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

As Enacted

Cited in

Court	Justice Department
Citation	88 FR 51948
Published date	04 August 2023
Record Number	2023-15823

51948

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules

42 U.S.C. 12132.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 35

[CRT Docket No. 144; AG Order No. 5729–

2023]

RIN 1190–AA79

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

: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY

: The Department of Justice

(‘‘Department’’) is proposing to revise

the regulation implementing title II of

the Americans with Disabilities Act

(‘‘ADA’’) in order to establish specific

requirements, including the adoption of

specific technical standards, for making

accessible the services, programs, and

activities offered by State and local

Government entities to the public

through the web and mobile apps.

DATES

: Written comments must be

postmarked, and electronic comments

must be submitted, on or before October

3, 2023. 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. Written

comments postmarked on or before the

last day are considered timely even

though they may be received after the

end of the comment period. Late

comments are highly disfavored. The

Department is not required to consider

late comments.

ADDRESSES

: You may submit comments,

identified by RIN 1190–AA79 (or Docket

ID No. 144), by any one of the following

methods:

•Federal eRulemaking Website:

www.regulations.gov. Follow the

website’s instructions for submitting

comments.

•Regular U.S. Mail: Disability Rights

Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, P.O. Box 440528,

Somerville, MA 02144.

•Overnight, Courier, or Hand

Delivery: Disability Rights Section, Civil

Rights Division, U.S. Department of

Justice, 150 M St. NE, 9th Floor,

Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Disability

Rights Section, Civil Rights Division,

U.S. Department of Justice, at (202) 307–

0663 (voice or TTY). 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 NPRM 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 NPRM is also available on

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–AA79’’ 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 or respond

to a specific question, explain the

reason for any recommended change,

and include data, information, or

authority that support 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 they determine 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. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Proposed Rule and Need

for the Rule

Title II of the ADA provides that no

qualified individual with a disability

shall, by reason of such disability, be

excluded from participation in or

denied the benefits of the services,

programs, or activities of a State or local

government entity.

The Department

uses the phrases ‘‘State and local

government entities’’ and ‘‘public

entities’’ interchangeably throughout

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(‘‘NPRM’’) to refer to ‘‘public entities’’

as defined in 42 U.S.C. 12131(1) that are

covered under part A of title II of the

ADA. The Department has consistently

made clear that the title II

nondiscrimination provision applies to

all services, programs, and activities of

public entities, including those

provided via the web. It also includes

those provided via mobile applications

(‘‘apps’’), which, as discussed in the

proposed definition, are software

applications that are designed to be

downloaded and run on mobile devices

such as smartphones and tablets. In this

NPRM, the Department proposes

technical standards for web content and

mobile app accessibility to give public

entities greater clarity in exactly how to

meet their ADA obligations and to help

ensure equal access to public entities’

services, programs, and activities (also

referred to as ‘‘government services’’) for

people with disabilities.

Public entities are increasingly

providing the public access to

government services through their web

content and mobile apps. For example,

government websites and mobile apps

often allow the public to obtain

information or correspond with local

officials without having to wait in line

or be placed on hold. Members of the

public can also pay fines, apply for State

benefits, renew State-issued

identification, register to vote, file taxes,

request copies of vital records, and

complete numerous other tasks via

government websites. Individuals can

often perform many of these same

functions on mobile apps. Additionally,

as discussed further, web- and mobile

app-based access to these programs and

activities has become especially critical

since the start of the COVID–19

pandemic. Often, however, State and

local government entities’ web- and

mobile app-based services are not

designed accessibly and as a result are

not equally available to individuals with

disabilities.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:49 Aug 03, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04AUP2.SGM 04AUP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

51949

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules

42 U.S.C. 12101(a)(7).

42 U.S.C. 12101–12213.

42 U.S.C. 12131–65.

See 42 U.S.C. 12134. Section 229(a) and section

244 of the ADA direct the Secretary of

Transportation to issue regulations implementing

part B of title II, except for section 223. See 42

U.S.C. 12149, 12164.

Memorandum for Federal Agency Civil Rights

Directors and General Counsels from the Office of

the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights

Division, Department of Justice, https://

www.justice.gov/crt/file/1466601/download

[https://perma.cc/YN3G-J7F9].

See W3C

, Web Content Accessibility

Guidelines 2.1 (June 5, 2018), https://www.w3.org/

TR/WCAG21/#dfn-specific-sensory-experience

[https://perma.cc/5554-T2R2].

(MIT, ERCIM,

Keio, Beihang). This document includes material

copied from or derived from https://www.w3.org/

TR/WCAG21/ [https://perma.cc/H2GG-WJVK].

It is critical to ensure that people with

disabilities can access important web

content and mobile apps quickly, easily,

independently, and equally. Just as

steps can exclude people who use

wheelchairs, inaccessible web content

can exclude people with a range of

disabilities from accessing government

services. For example, access to voting

information, up-to-date health and

safety resources, and mass transit

schedules and fare information may

depend on having access to websites

and mobile apps. With accessible web

content and mobile apps, people with

disabilities can access government

services independently and in some

cases with more privacy. By allowing

people with disabilities to engage more

fully with their governments, accessible

web content and mobile apps also

promote the equal enjoyment of

fundamental constitutional rights, such

as the rights to freedom of speech,

assembly, association, petitioning, and

due process of law.

Accordingly, the Department is

proposing technical requirements to

provide concrete standards to public

entities on how to fulfill their

obligations under title II to provide

equal access to all of their services,

programs, and activities that are

provided via the web and mobile apps.

The Department believes the

requirements described in this rule are

necessary to ensure ‘‘equality of

opportunity, full participation,

independent living, and economic self-

sufficiency’’ for individuals with

disabilities, as set forth in the ADA.

B. Legal Authority

On July 26, 1990, President George

H.W. Bush signed into law the ADA, a

comprehensive civil rights law

prohibiting discrimination on the basis

of disability.

Title II of the ADA, which

this rule addresses, applies to State and

local government entities. Title II

extends the prohibition on

discrimination established by section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, to all activities

of State and local government entities

regardless of whether the entities

receive Federal financial assistance.

Part A of title II protects qualified

individuals with disabilities from

discrimination on the basis of disability

in services, programs, and activities

provided by State and local government

entities. Section 204(a) of the ADA

directs the Attorney General to issue

regulations implementing part A of title

II but exempts matters within the scope

of the authority of the Secretary of

Transportation under section 223, 229,

or 244.

The Department of Justice is the only

Federal agency with authority to issue

regulations under title II, part A, of the

ADA regarding the accessibility of State

and local government entities’ web

content and mobile apps. In addition,

under Executive Order 12250, the

Department of Justice is responsible for

ensuring consistency and effectiveness

in the implementation of section 504

across the Federal Government (aside

from provisions relating to equal

employment). Given Congress’s intent

for parity between section 504 and title

II of the ADA, the Department must also

ensure that any interpretations of

section 504 are consistent with title II

(and vice versa).

The Department,

therefore, also has a lead role in

coordinating interpretations of section

504 (again, aside from provisions

relating to equal employment),

including its application to websites

and mobile apps, across the Federal

Government.

C. Overview of Key Provisions of This

Proposed Regulation

In this NPRM, the Department

proposes to add a new subpart H to the

title II ADA regulation, 28 CFR part 35,

that will set forth technical

requirements for ensuring that web

content that State and local government

entities make available to members of

the public or use to offer services,

programs, and activities to members of

the public is readily accessible to and

usable by individuals with disabilities.

Web content is information or sensory

experience that is communicated to the

user by a web browser or other software.

This includes text, images, sounds,

videos, controls, animations, navigation

menus, and documents. Examples of

sensory experiences include content

like visual works of art or musical

performances.

Proposed subpart H also

sets forth technical requirements for

ensuring the accessibility of mobile

apps that a public entity makes

available to members of the public or

uses to offer services, programs, or

activities to members of the public.

The Department proposes to adopt an

internationally recognized accessibility

standard for web access, the Web

Content Accessibility Guidelines

(‘‘WCAG’’) 2.1

published in June 2018,

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/

[https://perma.cc/H2GG-WJVK], as the

technical standard for web content and

mobile app accessibility under title II of

the ADA. As will be explained in more

detail, the Department is proposing to

require that public entities comply with

the WCAG 2.1 Level AA success criteria

and conformance requirements. The

applicable technical standard will be

referred to hereinafter as ‘‘WCAG 2.1.’’

The applicable conformance level will

be referred to hereinafter as ‘‘Level AA.’’

To the extent there are differences

between WCAG 2.1 Level AA and the

standards articulated in this rule, the

standards articulated in this rule

prevail. As noted below, WCAG 2.1

Level AA is not restated in full in this

rule but is instead incorporated by

reference.

In recognition of the challenges that

small public entities may face with

respect to resources for implementing

the proposed new requirements, the

Department is proposing to stagger the

compliance dates for public entities

according to their total population.

