Comment on FR Doc # 2026-07663

I'm a web developer at a small municipality who has been personally motivated to spend the past year preparing for the final rule changes. Our leadership claims to be reliant on our legal counsel for guidance relating to the final rule, and has decided to archive our entire self-hosted on-premises web site by taking it offline, and intends to start fresh with a cloud-hosted vendor web site platform that is popular among our municipal peers. Their thinking is that any contents of the original web site can be retrieved with a public records request. I'm concerned that the final rule isn't offering sufficient guidance to law firms that are unfamiliar with digital accessibility and that our municipality is overreacting, or is perhaps using this as an excuse to move to a vendor that our leadership has more experience using from past jobs, which will greatly increase our financial costs. Additionally, the choice to take the entire web site offline seems contradictory to how other states handled this, as Colorado's Digital Accessibility Law specifically calls out "No requirement to remove inaccessible content: Public entities should not remove inaccessible documents and resources from their websites." Our web site contains decades of information and it's disappointing that the exception for previously-posted content isn't being exercised by us. That said, I'm glad this initiative is finally being taken seriously by public entities (despite already being the expectation for years), even if this 1-year delay means I'll be cleaning up after less-motivated staff members for a bit longer when a reasonable accommodation request is made. Please keep pushing forward with this standard.