[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 75 (Monday, April 20, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20902-20912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-07663]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 35
[Docket No. CRT150; AG Order No. 6742-2026]
RIN 1190-AA82
Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis
of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State
and Local Government Entities
AGENCY: Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this Interim Final Rule (``IFR''), the Department of
Justice (``Department'') is revising the regulations implementing title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (``ADA'') to extend the
compliance dates for the requirements for web content and mobile
application (``app'') accessibility that were adopted on April 24,
2024. The compliance date for State and local government entities with
a total population of 50,000 or more is extended from April 24, 2026,
to April 26, 2027. The compliance date for public entities with a total
population of less than 50,000, or any special district government, is
extended from April 26, 2027, to April 26, 2028.
DATES:
Effective date: This IFR is effective April 20, 2026.
Comments: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 22,
2026. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket
Management System (``FDMS'') will accept comments submitted prior to
midnight Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period. Late
comments are highly
[[Page 20903]]
disfavored. The Department is not required to consider late comments.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1190-AA82 (or
Docket No. CRT150), by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Website: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the website's instructions for submitting comments.
Overnight, Courier, or Hand Delivery: Disability Rights
Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 150 M St.
NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Badar Tareen, Disability Rights
Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, at (202)
307-0663. This is not a toll-free number. Information may also be
obtained from the Department's toll-free ADA Information Line at (800)
514-0301 (voice) or 1-833-610-1264 (TTY). You may obtain copies of this
IFR in an alternative format by calling the ADA Information Line at
(800) 514-0301 (voice) or 1-833-610-1264 (TTY). A link to this IFR is
also available on https://www.ada.gov.
Electronic Submission of Comments and Posting of Public Comments
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments on all aspects of this rule via one of the
methods and by the deadline stated above. When submitting comments,
please include ``RIN 1190-AA82'' in the subject field. The Department
also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or
federalism effects that might result from this rule. Comments that will
provide the most assistance to the Department in developing this rule
will reference a specific portion of the rule, explain the reason for
any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority
that supports such recommended change.
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the
public record and made available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personally identifiable
information (``PII'') (such as your name and address). Interested
persons are not required to submit their PII in order to comment on
this rule. However, any PII that is submitted is subject to being
posted to the publicly accessible https://www.regulations.gov site
without redaction.
Confidential business information clearly identified in the first
paragraph of the comment as such will not be placed in the public
docket file.
The Department may withhold from public viewing information
provided in comments that it determines may impact the privacy of an
individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the
Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
https://www.regulations.gov. To inspect the agency's public docket file
in person, you must make an appointment with the agency. Please see the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph above for agency contact
information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Legal Authority
The ADA protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in
everyday activities, including employment, access to State and local
government services, access to businesses and nonprofits that are open
to the public, and other important areas of American life. This IFR
addresses title II of the ADA, which applies to State and local
government entities.\1\ Part A of title II protects qualified
individuals with disabilities from disability-based discrimination in
the services, programs, and activities of State and local government
entities.\2\ Section 204(a) of the ADA directs the Attorney General to
issue regulations implementing part A of title II.\3\ The Department is
the only Federal agency with authority to issue regulations under part
A of title II regarding the accessibility of State and local government
entities' web content and mobile apps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department uses the phrases ``State and local government
entities'' and ``public entities'' interchangeably throughout this
rule to refer to ``public entit[ies]'' as defined by the ADA, 42
U.S.C. 12131(1), that are covered under part A of title II of the
ADA.
\2\ 42 U.S.C. 12132.
\3\ See 42 U.S.C. 12134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 24, 2024, the Department published a final rule revising
its title II regulations, titled ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and
Local Government Entities.'' \4\ The rule set forth technical
requirements for the web content and mobile apps that State and local
government entities ``provide or make available, directly or through
contractual, licensing, or other arrangements.'' \5\ In particular, the
rule adopted the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (``WCAG'')
version 2.1 Level AA (hereinafter referred to as ``WCAG 2.1''),
published in June 2018,\6\ as the technical standard for web content
and mobile app accessibility under title II.\7\ The rule included
provisions describing how WCAG 2.1 applies to State and local
governments' web content and mobile apps, as well as provisions
identifying circumstances in which certain web content and content in
mobile apps may not need to meet the technical standard.\8\ The rule's
effective date was June 24, 2024,\9\ but State and local government
entities were not required to begin complying with the rule
immediately. Rather, the rule provided that public entities with a
total population of 50,000 or more must begin complying with the rule
starting on April 24, 2026,\10\ and that public entities with a total
population of less than 50,000 or any public entity that is a special
district government must begin complying with the rule starting on
April 26, 2027.\11\ The rule added definitions of ``total population''
and ``special district government'' to 28 CFR 35.104, and the
Department provided additional information about calculating total
population and identifying special district governments in Appendix D
to 28 CFR part 35 and in resources published on the Department's
website.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 89 FR 31320 (Apr. 24, 2024).
\5\ 89 FR 31321.
\6\ Copyright (copyright) 2017-2018 W3C[supreg]. This document
includes material copied from or derived from https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/ [https://perma.cc/UB8A-GG2F].
\7\ 89 FR 31321.
\8\ 89 FR 31337-38 (codified at 28 CFR 35.200-35.205).
\9\ 89 FR 31320.
\10\ 89 FR 31337.
\11\ 28 CFR 35.200(b)(2).
\12\ See, e.g., U.S. Dep't of Just., State and Local
Governments: First Steps Toward Complying with the Americans with
Disabilities Act Title II Web and Mobile Application Accessibility
Rule, ADA.gov (Jan. 8, 2025), https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-rule-first-steps/ [https://perma.cc/SX52-53TA].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2024 final rule was the culmination of various rulemaking
efforts by the Department related to web and mobile app accessibility
under title II. Throughout these efforts, the Department considered a
wide variety of issues related to developing a final rule, including
the appropriate compliance dates for adopting web and mobile app
accessibility requirements.
In 2010, the Department published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (``ANPRM''), titled ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and
Local Government Entities and Public Accommodations,'' which addressed
web accessibility under both title II and title III of the ADA.\13\ In
the
[[Page 20904]]
ANPRM, the Department suggested potential compliance dates ranging from
six months to two years after the publication of a final rule,
depending on the type of web content.\14\ The Department also requested
public comment about when any web accessibility requirements adopted by
the Department should become effective, including whether the
Department should adopt a different compliance date for small public
entities.\15\ The Department received approximately 400 public comments
in response to the ANPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 75 FR 43460 (July 26, 2010). This IFR only pertains to the
Department's regulations implementing title II; the Department's
regulations implementing title III, found at 28 CFR part 36, are not
addressed in this rulemaking.
\14\ 75 FR at 43466.
