every kiosk needs to be accessible, a 10% order requirement or oneaccessible kiosk per airline check in station where kiosks are present wouldprovide enough kiosks for passengers with a disability to choose to use anaccessible kiosk.48 Yes, in addition to the normal 30-day delay between a final rulepublication in the Federal Register and the effective date, the Departmentshould provide an additional 36 months so manufacturers can build aprototype kiosk, manufacture it in sufficient quantity, meet carrier orderdemand and carriers can build software, order, install, and test the kiosk.48 At least 36 months.48 Yes, this provision should also be delayed at least 24 months so airportsand carriers will be familiar with a prototype kiosk and better understandthe additional features and ongoing maintenance requirements beforeentering into an agreement.48 At least 24 months.48 Yes, one of the options we encourage the Department to consider is that nomore than 10% of kiosk orders should include accessible kiosks beginning36 months after the effective date of the rule. The other option is torequire one accessible kiosk per check in station starting 36 months afterthe effective date of the final rule.48 The Department should require 10% of kiosk orders or one kiosk per checkin location, both timeframes should be delayed to begin 36 months afterthe final rule is published.48 Carriers would distribute kiosks throughout U.S. airports as they arereceived from manufacturers.48 No, it is not in the passengers’ best interest to require that all kiosks mustbe accessible. Other accommodations do not require 100% accessibility,like mass transit seating, parking spaces, or public bathrooms; kiosksshould be treated no differently.

automated kiosks must be accessible within 3 years ofthe rule’s effective date, 50% within 5 years, 75% within7 years and 100% within 10 years.)?87. Should existing automated airport kiosks be required tobe retrofitted? What percentage or number of existingkiosks should we require to be retrofitted?88. How much time should be provided to carriers/airports toretrofit existing automated airport kiosks?89. What about automated airport kiosks currently in use thathave inactive accessibility features (e.g., equipped withheadset jack but lacks internal software to use thisaccessibility feature)?90. Should airlines be required to activate any dormantaccessibility features on existing automated airportkiosks immediately upon the effective date of the rule ordoes the activation of such features require extensiveprogramming?91. What would be the cost of activating dormantaccessibility features on existing automated airportkiosks?92. What alternative requirements for automated airportkiosk accessibility might be proposed and what would bethe associated benefits and costs for each?Costs and Benefits - Kiosks93. Information obtained from kiosks vendors indicates thatthe bulk of the incremental costs associated with makingkiosk hardware, middleware, and software applicationsaccessible are fixed, therefore they do not varyappreciably with the number of units sold.48 None. Including a retrofit in the final rule would violate the APA andExecutive Orders 12866 and 13563.48 The Department should not require a retrofit because doing so wouldviolate the APA and Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.49 Retrofitting is cost prohibitive as explained in our cost comments.49 The Department should not require a retrofit because doing so wouldviolate the APA and Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.49 The Department should not require a retrofit because doing so wouldviolate the APA and Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.49 One option we encourage the Department to consider is that no more than10% of kiosk orders should include accessible kiosks beginning 36 monthsafter the effective date of the rule. The other option is to require oneaccessible kiosk per check in station, the acquisition process for obtainingkiosks to fulfill this mandate would begin 36 months after the effectivedate of the final rule. Both of these options would still incur the adjustedcosts per kiosk we estimate in Section 5 of our comments but the extratime would give stakeholders time to develop, manufacture, install and testthe kiosks.50 This information is incorrect, each carrier negotiates prices based onvolume, feature set and contractual agreements.94. Costs associated with the kiosk accessibility 50 This is an incorrect assumption, each order is individually negotiated by

