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

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 National Association of Counties (NACo) supports the extension of compliance deadlines for web and mobile accessibility for state and local governments. They request a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to clarify technical requirements, address the burden of remediating legacy content, and establish notice-and-cure periods to protect counties from litigation while they work toward compliance.

The National School Attorneys Association (NSAA) supports the Department of Justice's decision to extend the compliance deadline for web accessibility requirements for public schools. They argue that school districts face unique operational challenges and urge the Department to distinguish between public-facing content and secured educational content, which should remain governed by existing individualized accommodation frameworks under IDEA and Section 504.

Allyant, an accessibility services provider, supports the Department's goal of ensuring government services are accessible but argues that the current extension is based on mistaken premises regarding technology and litigation risks. They urge the Department to commit firmly to the 2027 and 2028 compliance dates, preserve the WCAG 2.1 Level AA standard, and provide technical assistance and litigation safeguards rather than further delays.

Marc Guillaume, principal of an accessibility firm, supports the one-year extension of the compliance dates for state and local government web accessibility. However, he argues that the extension only defers litigation risks and urges the Department to create a substantive "good-faith-remediation safe harbor" in future rulemaking to protect entities that are actively working toward compliance.

The commenter supports the adoption of WCAG 2.1 Level AA as an enforceable standard but argues for the inclusion of a narrow remediation window (e.g., three business days) for newly identified issues. They contend that a "cure period" acknowledges the technical limitations of automated testing and distinguishes good-faith efforts from negligence without weakening overall accessibility goals.

A representative of a public entity supports the Department of Justice's decision to extend the Title II compliance deadlines due to resource and staffing limitations. The commenter requests that the DOJ provide concrete operational playbooks, procurement standards, and clear guidance on legacy content and third-party software to help public entities meet these mandates.

William Rainey Harper College supports the goals of the proposed action but argues that the current compliance timeline is insufficient for public higher education. They request a longer, phased compliance schedule (at least seven years), dedicated federal funding for implementation, clearer guidance on third-party vendor accessibility, and modifications to the "archived web content" exception to reduce administrative burdens.

The University of Utah and the Utah State System of Higher Education support the extension of compliance dates but advocate for a tiered compliance model. They argue that while institutional infrastructure should meet full WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards, instructor-generated materials should follow a phased remediation strategy and baseline proactive standards to account for the practical limitations of faculty.

The commenter, representing a municipality, supports the deadline extension for ADA web accessibility compliance but highlights significant operational challenges regarding IT resources, third-party content liability, and software interoperability. They request safe-harbor provisions for content they do not author and for accessibility failures caused by third-party browser rendering engines.