\15\ 75 FR 43466-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, the Department announced that it would pursue separate
rulemakings addressing web accessibility under titles II and III.\16\
And in 2016, the Department published a supplemental advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (``SANPRM'') solely focused on title II, titled
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web
Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities.'' \17\
In the SANPRM, the Department stated that comments submitted in
response to the 2010 ANPRM about the suggested compliance dates were
``extremely varied,'' with recommendations ranging from requiring
compliance upon publication of a final rule to allowing a five-year
window for compliance, and there was no public consensus.\18\ Based on
its review of the comments, the Department suggested new potential
compliance dates.\19\ The potential compliance dates included in the
SANPRM ranged from two to three years after the publication of a final
rule, depending on the type of web content and the type and size of the
public entity.\20\ The Department again requested public comment about
when any web accessibility requirements adopted by the Department
should become effective. The Department received approximately 200
public comments in response to the SANPRM. Commenters suggested a range
of compliance dates, from immediate implementation to 10 years.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See U.S. Dep't of Just., Statement of Regulatory Priorities
(2015), https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/eAgenda/StaticContent/201510/Statement_1100.html [https://perma.cc/YF2L-FTSK].
\17\ 81 FR 28658 (May 9, 2016).
\18\ 81 FR 28664.
\19\ 81 FR 28665.
\20\ 81 FR 28664-68.
\21\ Compare Letter for Rebecca Bond, Chief, Disability Rights
Section, Civil Rights Division, from Douglas Loo, ADA Coordinator,
Xpanxion at 2 (Sep. 21, 2016), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOJ-CRT-2016-0009-0205 [https://perma.cc/4U2J-S9LZ] (immediate),
with Letter for Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division,
from Rick Nixon, Office of Management and Finance, City of Portland
att. at 1 (Oct. 7, 2016), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOJ-CRT-2016-0009-0218 [https://perma.cc/Y2DJ-LL8L] (10 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, the Department withdrew several rulemaking actions,
including the 2010 ANPRM and 2016 SANPRM, stating that it was
evaluating whether promulgating specific web accessibility standards
through regulations was ``necessary and appropriate'' to ensure
compliance with the ADA.\22\ The Department subsequently reopened the
title II rulemaking process in 2023 when it published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (``NPRM''), titled ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis
of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State
and Local Government Entities.'' \23\ The compliance dates proposed in
the NPRM were the same as the dates that would ultimately be included
in the final rule. Namely, public entities with a total population of
50,000 or more would have two years to begin complying with a final
rule after it was published; \24\ public entities with a total
population of less than 50,000 or any public entity that is a special
district government would have three years to begin complying.\25\
Other alternative compliance time frames the Department considered
included: a one-year time frame for all covered entities; a one-year
time frame for public entities with a population of 50,000 or more and
a three-year time frame for small public entities; and a three-year
time frame for public entities with a population of 50,000 or more and
a four-year time frame for small public entities.\26\ In the NPRM, the
Department emphasized that the public had previously provided ``varied
feedback'' about the appropriate compliance dates for a final rule.\27\
For example, the Department stated that individuals with disabilities
and disability advocacy organizations preferred shorter time frames,
often arguing that web accessibility has long been required under title
II.\28\ The Department stated that some covered entities, in contrast,
had requested more time to come into compliance with a final rule,
citing resource considerations including budget and staffing
limitations.\29\ The Department decided on the compliance dates
proposed in the NPRM after considering the arguments raised by
commenters and observing that ``over a decade has passed since the
Department started receiving such feedback and there is more available
technology to make web content and mobile apps accessible.'' \30\ The
Department stated that it believed the proposed compliance dates would
appropriately ``balance[ ] the resource challenges reported by public
entities with the interests of individuals with disabilities in
accessing the multitude of services, programs, and activities'' offered
by public entities through the web and mobile apps.\31\ The Department
explained that it proposed to apply the same technical standard to all
covered entities, but small public entities and special district
governments would be given an extra year to begin complying with a
final rule to account for those entities' limited resources and unique
circumstances.\32\ The Department requested feedback from members of
the public about the NPRM, including about the proposed compliance
dates, and it received approximately 345 comments in response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Notice of
Withdrawal of Four Previously Announced Rulemaking Actions, 82 FR
60932, 60932 (Dec. 26, 2017).
\23\ 88 FR 51948 (Aug. 4, 2023) (``2023 NPRM'').
\24\ 88 FR 51964.
\25\ 88 FR 51965.
\26\ 88 FR 52012.
\27\ 88 FR 51964.
\28\ 88 FR 51964.
\29\ 88 FR 51964.
\30\ 88 FR 51964.
\31\ 88 FR 51964.
\32\ 88 FR 51965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2024, the Department published the final rule that is the
subject of this IFR.\33\ As discussed, the 2024 final rule included the
same compliance dates that were proposed in the 2023 NPRM. The
Department also considered, but did not adopt, the alternative time
frames that it considered for the 2023 NPRM.\34\ The Department stated
that comments submitted in response to the 2023 NPRM expressed a ``wide
range of views'' about the rule's compliance dates, and commenters
suggested time frames ranging from six months to six years.\35\ After
reviewing the comments,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 89 FR at 31320.
\34\ See U.S. Dep't of Just., Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review; Executive Order 14094, Modernizing Regulatory
Review; Executive Order 13563, Improved Regulation and Regulatory
Review at 172 (2024), https://www.ada.gov/assets/pdfs/web-fria.pdf
[https://perma.cc/9WKS-RU3L] (hereinafter ``2024 Cost-Benefit
Analysis'') (Table 75).
\35\ 89 FR 31351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20905]]
the Department concluded that the compliance dates proposed in the 2023
NPRM struck the appropriate balance because the Department believed
shortening the time frames would likely result in increased costs and
practical difficulties for public entities, especially small entities,
whereas setting longer time frames would cause individuals with
disabilities to be excluded from the services, programs, and activities
that public entities offer through the web and mobile apps.\36\ The
Department stated that it did not identify any overriding reasons to
change the time frames in the final rule, given the competing interests
at stake.\37\ The Department also reemphasized that the compliance
dates are based, in part, on the Department's observation that ``there
is now more available technology to make web content and mobile apps
accessible'' than when the Department first published the ANPRM in
2010.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 89 FR 31351.
\37\ 89 FR 31351.
\38\ 89 FR 31353.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Need for This Interim Rule
In the months leading up to the April 24, 2026, compliance date for
public entities with a total population of 50,000 or more, the
Department identified new information about the 2024 final rule's
compliance time frames. Circumstances beyond the Department's control,
of which the Department was made aware through correspondence to the
Department and to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') as well
as through the Department's own observations of covered entities'
compliance capabilities, prompted the Department to extend the
compliance deadlines through this IFR, which is being issued with an
opportunity for post-publication comment.