equirements are not expected to accrue until six monthsafter the effective date of the rule when the initialdeliveries of accessible kiosks ordered 60 days after therule’s effective date would take place.95. What would be the average amount of time a passengerwith a disability would save by using an accessibleautomated airport kiosk?96. Would the amount of time saved vary by airport andwhat airport-specific factors could affect the amount oftime saved?97. What would be the estimated impact on average waittimes for an accessible automated kiosk at airportlocations where only 25% are accessible as compared tolocations where 100% are accessible?98. Would the wait time for a passenger with a disability touse an accessible automated kiosk be less if suchpassengers were given priority access to such kiosks inairport locations where less than 100% of the automatedkiosks are accessible?99. If such passengers are not given priority access toaccessible automated kiosks, how much longer wouldtheir wait time be versus non-disabled passengers whocan use any available machine?100. What factors have the greatest impact on wait time for anautomated airport kiosk (e.g., number of flightsscheduled for departure, distance of the flight,destination of the flight, time between scheduleddepartures, number of passengers per flight, etc.)?101. What percentage of persons with a disability who cannotuse an inaccessible automated airport kiosk would use anaccessible one if available?each airline and contract terms on payment vary.50 A passenger with a disability would not save any time by using anaccessible automated kiosk because now carriers assist these passengerswith an agent, which involves no or very little time. The Departmentshould exclude these time savings benefits.51 No, because no time will be saved by use of accessible kiosks.51 The impact would be negligible because carriers would give a passengerwith a disability who self identifies priority to accessible kiosks, so theonly potential wait time would be the time it takes for someone alreadyusing the accessible kiosk to finish their transaction. In the unlikely eventthat several disabled passengers were waiting for an accessible kiosk,carriers would offer agent assistance.51 Yes, passengers with a disability who self-identify should and will begiven priority access to accessible kiosks.51 Not applicable, they will be given priority.51 Factors include the number of flights during a given hour. For instance,heavy schedules from 0700-0800 and 0800-0900, holiday periods, summervacations are busy times and would impact wait times.51 This question is most likely better answered by other stakeholders.However, a more fundamental question the Department should answer inany final rule is what percentage of passengers with a disability wouldprefer an accessible kiosk to agent assistance? Before proceeding theDepartment should provide evidence that more passengers would prefer

102. Do passengers with disabilities prefer to check-in onlineat home to using an automated airport check-in kiosk?103. Is there a quantifiable benefit associated with reducedrisk in having to provide sensitive personal informationto strangers in order to receive assistance at aninaccessible kiosk?104. Is there a quantifiable benefit associated with reducedrisk of legal action related to kiosk inaccessibility?105. What cost savings can be expected from the reduction inresources carriers will have to allocate to provideequivalent alternative service to passengers withdisabilities who cannot use a carrier’s inaccessible kioskat an airport location (e.g., assisting passengers at theticket counter or at an inaccessible kiosk versus directingpassengers to the carrier’s accessible automated kiosk atthat airport location)?106. What is the cost impact of requiring carriers to provideequivalent service to passengers who cannot use anaccessible kiosk due to their disability at airport locationswhere all automated kiosks are accessible?107. Would a requirement for accessible automated airportkiosks have a significant impact on the cost, inventory,or delivery of such kiosks, and if so, for how long?108. Can manufacturers of accessible automated airportkiosks meet the market demand if 100% of new kiosksordered starting 60 days after the final rule’s effectivedate be accessible?109. If not, up to what percentage of new automated airportkiosks could the Department require to be accessible(e.g., 50% or 75%) before the demand would exceedwhat the manufacturers could meet?110. How often are automated airport kiosks replacedtypically?111. How many manufacturers currently make automatedairport kiosks?accessible kiosks.51 No comment.51 No, there is no benefit. Carriers already have this information, which isaccessible by the carrier’s agents. Therefore, there are no reduced risks ofproviding sensitive personal information to carrier agents who assistpassengers at an inaccessible kiosk.51 No.51 There will be no cost savings because carriers have agents at check in nowthat serve all passengers. The Department should exclude any cost savingsin this area.51 There is no or de minimus cost because carriers already staff check inareas.52 Yes, as detailed in our cost benefit comments, accessible kiosks are moreexpensive and more costly to maintain.52 No. Vendors have stated they would not be able to meet the demand foraccessible kiosks. They have said that time is required for engineering,product development, testing and deployment to all their customers. It willrequire a delay of 36 months to meet the demand.52 The demand cannot be met if the Department keeps the proposed 60-daytime period. The demand can probably be met if the Department delaysthe effective date for 36 months and only requires 10% of kiosk order to befor accessible kiosks.52 Industry practice varies from 2-3 years to 5 years.52 Unknown.