Total population refers to the size of the

public entity’s population according to

the U.S. Census Bureau or, if the public

entity does not have a specific

population but belongs to another

jurisdiction that does, the population of

the jurisdiction to which the entity

belongs. This NPRM proposes that a

public entity with a total population of

50,000 or more must ensure that web

content and mobile apps it makes

available to members of the public or

uses to offer services, programs, or

activities to members of the public,

comply with WCAG 2.1 Level AA

success criteria and conformance

requirements two years after the

publication of the final rule. A public

entity with a total population of less

than 50,000 would have three years to

comply with these requirements. In

addition, all special district

governments would have three years to

comply with these requirements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:49 Aug 03, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04AUP2.SGM 04AUP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

51950

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules

ABLE

1—C

OMPLIANCE

ATES FOR

WCAG 2.1 L

EVEL

Public entity size Compliance date

Fewer than 50,000 persons/Special district governments ....................... Three years after publication of the final rule.

50,000 or more persons ........................................................................... Two years after publication of the final rule.

In addition, the Department is

proposing to create an exception from

the web accessibility requirements for

certain categories of web content, which

are described in detail in the section-by-

section analysis.

If web content is excepted, that means

that the public entity does not need to

make the content conform to WCAG 2.1

Level AA, unless there is an applicable

limitation to the exception. The

proposed limitations describe situations

in which the otherwise excepted

content must conform to WCAG 2.1

Level AA.

As will be explained more fully, the

Department is proposing seven

exceptions with some limitations: (1)

archived web content; (2) preexisting

conventional electronic documents; (3)

web content posted by third parties on

a public entity’s website; (4) third-party

web content linked from a public

entity’s website; (5) course content on a

public entity’s password-protected or

otherwise secured website for admitted

students enrolled in a specific course

offered by a public postsecondary

institution; (6) class or course content

on a public entity’s password-protected

or otherwise secured website for

students enrolled, or parents of students

enrolled, in a specific class or course at

a public elementary or secondary

school; and (7) conventional electronic

documents that are about a specific

individual, their property, or their

account and that are password-protected

or otherwise secured. The proposed

exception for preexisting conventional

electronic documents would also apply

to conventional electronic documents

available through mobile apps. As

discussed further, if one of these

exceptions applies without a limitation,

then the public entity’s excepted web

content or mobile app would not need

to comply with the proposed rule’s

accessibility requirements. However,

each exception is limited in some way.

If a limitation applies to an exception,

then the public entity would need to

ensure that its web content or mobile

app complies with the proposed rule’s

accessibility requirements. The

Department is proposing these

exceptions—with certain limitations

explained in detail later in this NPRM—

because it believes that requiring public

entities to make the particular content

described in these categories accessible

under all circumstances could be too

burdensome at this time. In addition,

requiring accessibility in all

circumstances may divert important

resources from providing access to key

web content and mobile apps that

public entities make available or use to

offer services, programs, and activities.

However, upon request from a specific

individual, a public entity may have to

provide web content or content in

mobile apps to that individual in an

accessible format to comply with the

entity’s existing obligations under other

regulatory provisions implementing title

II of the ADA, even if an exception

applies without a limitation. For

example, archived town meeting

minutes from 2011 might be excepted

from the requirement to comply with

WCAG 2.1 Level AA. But, if a person

with low vision, for example, requests

an accessible version, then the town

would still need to consider the

person’s request under its existing

effective communication obligations in

28 CFR 35.160. The way that the town

does this could vary based on the facts.

For example, in some circumstances,

providing a large print version of the

minutes might satisfy the town’s

obligations, and in other circumstances

it might need to provide an electronic

version that partially complies with

WCAG.

The NPRM also proposes to make

clear the limited circumstances in

which ‘‘conforming alternate versions’’

of web pages, as defined in WCAG 2.1,

can be used as a means of achieving

accessibility. A conforming alternate

version is a separate web page that is

accessible, up to date, contains the same

information and functionality as the

inaccessible web page, and can be

reached via a conforming page or an

accessibility-supported mechanism. The

Department understands that, in

practice, it can be difficult to maintain

conforming alternate versions because it

is often challenging to keep two

different versions of web content up to

date. For this reason and others

discussed later, conforming alternate

versions are permissible only when it is

not possible to make websites and web

content directly accessible due to

technical or legal limitations. Also, the

NPRM would allow a public entity

flexibility to show that its use of other

designs, methods, or techniques as

alternatives to WCAG 2.1 Level AA

provides substantially equivalent or

greater accessibility and usability.

Additionally, the NPRM proposes that

compliance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA is

not required under the ADA to the

extent that such compliance imposes

undue financial and administrative

burdens or results in a fundamental

alteration of the services, programs, or

activities of the public entity. More

information about these proposals is

provided in the section-by-section

analysis.

D. Summary of Costs and Benefits

To estimate the potential costs and

benefits associated with this proposed

rule, the Department conducted a

Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis

(‘‘PRIA’’). The purpose of the PRIA is to

inform the public about how the

proposed rule creates costs and benefits

to society, taking into account both

quantitative and qualitative costs and

benefits. A more detailed summary of

the PRIA is included in section VI of

this preamble. The results of the

Department’s economic analysis

indicate that monetized benefits of this

rulemaking far exceed the costs.

Further, the proposed rule will benefit

individuals with disabilities uniquely

and in their day-to-day lives in many

ways that could not be quantified due

to unavailable data. Table 2 below

shows a high-level overview of the

Department’s monetized findings. Non-

monetized costs and benefits are

discussed in the text.

The Department calculated a variety

of estimated costs, including: (1) one-

time costs for familiarization with the

requirements of the rule; (2) initial

testing and remediation costs for

government websites; (3) operating and

maintenance (‘‘O&M’’) costs for

government websites; (4) initial testing

and remediation costs for mobile apps;

(5) O&M costs for mobile apps; (6)

school course remediation costs; and (7)

initial testing and remediation costs for

third-party websites that provide

services on behalf of State and local

governments. School course content,

despite primarily being hosted on

websites, is estimated as a separate

remediation cost due to its unique

structure and content, and because it is

primarily on password-protected pages

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:49 Aug 03, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04AUP2.SGM 04AUP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

51951

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules

As a point of reference, the United States Small

Business Administration advises agencies that a

potential indicator that the impact of a proposed

regulation may be ‘‘significant’’ is whether the costs

exceed 1 percent of the gross revenues of the

entities in a particular sector, although the

threshold may vary based on the particular types of

entities at issue. The Department estimates that the

costs of this rulemaking for each government entity

type are far less than 1 percent of revenues. See

Small Bus. Admin., A Guide for Government

Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act 19 (Aug. 2017), https://

advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/

How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf [https://

perma.cc/MZW6-Y3MH]; see also EPA, EPA’s

Action Development Process: Final Guidance for

EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act 24 (Nov.

2006), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-

06/documents/guidance-regflexact.pdf [https://

perma.cc/9XFZ-3EVA] (providing an illustrative

example of a hypothetical analysis under the RFA

in which, for certain small entities, economic

impact of ‘‘[l]ess than 1% for all affected small

entities’’ may be ‘‘presumed’’ to have ‘‘no

significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities’’).

See W3C

, What’s New in WCAG 2.1 (Aug. 13,

2020), https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-

guidelines/wcag/new-in-21/ [https://perma.cc/

W8HK-Z5QK]; W3C

, Web Content Accessibility

Guidelines 2.1 (June 5, 2018), https://www.w3.org/

TR/WCAG21/ [https://perma.cc/29PG-YX3N].

Throughout this proposed rule, the Department

uses the phrase ‘‘individuals without relevant

disabilities’’ to refer to individuals without vision,

hearing, cognitive, or manual dexterity disabilities.

Individuals without these disabilities may have

other types of disabilities, or they may be

individuals without disabilities, but to simplify the

discussion in this proposed rule, ‘‘individuals

without relevant disabilities’’ will be used to mean

individuals without one of these four types of

disabilities.

and therefore unobservable to the

Department. The remediation costs

include both time and software

components. Annualized costs are

calculated over a 10-year period that

includes both the three-year

implementation period and the seven

years post-implementation. Annualized

costs over this 10-year period are

estimated at $2.8 billion assuming a 3

percent discount rate or $2.9 billion

assuming a 7 percent discount rate. This

includes $15.8 billion in

implementation costs accruing during

the first three years (the implementation

period), undiscounted, and $1.8 billion

in annual O&M costs during the next

seven years. All values are presented in

2021 dollars as 2022 data were not yet

available.

To consider the relative magnitude of

the estimated costs of this proposed

regulation, the Department compares

the costs to revenues for public entities.

Because the costs for each government

entity type are estimated to be well

below 1 percent of revenues, the

Department does not believe the rule

will be unduly burdensome or costly for

public entities.

Benefits of this rulemaking will

accrue particularly to individuals with

certain types of disabilities. For

purposes of the PRIA, the Department

has determined that WCAG 2.1 Level

AA primarily benefits individuals with

vision, hearing, cognitive, and manual

dexterity disabilities because the WCAG

2.1 standards are intended to address

barriers that often impede access for

people with these disability types.

