The Department of Justice (Department) is publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) explaining how we propose updating the regulations for Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to add more specific requirements about web and mobile application (app) accessibility.

This NPRM proposes a specific technical standard that state and local governments would have to follow to meet their existing obligations under Title II of the ADA for web and mobile app accessibility. The NPRM asks the public for comments about this proposal.

Purpose of this fact sheet: This fact sheet gives a plain language summary of the NPRM. The summary is designed to provide introductory information about this proposal for people who may not have a legal background. For all of the details about our proposal, please read the NPRM.

What is Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?

Under Title II of the ADA, state and local governments’ services, programs, and activities must be accessible to people with disabilities. In Title II, state and local governments are also called public entities. Title II applies to all programs, services, or activities of state and local governments, from adoption services to zoning regulation. This includes the services, programs, and activities that state and local governments offer online and through mobile apps.

What is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)?

Rulemaking is the process that federal agencies use to write regulations. A regulation (also called a “rule”) is a set of requirements issued by a federal agency to implement laws passed by Congress. When Congress passes laws, many details are often left to federal agencies to flesh out in regulations. For example, when Congress passed the ADA, it gave the Department the authority to issue regulations that explain the rights and obligations under Titles II and III of the ADA.

An NPRM is a stage in the rulemaking process that happens before an agency adopts a final regulation. It is like a first draft of a regulation. It lets the public know what the agency is considering and provides an opportunity for feedback.

An NPRM is not a final regulation. So, this proposal is not an enforceable rule right now. This NPRM has been published so that the public can provide us with feedback on our proposal for the rule before we adopt a final rule.

Who would be covered by this proposed rule?

Everyone that has obligations under Title II of the ADA would be covered by the proposed rule. Title II of the ADA applies to all public entities, including state and local governments, and departments, agencies, special purpose districts, special district governments, and other instrumentalities of state or local government. Title II and the NPRM use the term public entities or state and local government entities to describe who they apply to, but in this fact sheet, we call these state and local governments. State and local governments that contract with other entities to provide public services (like non-profit organizations that run drug treatment programs on behalf of a state agency) also have an obligation to ensure that their contractors follow Title II.

Like the rest of Title II, the proposed rule would apply to all state and local government entities. Examples of these include:

1. State and local government offices that provide benefits and/or social services, like food assistance, health insurance, or employment services
2. Public schools, community colleges, and public universities
3. State and local police departments
4. State and local courts
5. State and local elections offices
6. Public hospitals and public healthcare clinics
7. Public parks and recreation programs
8. Public libraries
9. Public transit agencies

Reasons for this Proposed Rule

1. State and local governments provide many of their services, programs, and activities through websites and mobile applications (apps). When these websites and mobile apps are not accessible, they can create barriers for people with disabilities.
2. This can also make it more difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to readily access important government services like absentee ballots or tax information that are quickly and easily available to other voters and taxpayers online.
3. Sometimes, inaccessible websites and mobile apps can keep people with disabilities from joining civic or other community events like town meetings or programs at their child’s school, or make it harder for them to join.
4. This proposed rule is intended to help better ensure access for people with disabilities and provide state and local governments with more clarity on how they can make sure they are complying with the ADA.
5. You can find more information about why the Department of Justice is proposing this rule in the NPRM in the section called “Need for Department Action.”

Highlights of the Proposals in the NPRM

Some of the specific proposed requirements found in the NPRM are highlighted below. Review the full NPRM to get an understanding of the entire proposal.

Proposal: Adopt the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Version 2.1, Level AA as the technical standard that state and local governments would need to follow.

1. A technical standard says specifically what is required for something to be accessible. For example, the existing ADA Standards for Accessible Design are technical standards that say what is needed for a building to be physically accessible under the ADA. For instance, the ADA Standards for Accessible Design say how wide a door has to be or how steep a ramp can be.
2. WCAG, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, is a set of guidelines for web accessibility developed by the World Wide Web Consortium.
3. The NPRM proposes WCAG Version 2.1, Level AA as the technical standard for web content and mobile apps that state and local governments would be required to follow.
4. You can find more information about why the Department of Justice is proposing WCAG Version 2.1, Level AA as the technical standard in the NPRM in the sections called “Proposed WCAG Version” and “Proposed WCAG Conformance Level.”