112. How many manufacturers currently make accessibleautomated airport kiosks?113. How many manufacturers that make inaccessibleautomated airport kiosks are capable of making anaccessible model?114. How much lead-time does a company that manufacturesinaccessible automated airport kiosks need to developand start manufacturing an accessible model as proposedin this SNPRM?115. What is the size of companies that manufactureautomated airport kiosks?116. How many manufacturers of automated airport kiosksare small businesses?117. Do these smaller companies manufacture products otherthan automated airport kiosks?118. Do smaller companies have the capital and technologyavailable to make accessible automated airport kiosks?119. Would smaller companies be able to handle the marketdemand for accessible automated airport kiosks resultingfrom this rule or might cost or other reasons delay themanufacturing technology for such kiosks causing thesecompanies to be pushed out of the market?120. What is the cost difference between manufacturing a newautomated airport kiosk that meets accessibilitystandards and one that does not?121. What is the cost of retrofitting an existing kiosk to meetaccessibility standards versus manufacturing a newaccessible kiosk?122. What are the costs of developing accessible carriersoftware applications that are capable of running onproprietary or shared-use kiosks that have accessiblehardware features?123. Are there significantly greater quantitative andqualitative benefits and lower costs associated with52 No manufacturer makes an accessible kiosk that meets the SNPRMstandard, primarily because the Department created a new, never beforeseen standard, so it would be impossible for any manufacturer to havecreated a compliant kiosk prior to release of the SNPRM.52 Unknown.52 Manufacturers need a minimum of one year to develop an accessible kioskto meet any kiosk regulatory requirements. It will take at least another sixmonths to test and incorporate a new kiosk into the manufacturing process.52 Unknown.52 Unknown.52 Unknown.52 Unknown.52 No manufacturer would be able to meet the demand created by theSNPRM because it will take 12 months for any manufacturer to develop aprototype kiosk and an additional 24 months and provide them in sufficientquantity to carriers.52 The cost difference ranges from a low of $2000 to a high of $20,000, witha median cost difference of $9,250 per kiosk.52 The Department should not require a retrofit because doing so wouldviolate the APA and Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.52 Shared kiosk costs are similar to carrier-owned kiosks.Yes, given the median incremental cost of an accessible kiosk is $9,250per kiosk, requiring all kiosks are accessible will be much more costly.

equiring carriers to ensure that only 50% versus 100%of the automated airport kiosks are accessible?124. Do airlines anticipate an increase in the number ofautomated airport kiosks used for check-in and otherservices?125. If so, what would be the percentage of increase in thenumber of automated airport kiosks and what additionaltypes of services are anticipated and over what period oftime?Shared Use Automated Airport Kiosks126. Is the term “shared-use automated airport kiosk”adequately described in the rule text?127. What are the most common kiosk ownershiparrangements at airports?128. What is the current number of automated check-in kiosksthat are proprietary, that are jointly owned, leased, orcontrolled with airports, and that are jointly owned,leased, or controlled by carriers only?129. Who typically is responsible for the purchase, operation,and maintenance of shared-use automated kiosks atairports?130. What are the procurement and maintenance costsincurred by carriers for proprietary automated airportkiosks?131. What are the procurement and maintenance costsincurred by carriers that provide the shared-useautomated kiosk hardware at an airport?132. What are the procurement and maintenance costsincurred by carriers that collaborate with shared-useautomated airport kiosks using compatible software anddata sets?133. What are the procurement and maintenance costsincurred by airports for shared-use automated kiosks?134. Are there potential difficulties associated with meetingthis requirement given that responsibility for thehardware and middleware components of shared-use53 No, more and more passengers are using online check-in.53 The trend for check in is moving towards online options.53 Yes.53 Proprietary kiosks and Common Use kiosks.53 Unknown.53 The airport operator.53 They are similar to carrier kiosks.53 Costs are similar to carrier kiosks.53 Costs are similar to carrier kiosks.53 Unknown.54 Yes. The updated kiosk would require that all carrier applications on theshared kiosk would have to be upgraded to reside on the same kiosk giventhe changes to the hardware (new devices) and platform software. In

