Responses to Section F. Impact on Small Entities (Questions 17 and 18)

F. Impact on Small Entities

Consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order 13272, the Department must consider the impacts of any proposed rule on small entities, including small businesses, small nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. See 5 U.S.C. 603-04 (2006); E.O. 13272, 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 13, 2002). The Department will make an initial determination as to whether any rule it proposes is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and if so, the Department will prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis analyzing the economic impacts on small entities and regulatory alternatives that reduce the regulatory burden on small entities while achieving the goals of the regulation. In response to this ANPRM, the Department encourages small entities to provide cost data on the potential economic impact of adopting a specific requirement for Web site accessibility and recommendations on less burdensome alternatives, with cost information.Show citation box

Question 17. The Department seeks input regarding the impact the measures being contemplated by the Department with regard to Web accessibility will have on small entities if adopted by the Department. The Department encourages you to include any cost data on the potential economic impact on small entities with your response. Please provide information on capital costs for equipment, such as hardware and software needed to meet the regulatory requirements; costs of modifying existing processes and procedures; any affects to sales and profits, including increases in business due to tapping markets not previously reached; changes in market competition as a result of the rule; and cost for hiring web professionals for to assistance in making existing Web sites accessible.

The economic impact for small entities will be minimal if new websites are designed with accessibility in mind. Accessibility is more about adherence to web coding standards and best practices than about acquiring specialized hardware or software. Most small entities hire independent contractors to set up their websites and web authoring tools. For web contractors knowledgeable about web accessibility, building an accessible website should take no more time than building an inaccessible website.

However, remediating an existing website to make it accessible can be problematic and expensive. Depending on how the site is implemented, this remediation effort can amount to anywhere from an hours’ work for a simple site to thousands of dollars for a complex site. Web contractors generally charge in the range of $30 per hour to over $100 per hour. Accessible web programming is a specialized skill set, and the increased demand for accessibility remediation work will likely drive the billing rate to the higher end of this range. Additionally, entities owning complex websites may have to upgrade their e-commerce or content management software as accessibility-supporting features are implemented in new versions of the software.

Many small entities are using cloud-based web solutions, such as Google Apps. Those doing so will be dependent on vendors providing web templates and web authoring tools that produce accessible websites. Hosting services must upgrade the accessibility of their platforms.

For small entities who produce and maintain their own websites, staff will need to be trained to acquire necessary skills. Fortunately, there are many free online training resources available, such as WebAIM.org, and for-fee training classes, both online and on-premise, are offered by several companies. There are many free web accessibility testing tools available as well. In addition to these resources, it would be highly beneficial for the Department to offer additional funding and support for this educational effort. (See response to Question 18.)

Although there can be costs associated with website remediation, these costs pale in comparison to making a restroom accessible, adding a wheelchair ramp to a building entrance, or installing a curb cut. Digital accessibility is much less costly to implement than physical plant accessibility, and just as critical. We believe, with rare exceptions, these costs are not an onerous burden for small entities.

Any investment in website accessibility will allow small entities to recoup substantial financial rewards. According to WebAIM.org, “Conservative statistics indicate that at least 8.5% of the population has a disability that would affect Internet use.” Websites that are made available to this population are tapping into a huge market. Additionally, making a website accessible increases the overall usability of the website for everyone and improves the performance of the website for mobile devices. A website that is easier to use will be more profitable.

Question 18. Are there alternatives that the Department can adopt, which were not previously discussed in response to Questions 11 or 16, that will alleviate the burden on small entities? Should there be different compliance requirements or timetables for small entities that take into account the resources available to small entities or should the Department adopt an exemption for certain or all small entities from coverage of the rule, in whole or in part. Please provide as much detail as possible in your response.

Unless compliance is technically not possible, we believe that all covered entities (see responses dealing with scope, safe harbor, and exemption, above), regardless of size, should be required to comply, following the timetable given in the response to Question 11, above. Given how often the web sites of even very small businesses tend to be updated and revised, we feel that two years should be adequate in most if not all cases. However, if temporary exemptions or extended timetables are deemed necessary, these might be determined according to the impact the web site/service has on persons with disabilities. For example businesses that provide key services and conveniences for faculty, staff, or students at a university, such as a bookstore, a graphic design or printing company, or a housing or food catering business that is a university preferred vendor, could be held to a more strict timetable for compliance than, say, a small, independent restaurant or clothing store that is merely frequented occasionally by university personnel or students.

To further alleviate the burden on small entities, Department could consider helping sponsor and/or sanction development of accessibility evaluation and remediation software that could assist these entities and not-for-profit organizations with limited revenues. It could also consider sponsoring and/or developing online accessibility training materials and/or courses, perhaps including development of “certification” courses (see Question 19). Championing such resources and helping develop and promulgate training could enable small entities and not-for-profits to gain a quick, in-depth understanding of accessibility so that they could fix areas where they are out of compliance. .