The

Department quantified benefits to

individuals with these four types of

disabilities. Individuals with other types

of disabilities may also benefit but, due

to data limitations and uncertainties,

benefits to these individuals are not

directly quantified. Additionally,

because accessibly designed web

content and mobile apps are easier for

everyone to use, benefits will also

accrue to people without relevant

disabilities

who access State and local

government entities’ web content and

mobile apps.

The Department monetized benefits

for people with vision, hearing,

cognitive, and manual dexterity

disabilities as well as people without

these disabilities. These benefits

included time savings for current users

of State and local government entities’

web content; time savings for those who

switch from other modes of accessing

State and local government entities’

services, programs, or activities (e.g.,

phone or in person) to web access or

begin to participate in these services,

programs, or activities for the first time;

time savings for current mobile app

users; time savings for students and

their parents; and earnings from

additional educational attainment.

Annual benefits, beginning once the

rule is fully implemented, total $11.4

billion. Benefits annualized over a 10-

year period that includes both three

years of implementation and seven

years post-implementation total $9.3

billion per year, assuming a 3 percent

discount rate, and $8.9 billion per year,

assuming a 7 percent discount rate.

There are many additional benefits

that have not been monetized due to a

lack of data availability. Benefits that

cannot be monetized are discussed

qualitatively in the PRIA. These

qualitative benefits are central to this

proposed rule’s potential impact. They

include concepts at the core of any civil

rights law, such as equality and dignity.

Other benefits to individuals include

increased independence, increased

flexibility, increased privacy, reduced

frustration, decreased reliance on

companions, and increased program

participation. This proposed rule will

also benefit governments through

increased certainty about what

constitutes accessible web content,

potential reduction in litigation, and a

larger labor market pool.

Comparing annualized costs and

benefits, the monetized benefits to

society of this rulemaking far outweigh

the costs. Net annualized benefits over

the first 10 years after publication of this

proposed rule total $6.5 billion per year

using a 3 percent discount rate and $6.0

billion per year using a 7 percent

discount rate (Table 2). Additionally,

beyond this 10-year period, benefits are

likely to continue to accrue at a greater

rate than costs because many of the

costs are upfront costs and benefits tend

to have a delay before beginning to

accrue. Moreover, the Department

expects the net annualized benefit

estimate is an underestimate, as it does

not include the significant qualitative

benefits that the Department was unable

to monetize. For a complete comparison

of costs and benefits, please see Section

1.2, Summary of Benefits and Costs, in

the corresponding PRIA.

ABLE

2—10-Y

EAR

VERAGE

NNUALIZED

OMPARISON OF

OSTS AND

ENEFITS

Benefit type 3% Discount

rate 7% Discount

rate

Average annualized costs (millions) ........................................................................................................................ $2,846.6 $2,947.9

Average annualized benefits (millions) .................................................................................................................... 9,316.3 8,937.2

Net benefits (millions) .............................................................................................................................................. 6,469.7 5,989.3

Cost-to-benefit ratio ................................................................................................................................................. 0.3 0.3

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:49 Aug 03, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04AUP2.SGM 04AUP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

51952

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules

42 U.S.C. 12201(a); 28 CFR 35.103(a).

42 U.S.C. 12201(b); 28 CFR 35.103(b).

See 20 U.S.C. 1412; 34 CFR 104.32–104.33.

42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.

42 U.S.C. 12134, 12186(b).

Title III prohibits discrimination on the basis of

disability in the full and equal enjoyment of places

of public accommodation (privately operated

entities whose operations affect commerce and fall

within at least one of 12 categories listed in the

ADA, such as restaurants, movie theaters, schools,

day care facilities, recreational facilities, and

doctors’ offices) and requires newly constructed or

altered places of public accommodation—as well as

commercial facilities (facilities intended for

nonresidential use by a private entity and whose

operations affect commerce, such as factories,

warehouses, or office buildings)—to comply with

the ADA Standards. 42 U.S.C. 12181–89.

See Letter for Tom Harkin, U.S. Senator, from

Deval L. Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Civil

Rights Division, Department of Justice (Sept. 9,

1996), https://www.justice.gov/crt/foia/file/666366/

download [https://perma.cc/56ZB-WTHA].

See 42 U.S.C. 12132.

See U.S. Dep’t of Just., Guidance on Web

Accessibility and the ADA, ADA.gov (Mar. 18,

2022), https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-

guidance/ [https://perma.cc/WH9E-VTCY];

Settlement Agreement Between the United States of

America and the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit

District (Dec. 14, 2021), https://www.ada.gov/

champaign-urbana_sa.pdf [https://perma.cc/VZU2-

E6FZ]; Consent Decree, United States v. The

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (Nov. 20, 2022), https://

www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1553291/

download [https://perma.cc/9AMQ-GPP3]; Consent

Decree, Dudley v. Miami Univ. (Oct. 17, 2016),

https://www.ada.gov/miami_university_cd.html

[https://perma.cc/T3FX-G7RZ]; Settlement

Agreement Between the United States of America

and the City and County of Denver, Colorado Under

the Americans with Disabilities Act (Jan. 8, 2018),

https://www.ada.gov/denver_pca/denver_sa.html

[https://perma.cc/U7VE-MBSG]; Settlement

Agreement Between the United States of America

and Nueces County, Texas Under the Americans

with Disabilities Act (effective Jan. 30, 2015),

https://www.ada.gov/nueces_co_tx_pca/nueces_co_

tx_sa.html [https://perma.cc/TX66-WQY7];

Settlement Agreement Between the United States of

America, Louisiana Tech University, and the Board

of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana

System Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

(July 22, 2013), https://www.ada.gov/louisiana-

tech.htm [https://perma.cc/78ES-4FQR].

II. Relationship to Other Laws

Title II of the ADA and the

Department of Justice’s implementing

regulation state that except as otherwise

provided, the ADA shall not be

construed to apply a lesser standard

than title V of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 (29 U.S.C. 791) or its

accompanying regulations.

They

further state that the ADA does not

invalidate or limit the remedies, rights,

and procedures of any other laws that

provide greater or equal protection for

people with disabilities or people

associated with them.

The Department recognizes that

entities subject to title II of the ADA

may also be subject to other statutes that

prohibit discrimination on the basis of

disability. Compliance with the

Department’s title II regulation does not

necessarily ensure compliance with

other statutes and their implementing

regulations. Title II entities are also

obligated to fulfill the ADA’s title I

requirements in their capacity as

employers, and those requirements are

distinct from the obligations under this

rule.

Education is another context in which

entities have obligations to comply with

other laws imposing affirmative

obligations regarding individuals with

disabilities. The Department of

Education’s regulations implementing

the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (‘‘IDEA’’) and section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act provide

longstanding, affirmative obligations on

covered schools to identify children

with disabilities, and both require

covered schools to provide a Free

Appropriate Public Education

(‘‘FAPE’’).

This rulemaking would

build on, and would not supplant, those

preexisting requirements. A public

entity must continue to meet all of its

existing obligations under other laws. A

discussion of how this rule adds to the

existing educational legal environment

is included under the preamble

discussion of the relevant educational

exception.

III. Background

A. ADA Statutory and Regulatory

History

The ADA broadly protects the rights

of individuals with disabilities in

important areas of everyday life, such as

in employment, access to State and local

government entities’ services, places of

public accommodation, and

transportation. The ADA also requires

newly designed and constructed or

altered State and local government

entities’ facilities, public

accommodations, and commercial

facilities to be readily accessible to and

usable by individuals with

disabilities.

Section 204(a) of title II

and section 306(b) of title III direct the

Attorney General to promulgate

regulations to carry out the provisions of

titles II and III, other than certain

provisions dealing specifically with

transportation.

Title II, part A, applies

to State and local government entities

and protects qualified individuals with

disabilities from discrimination on the

basis of disability in services, programs,

and activities provided by State and

local government entities.

On July 26, 1991, the Department

issued its final rules implementing title

II and title III, which are codified at 28

CFR part 35 (title II) and part 36 (title

III), and include the ADA Standards for

Accessible Design (‘‘ADA Standards’’).

At that time, the web was in its infancy

and was thus not used by State and

local government entities as a means of

providing services or information to the

public. Thus, web content was not

mentioned in the Department’s title II

regulation. Only a few years later,

however, as web content of general

interest became available, public

entities began using web content to

provide information to the public.

B. History of the Department’s Title II

Web-Related Interpretation and

Guidance

The Department first articulated its

interpretation that the ADA applies to

websites of covered entities in 1996.

Under title II, this includes ensuring

that individuals with disabilities are

not, by reason of such disability,

excluded from participation in or

denied the benefits of the services,

programs, and activities offered by State

and local government entities, including

those offered via the web, such as

education services, voting, town

meetings, vaccine registration, tax filing

systems, and applications for benefits.

The Department has since reiterated this

interpretation in a variety of online

contexts.

Title II of the ADA also

applies when public entities use mobile

apps to offer their services, programs,

and activities.