The Department was made aware of challenges related to the
compliance dates in correspondence to the OMB, which was shared with
the Department. On April 11, 2025, OMB had solicited ideas for
deregulation from across the country.\39\ In response, a group of
higher education advocacy associations asked the Department to delay
the 2024 final rule's compliance dates or provide additional
information about the rule.\40\ The associations stated that their
institutions, which are covered under the rule, are preparing for the
compliance dates and that such preparation requires significant
resources and staff time.\41\ Additionally, the associations noted
these covered entities are still working through compliance
challenges.\42\ The Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy
(``Advocacy'') also submitted a response to OMB that addressed the 2024
final rule.\43\ Advocacy stated that it had spoken with numerous small-
entity stakeholders about OMB's factfinding request,\44\ and it
believes the Department underestimated the costs and burden of the 2024
final rule for small public entities.\45\ Advocacy stated that small
governments have limited resources and a lack of staff with technical
expertise necessary for compliance, and it recommended the Department
create an exemption from the rule for certain small entities or extend
the compliance dates.\46\ Following its comment to OMB, Advocacy added
the 2024 final rule to a list of regulations it prioritized for
rescission, withdrawal, or modification.\47\ Based on its discussions
with public entities from throughout the United States about the 2023
NPRM, Advocacy stated at that time that it believed the Department
underestimated the costs and burdens for small public entities to come
into compliance with the rule.\48\ One of Advocacy's recommendations in
response to the 2023 NPRM was to provide a four- or five-year
compliance date for covered entities with populations of less than
50,000 people, as a lack of staff and other costs would prevent these
entities from coming into compliance with the final rule within three
years.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Request for Information: Deregulation, 90 FR 15481 (Apr.
11, 2025).
\40\ Letter for Russell T. Vought, Director, OMB, from Chip
Bishop, Deputy Chief Counsel, American Council on Education at 2
(May 12, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OMB-2025-0003-8019 [https://perma.cc/2WCF-TP4V].
\41\ Id.
\42\ Id.
\43\ Letter for Russell T. Vought, Director, OMB, from Chip
Bishop, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Small Business Administration
Office of Advocacy (May 12, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OMB-2025-0003-8285 [https://perma.cc/F984-X9L3].
\44\ Id. at 6.
\45\ Id. at 10.
\46\ Id. at 10-11.
\47\ Advocacy, Small Business' Most Wanted Reform, https://advocacy.sba.gov/regulatory-reform/small-businesses-most-wanted-reform/ [https://perma.cc/Z4FH-NZAH] (last visited Mar. 26, 2026).
\48\ Letter for Rebecca Bond, Chief, Disability Rights Section,
Civil Rights Division, U.S. Dep't of Just., from Major L. Clark,
III, Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business
Administration and Janis C. Reyes, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office
of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration at 13 (Oct. 17,
2023), https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Comment-Letter-Nondiscrimination-on-the-Basis-of-Disability.pdf [https://perma.cc/N5CK-V3KG].
\49\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other correspondence to the Department echoed those compliance
challenges. A Congressman discussed the complexity of remediating STEM
(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) content. The
Congressman emphasized that current technology, including generative AI
(artificial intelligence), cannot reliably automate the remediation of
STEM materials at scale, and human oversight is required to ensure
accessibility. He stated that a rushed implementation of the 2024 final
rule could lead to errors and hinder the dissemination of STEM
research.
Elementary and secondary education advocacy associations also asked
the Department to provide additional information about the 2024 final
rule and either delay the compliance dates or rethink the level of
compliance required of school districts. The associations emphasized
that many school districts have limited financial and staff resources
available for compliance with the 2024 final rule. One association
surveyed 60 of its members, and it found, for example, that many school
districts would likely need to hire staff to assist with compliance
with the 2024 final rule, many school districts would struggle to cover
the costs of compliance, and school districts are concerned about
potential litigation related to the rule. Another association expressed
concern that the compliance dates in the 2024 final rule risk
overwhelming school districts, which could cause schools to attempt
rapid, procedural box-checking to begin complying with the rule rather
than engaging in thoughtful and sustainable implementation efforts that
would maximize the goals and benefits of the rule.
Some entities, however, believe the compliance dates in the 2024
final rule are appropriate. A group of accessibility organizations sent
a letter to OMB stating that they believe the 2024 final rule should
not be delayed, rescinded, or altered.\50\ These groups stated that in
their experience, even the most complex and innovative learning
technologies can be made accessible, especially when
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Letter for Russell T. Vought, Director, OMB, from Stephen
G. Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Association on Higher Education
and Disability at 1 (July 26, 2025), https://www.nacacnet.org/wp-content/uploads/AHEAD_Letter-to-OMB_Protecting-Title-II-Web-Access-Rule_2025.07.pdf [https://perma.cc/PJ6A-XDBE].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20906]]
accessibility is proactively addressed at the outset, and many colleges
and universities have taken meaningful steps towards complying with the
2024 final rule.\51\ They stated that delaying or rescinding the 2024
final rule would penalize institutions that have worked towards
compliance with both the rule and their longstanding obligations under
the ADA, and that students with disabilities would be denied the
opportunity to fully and equally participate in public higher
education.\52\ A disability advocacy organization similarly sent a
letter to OMB stating that any action to delay or rescind the 2024
final rule would severely harm individuals with disabilities.\53\ The
organization contended that the rule reflected a compromise between the
needs of people with disabilities and the resources of covered
entities. The organization asserted that there is no basis for
reconsidering the rule at this time, because, the organization argued,
it went through 14 years of consideration, public input, and
adjustment, and the Department accurately estimated the costs and
burdens of the rule.\54\ In correspondence to the Department, the
organization stated that even if there are apps that are difficult to
make accessible, public entities are not required to take any action
that would result in a fundamental alteration to their services,
programs, or activities or undue financial and administrative burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Id. at 2.
\52\ Id. at 1.
\53\ Letter for Russell T. Vought, Director, OMB, from Mark A.
Riccobono, President, National Federation of the Blind (June 9,
2025), https://nfb.org/programs-services/advocacy/policy-statements/letter-office-management-and-budget-response-letter [https://perma.cc/9NVL-FHL6].
\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds the compliance concerns raised in the
foregoing correspondence to be compelling and upon its own review
determines that it overestimated the capabilities (whether staffing or
technology) of covered entities to comply with the rule in the time
frames provided. Therefore, we agree with those suggestions to delay
the effective dates of the 2024 final rule. The Department believes
this IFR will lead to greater predictability and certainty as covered
entities work towards accessibility of their websites notwithstanding
the untenable, dynamic technical standards linked to the 2024 rule.
This will lead to greater accessibility for individuals with
disabilities.
