Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports, 59307-59328 [2011-24298]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
• Office of the Secretary

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


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 382

49 CFR Part 27

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


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

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 59308]]

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

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

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

Background and Organization

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

[[Page 59309]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 59310]]

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

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

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

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

1. Web Site Accessibility

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

[[Page 59311]]

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

[[Page 59312]]

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

[[Page 59313]]

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

[[Page 59314]]

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

[[Page 59315]]

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