Many public entities now regularly

offer many of their services, programs,

and activities through web content and

mobile apps, and the Department

describes in detail the ways in which

public entities have been doing so later

in this section. To ensure equal access

to such services, programs, and

activities, the Department is

undertaking this rulemaking to provide

public entities with more specific

information about how to meet their

nondiscrimination obligations in the

web and mobile app contexts.

As with many other statutes, the

ADA’s requirements are broad and its

implementing regulations do not

include specific standards for every

obligation under the statute. This has

been the case in the context of web

accessibility under the ADA. Because

the Department has not adopted specific

technical requirements for web content

through rulemaking, public entities

have not had specific direction on how

to comply with the ADA’s general

requirements of nondiscrimination and

effective communication. However,

public entities still must comply with

these ADA obligations with respect to

their web content and mobile apps,

including before this rule’s effective

date.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:49 Aug 03, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04AUP2.SGM 04AUP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

51953

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules

U.S. Dep’t of Just., Guidance on Web

Accessibility and the ADA, ADA.gov (Mar. 18,

2022), https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-

guidance/ [https://perma.cc/874V-JK5Z].

U.S. Dep’t of Just., Accessibility of State and

Local Government websites to People with

Disabilities, ADA.gov (June 2003), https://

www.ada.gov/websites2.htm [https://perma.cc/

Z7JT-USAN].

75 FR 43460 (July 26, 2010).

See Department of Justice—Fall 2015 Statement

of Regulatory Priorities, http://www.reginfo.gov/

public/jsp/eAgenda/StaticContent/201510/

Statement_1100.html [https://perma.cc/YF2L-

FTSK].

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability;

Accessibility of Web Information and Services of

State and Local Government Entities, 81 FR 28658

(May 9, 2016).

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability;

Notice of Withdrawal of Four Previously

Announced Rulemaking Actions, 82 FR 60932 (Dec.

26, 2017).

See Letter for Charles E. Grassley, U.S. Senator,

from Stephen E. Boyd, Assistant Attorney General,

Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice (Oct.

11, 2018), https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/

media/doc/2018-10-11%20DOJ%20to

%20Grassley%20-%20ADA%20website

%20Accessibility.pdf [https://perma.cc/8JHS-

FK2Q].

The Department has consistently

heard from members of the public—

especially public entities and people

with disabilities—that there is a need

for additional information on how to

specifically comply with the ADA in

this context. In June 2003, the

Department published a document titled

‘‘Accessibility of State and Local

Government websites to People with

Disabilities’’ (https://www.ada.gov/

websites2.htm [https://perma.cc/Z7JT-

USAN]), which provides tips for State

and local government entities on ways

they can make their websites accessible

so that they can better ensure that

people with disabilities have equal

access to the services, programs, and

activities that are provided through

those websites.

In March 2022, the Department

released additional guidance addressing

web accessibility for people with

disabilities.

This technical assistance

expanded on the Department’s previous

ADA guidance by providing practical

tips and resources for making websites

accessible for both title II and title III

entities. It also reiterated the

Department’s longstanding

interpretation that the ADA applies to

all services, programs, and activities of

covered entities, including when they

are offered via the web.

The Department’s 2003 guidance on

State and local government entities’

websites noted that ‘‘an agency with an

inaccessible website may also meet its

legal obligations by providing an

alternative accessible way for citizens to

use the programs or services, such as a

staffed telephone information line,’’

while also acknowledging that this is

unlikely to provide an equal degree of

access.

The Department’s March 2022

guidance did not include 24/7 staffed

telephone lines as an alternative to

accessible websites. Given the way the

modern web has developed, the

Department no longer believes 24/7

staffed telephone lines can realistically

provide equal access to people with

disabilities. Websites—and often mobile

apps—allow the public to get

information or request a service within

just a few minutes. Getting the same

information or requesting the same

service using a staffed telephone line

takes more steps and may result in wait

times or difficulty getting the

information. For example, State and

local government entities’ websites may

allow members of the public to quickly

review large quantities of information,

like information about how to register

for government services, information on

pending government ordinances, or

instructions about how to apply for a

government benefit. Members of the

public can then use government

websites to promptly act on that

information by, for example, registering

for programs or activities, submitting

comments on pending government

ordinances, or filling out an application

for a government benefit. A member of

the public could not realistically

accomplish these tasks efficiently over

the phone. Additionally, a person with

a disability who cannot use an

inaccessible online tax form might have

to call to request assistance with filling

out either online or mailed forms, which

could involve significant delay, added

costs, and may require providing private

information such as banking details or

Social Security numbers over the phone

without the benefit of certain security

features available for online

transactions. Finally, calling a staffed

telephone line lacks the privacy of

looking up information on a website. A

caller needing public safety resources,

for example, might be unable to access

a private location to ask for help on the

phone, whereas an accessible website

would allow users to privately locate

resources. For these reasons, the

Department does not now believe that a

staffed telephone line—even if it is

offered 24/7—provides equal access in

the way that an accessible website can.

C. The Department’s Previous Web

Accessibility-Related Rulemaking

Efforts

The Department has previously

pursued rulemaking efforts regarding

website accessibility under title II. On

July 26, 2010, the Department’s advance

notice of proposed rulemaking

(‘‘ANPRM’’) titled ‘‘Accessibility of Web

Information and Services of State and

Local Government Entities and Public

Accommodations’’ was published in the

Federal Register.

The ANPRM

announced that the Department was

considering revising the regulations

implementing titles II and III of the ADA

to establish specific requirements for

State and local government entities and

public accommodations to make their

websites accessible to individuals with

disabilities. In the ANPRM, the

Department sought information

regarding what standards, if any, it

should adopt for web accessibility;

whether the Department should adopt

coverage limitations for certain entities,

like small businesses; and what

resources and services are available to

make existing websites accessible to

individuals with disabilities. The

Department also requested comments on

the costs of making websites accessible;

whether there are effective and

reasonable alternatives to make websites

accessible that the Department should

consider permitting; and when any web

accessibility requirements adopted by

the Department should become

effective. The Department received

approximately 400 public comments

addressing issues germane to both titles

II and III in response to this ANPRM.

The Department later announced that it

decided to pursue separate rulemakings

addressing website accessibility under

titles II and III.

On May 9, 2016, the Department

followed up on its 2010 ANPRM with a

detailed Supplemental ANPRM that was

published in the Federal Register. The

Supplemental ANPRM solicited public

comment about a variety of issues

regarding establishing technical

standards for web access under title II.

The Department received more than 200

public comments in response to the title

II Supplemental ANPRM.

On December 26, 2017, the

Department published a Notice in the

Federal Register withdrawing four

rulemaking actions, including the titles

II and III web rulemakings, stating that

it was evaluating whether promulgating

specific web accessibility standards

through regulations was necessary and

appropriate to ensure compliance with

the ADA.

The Department has also

previously stated that it would continue

to review its entire regulatory landscape

and associated agenda, pursuant to the

regulatory reform provisions of

Executive Order 13771 and Executive

Order 13777.

Those Executive Orders

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:49 Aug 03, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04AUP2.SGM 04AUP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

51954

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules

See Rakesh Kochhar & Jesse Bennet, U.S. Labor

Market Inches Back from the Covid–19 Shock, but

Recovery is Far from Complete, Pew Research

Center (Apr. 14, 2021), https://

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/14/u-s-

labor-market-inches-back-from-the-covid-19-shock-

but-recovery-is-far-from-complete/ [https://

perma.cc/29E5-LMXM].

See The Coronavirus Spring: The Historic

Closing of U.S. Schools (A Timeline), Education

Week (July 1, 2020), https://www.edweek.org/

leadership/the-coronavirus-spring-the-historic-

closing-of-u-s-schools-a-timeline/2020/07 [https://

perma.cc/47E8-FJ3U].

See Colleen McClain et al., The internet and

the Pandemic, Pew Research Center (Sep. 1, 2021),

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/09/01/

the-internet-and-the-pandemic/ [https://perma.cc/

4WVA-FQ9P].

See Kerry Dobransky & Eszter Hargittai,

Piercing the Pandemic Social Bubble: Disability and

Social Media Use About COVID–19, American

Behavioral Scientist (Mar. 29, 2021), https://doi.org/

10.1177/00027642211003146. A Perma archive link

was unavailable for this citation.

McClain et al., The internet and the Pandemic,

at 3.

Id.

John Lai & Nicole O. Widmar, Revisiting the

Digital Divide in the COVID–19 Era, 43 Applied

Econ. Perspectives and Pol’y 458 (2020), https://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7675734/

[https://perma.cc/Y75D-XWCT].

were revoked by Executive Order 13992

in early 2021.

The Department is now reengaging in

efforts to promulgate regulations

establishing technical standards for web

accessibility for public entities.

Accordingly, the Department has begun

this distinct rulemaking effort to address

web access under title II of the ADA.

D. Need for Department Action

1. Use of Web Content by Title II

Entities

Public entities regularly use the web

to disseminate information and offer

programs and services to the public.