automated kiosks generally falls to airports and theresponsibility for compatible software applications anddata sets to carriers?135. If a single carrier is the provider of shared-use automatedkiosks at a given airport, is a written agreement neededbetween the provider carrier and the collaboratingcarriers concerning the accessibility and maintenance ofthe kiosks?136. If so, would additional time be needed after the rule’seffective date for carriers to enter into such a writtenagreement?Technical Criteria - Kiosks137. Is the term “automated airport kiosk” adequatelydescribed in the rule text?138. What functions other than those described in the rule textand the preamble are presently performed by automatedairport kiosks?139. Are there any other accessible features not covered bythe proposed standard that should be included?Use of assistive technology - Kiosks140. What are the costs associated with providing a handset orindustry standard connector on the kiosk?141. Is technology available that would allow people withdisabilities to use wireless technology such as mobilepractice this could mean that the kiosk would only support a few carriers atthe outset while other applications are amended to meet these newrequirements, essentially resulting in a different product offering topassengers. Any application of shared use would require additional timeand costs to ensure operability.54 Shared kiosks are usually supplied by a third party, airport or groundhandling agent and not one carrier.54 At least 24 months.54 Yes.54 None.54 No.54 The costs of a carrier provided handset would be extraordinary and wouldnot be in passengers’ best interest. Carriers would be forced to keep manyhandsets in supply in close proximity to kiosks because of sanitaryconcerns. Such a mandate would also require carriers to provide a meansto switch out used handsets, which would require airport personneladditional tasking. Also, carrier-supplied handsets would raise passengerexpectations and drive passengers to not bring their own headsets. If aheadset is not at the kiosk, the passenger would have to contact an airportrepresentative to get one, which would defeat the purpose of this proposal(given the current regulatory framework is for passengers with a disabilityto check in with a carrier agent). We do not have information on providingan industry standard connector on the kiosk.54 No, this technology is not widely available.

phones and Bluetooth at an automated airport kiosk inlieu of requiring the kiosk itself to have a handset orheadset connector?142. If so, should we require that automated airport kiosks usesuch technology?Operable Parts143. We propose to require that the operable parts on newautomated airport kiosks be tactilely discernable by usersto avoid unintentional activation and request commentregarding the cost of meeting the requirement.144. We ask for comment on whether timeouts presentbarriers to using automated airport kiosks and on the costor potential difficulties associated with meeting thisrequirement.Kiosk Outputs145. Regarding the exceptions and the advisory listed underproposed section 382.57(c)(5)(i)2) “Receipts, Tickets,and Transaction Outputs,” are there any other types ofinformation that should be required on the printed outputother than the types listed in the advisory or that may beexcluded from the required printed output listed in theexceptions?146. Should speech output be required through either ahandset, standard connector headset, or an audio loop?147. Are considerations for speech output other than thosedefined in proposed section 382.57(c)(5)(i) needed?148. What about requiring volume control for the automatedairport kiosk’s speaker only, without requiring any othermode of voice output?149. What about privacy concerns under such anarrangement?150. What are the costs/benefits of requiring a speaker only,without handset and headset output capabilities?Kiosk Volume Control54 No, because it is not available for every kiosk. At most this should be avoluntary option.55 Adding tacitly discernible operable parts is not possible or cost prohibitivefor many existing kiosks, so the Department should not adopt this as aretrofit. For newly developed kiosks to meet future carrier kiosk orders,industry will need 36 months to design, test, and manufacture accessiblekiosks.55 Adding a prompt requirement is not possible or is cost prohibit for existingkiosks, so the Department should not adopt this as a retrofit. Integrating auser prompt for timeouts is one of the new accessibility features that wouldrequire substantial time for kiosk manufacturers and software developers todesign and test, thus requiring a 36 month delay.55 No.56 All three should be allowed, in addition to any other equivalent alternativea carrier or vendor identifies.56 No.56 Non-public forms of communication are better.56 Non-public forms of communication are better.56 Non-public forms of communication are better.