The Department is not persuaded that the effective dates of the
2024 final rule should not be altered. First, even if the most complex
applications of the rule can be made accessible, that does not address
whether they can be made accessible in the specific time frames set by
the 2024 rule without other negative impacts on State and local
government entities outside of their control, particularly given the
present difficulty these entities face in discerning what is required.
Second, delaying the 2024 final rule does not penalize institutions
that have already complied. Rather, the primary effect of the delay is
to provide relief to entities that have been unable to comply to date.
No matter the deadline, the rule's substantive requirements bind
covered entities. Even those entities that already comply with the rule
may continue to face uncertainty about whether their efforts are
sufficient given the concerns noted above. Third, to the extent that
the rule reflects a compromise between the needs of people with
disabilities and the resources of covered entities, as we explained,
the compromise underestimated the burden on covered entities. Fourth,
the length of time spent considering the issues covered by the 2024
final rule is irrelevant to whether covered entities can comply with
the deadlines and does not bear on the assessment of the new
information that suggests covered entities will struggle to comply with
the deadlines due to circumstances outside of their control.
Covered entities could suffer significant consequences if the 2024
final rule's compliance dates are not extended. If the 2024 final
rule's compliance dates take effect before the covered entities have
had sufficient time to make their web content and mobile apps comply
with the terms of the rule, those entities would face significant
litigation risks. Congress created a private right of action in title
II.\55\ Exercising this right, private litigants could recover
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees from public entities for
noncompliance with the 2024 final rule.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ E.g., Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 185 (2002) (stating
that title II is ``enforceable through private causes of action'').
\56\ 42 U.S.C. 12205 (a court may grant the prevailing party in
a Title II suit ``a reasonable attorney's fee, including litigation
expenses[] and costs);''); Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 580 U.S.
154, 160 (2017) (individuals may seek injunctive relief for
violations of Title II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risk of litigation is more significant for reasons not
specifically addressed in the 2024 final rule. First, the links in the
2024 final rule create an untenable situation which could lead to
liability without fair notice. The 2024 rule links to https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/ which is incorporated into the
rule.\57\ That website links to dynamically changeable websites for
compliance standards for WCAG 2.1.\58\ These dynamic compliance
assessment standards do not provide notice of what the regulation
requires of public entities because the standards may change at any
time without notice. This lack of notice for what constitutes
compliance with the rule is the antithesis of the Administrative
Procedure Act's notice-and-comment requirement (subject to statutory
exception, none of which these dynamic standards meet). Second,
international actors may attempt to access websites and file litigation
to enforce the 2024 final rule.\59\ Such litigation may be funded by
international actors to intentionally disrupt government operations in
the United States.\60\ Third, covered entities have been generating
substantial amounts of content that would be covered by the 2024 final
rule using
[[Page 20907]]
generative AI \61\ that is potentially inaccessible.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See, e.g., 89 FR at 31321 & n.10, 31337.
\58\ For example, WCAG 2.1 lists the required ``Success
Criterion'' for accessibility. Each of these required criteria, in
turn, list hyperlink headlines titled ``Understanding [Success
Criterion]'' and ``How to Meet [Success Criterion].'' Many of these
hyperlinks take the user to a page titled ``How to Meet WCAG (Quick
Reference).'' See, e.g., https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/quickref/?versions=2.1#contrast-minimum. However, when a user selects ``Show
techniques and failures'' for a criterion on this web page and then
selects ``Understanding Techniques,'' that link often takes the user
to a web page discussing the WCAG 2.2 standards, which is a newer
standard not incorporated by the 2024 rule. See, e.g., https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/understanding-techniques.
\59\ Courts typically look to whether a plaintiff has some
connection with the public entity when assessing the plaintiff's
standing to bring website access litigation under Title II, but that
requirement may be satisfied by a non-resident. See, e.g., Open
Access for All, Inc. v. Town of Juno Beach, Florida, No. 9:19-cv-
80518, 2019 WL 3425090, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2019) (holding
that a nonresident had standing to sue a city over its purportedly
inaccessible website under Title II based on plans to move to the
city in the future).
\60\ See, e.g., Foreign Abuse of U.S. Courts: Hearing Before the
Subcomm. On Cts., Intell. Prop., A.I., and the internet of the H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, 119th Cong. 19 (2025) (statement of Julian
G. Ku, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor, Hofstra Univ.)
(discussing international ``lawfare,'' which involves ``the
manipulation of legal processes to undermine, discredit, or impose
substantial procedural and financial obligations upon adversaries
through judicial mechanisms and related legal instruments'');
Lindsay Lewis & Phil Goldberg, We All Should Care Who Funds the
Fight for Justice, Hill (Dec. 17, 2025), https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5651240-foreign-influence-litigation-funding/
[https://perma.cc/Z3PG-US6P] (discussing international funding for
litigation in the United States).
\61\ See, e.g., Nat'l Ass'n of Cnts., 2024 National Association
of Counties (NACo) Generative AI Membership Survey Report at 8
(2024), https://naco.sharefile.com/share/view/s0cf368e9b14d4267a297a2e98290873a [https://perma.cc/D67X-2LP5]
(``Data shows that GenAI is used within county operations and
services at minimum monthly by 60% of respondents.''); Sanam
Hooshidary, Chelsea Canada & William Clark, Nat'l Conf. of State
Legislatures, Artificial Intelligence in Government: The Federal and
State Legislative Landscape at 8 (2024), https://documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/Technology/Government-State-Fed-Landscape-v02.pdf [https://perma.cc/7T4A-BKYW] (``State agencies are using tools that have a
range of capabilities [including] . . . content generation.''); Nate
Sanford, Washington City Officials Are Using ChatGPT for Government
Work, Cascade PBS (Aug. 26, 2025), https://www.cascadepbs.org/news/2025/08/wa-city-officials-are-using-chatgpt-to-write-government-documents/ [https://perma.cc/ZCT9-2JT6] (profiling use of AI by
local governments in Washington state and noting that ``public
servants have used generative AI to write emails to constituents,
mayoral letters, policy documents and more''). Among other uses,
local government entities are notably using AI to generate content
in the educational context. See, e.g., Drew Bent & Kunal Handa,
Anthropic Education Report: How Educators Use Claude, Anthropic
(Aug. 27, 2025), https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-education-report-how-educators-use-claude [https://perma.cc/4UBS-NJ7G] (``The
most prominent use of AI [among educators] . . . was for curriculum
development.'').
\62\ See, e.g., N.Y.C. Bar, The Impact of the Use of AI on
People with Disabilities at 6-7 (2025), https://www.nycbar.org/reports/the-impact-of-the-use-of-ai-on-people-with-disabilities/
[https://perma.cc/W87A-K26K] (noting that generative AI may produce
inaccessible outputs if it relies on inaccessible inputs); Ne.