Public entities use a variety of websites

to streamline their programs and

services. Members of the public

routinely make online service

requests—from requesting streetlight

repairs and bulk trash pickups to

reporting broken parking meters—and

can often check the status of a service

request online. Public entities’ websites

also offer the opportunity for people to

renew their vehicle registrations, submit

complaints, purchase event permits, and

pay traffic fines and property taxes,

making some of these otherwise time-

consuming tasks relatively easy and

expanding their availability beyond

regular business hours. Moreover,

applications for many Federal benefits,

such as unemployment benefits and

food stamps, are available through State

websites.

People also rely on public entities’

websites to engage in civic

participation, particularly when more

individuals prefer or need to stay at

home in light of changes to preferences

and behavior resulting from the COVID–

19 pandemic. The Department believes

that although many public health

measures addressing the COVID–19

pandemic are no longer in place, there

have been durable changes to State and

local government entities’ operations

and public preferences that necessitate

greater access to online services,

programs, and activities.

People can now frequently watch

local public hearings, read minutes from

community meetings, or take part in live

chats with government officials on the

websites of State and local government

entities. Many public entities allow

voters to begin the voter registration

process and obtain candidate

information on their websites.

Individuals interested in running for

local public offices can often find

pertinent information concerning

candidate qualifications and filing

requirements on these websites as well.

The websites of public entities also

include information about a range of

issues of concern to the community and

about how people can get involved in

community efforts to improve the

administration of government services.

Many public entities use online

resources to promote access to public

benefits. People can use websites of

public entities to file for unemployment

or other benefits and find and apply for

job openings. Access to these online

functions became even more crucial

during the COVID–19 pandemic, when

millions of Americans lost their jobs

and government services were often not

available in person.

As noted

previously, the Department believes that

although many of these services have

become available in person again as

COVID–19 public health measures have

ended, State and local government

entities will continue to offer these

services online due to durable shifts in

preferences and expectations resulting

from the pandemic. For example,

through the websites of State and local

government entities, business owners

can register their businesses, apply for

occupational and professional licenses,

bid on contracts to provide products

and services to public entities, and

obtain information about laws and

regulations with which they must

comply. The websites of many State and

local government entities also allow

members of the public to research and

verify business licenses online and

report unsavory business practices.

Access to these online services can be

particularly important for any services

that have not resumed in-person

availability.

Public entities are also using websites

as an integral part of public education.

Public schools at all levels, including

public colleges and universities, offer

programs, reading material, and

classroom instruction through websites.

Access to these sites became even more

critical during the COVID–19 pandemic,

when, at one point, all U.S. public

school buildings were closed.

Web

access is essential, and, during part of

the COVID–19 pandemic, it was often

the only way for State and local

government entities to provide students

with educational services, programs,

and activities like public school classes

and exams. As noted previously, the

Department believes durable changes to

preferences and behavior due to the

COVID–19 pandemic will result in

many educational activities continuing

to be offered online. Most public

colleges and universities rely heavily on

websites and other online technologies

in the application process for

prospective students; for housing

eligibility and on-campus living

assignments; course registration,

assignments, and discussion groups;

and for a wide variety of administrative

and logistical functions in which

students and staff must participate.

Similarly, in many public elementary

and secondary school settings,

communications via the web are how

teachers and administrators

communicate grades, assignments, and

administrative matters to parents and

students.

As noted previously, access to the

web has become increasingly important

as a result of the COVID–19 pandemic,

which shut down workplaces, schools,

and in-person services, and has forced

millions of Americans to stay home for

extended periods.

In response, the

American public has turned to the web

for work, activities, and learning.

fact, a study conducted in April 2021

found that 90 percent of adults say the

web ‘‘has been at least important to

them personally during the

pandemic.’’

Fifty-eight percent say it

has been essential.

Web access can be

particularly important for those who

live in rural communities and need to

travel long distances to reach certain

physical locations like schools and

libraries.

Currently, a large number of

Americans interact with public entities

remotely and many State and local

government entities provide vital

information and services for the general

public online, including information on

recreational and educational programs,

school closings, State travel restrictions,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:49 Aug 03, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04AUP2.SGM 04AUP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

51955

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules

See, e.g., Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19)

Outbreak, Maryland.gov, https://

coronavirus.maryland.gov/ [https://perma.cc/

NAW4-6KP4]; Covid19.CA, California.gov, https://

covid19.ca.gov/ [https://perma.cc/BL9C-WTJP];

Washington State Coronavirus Response,

Washington State, https://coronavirus.wa.gov/

[https://perma.cc/KLA4-KY53].

See Hannah Eichner, The Time is Now to

Vaccinate High-Risk People with Disabilities,

National Health Law Program (Mar. 15, 2021),

https://healthlaw.org/the-time-is-now-to-vaccinate-

high-risk-people-with-disabilities/ [https://

perma.cc/8CM8-9UC4].

See People with Disabilities, Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/

ncbddd/humandevelopment/covid-19/people-with-

disabilities.html?CDC_AA_

refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov

%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fneed-extra-

precautions%2Fpeople-with-disabilities.html

[https://perma.cc/WZ7U-2EQE].

See 2021 Progress Report: The Impact of

COVID–19 on People with Disabilities, National

Council on Disability (Oct. 29, 2021), https://

ncd.gov/progressreport/2021/2021-progress-report

[https://perma.cc/96L7-XMKZ].

Mona Bushnell, What Is the Difference Between

an App and a Mobile website?, Business News Daily

(updated Aug. 2, 2022), https://

www.businessnewsdaily.com/6783-mobile-website-

vs-mobile-app.html [https://perma.cc/9LKC-GUEM].

Id.

See, e.g., COVID–19 Virginia Resources,

Virginia Department of Social Services, https://

apps.apple.com/us/app/covid-19-virginia-

resources/id1507112717 [https://perma.cc/LP6N-

WC9K]; Chandra Steele, Does My State Have a

COVID–19 Vaccine App, PC Mag (updated Feb. 10,

2022), https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/does-my-

state-have-a-covid-19-vaccine-app [https://

perma.cc/H338-MCWC].

See Using Mobile Apps in Government, IBM

Ctr. for the Bus. of Gov’t, at 11 (2015), https://

www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/

Using%20Mobile%20Apps%20in%20

Government.pdf [https://perma.cc/248X-8A6C].

Id. at 32.

Id. at 31.

Id. at 8.

See Large-Scale Analysis Finds Many Mobile

Apps Are Inaccessible, University of Washington

CREATE, https://create.uw.edu/initiatives/large-

scale-analysis-finds-many-mobile-apps-are-

inaccessible/ [https://perma.cc/442K-SBCG].

food assistance and employment,

guidance for health care providers, and

workplace safety.

Access to such web-

based information and services, while

important for everyone during the

pandemic, took on heightened

importance for people with disabilities,

many of whom face a greater risk of

COVID–19 exposure, serious illness,

and death.

According to the CDC, some people

with disabilities ‘‘might be more likely

to get infected or have severe illness

because of underlying medical

conditions, congregate living settings, or

systemic health and social inequities.

All people with serious underlying

chronic medical conditions like chronic

lung disease, a serious heart condition,

or a weakened immune system seem to

be more likely to get severely ill from

COVID–19.’’

A report by the National

Council on Disability indicated that

COVID–19 has a disproportionately

negative impact on people with

disabilities’ access to healthcare,

education, and employment, among

other areas, making remote access to

these opportunities via the web even

more important.

Individuals with disabilities can often

be denied equal access to many services,

programs, and activities because many

public entities’ web content is not fully

accessible. Thus, there is a digital divide

between the ability of people with

certain types of disabilities and people

without those disabilities to access the

services, programs, and activities of

their State and local government

entities.

2. Use of Mobile Applications by Title II

Entities

The Department is also proposing that

public entities make their mobile apps

accessible under proposed § 35.200

because public entities also use mobile

apps to offer their services, programs,

and activities to the public. As

discussed, a mobile app is a software

application that runs on mobile devices.

Mobile apps are distinct from a website

that can be accessed by a mobile device

because, in part, mobile apps are not

directly accessible on the web—they are

often downloaded on a mobile device.

A mobile website, on the other hand, is

a website that is designed so that it can

be accessed by a mobile device similarly

to how it can be accessed on a desktop

computer.

Public entities use mobile apps to

provide services and reach the public in

various ways. For example, during the

COVID–19 pandemic, when many State

and local government entities’ offices

were closed, public entities used mobile

apps to inform people about benefits

and resources, to provide updates about

the pandemic, and as a means to show

proof of vaccination status, among other

things.

Also, using a public entity’s

mobile app, residents are able to submit

nonemergency service requests, such as

cleaning graffiti or repairing a street

light outage, and track the status of

these requests. Public entities’ apps take

advantage of common features of mobile

devices, such as camera and Global

Positioning System (‘‘GPS’’) functions,

so individuals can provide public

entities with a precise description and

location of issues.

These may include

issues such as potholes, physical

barriers created by illegal dumping or

parking, or curb ramps that need to be

fixed to ensure accessibility for some

people with disabilities.