Proposal: State and local governments’ web content and mobile apps would have to comply with the technical standard.

1. The proposed rule would apply to web content that a state or local government makes available to the public or uses to offer services, programs, and activities to the public.

What is web content?

The NPRM proposes a specific definition of web content. It would cover the information and experiences available on the web, like text, images, sound, videos, and documents. You can find more information about how the Department proposes to define “web content” in the NPRM in the section called “Definitions.”

1. The proposed rule would also apply to mobile apps that a state or local government makes available to the public or uses to offer services, programs, and activities to the public.

   1. Example: If a local government lets people pay for its parking using a mobile app, the mobile app the local government uses would have to comply with the technical standard.

What is a mobile app?

Mobile apps are software applications that are downloaded and designed to run on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. You can find more information about how the Department proposes to address mobile apps in the NPRM in the sections called “Use of Mobile Applications by Title II Entities” and “Mobile Applications.”

Proposal: We have proposed some exceptions. When an exception applies, specific kinds of web and mobile app content would not always have to comply with the technical standard.

1. It is important that state and local governments can prioritize so they can make the most important content—like current or commonly used information—accessible to people with disabilities quickly.
2. So, we have proposed narrow exceptions for some specific types of content that we do not think are as frequently used or that may be particularly hard for state and local governments to address right now
   1. Example: An exception would likely apply to an old water quality report from 1998 that the state has put in an archived section of its website and has not updated. If the exception applies, the report would not need to comply with the technical standard.
3. Below, we provide some examples of how the proposed exceptions would work. We also give examples of when each exception would not apply.

What does it mean if an exception applies?

The exceptions would only apply to some kinds of content, when certain facts or circumstances are present. If an exception applies to certain content, it means that particular content is “excepted” from the proposed rule’s general requirement that web and mobile app content has to comply with the technical standard. The specific web or mobile app content that is “excepted” usually would not need to comply with the technical standard.

What are the specific types of content that might be “excepted”?

There is more information about this below, in the section called “Proposed Exceptions.” There is more information about the details of the exceptions and limits on the exceptions in the NRPM. You can find this information in the NPRM in the section called “Exceptions.”

What the proposed exceptions do not change

Under the current ADA rules, state and local governments have to provide effective communication and make reasonable modifications. So, even when web or mobile app content is excepted from complying with the technical standard, the content would generally still need to be provided in an accessible format if a person with a disability requests it.

1. Learn more about existing ADA obligations to ensure effective communication.
2. Learn more about existing ADA obligations to make reasonable modifications.

Proposal: We have proposed limits to some exceptions. When a limit applies, content would have to comply with the technical standard.

1. Some of the proposed exceptions would have limitations, which we also call limits. The limits mean that the exception would not apply in some situations, if certain facts or circumstances are present.
2. When there is a limit, the web or mobile app content generally would have to comply with the technical standard, just like any other content that is not excepted.
3. Below, we provide some examples of how the proposed limits on exceptions would work.

What are the proposed limits on exceptions?

There is more information below about the limits on when an exception applies, in the section called “Proposed Exceptions.” Information about the limits is marked with an asterisk. There is more information about the proposed limits on the exceptions in the NRPM. You can find this information in the NPRM in the section called “Exceptions.”

Proposed Exceptions

1. Archived web content:

State and local governments’ websites often include a lot of content that is not currently used. This information may be outdated, not needed, or repeated somewhere else. Sometimes, such information is archived on the website.

1. Web content that meets all three of the following factors would not need to comply with the technical standard:

   1. the content is maintained only for research, reference, or recordkeeping; AND
   2. the content is kept in a special area for archived content; AND
   3. the content has not been changed since being archived.

2. Example: This exception would likely apply to web content like historical city council meeting minutes stored in the “archives” section of a city’s website.

The exception would not apply unless all three factors are present. The content would generally need to comply with the technical standard.

Example: If web content is updated by the state or local government, the exception would not apply even though the content is labeled “archived.”

Example: If web content is being used to provide services, programs, and activities, the exception would not apply even though the content is labeled “archived.” The content is not maintained only for reference.

What the proposed exception does not change

Under the current ADA rules, state and local governments have to provide effective communication and make reasonable modifications. So, even though archived content is excepted from complying with the technical standard, the content would generally still need to be provided in an accessible format if a person with a disability requests it.