Univ., AI and Accessibility, https://tealab.sites.northeastern.edu/generative-ai-and-accessibility/ [https://perma.cc/M9B4-2TPN] (last
visited Mar. 26, 2026) (``State-of-the-art image generation models
do not output alternative (alt) text with their images, rendering
them largely inaccessible to screen reader users'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be sure, the fundamental-alteration or undue-burden defenses are
potentially available during litigation. Even so, the existence of
defenses against claims should not guide the Department's decisions in
setting the rule's compliance deadlines. The rule's deadlines never
hinged on the availability of defenses in eventual litigation, and
there is no good reason to change course. If the Department took the
contrary view, we would require entities to engage in litigation
because of compliance burdens that we know depend on technological
developments, and resources, that are not entirely within their
control. Letting those covered entities face lawsuits for failure to
comply with such unreasonable compliance deadlines would conflict with
one of the foundational precepts of law, that no one is bound to do
what is impossible.\63\ Although those entities could prevail on a
defense, that does not mitigate the litigation risks described here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.S. 536, 554 (1884);
12 Co. Rep. 89 (1738 ed.); see also Publius Juventius Celsus, Digest
50.17.185 (Justinian, 533 A.D.) (``Impossibilium nulla obligatio
est.'') (meaning there is no obligation to do the impossible).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether the fundamental alteration or undue burden defenses apply
depends on the specific facts and circumstances; the heads of covered
entities or their designees must assess the defenses after considering
all resources available for use in the funding and operation of a
service, program, or activity, and develop a written statement of the
reasons for their conclusion that either of the defenses apply.\64\ By
extending the 2024 final rule's compliance dates, covered entities can
avoid spending time and resources assessing the application of these
defenses and developing written analysis, and they can instead
specifically focus on compliance efforts. This will ultimately lead to
greater accessibility for individuals with disabilities because more
time and resources will be devoted directly to compliance with the
substantive requirements of the 2024 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ 28 CFR 35.204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2024 final rule, the Department attempted to strike the
appropriate balance between preserving public entities' limited
resources and ensuring accessibility for individuals with disabilities.
But the advancement and availability of technology did not meet the
Department's expectations when it had struck that balance. Advanced
technology, such as generative AI, does not yet reliably automate the
remediation of inaccessible content at scale, and staff resources and
availability continue to pose significant challenges. Nor did covered
entities' resources meet the Department's expectations. The less public
entities can rely on technology to make their web content and mobile
apps accessible, the more they will need to rely on manual work
instead. This interplay is highlighted by the recent concerns raised
about the 2024 final rule's compliance dates.
Because of circumstances outside of the Department's and covered
entities' control, both in covered entities' resources and the
availability of technology, the Department believes those deadlines are
infeasible and unfair to covered entities. Upon these new observations,
the Department again strikes a balance between covered entities'
burdens and ensuring accessibility for individuals with disabilities
and believes an extension is appropriate. Accordingly, the Department
is extending both compliance dates by one year, consistent with the
longer time frames the Department considered as regulatory alternatives
for the 2023 NPRM and 2024 final rule. The Department invites public
comment on the updated compliance dates included in this IFR. This
extension will ensure that public entities have sufficient time to
engage in appropriate processes to make their web content and mobile
apps accessible as required by the rule.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ The Department recognizes that some entities requested
additional technical assistance about the rule, but decided to
extend the compliance deadline instead, given the considerable
technical assistance resources the Department has already provided.
See, e.g., U.S. Dep't of Just., Webinar: Americans with Disabilities
Act Title II Web & Mobile Application Accessibility Rule, ADA.gov
(Jan. 16, 2025), https://www.ada.gov/title-ii-web-rule/ [https://perma.cc/HW39-7ECF]; U.S. Dep't of Just., State and Local
Governments: First Steps Toward Complying with the Americans with
Disabilities Act Title II Web and Mobile Application Accessibility
Rule, ADA.gov (Jan. 8, 2025), https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-rule-first-steps/ [https://perma.cc/SX52-53TA]; U.S. Dep't of Just.,
Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Apps Provided by State and
Local Government Entities: A Small Entity Compliance Guide, ADA.gov
(May 22, 2024), https://www.ada.gov/resources/small-entity-compliance-guide/ [https://perma.cc/66KW-3Y6M]; U.S. Dep't of Just.,
Fact Sheet: New Rule on the Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile
Apps Provided by State and Local Governments, ADA.gov (Apr. 8,
2024), https://www.ada.gov/resources/2024-03-08-web-rule/ [https://perma.cc/6EKQ-HPKB].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extending the 2024 final rule's compliance dates has additional
benefits. It will ensure that covered entities better understand the
rule's substance to achieve compliance to the benefit of persons with
disabilities. While the 2024 final rule incorporated by reference the
static 2018 version of WCAG 2.1,\66\ there are numerous resources
linked throughout the technical standard, including links to web pages
that provide supplementary explanatory information to help users
understand and meet the requirements of the technical standard, that
are dynamic and can be changed outside of the Department's rulemaking
processes.\67\ These supplementary materials alter the requirements of
WCAG 2.1. Also, their presentation and
[[Page 20908]]
maintenance outside the rule create uncertainty and confusion for
public entities as they plan for compliance. Additionally, the 2024
final rule links to a web page for WCAG 2.1 with a dialogue box that
states: ``This version is outdated! For the latest version, please look
at https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/.'' \68\ While the rule indicates the
2018 version of WCAG 2.1, and not a newer version, is incorporated by
reference,\69\ the banner could lead some public entities to question
which materials govern compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ 89 FR at 31321, 31346.
\67\ See, e.g., W3C, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
2.1, Success Criterion 1.1.1. Non-Text Content (June 5, 2018),
https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/#non-text-content
(The Success Criterion 1.1.1 section includes two general-
information links--``Understanding Non-text Content,'' which directs
to W3C, Understanding SC 1.1.1: Non-text Content (Level A) (Sept.
16, 2025), https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/non-text-content.html [https://perma.cc/9LFK-EZ94], and ``How to Meet Non-
text Content,'' which directs to W3C, How to Meet WCAG (Quick
Reference): 1.1.1 Non-text Content--Level A (Sept. 22, 2025),
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/quickref/?versions=2.1#non-text-content [https://perma.cc/A89Y-BATR]--both of which lead to web
pages that were last updated in 2025, after the 2024 final rule was
published.).
\68\ W3C, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 (June
5, 2018), https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/ [https://perma.cc/UB8A-GG2F].