Some public

transit authorities have transit apps that

use a mobile device’s GPS function to

provide bus riders with the location of

nearby bus stops and real-time arrival

and departure times.

In addition,

public entities are also using mobile

apps to assist with emergency planning

for natural disasters like wildfires;

provide information about local schools;

and promote tourism, civic culture, and

community initiatives.

3. Barriers to Web and Mobile App

Accessibility

Millions of individuals in the United

States have disabilities that can affect

their use of the web and mobile apps.

Many of these individuals use assistive

technology to enable them to navigate

websites or access information

contained on those sites. For example,

individuals who are unable to use their

hands may use speech recognition

software to navigate a website, while

individuals who are blind may rely on

a screen reader to convert the visual

information on a website into speech.

Many websites and mobile apps fail to

incorporate or activate features that

enable users with certain types of

disabilities to access all of the

information or elements on the website

or app. For instance, individuals who

are deaf may be unable to access

information in web videos and other

multimedia presentations that do not

have captions. Individuals with low

vision may be unable to read websites

or mobile apps that do not allow text to

be resized or do not provide enough

contrast. Individuals with limited

manual dexterity or vision disabilities

who use assistive technology that

enables them to interact with websites

may be unable to access sites that do not

support keyboard alternatives for mouse

commands. These same individuals,

along with individuals with cognitive

and vision disabilities, often encounter

difficulty using portions of websites that

require timed responses from users but

do not give users the opportunity to

indicate that they need more time to

respond.

Individuals who are blind or have low

vision often confront significant barriers

to accessing websites and mobile apps.

For example, a study from the

University of Washington analyzed

approximately 10,000 mobile apps and

found that many are highly inaccessible

to people with disabilities.

The study

found that 23 percent of the mobile apps

reviewed did not provide content

description of images for most of their

image-based buttons. As a result, the

functionality of those buttons is not

accessible for people who use screen

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:49 Aug 03, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04AUP2.SGM 04AUP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

51956

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules

Id.

See Chase DiBenedetto, 4 ways mobile apps

could be a lot more accessible, Mashable (Dec. 9,

2021), https://mashable.com/article/mobile-apps-

accessibility-fixes [https://perma.cc/WC6M-2EUL].

See, e.g., W3C

, Easy Checks—A First Review

of Web Accessibility, (updated Jan. 31, 2023),

https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/preliminary/

[https://perma.cc/N4DZ-3ZB8].

W3C

, Tables Tutorial (updated Feb. 16, 2023),

https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/ [https://

perma.cc/FMG2-33C4].

W3C

, Images Tutorial (Feb. 08, 2022), https://

www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/ [https://

perma.cc/G6TL-W7ZC].

W3C

, Providing Descriptive Headings (June

20, 2023), https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/

Techniques/general/G130.html [https://perma.cc/

XWM5-LL6S].

See H.R. Rep. No. 101–485, pt. 2, at 108 (1990);

42 U.S.C. 12134(a).

28 CFR part 36, app. B.

See 28 CFR 35.102.

U.S. Dep’t of Just., Accessibility of State and

Local Government websites to People with

Disabilities (2003), https://www.ada.gov/

websites2.htm [https://perma.cc/Z7JT-USAN]; U.S.

Dep’t of Just., Chapter 5: website Accessibility

Under Title II of the ADA, ADA Best Practices Tool

Kit for State and Local Governments, Ada.gov (May

7, 2007), https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/

chap5toolkit.htm [https://perma.cc/VM3M-AHDJ];

U.S. Dep’t of Just., Guidance on Web Accessibility

and the ADA, Ada.gov (Mar. 18, 2022), https://

https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/

[https://perma.cc/874V-JK5Z].

U.S. Dep’t of Just., Project Civic Access,

Ada.gov, https://www.ada.gov/civicac.htm [https://

perma.cc/B6WV-4HLQ].

See, e.g., Letter for U.S. Dep’t of Just. from

American Council of the Blind et al. (Feb. 28, 2022),

https://acb.org/accessibility-standards-joint-letter-2-

28-22 [https://perma.cc/R77M-VPH9] (citing

research showing persistent barriers in digital

accessibility); Letter for U.S. Dep’t of Just. from

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (Mar. 23,

2022), https://www.c-c-d.org/fichiers/CCD-Web-

Accessibility-Letter-to-DOJ-03232022.pdf [https://

perma.cc/Q7YB-UNKV].

National Council on Disability, The Need for

Federal Legislation and Regulation Prohibiting

Telecommunications and Information Services

Discrimination (Dec. 19, 2006), https://

www.ncd.gov/publications/2006/Dec282006

[https://perma.cc/7HW5-NF7P] (discussing how

competitive market forces have not proven

sufficient to provide individuals with disabilities

access to telecommunications and information

readers.

Additionally, other mobile

apps may be inaccessible if they do not

allow text resizing, which can provide

larger text for persons with vision

disabilities.

Furthermore, many websites provide

information visually, without features

that allow screen readers or other

assistive technology to retrieve

information on the website so it can be

presented in an accessible manner. A

common barrier to website accessibility

is an image or photograph without

corresponding text describing the image.

A screen reader or similar assistive

technology cannot ‘‘read’’ an image,

leaving individuals who are blind with

no way of independently knowing what

information the image conveys (e.g., a

simple icon or a detailed graph).

Similarly, if websites lack navigational

headings or links that facilitate

navigation using a screen reader, it will

be difficult or impossible for a someone

using a screen reader to understand.

Additionally, these websites may fail to

present tables in a way that allows the

information in the table to be

interpreted by someone who is using a

screen reader.

Web-based forms,

which are an essential part of accessing

government services, are often

inaccessible to individuals with

disabilities who use screen readers. For

example, field elements on forms,

which are the empty boxes on forms

that hold specific pieces of information,

such as a last name or telephone

number, may lack clear labels that can

be read by assistive technology.

Inaccessible form fields make it difficult

for persons using screen readers to fill

out online forms, pay fees and fines,

submit donations, or otherwise

participate in government services,

programs, or activities using a website.

Some governmental entities use

inaccessible third-party websites to

accept online payments, while others

request public input through their own

inaccessible websites. These barriers

greatly impede the ability of individuals

with disabilities to access the services,

programs, and activities offered by

public entities on the web. In many

instances, removing certain website

barriers is neither difficult nor

especially costly. For example, the

addition of invisible attributes known as

alt text or alt tags to an image helps

orient an individual using a screen

reader and allows them to gain access to

the information on the website. Alt text

can be added to the coding of a website

without any specialized equipment.

Similarly, adding headings, which

facilitate page navigation for those using

screen readers, can often be done easily

as well.

4. Voluntary Compliance With

Technical Standards for Web

Accessibility Has Been Insufficient in

Providing Access

The web has changed significantly

and its use has become far more

prevalent since Congress enacted the

ADA in 1990 and the Department

subsequently promulgated its first ADA

regulations. Neither the ADA nor the

Department’s regulations specifically

addressed public entities’ use of

websites and mobile apps to provide

their services, programs, and activities.

Congress contemplated, however, that

the Department would apply title II, part

A of the statute in a manner that

evolved over time and it delegated

authority to the Attorney General to

promulgate regulations to carry out the

ADA mandate under title II, part A.

Consistent with this approach, the

Department stated in the preamble to

the original 1991 ADA regulations that

the regulations should be interpreted to

keep pace with developing

technologies.

Since 1996, the Department has

consistently taken the position that the

ADA applies to the web content of State

and local government entities. This

interpretation comes from title II’s

application to ‘‘all services, programs,

and activities provided or made

available by public entities.’’

The

Department has affirmed the application

of the statute to websites in multiple

technical assistance documents over the

past two decades.

Further, the

Department has repeatedly enforced this

obligation and worked with State and

local government entities to make their

websites accessible, such as through

Project Civic Access, an initiative to

promote local governments’ compliance

with the ADA by eliminating physical

and communication barriers impeding

full participation by people with

disabilities in community life.

A variety of voluntary standards and

structures have been developed for the

web through nonprofit organizations

using multinational collaborative

efforts. For example, domain names are

issued and administered through the

internet Corporation for Assigned

Names and Numbers (‘‘ICANN’’), the

internet Society (‘‘ISOC’’) publishes

computer security policies and

procedures for websites, and the World

Wide Web Consortium (‘‘W3C

’’)

develops a variety of technical

standards and guidelines ranging from

issues related to mobile devices and

privacy to internationalization of

technology. In the area of accessibility,

the Web Accessibility Initiative (‘‘WAI’’)

of the W3C

created the Web Content

Accessibility Guidelines (‘‘WCAG’’).

Many organizations, however, have

indicated that voluntary compliance

with these accessibility guidelines has

not resulted in equal access for people

with disabilities; accordingly, they have

urged the Department to take regulatory

action to ensure web and mobile app

accessibility.

The National Council on

Disability, an independent Federal

agency that advises the President,

Congress, and other agencies about

programs, policies, practices, and

procedures affecting people with

disabilities, has similarly emphasized

the need for regulatory action on this

issue.