1. Example: If a researcher with a disability asks to access the minutes, the minutes would need to be made accessible to the researcher.

2. Preexisting conventional electronic documents:

Some state and local governments have a lot of old documents, like PDFs, on their website. It is our understanding that these can sometimes be difficult to make compliant with the technical standard.

1. Web or mobile app content that meets both of the following factors generally would not need to comply with the technical standard:
   1. the documents are in certain file formats specified in the proposed rule, like word processing, presentation, PDF, or spreadsheet files; AND
   2. they are available on the state or local government’s website or mobile app before the date the state or local government will have to comply with this rule (after the rule is finalized).
2. Example: This exception would likely apply to a spreadsheet of COVID-19 statistics from 2020 or a Microsoft Word version of a water quality report from 2015.

The exception would not apply unless both factors are present. The content would generally need to comply with the technical standard.

Example: After the date that compliance with the rule is required, a state or local government posts a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. The presentation would not qualify for the proposed pre-existing content exception because it was posted after the rule’s compliance date.

Example: After the date that compliance with the rule is required, a state or local government updates a Microsoft Word document that was on its website before the rule required compliance. The updated document would not qualify for the proposed pre-existing content exception anymore.

1. Limit on when this exception applies: This exception would not apply if the pre-existing documents are currently being used by members of the public to access or participate in public services, programs, or activities.

   1. Example: A PDF version of a business license application that was posted on a state or local government’s website in 2020. If members of the public can still use that PDF to apply for a business license in 2023, the exception would not apply. The application would generally need to comply with the technical standard.

3. Content posted by a third party:

Third parties sometimes post content on state and local governments’ websites. Third parties are members of the public or others who are not controlled by state or local governments. The state or local government also may not have control over the content third parties post, and this content may be outdated or not relevant.

1. Web content that is posted by third parties on a state or local government’s website would not need to comply with the technical standard.

   1. Example: This exception would likely apply to a message that a member of the public posts on a town’s message board.

This exception would only apply to content posted by a third party. Content that is not posted by a third party would generally need to comply with the technical standard.

1. Third-party content posted by the state or local government.
   1. Example: Many state or local governments post content on their websites that is developed by an outside technology company, like calendars, scheduling tools, maps, reservations systems, and payment systems. This content would not qualify for the third-party exception because it is posted by the state or local government.
2. Content posted by a state or local government’s contractor or vendor.
   1. Example: If a state or local government uses a company to design, manage, or update its website, the content the company posts for the government would not qualify for the third-party exception.
3. Tools and platforms that allow third parties to post content.
   1. Example: If the state or local government has a message board platform on its website, that platform would not qualify for the third-party exception because the message board was added to the website by the state or local government.

What the proposed exception does not change

Under the current ADA rules, state and local governments have to provide effective communication and make reasonable modifications. So, even though content that third parties post on the state or local government’s website is excepted from complying with the technical standard, the content would generally still need to be provided in an accessible format if a person with a disability requests it.

4. Linked third-party content:

Many state and local governments’ websites include links to other websites. Clicking on one of these links will take an individual away from the state or local government’s website to the website of a third party. Typically, the state or local government has no control over the third party or their web content.

1. Content that a state or local government links to from its website generally would not need to comply with the technical standard.

   1. Example: A town links to local restaurants’ websites. The town will typically not have to make sure the restaurants’ websites comply with the technical standard.

1. Limit on when this exception applies: This exception would not apply if the state or local government is using the linked web content to offer its service, program, or activity.

   1. Example: A city links to a company’s website where people can pay city registration fees or taxes. The city would need to use a third-party payment website that complies with the technical standard.

5. Public schools’ password-protected course content

Public elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, colleges, and universities often have a lot of content associated with their classes and courses—like PDFs of required readings for homework—that is only available to students enrolled in a particular class. It might be difficult to make all of this content comply with the technical standard immediately, and there might not be a student or parent with a disability in the class or course who needs access to the content.

1. Password-protected content associated with specific classes or courses generally would not need to comply with the technical standard.

   1. Example: The password-protected class content for a particular teacher’s tenth grade chemistry class typically would not need to comply with the technical standard.

This exception would not apply to all of a public school’s web content. Many types of public schools’ web content would generally need to comply with the technical standard.