151. If both volume control and the ability to use a personalaudio loop are mandated accessibility features, can thesame industry-standard connector be used for bothspeech navigation and the automated airport kiosk’saudio output?152. If so, how would users select the function that meetstheir particular disability-related needs?153. Would volume controls similar to those provided inspeech-enabled ATMs be useful in the airportenvironment?154. Should the dB amplification gain associated with thevolume control for private listening be specified?155. Is incremental volume control up to an outputamplification of at least 65 dB sufficient for voice outputin public areas?156. When ambient noise at the airport is above 45 dB, is aselectable volume gain up to 20 dB sufficient?157. Should the same decibel gains apply to outputs deliveredboth in public areas and through assistive listeningheadsets or should different amplification gains apply toeach output type?158. If volume control is required, are the specified dB gainsappropriate to address the needs of individuals who arehard of hearing? See proposed section 382.57(c)(5)(ii)2).Kiosk Input Controls159. Should the requirement that input controls be tactilelydiscernable be revised to allow for input methods similarto the Apple devices?160. Are most users who are blind or who have low visionfamiliar with how to use such touch screens?161. Proposed section 382.57 (c)(6)(ii) specifies anarrangement of the numeric keypad which typically isprovided at ATMs. How should symbols be indicated ona numeric input keypad?56 This is better answered by manufacturers and incorporating these designfeatures will necessitate a longer implementation period.56 This is better answered by manufacturers and incorporating these designfeatures will necessitate a longer implementation period.56 This is better answered by manufacturers and incorporating these designfeatures will necessitate a longer implementation period.56 This is better answered by manufacturers and incorporating these designfeatures will necessitate a longer implementation period.56 This is better answered by manufacturers and incorporating these designfeatures will necessitate a longer implementation period.56 This is better answered by manufacturers and incorporating these designfeatures will necessitate a longer implementation period.56 This is better answered by manufacturers and incorporating these designfeatures will necessitate a longer implementation period.56 This is better answered by manufacturers and incorporating these designfeatures will necessitate a longer implementation period.57 Yes, among other viable options. The Department should allow all inputoptions.57 No comment.57 No comment.162. Automated airport kiosks generally provide a touch 57 No, the Department should permit multiple compliance options.

screen keyboard or sometimes a physical alphabetickeyboard. When either a virtual alphabetic or a physicalkeyboard is provided, should the arrangement of the keysbe specified?163. Are the function keys specified in proposed section382.57 (c)(6)(iii) sufficient to address the types offunctions typically available on automated airportkiosks?164. Besides the keypad functions and corresponding tactilesymbols indicated in proposed section 382.57(c)(6)(iii)2), what other function keys are needed andwhat tactile symbols should identify them?165. Should the status of all locking or toggle controls berequired to be visually discernable and discernablethrough either touch or sound?Kiosk Biometric Systems166. Where automated airport kiosks employ biometrics as ameans of user identification, we are including arequirement in proposed section 382.57 (c)(9) that atleast two options using different biologicalcharacteristics be available. This will ensure that wherefinger print identification is used, for example, a personwithout arms can still use an alternate biometric method(e.g., iris scanner) provided by the kiosk. We arerequesting comment on the importance of this provisionand the costs associated with implementing it.B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)167. DOT states that this proposal does not impose substantialdirect compliance costs on State and local governments.57 Yes.57 None.57 No.58 We agree that if biometrics are to be used as a method of identification foran accessible kiosk, it makes sense to require more than one method ofidentification.61 Common use kiosks owned by the airport will incur direct costs to a localgovernment that owns or controls the airport; DOT analysis shouldindicate how it determined this impact is not substantial.