The Department has also heard

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:49 Aug 03, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04AUP2.SGM 04AUP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

51957

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules

services); see also, e.g., National Council on

Disability, National Disability Policy: A Progress

Report (Oct. 7, 2016), https://ncd.gov/

progressreport/2016/progress-report-october-2016

[https://perma.cc/J82G-6UU8] (urging the

Department to adopt a web accessibility regulation).

See, e.g., Letter for U.S. Dep’t of Just. from Nat’l

Ass’n of Realtors (Dec. 13, 2017), https://

www.narfocus.com/billdatabase/clientfiles/172/3/

3058.pdf [https://perma.cc/Z93F-K88P].

See, e.g., Meyer v. Walthall, 528 F. Supp. 3d

928, 959 (S.D. Ind. 2021) (‘‘[T]he Court finds that

Defendants’ websites constitute services or

activities within the purview of Title II and section

504, requiring Defendants to provide effective

access to qualified individuals with a disability.’’);

Price v. City of Ocala, Fla., 375 F. Supp. 3d 1264,

1271 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (‘‘Title II undoubtedly applies

to websites . . . .’’); Payan v. Los Angeles Cmty.

Coll. Dist., No. 2:17–CV–01697–SVW–SK, 2019 WL

9047062, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2019) (‘‘[T]he

ability to sign up for classes on the website and to

view important enrollment information is itself a

‘service’ warranting protection under Title II and

section 504.’’); Eason v. New York State Bd. of

Elections, No. 16–CV–4292 (KBF), 2017 WL

6514837, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2017) (stating, in

a case involving a State’s website, that ‘‘Section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the

Americans with Disabilities Act ..., long ago

provided that the disabled are entitled to

meaningful access to a public entity’s programs and

services. Just as buildings have architecture that can

prevent meaningful access, so too can software.’’);

Hindel v. Husted, No. 2:15–CV–3061, 2017 WL

432839, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2017) (‘‘The Court

finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently established

that Secretary Husted’s website violates Title II of

the ADA because it is not formatted in a way that

is accessible to all individuals, especially blind

individuals like the Individual Plaintiffs whose

screen access software cannot be used on the

website.’’).

See, e.g., Settlement Agreement Between the

United States of America and the Champaign-

Urbana Mass Transit District (Dec. 14, 2021),

https://www.ada.gov/champaign-urbana_sa.pdf

[https://perma.cc/VZU2-E6FZ]; Consent Decree,

United States v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal.

(Nov. 20, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-

release/file/1553291/download [https://perma.cc/

9AMQ-GPP3]; Consent Decree, Dudley v. Miami

Univ. (Oct. 13, 2016), https://www.ada.gov/miami_

university_cd.html [https://perma.cc/T3FX-G7RZ];

Settlement Agreement Between the United States of

America and the City and County of Denver,

Colorado Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

(Jan. 8, 2018), https://www.ada.gov/denver_pca/

denver_sa.html [https://perma.cc/U7VE-MBSG];

Settlement Agreement Between the United States of

America and Nueces County, Texas Under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (effective Jan. 30,

2015), https://www.ada.gov/nueces_co_tx_pca/

nueces_co_tx_sa.html [https://perma.cc/TX66-

WQY7]; Settlement Agreement Between the United

States of America, Louisiana Tech University, and

the Board of Supervisors for the University of

Louisiana System Under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (July 22, 2013), https://

www.ada.gov/louisiana-tech.htm [https://perma.cc/

78ES-4FQR].

In re Alaska Dep’t of Educ. and Early Dev.,

OCR Reference No. 10161093 (U.S. Dep’t of Educ.

Dec. 11, 2017) (resolution agreement), https://

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/

investigations/more/10161093-b.pdf [https://

perma.cc/DUS4-HVZJ], superseded by https://

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/

investigations/more/10161093-b1.pdf [https://

perma.cc/BVL6-Y59M] (U.S. Dep’t of Educ. Mar. 28,

2018) (revised resolution agreement).

See Voluntary Compliance Agreement Between

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development and the City of Los Angeles,

California (Aug. 2, 2019), https://www.hud.gov/

sites/dfiles/Main/documents/HUD-City-of-Los-

Angeles-VCA.pdf [https://perma.cc/X5RN-AJ5K].

from State and local government entities

and businesses asking for clarity on the

ADA’s requirements for websites

through regulatory efforts.

In light of the long regulatory history

and the ADA’s current general

requirement to make all services,

programs, and activities accessible, the

Department expects that public entities

have made strides to make their web

content accessible since the 2010

ANPRM was published. However,

despite the availability of voluntary web

and mobile app accessibility standards;

the Department’s clearly stated position

that all services, programs, and

activities of public entities, including

those available on websites, must be

accessible; and case law supporting that

position, individuals with disabilities

continue to struggle to obtain access to

the websites of public entities.

As a

result, the Department has brought

enforcement actions to address web

access, resulting in a significant number

of settlement agreements with State and

local government entities.

Moreover, other Federal agencies have

also taken enforcement action against

public entities regarding the lack of

access for people with disabilities to

websites. In December 2017, for

example, the U.S. Department of

Education entered into a resolution

agreement with the Alaska Department

of Education and Early Development

after it found the entity had violated

Federal statutes, including title II of the

ADA, by denying people with

disabilities an equal opportunity to

participate in Alaska Department of

Education and Early Development’s

services, programs, and activities, due to

website inaccessibility.

Similarly, the

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development took action against the

City of Los Angeles, and its subrecipient

housing providers, to ensure that it

maintained an accessible housing

website concerning housing

opportunities.

The Department believes that

adopting technical standards for web

and mobile app accessibility will

provide clarity to public entities

regarding how to make the services,

programs, and activities they offer the

public via the web and mobile apps

accessible. Adopting specific technical

standards for web and mobile app

accessibility will also provide

individuals with disabilities with

consistent and predictable access to the

web content and mobile apps of public

entities.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

This section details the Department’s

proposed changes to the title II

regulation, including the reasoning

behind the proposals, and poses

questions for public comment.

Subpart A—General

§ 35.104 Definitions

‘‘Archived Web Content’’

The Department proposes to add a

definition for ‘‘archived web content’’ to

proposed § 35.104. The proposed

definition defines ‘‘archived web

content’’ as ‘‘web content that (1) is

maintained exclusively for reference,

research, or recordkeeping; (2) is not

altered or updated after the date of

archiving; and (3) is organized and

stored in a dedicated area or areas

clearly identified as being archived.’’

The definition is meant to capture web

content that, while outdated or

superfluous, is maintained unaltered in

a dedicated area on a public entity’s

website for historical, reference, or other

similar purposes, and the term is used

in the proposed exceptions set forth in

§ 35.201. Throughout this rule, a public

entity’s ‘‘website’’ is intended to include

not only the websites hosted by the

public entity, but also websites operated

on behalf of a public entity by a third

party. For example, public entities

sometimes use vendors to create and

host their web content. Such content

would also be covered by this rule.

‘‘Conventional Electronic Documents’’

The Department proposes to add a

definition for ‘‘conventional electronic

documents’’ to proposed § 35.104. The

proposal defines ‘‘conventional

electronic documents’’ as ‘‘web content

or content in mobile apps that is in the

following electronic file formats:

portable document formats (‘PDFs’),

word processor file formats,

presentation file formats, spreadsheet

file formats, and database file formats.’’

The definition thus provides an

exhaustive list of electronic file formats

that constitute conventional electronic

documents. Examples of conventional

electronic documents include: Adobe

PDF files (i.e., portable document

formats), Microsoft Word files (i.e.,

word processor files), Apple Keynote or

Microsoft PowerPoint files (i.e.,

presentation files), Microsoft Excel files

(i.e., spreadsheet files), and FileMaker

Pro or Microsoft Access files (i.e.,

database files).

The term ‘‘conventional electronic

documents’’ is intended to describe

those documents created or saved as an

electronic file that are commonly

available on public entities’ websites

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:49 Aug 03, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04AUP2.SGM 04AUP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

51958

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules

See W3C

, Web Content Accessibility

Guidelines 2.1 (June 5, 2018), https://www.w3.org/

TR/WCAG21/#glossary [https://perma.cc/YB57-

ZB8C].

and mobile apps in either an electronic

form or as printed output. The term is

intended to capture documents where

the version posted by the public entity

is not open for editing by the public. For

example, if a public entity maintains a

Word version of a flyer on its website,

that would be a conventional electronic

document. A third party could

technically download and edit that

Word document, but their edits would

not impact the ‘‘official’’ posted version.

Similarly, a Google Docs file that does

not allow others to edit or add

comments in the posted document

would be a conventional electronic

document. The term ‘‘conventional

electronic documents’’ is used in

proposed § 35.201(b) to provide an

exception for certain electronic

documents created by or for a public

entity that are available on a public

entity’s website before the compliance

date of this rule and in proposed

§ 35.201(g) to provide an exception for

certain individualized, password-

protected documents, and is addressed

in more detail in the discussion

regarding proposed §§ 35.201(b) and (g).