1. Content that is not password protected.
2. Password-protected content that is available to all students or parents, not limited to students enrolled in a certain class or course.
   1. Example: school calendars, lunch menus, and information about meal plans or housing
3. Password-protected content for classes or courses that are available to people who are not enrolled in the school. These are sometimes called Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).
4. The platforms that schools use to share password-protected content, like learning management systems.

1. Limit on when this exception applies: This exception would not apply if:

   1. a student with a disability who needs accessible content is enrolled in the class or course; OR
   2. a student is enrolled in an elementary, middle, or high school class or course whose parent needs accessible content because of the parent’s disability.
      1. Example: A college student who is blind is enrolled in a literature course. The course content would need to comply with the technical standard.
      2. Example: A student whose parent has low vision is enrolled in a tenth-grade chemistry class. The class content would need to comply with the technical standard.

6. Individualized documents that are password protected

State and local governments sometimes use password-protected websites to share documents that are for specific individuals—like a water or tax bill. It might be difficult to make all of these documents accessible immediately and there might not be a person with a disability who needs access to these documents.

1. Web content that meets all three of the following factors would not need to comply with the technical standard:
   1. the content is in certain file formats, like word processing, presentation, PDF, or spreadsheet files; AND
   2. the files are about a specific person, property, or account; AND
   3. the files are password protected.
2. Example: This exception would apply to a PDF version of a water bill for a person’s home that is made available in that person’s secure account.

The exception would not apply unless all three factors are present. The content would generally need to comply with the technical standard.

1. Example: If a person’s water bill is made available for them to view on a password-protected website as HTML content, the exception would not apply. The content is not in one of the specified document formats.

2. Example: If the water company posts a PDF document on a password-protected website about an upcoming rate increase for all customers, the exception would not apply. The document is not about one customer’s account.

What the proposed exception does not change:

Under the current ADA rules, state and local governments have to provide effective communication and make reasonable modifications. So, even though individualized, password-protected documents are excepted, these documents would generally still need to be provided in an accessible format if a person with a disability requests them.

If none of the proposed exceptions apply, would state and local governments always have to make web and mobile app content comply with the technical standard?

Under the current ADA rules, state and local governments do not need to make changes that would be a fundamental alteration or cause undue financial and administrative burdens. They still would not need to do this under the proposed rule. For more information about fundamental alteration and undue burden, see our State and Local Governments page on ADA.gov.

Proposed Time to Comply with the Rule Once It Is Finalized

We are proposing to have state and local governments follow the technical standard in two or three years after the final rule is published, depending on their population.

You can find more information about why the Department of Justice is proposing this timeline in the NPRM in the section called “Requirements by Entity Size.”

1. After this time, state and local governments would have to continue to make their web content and mobile apps comply with the technical standard.

What are special district governments?

The NPRM proposes a specific definition of a special district government. Special district governments include, for example, a mosquito abatement district, utility district, transit authority, water and sewer board, zoning district, or other similar state or local government entity that has a specific function.

What compliance date would apply to school districts?

A school district is not a special district government. If it is a city school district, it would use the population of the city to know when to comply. If it is a county school district, it would use the population of the county. If it is an independent school district, it would use the population estimate in the most recent Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates.

We Want Your Feedback

1. This fact sheet gives a high-level summary of the NPRM. For more details about our proposal, you should read the NPRM. The NPRM is also published in the Federal Register.
2. We have also published an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule. This is called a Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA). You can read the PRIA on ADA.gov.
3. If you need information in an alternative format, you can call the ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or 1-833-610-1264 (TTY).

The Americans with Disabilities Act authorizes the Department of Justice (the Department) to provide technical assistance to individuals and entities that have rights or responsibilities under the Act. This document provides informal guidance to assist you in understanding the ADA and the Department’s regulations.

Guidance documents posted to this website are not intended to be a final agency action, have no legally binding effect, and have no force or effect of law. The documents may be rescinded or modified in the Departments’ complete discretion, in accordance with applicable laws. The Departments’ guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities beyond what is required by the terms of the applicable statutes, regulations, or binding judicial precedent. For more information, see 1-19.000 – Principles for Issuance and Use of Guidance Documents, https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-19000-limitation-issuance-guidance-documents-1.