Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities

The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) opposes the proposed rule because highly technical engineering deliverables are structurally incompatible with WCAG 2.1 AA requirements. They argue that the compliance burden may lead to reduced public access to documents and request a specific exception for technical deliverables produced for professional audiences.

NewView Oklahoma, a nonprofit organization serving individuals with visual disabilities, opposes the extension of compliance deadlines for digital accessibility requirements. They argue that delaying compliance places an undue burden on people with disabilities and urge the Department of Justice to maintain the clear accessibility standards established in the 2024 rule.

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), a disability rights advocacy organization, opposes the extension of compliance dates for web accessibility standards. They argue that the delay prioritizes the concerns of public entities over the civil rights of people with disabilities and claim the Department's justifications are factually incorrect and arbitrary.

The Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities (CCD) Rights and Technology Task Forces, representing a large coalition of national organizations, opposes the Department of Justice's Interim Final Rule extending compliance dates for web accessibility. They argue the delay is arbitrary, based on incorrect factual analysis, fails to account for the significant harms to people with disabilities, and contains flawed economic analysis.

The American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) opposes the extension of compliance dates for the ADA Title II rule on website and mobile app accessibility. They argue that the delay imposes significant time and financial costs on people with disabilities and that the Department's justifications for the extension are based on "spurious reasoning" and a misunderstanding of existing standards.

The Finger Lakes Independence Center, an organization serving people with disabilities, opposes the extension of compliance dates for website and application accessibility. They argue that delaying the deadline will continue to exclude people with disabilities from essential services like medical portals and that the extension undermines the importance of the existing regulations.

The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) opposes the Department of Justice's decision to extend compliance deadlines for the 2024 digital accessibility regulation. They argue that the delay disproportionately harms people with disabilities by prolonging their exclusion from essential government services and that the Department's justifications regarding regulatory burden and AI are unsupported.

The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) opposes the proposed interim final rule because it imposes significant financial and technical burdens on small local governments with limited budgets and IT resources. They argue that the high costs of compliance may force townships to remove useful information from their websites and advocate for population-based exemptions, safe harbor protections from liability, and federal funding or guidance.

The American Council of the Blind Government Employees opposes the extension of compliance dates for Title II website accessibility regulations. They argue that the postponement is unnecessary, harmful, and ignores the urgent need for accessible government services, especially given that the regulations were already thoroughly vetted and requested by many entities.