\69\ See 89 FR at 31347 n.47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extending the compliance dates would also help resolve some
confusion over proposed exceptions in the 2023 NPRM for certain course
content used by public educational institutions.\70\ The Department
reconsidered those exceptions in light of public comments responding to
the NPRM and removed them in the 2024 final rule.\71\ But the removal
of those exceptions in the 2024 final rule could lead to confusion,
given this change, and require additional time for covered entities to
understand their compliance obligations. By extending the compliance
dates, this IFR will afford public entities time to assess the
substance of the 2024 final rule. By extending the compliance dates and
providing opportunity to comment, this IFR also will afford those
public entities an opportunity to comment on the rule though they did
not anticipate its application to them given the exceptions contained
in the 2023 NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ 88 FR at 52019.
\71\ See 89 FR at 31371-74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department recognizes that individuals with disabilities and
disability advocacy organizations also expect the rule to come into
effect on the compliance dates listed in the 2024 final rule. The
Department considered and weighed the reliance interests of these
individuals and organizations when developing this IFR. The Department
recognizes, for example, that the one-year extension will mean that an
individual with a disability may need to request accessible versions of
certain electronic documents from a public entity and wait for those
requests to be fulfilled.
The Department considered such interests in setting the one-year
date extensions included in this IFR. The Department believes this IFR
might benefit persons with disabilities and disability advocacy
organizations because, as we already explained, it replaces the
potential for wasted time and money in litigation with the opportunity
for covered entities' to achieve actual compliance with the rule.
Technology still needs time to advance and covered entities need time
to muster resources. Moreover, the extra time will allow covered
entities to focus more on compliance efforts rather than diverting time
and attention towards the undue burden and fundamental alteration
defenses, even prior to any litigation. As a result, extending the
compliance deadlines could allow for efficient preparation for full
compliance with the 2024 final rule's substance. Accordingly, the
Department believes that extending the compliance dates through this
IFR will provide more certainty and predictability and lead to greater
accessibility for individuals with disabilities.
While this IFR is limited to extending the 2024 final rule's
compliance dates, the Department plans to engage in future rulemaking
processes related to the substantive requirements of the 2024 final
rule. During the extension period, the Department will consider issuing
an NPRM providing members of the public with an opportunity to comment
on the substance of the 2024 final rule and any changes proposed by the
Department. If the Department does not issue such an NPRM and if
circumstances suggesting further delays of this deadline do not exist,
the Department fully anticipates implementing the regulation at the new
deadline. Regardless of the compliance dates, covered entities have an
ongoing obligation to ensure that their services, programs, and
activities offered using web content and mobile apps are accessible to
individuals with disabilities in accordance with their existing
obligations under title II of the ADA.
III. Regulatory Amendments
This IFR extends by one year the compliance dates included in
Sec. Sec. 35.200(b)(1) and (2) of the Department's regulations
implementing title II. As discussed in Sections I and II of this
preamble, these regulatory amendments are needed to make sure that
State and local government entities have sufficient time to achieve
compliance with the requirements of the 2024 final rule in light of
their reported resource constraints, staffing limitations, and slow
technological advancement as the rule's compliance dates imminently
approach. Absent these amendments, public entities would face burdens
from rushed compliance efforts in advance of the compliance dates and
significant litigation risk after the dates pass. The amendments do not
alter any other provisions of the 2024 final rule.
Section 35.200(b) establishes the compliance dates by which State
and local government entities must make sure that the web content and
mobile applications they provide or make available, directly or through
contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, comply with the
requirements of the 2024 final rule. Before this IFR, paragraph (b)(1)
required public entities with a total population of 50,000 or more to
begin complying with the rule on April 24, 2026.\72\ Paragraph (b)(2)
required public entities with a total population of less than 50,000,
as well as special district governments, to begin complying with the
rule on April 26, 2027.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 89 FR at 31337.
\73\ 89 FR 31337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This IFR amends paragraph (b)(1) by extending the compliance date
for public entities with a total population of 50,000 or more by one
year, from April 24, 2026, to April 26, 2027. It also amends paragraph
(b)(2) by extending the compliance date for public entities with a
total population of less than 50,000 and for special district
governments by one year, from April 26, 2027, to April 26, 2028.
IV. Severability
The Department's position is that each of the amendments in this
IFR serve a vital, related, but distinct purpose. The Department also
confirms that each of the amendments is intended to operate
independently of each other and that the potential invalidity of one
amendment should not affect the other amendments. The Department would
adopt any of the amendments independent of, and regardless of, the
invalidity of a separate amendment.
As discussed, this rulemaking will amend the 2024 final rule's
compliance dates so that large public entities would have until April
26, 2027, to comply with the rule and small entities would have until
April 26, 2028, to comply with the same. Each of these extensions are
severable.
V. Regulatory Process Matters
A. Administrative Procedure Act
The Department issues this IFR without prior public notice and
comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and without a delayed effective
date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), notice and public procedures are not
required when an agency, for good cause, finds that such procedures are
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
[[Page 20909]]
interest,'' and the agency incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of the reasons therefore in the rulemaking. This IFR is
limited to extending the compliance dates. As noted elsewhere in this
notice, the Department included the longer time frame it is adopting
today as a regulatory alternative in the 2023 NPRM and evaluated the
cost of that approach in the Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with
that rulemaking. Given the recency of that rulemaking and the
materially identical public comment considerations, the Department
believes that a new round of notice and comment is unnecessary.
In addition, the compliance dates in the 2024 final rule are
quickly approaching, including the immediate first compliance date of
April 24, 2026. As discussed in Sections I and II of this preamble,
circumstances outside of the Department's and covered entities' control
make these regulatory amendments needed to ensure State and local
government entities have sufficient time to achieve compliance with the
requirements of the 2024 final rule. This is in light of the
Department's belief that it overestimated the advancement and
availability of technology to make web content and mobile apps
accessible when it set the original compliance dates, and in light of
the reported resource constraints and staffing limitations facing
public entities as those dates imminently approach. Absent these
amendments, public entities would be subject to significant litigation
risk after the compliance dates passed. Because of the private right of
action, the Department does not have the option to take no enforcement
action or offer a statement of policy regarding its intent to not
enforce the rule pending improvements to the circumstances for covered
entities' compliance. Moreover, because the Department does not have
time to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective
dates of the 2024 final rule, the only way for the Department to delay
the consequences of this rule is to forgo prepublication notice and
comment. Notwithstanding the presence of good cause to promulgate this
compliance extension without notice and comment, the Department has
decided, as a voluntary matter, to promulgate this action as an IFR
with a post-promulgation 60-day public comment period.
In addition, the nature of this IFR is to delay restrictions,
rather than impose new ones, which alleviates the central concern of
the Administrative Procedure Act to create ``safeguards . . . against
arbitrary official encroachment on private rights.'' \74\ When an
agency does not burden regulated parties ``it generally does not
exercise its coercive power over'' those parties ``and thus does not
infringe upon areas that courts often are called upon to protect.''