‘‘Mobile Applications (Apps)’’

Mobile apps are software applications

that are downloaded and designed to

run on mobile devices such as

smartphones and tablets. For the

purposes of this part, mobile apps

include, for example, native apps built

for a particular platform (e.g., Apple

iOS, Google Android, among others) or

device and hybrid apps using web

components inside native apps.

‘‘Special District Government’’

The Department proposes to add a

definition for a ‘‘special district

government.’’ The term ‘‘special district

government’’ is used in proposed

§ 35.200(b) and is defined in proposed

§ 35.104 to mean ‘‘a public entity—other

than a county, municipality, or

township, or independent school

district—authorized by State law to

provide one function or a limited

number of designated functions with

sufficient administrative and fiscal

autonomy to qualify as a separate

government and whose population is

not calculated by the United States

Census Bureau in the most recent

decennial Census or Small Area Income

and Poverty Estimates.’’ Because special

district governments do not have

populations calculated by the United

States Census Bureau, their population

sizes are unknown. A special district

government may include, for example, a

mosquito abatement district, utility

district, transit authority, water and

sewer board, zoning district, or other

similar governmental entities that may

operate with administrative and fiscal

independence.

‘‘Total Population’’

The Department proposes to add a

definition for ‘‘total population.’’ The

term ‘‘total population’’ means ‘‘the

population estimate for a public entity

as calculated by the United States

Census Bureau in the most recent

decennial Census or, if a public entity

is an independent school district, the

population estimate as calculated by the

United States Census Bureau in the

most recent Small Area Income and

Poverty Estimates.’’

As mentioned previously, proposed

§ 35.200 generally proposes different

compliance dates according to a public

entity’s size. The term ‘‘total

population’’ is generally used in

proposed § 35.200 to refer to the size of

a public entity’s population as

calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau in

the most recent decennial Census. If a

public entity does not have a specific

population calculated by the U.S.

Census Bureau, but belongs to another

jurisdiction that does, the population of

the entity is determined by the

population of the jurisdiction to which

the entity belongs. For example, the

total population of a county library is

the population of the county to which

the library belongs. However, because

the decennial Census does not include

population estimates for public entities

that are independent school districts,

the term ‘‘total population’’ with regard

to independent school districts refers to

population estimates in the most recent

Small Area Income and Poverty

Estimates, which includes population

estimates for these entities.

‘‘WCAG 2.1’’

The Department proposes to add a

definition of ‘‘WCAG 2.1.’’ The term

‘‘WCAG 2.1’’ refers to the 2018 version

of the voluntary guidelines for web

accessibility, known as the Web Content

Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 (‘‘WCAG’’).

The W3C

, the principal international

organization involved in developing

standards for the web, published WCAG

2.1 in June 2018, and it is available at

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/.

WCAG 2.1 is discussed in more detail

in proposed § 35.200 below.

‘‘Web Content’’

The Department proposes to add a

definition for ‘‘web content’’ under

proposed § 35.104 that is based on the

WCAG 2.1 definition but is slightly less

technical and intended to be more easily

understood by the public generally. The

Department’s proposal defines ‘‘web

content’’ as ‘‘information or sensory

experience—including the encoding

that defines the content’s structure,

presentation, and interactions—that is

communicated to the user by a web

browser or other software. Examples of

web content include text, images,

sounds, videos, controls, animations,

and conventional electronic

documents.’’ WCAG 2.1 defines web

content as ‘‘information and sensory

experience to be communicated to the

user by means of a user agent, including

code or markup that defines the

content’s structure, presentation, and

interactions.’’

The definition of ‘‘web content’’

attempts to describe the different types

of information and experiences

available on the web. The Department’s

NPRM proposes to cover the

accessibility of public entities’ web

content available on public entities’

websites and web pages regardless of

whether the web content is viewed on

desktop computers, laptops,

smartphones, or other devices.

The definition of ‘‘web content’’ also

includes the encoding used to create the

structure, presentation, or interactions

of the information or experiences on

web pages that range in complexity

from, for example, pages with only

textual information to pages where users

can complete transactions. Examples of

languages used to create web pages

include Hypertext Markup Language

(‘‘HTML’’), Cascading Style Sheets

(‘‘CSS’’), Python, SQL, PHP, and

JavaScript.

The Department poses questions for

feedback about its proposed approach.

Comments on all aspects of this

proposed rule, including these proposed

definitions, are invited. Please provide

as much detail as possible and any

applicable data, suggested alternative

approaches or requirements, arguments,

explanations, and examples in your

responses to the following questions.

Question 1: The Department’s

definition of ‘‘conventional electronic

documents’’ consists of an exhaustive

list of specific file types. Should the

Department instead craft a more flexible

definition that generally describes the

types of documents that are covered or

otherwise change the proposed

definition, such as by including other

file types (e.g., images or movies), or

removing some of the listed file types?

Question 2: Are there refinements to

the definition of ‘‘web content’’ the

Department should consider? Consider,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:49 Aug 03, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04AUP2.SGM 04AUP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

51959

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules

W3C

, About Us, https://www.w3.org/about/

[https://perma.cc/TQ2W-T377].

W3C

, Web Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

Approved as ISO/IEC International Standard (Oct.

15, 2012), https://www.w3.org/press-releases/2012/

wcag2pas/[https://perma.cc/JQ39-HGKQ].

See W3C

, Web Content Accessibility

Guidelines 2.1 (June 5, 2018), https://www.w3.org/

TR/WCAG21/#wcag-2-layers-of-guidance [https://

perma.cc/5PDG-ZTJE]. Additionally, in May 2021,

WAI published a working draft for WCAG 2.2,

which has yet to be finalized. W3C

, Web Content

Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 (May 21, 2021), https://

www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/ [https://perma.cc/M4G8-

Z2GY]. The WAI also published a working draft of

WCAG 3.0 in December 2021. W3C

, Web Content

Accessibility Guidelines 3.0 (Dec. 7, 2021), https://

www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/ [https://perma.cc/7FPQ-

EEJ7].

Id.

See W3C

, Web Content Accessibility

Guidelines 2.1, WCAG 2 Layers of Guidance (June

5, 2018), https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#wcag-2-

layers-of-guidance [https://perma.cc/5PDG-ZTJE]

(emphasis added).

W3C

, What’s New in WCAG 2.1 (Aug. 13,

2020), https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-

guidelines/wcag/new-in-21/ [https://perma.cc/

W8HK-Z5QK].

Id.

See id.

See W3C

, Web Content Accessibility

Guidelines 2.1, Reflow (June 5, 2018), https://

www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#reflow [https://

perma.cc/YRP5-M599].

See id.

See W3C

, Web Content Accessibility

Guidelines 2.1, Orientation (June 5, 2018), https://

www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#orientation [https://

perma.cc/FC3E-FRYK].

W3C

, What’s New in WCAG 2.1 (Aug. 13,

2020), https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-

guidelines/wcag/new-in-21/ [https://perma.cc/

W8HK-Z5QK]

See id.

for example, WCAG 2.1’s definition of

‘‘web content’’ as ‘‘information and

sensory experience to be communicated

to the user by means of a user agent,

including code or markup that defines

the content’s structure, presentation,

and interactions.’’

Subpart H—Web and Mobile

Accessibility

The Department is proposing to create

a new subpart to its title II regulation.

Subpart H would address the

accessibility of public entities’ web

content and mobile apps.

§ 35.200 Requirements for Web and

Mobile Accessibility

General

Proposed § 35.200 sets forth specific

requirements for the accessibility of web

content and mobile apps of public

entities. Proposed § 35.200(a) requires a

public entity to ‘‘ensure the following

are readily accessible to and usable by

individuals with disabilities: (1) web

content that a public entity makes

available to members of the public or

uses to offer services, programs, or

activities to members of the public; and

(2) mobile apps that a public entity

makes available to members of the

public or uses to offer services,

programs, or activities to members of

the public.’’ As detailed below, the

remainder of proposed § 35.200 sets

forth the specific standards that public

entities would be required to meet to

make their web content and mobile apps

accessible and the proposed timelines

for compliance.

Background on Accessibility Standards

for Websites and Web Content

Since 1994, the W3C

has been the

principal international organization

involved in developing protocols and

guidelines for the web.

The W3C

develops a variety of voluntary

technical standards and guidelines,

including ones relating to privacy,

internationalization of technology, and,

relevant to this rulemaking,

accessibility. The W3C

’s WAI has

developed voluntary guidelines for web

accessibility, known as WCAG, to help

web developers create web content that

is accessible to individuals with

disabilities.

The first version of WCAG, WCAG

1.0, was published in 1999. WCAG 2.0

was published in December 2008, and is

available at http://www.w3.org/TR/

2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/ [https://

perma.cc/L2NH-VLCR]. WCAG 2.0 was

approved as an international standard

by the International Organization for

Standardization (‘‘ISO’’) and the

International Electrotechnical

Commission (‘‘IEC’’) in October 2012.

WCAG 2.1, the most recent and updated

recommendation of WCAG, was

published in June 2018, and is available

at https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/

[