Comment on FR Doc # 2026-07663

Re: Extension of Compliance Dates for ADA Title II Web and Mobile Accessibility — RIN 1190-AA82, Docket No. CRT150 I am the principal of Guillaume & Co. LLC d/b/a ADA Access for All, an accessibility firm that performs WCAG 2.1 Level AA conformance assessment and remediation planning for the state and local government entities this rule covers. I am a DHS Trusted Tester for Web (TT-2604-08987) and a University of Missouri certified ADA Coordinator. I write as a practitioner. A full version of this comment is attached as a PDF. I support the one-year extension of the 28 CFR 35.200(b) compliance dates. My comment responds to the Department's stated reason for the IFR — reducing litigation exposure — and to its invitations for comment on future substantive rulemaking and on making the rule less costly for small governments. Additional time does not resolve the litigation problem the Department identifies; it defers it. The IFR acknowledges that Title II carries a private right of action and that, because of it, the Department cannot adopt a non-enforcement policy. Moving the dates twelve months changes none of that — when the new dates arrive, covered entities face the same exposure. The Department also concedes a fair-notice problem: the rule incorporates WCAG 2.1 but links to dynamic standards that can change without notice. From direct experience, covered entities frequently cannot get a definitive answer on whether a given implementation conforms. The consequence is that an entity acting in good faith — mid-remediation, working from a documented plan — is no better protected than an entity that did nothing. The rule rewards neither good faith nor demonstrable progress, which makes the good-faith actor a natural target for litigation aimed at extracting a settlement rather than improving accessibility. A relevant model exists: Missouri's Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation (SB 907), enacted May 2026, effective August 28, 2026. It addresses private litigation in the public-accommodations context, so it is not a direct template, but its structure is transferable — notice of an alleged barrier, a defined 90-day good-faith cure window, a rebuttable presumption favoring the party that takes substantial corrective steps, and consequences for serial filers. Missouri tied the law's expiration to future federal action, acknowledging the durable fix belongs at the federal level. Recommendations: 1. Retain the extended compliance dates. 2. In the substantive rulemaking the Department says it is planning, build a good-faith-remediation safe harbor into the text of the Title II rule. Because the private right of action forecloses a non-enforcement policy, the safe harbor must be a substantive rule provision: a covered entity that, on notice of an alleged barrier, has a documented remediation plan and shows substantial good-faith progress within a defined period (90 days is a reasonable benchmark) is deemed compliant as to that barrier for that period. 3. Tie the safe harbor to the Department's own fair-notice concern: where the standard's boundary is genuinely unclear, the rule should protect the entity demonstrably working in good faith and reserve liability for the entity that is not. 4. Make small-government cost relief structural, not just temporal. The safe harbor is itself cost relief — it reduces litigation-defense costs that fall hardest on small entities. The Department should also pair the small-entity deadline with a plain-language compliance pathway (a model self-evaluation and remediation-plan structure). Conclusion: I support the extension, but the Department should not treat added time as a substitute for addressing the litigation dynamics it identified as a central reason for this rule. I recommend it (1) retain the extended dates, (2) use the planned substantive rulemaking to build a good-faith-remediation safe harbor into the rule text, (3) tie that safe harbor to the fair-notice problem it has already identified, and (4) treat the safe harbor and a plain-language compliance pathway as the structural cost relief for small governments on which it invited comment. A full version of this comment is attached. Respectfully submitted, Marc Guillaume, Principal, Guillaume & Co. LLC d/b/a ADA Access for All DHS Trusted Tester for Web (TT-2604-08987) | University of Missouri ADA Coordinator Certified