\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 644 (1950);
see also Douglas H. Ginsburg, Steven Menashi, Our Illiberal
Administrative Law, 10 NYU J.L. & Liberty 475, 521 (2016) (``The APA
was intended to give the public a way to get relief from
administrative excess.'').
\75\ Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985) (emphasis
omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the Department finds that following pre-
publication notice-and-comment procedures for this rulemaking would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B).
In addition, this IFR is effective immediately without a delayed
effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1), there is no requirement for a delayed effective date for
substantive rules that ``grant[ ] or recognize[ ] an exemption or
relieve[ ] a restriction.'' This IFR relieves a restriction, in the
form of existing dates for compliance with regulatory requirements.
B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Review)
The Department has determined that this IFR is an economically
``[s]ignificant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order (``E.O.'') 12866.\76\ Accordingly, this rule has been submitted
to OMB for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 58 FR 51735, 51738 (Sept. 30, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This IFR has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with section
1(b) of E.O. 12866 \77\ and with section 1(b) of E.O. 13563,\78\ which
supplements and reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866. These orders
direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.\79\ Both orders also
recognize that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify and
provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may
consider and discuss qualitative values that are difficult or
impossible to quantify.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ 58 FR at 51735-36.
\78\ 76 FR 3821, 3821 (Jan. 18, 2011).
\79\ 58 FR at 51735; 76 FR at 3821.
\80\ 58 FR at 51735; 76 FR at 3821.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in Sections I and II of this preamble, the Department
identified recent communications submitted to the Federal Government
indicating that the Department overestimated the advancement and
availability of technology to make web content and mobile apps
accessible when setting the compliance dates in the 2024 final rule.
There are also reported resource constraints and staffing limitations
for public entities as they work towards compliance with the rule. This
IFR adjusts the 2024 final rule's compliance dates in light of these
recent communications to make sure public entities have sufficient time
to begin complying with the rule.
Data limitations make the costs and benefits of this IFR difficult
to quantify. However, the Department assessed the costs and benefits of
these one-year longer compliance dates in the Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis (``FRIA'') that accompanied the 2024 final rule.\81\ With the
longer dates, the rule was expected to generate 10-year average
annualized net benefits of $1.3 billion using a 7 percent discount
rate.\82\ The cost-benefit analysis in the FRIA for the longer dates
differs from the FRIA's cost-benefit analysis for the original
compliance dates this IFR replaces. However, the Department believes
the FRIA's analysis of the longer compliance dates better approximates
the costs and benefits of the 2024 final rule's requirements. Because
the Department overestimated the advancement and availability of
technology to make web content and mobile apps accessible, and because
public entities face reported resource constraints and staffing
limitations as they work towards compliance, some content will not be
made accessible until after the original compliance dates. As a result,
the benefits of making the content accessible will not be realized
until after those dates. This IFR does not impose new substantive
requirements and it does not expand the scope of existing obligations.
Instead, by extending the compliance deadlines established in the 2024
final rule, the Department expects this IFR to better align with the
current status of compliance. The IFR also mitigates public entities'
litigation exposure associated with impending compliance deadlines, and
it avoids burdens to covered entities from rushed compliance efforts.
Despite the difficulties of estimating the cost, the Department
estimates the savings to small entities as set forth in the below Cost
Estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ 2024 Cost-Benefit Analysis, supra note 33, at 172-78.
\82\ The 2024 rule was expected to generate the 10-year average
annualized benefits of $4,509.5 million, while incurring the 10-year
average annualized costs of $3,249 million using a 7 percent
discount rate. Id. at 175-78 (Tables 76 & 78).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the foregoing, the Department believes that this IFR is
[[Page 20910]]
consistent with the principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563, including
the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, the Department
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs and select a regulatory approach that maximizes net
benefits.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See 58 FR at 51735; 76 FR at 3821.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Cost Savings Estimate
The IFR delays the compliance date by one year, generating an
estimated $2.775 billion in present-value cost savings over a 10-year
horizon (7% discount rate), or $395 million annualized. This reflects
the time value of money: Pushing the large first-year implementation
cost into the future reduces its present value, while the final year of
recurring costs falls outside the 10-year window entirely. Small
entities capture approximately $1.47 billion (53%) of these savings in
present value, or $210 million annualized. This share reflects a
corrected estimate of small entity costs drawn from the FRIA,\84\ which
places total small entity compliance costs at $13.1 billion (53% of the
$24.7 billion total 10-year cost estimate).\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See 89 FR at 31334 (Table 14).
\85\ See 89 FR at 31332 (Table 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumptions:
First-year implementation cost: $16,949 million \86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See 89 FR at 31331 (Table 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual recurring cost (each subsequent year): $1,990 million
\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See 89 FR at 31331 (Table 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small entity share of total costs: 53%
Discount rate: 7% (consistent with OMB Circular A-4)
Analytic horizon: 10 years from the effective date
Mechanism: Under the status quo, regulated entities incur the
$16,949 million implementation cost in Year 1, followed by $1,990
million per year in Years 2-10. Under this IFR, those same costs are
shifted forward by one year: Implementation occurs in Year 2, recurring
costs in Years 3-10. Two things follow:
1. A discounting effect on the large upfront cost. The $16,949
million implementation cost, discounted at 7%, falls from $15,840
million (Year 1) to $14,804 million (Year 2)--a savings of
approximately $1,036 million in present value.
2. A truncation of the final recurring year. Because we hold the
analytic window fixed at 10 years, this IFR includes only 8 years of
recurring costs (Years 3-10) versus 9 under the status quo (Years 2-
10). The 10th-year recurring cost of $1,990 million, which would have a
present value of roughly $1,012 million, drops out. However, this is
partially offset by the fact that the recurring costs in Years 3-10 are
identical under both scenarios.
Table 1--10-Year Undiscounted and Discounted (at 7%) Cost Savings From a One-Year Implementation Delay
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status quo IFR
Year ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cost savings Undiscounted Discounted
Undiscounted Discounted Undiscounted Discounted
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
1............................................. $16,949 $15,840 $0 $0 -$16,949 -$15,840
2............................................. 1,990 1,738 16,949 14,804 14,959 13,066
3............................................. 1,990 1,625 1,990 1,625 0 0
4............................................. 1,990 1,518 1,990 1,518 0 0
5............................................. 1,990 1,419 1,990 1,419 0 0
6............................................. 1,990 1,326 1,990 1,326 0 0
7............................................. 1,990 1,239 1,990 1,239 0 0
8............................................. 1,990 1,158 1,990 1,158 0 0
9............................................. 1,990 1,083 1,990 1,083 0 0
10............................................ 1,990 1,012 1,990 1,012 0 0
Totals.................................... 34,862 27,959 32,872 25,185 -1,990 -2,775
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The undiscounted difference ($1,990 million) simply equals the one
year of recurring costs that falls outside the 10-year window. The
discounted difference ($2,775 million) is larger because the IFR defers
the heavy upfront cost by one year.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ When a 3% discount rate is applied instead of the 7%
discount rate, the present value (PV) of 10-year cost saving is
$2,355 million and the annualized cost saving is $276 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table below disaggregates total cost savings into all entities
and small entities:
Table 2--Present-Value and Annualized Cost Savings From a One-Year Implementation Delay, Disaggregated by Entity
Size
[7% discount rate; millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small entity
Metric All entities Small entities share %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original 10-year total costs............ $24,688 million........... $13,095 million........... 53.0
10-year PV savings (7% discount)........ 2,775 million............. 1,472 million............. 53.0
Annualized savings (7% discount)........ 395 million............... 210 million............... 53.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small entities (typically governments with populations below
50,000) account for more than half of all cost savings. This reflects
the compliance cost structure: While per-entity costs may be lower for
small governments, the aggregate relief is substantial because small
entities are numerous and the delay avoids a synchronized, resource-
[[Page 20911]]
intensive compliance push in the near term.
The Department was unable to quantify the impact on benefits of
this one-year delay and accordingly was unable to calculate the impact
on net benefits.
C. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
E.O. 14192 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to
identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed when the
agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise
promulgates a new regulation.\89\ In furtherance of this requirement,
section 3(c) of the order requires that ``any new incremental costs
associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law,
be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least
10 prior regulations.'' \90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 90 FR 9065, 9065 (Jan. 31, 2025).
\90\ 90 FR 9065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deregulatory actions include final actions that reduce compliance
costs below zero, which may include repealing, revising, or
streamlining existing regulations.\91\ This IFR revises the 2024 final
rule by extending the rule's compliance dates by one year. As explained
in the preamble, extending the compliance dates is expected to avoid
burdens to covered entities from rushed compliance efforts. It is also
expected to reduce litigation exposure associated with the 2024 final
rule's impending compliance deadlines, including potential liability
for attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Department
believes that this IFR constitutes a deregulatory action for purposes
of E.O. 14192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Memorandum for Regulatory Policy Officers at Executive
Departments and Agencies and Managing and Executive Directors of
Certain Agencies and Commissions from Jeffrey B. Clark Sr., Acting
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB M-
25-20, Re: Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192,
Titled ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation'' at 4-6 (Mar.
26, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Executive Order 14294 (Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal
Regulations)
E.O. 14294 requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal
regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to
``explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the
authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to'' each
element of those offenses.\92\ This rule does not impose a criminal
regulatory penalty and is thus exempt from E.O. 14294's requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ 90 FR 20363, 20363 (May 9, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E.O. 13132 requires Executive Branch agencies to consider whether a
rule will have federalism implications--that is, whether the rule will
have substantial direct effects on State or local governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ 64 FR 43255, 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title II of the ADA applies to the services, programs, and
activities of State and local government entities and, therefore,
implicates federalism considerations. State and local government
entities have been subject to title II for decades. Accordingly, the
application of title II and the Department's implementing regulations
is not novel for State or local governments.
This IFR does not alter the substantive requirements adopted in the
2024 final rule, including the scope of coverage or the interaction
between Federal requirements and State or local law. Instead, this rule
solely extends the 2024 final rule's compliance dates. As a result,
this IFR does not impose new obligations on State or local governments,
affect States' policymaking discretion, or change the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Because this IFR merely adjusts the timing of compliance with
existing requirements and is expected to reduce litigation exposure for
State and local governments and avoid burdens to covered entities from
rushed compliance efforts, the Department has determined that it does
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement under E.O. 13132.
F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This IFR meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a)
and (b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to specify provisions in clear language.\94\
Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the order,\95\ nothing in this
proposed or any previous rule (or in any administrative policy,
directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing) directly
relating to the program that is the subject of this IFR is intended to
create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See 61 FR 4729, 4731-32 (Feb. 5, 1996).
\95\ 61 FR 4731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This IFR does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \96\ because, for the reasons
described above in Section V.A of this preamble, the Department for
good cause finds that following notice and public procedures for this
rulemaking would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest and therefore issues this IFR without notice and public
procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).\97\ The Department seeks feedback
on the impact of the 2024 final rule and the IFR, including the number
of governmental entities affected by these rules, and on the costs and
benefits of both initiatives. The Department also seeks feedback on
whether the agency should publish additional rulemaking to consider
additional regulatory alternatives that could make the 2024 final rule
less costly for small governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ 5 U.S.C. 603,604.
\97\ See Or. Trollers Ass'n v. Gutierrez, 452 F.3d 1104, 1123-24
(9th Cir. 2006) (noting that the RFA does not apply when an agency
validly invokes an exception to the public notice-and-comment
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Plain Language Instructions
The Department makes every effort to promote clarity and
transparency in its rulemaking. In any rule, there is a tension between
drafting language that is simple and straightforward and drafting
language that gives full effect to issues of legal interpretation. The
Department operates a toll-free ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301
(voice) or 1-833-610-1264 (TTY) that the public is welcome to call to
get assistance understanding anything in this proposed rule. If any
commenter has suggestions for how the regulations could be written more
clearly, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph above
for agency contact information.
I. Congressional Review Act
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined
that this rule meets the criteria for a ``major rule'' set forth by
Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act).\98\ This rule will
result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; but
not a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects
on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of companies based in the United States to compete with
foreign-based
[[Page 20912]]
companies in domestic and export markets. The rule merely extends the
compliance dates in the 2024 final rule by one year. Doing so does not
impose any new obligations on any public entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed above in the Administrative Procedure Act
section, the Department issues this IFR without notice and comment or a
delayed effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(1).
Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 808(2), the requirement for a 60-day
delayed effective date does not apply to this rule.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 excludes from coverage
under that Act any proposed or final Federal regulation that
``establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, age, handicap, or disability.'' \100\ Accordingly, this
rulemaking is not subject to the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 2 U.S.C. 1503(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects for 28 CFR Part 35
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights,
Communications, Incorporation by reference, Individuals with
disabilities, State and local requirements.
By the authority vested in me as Attorney General by law, including
5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; sections 201 and 204 of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, Public Law 101-335, as amended; and section 505
of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Public Law 110-325, 28 CFR part 35
is amended as follows:
PART 35--NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 42 U.S.C. 12134,
12131, and 12205a.
Subpart H--Web and Mobile Accessibility
Sec. 35.200 [Amended]
0
2. Section 35.200 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the text ``April 24, 2026'' and adding
in its place the text ``April 26, 2027''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the text ``April 26, 2027'' and adding
in its place the text ``April 26, 2028''.
Dated: April 16, 2026.
Todd Blanche,
Acting Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2026-07663 Filed 4-17-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-13-P