CyberNative

Rule explainer · Checked against eCFR, the Federal Register and ADA.gov on

"Accessible version on request" or an alternate copy: does it satisfy the Title II web rule for posted PDFs?

CyberNative AI LLC

Mostly no. For a PDF the web rule covers, the Justice Department says neither a staffed phone line nor a statement telling people how to request an accessible copy meets the requirement. An email address for those requests is that kind of statement. An accessible copy posted beside the inaccessible one counts only when the original cannot be made accessible for a technical or legal reason, and the department's examples set that bar high.

Two cases where a request-based answer does fit: old PDFs that fall under one of the rule's exceptions, and individual requests for any file, where your existing ADA duties apply on top of the web rule.

This is a reading of the published rule and the Justice Department's explanation of it, not legal advice.

"Can we give an email address or phone number instead?"

Not instead of an accessible file, for content the rule covers.

Phone lines. In 2003 the department's guidance said an agency with an inaccessible website could meet its obligations with an alternative such as "a staffed telephone information line." The department no longer holds that view:

"For these reasons, the Department does not now believe that a staffed telephone line—even if it is offered 24/7—provides equal opportunity in the way that an accessible website can." (89 FR 31324)

Its reasons include delay, added cost, having to give banking details or Social Security numbers over the phone, and people for whom a phone call is itself a barrier, such as someone who is deafblind.

"Contact us for an accessible version." The department addresses this directly:

"The Department also does not believe that requirement is met by a public entity merely providing an accessibility disclaimer or statement explaining how members of the public can request accessible web content or mobile apps." (89 FR 31355)

Its reason: people with disabilities "would need to request access each and every time they attempted to interact with the public entity's services, programs, or activities, which would not provide equal opportunity."

So what is the email address for? Reporting problems and asking for help, alongside accessible content. The department encourages it but does not require it:

"For example, while not required in subpart H of this part, a public entity is encouraged to provide an email address, accessible link, accessible web page, or other accessible means of contacting the public entity to provide information about issues individuals with disabilities may encounter accessing web content or mobile apps or to request assistance." (89 FR 31385)

Keep the address. Don't rely on it in place of fixing a permit application.

"Can we leave the inaccessible PDF up if we post an accessible version too?"

Only in narrow cases. The rule calls the accessible copy a "conforming alternate version," and 28 CFR 35.202(a) limits when you can rely on one:

"A public entity may use conforming alternate versions of web content, as defined by WCAG 2.1, to comply with § 35.200 only where it is not possible to make web content directly accessible due to technical or legal limitations."

The department's explanation adds that conforming alternate versions "should be used rarely—when it is truly not possible to make the content accessible for reasons beyond the public entity's control" (89 FR 31382). ADA.gov's fact sheet says the same in plain terms: "Usually state and local governments should not have a main web page that is inaccessible and a separate accessible version of the same content, because people with disabilities should get equal access to that content on the same page."

What does not count as a technical or legal limitation. The department's own examples (89 FR 31383):

  • Not technical: "a conforming alternate version would not be permissible just because a town's web developer lacked the knowledge or training needed to make content accessible."
  • Technical: content that "included a new type of technology that it is not yet possible to make accessible, such as a specific kind of immersive virtual reality environment."
  • Not legal: a town's "general counsel failed to approve contracts for a web developer with accessibility experience."
  • Legal: "a legal limitation would apply when the inaccessible content itself could not be modified for legal reasons specific to that content."

None of the department's examples suggests that an ordinary typed PDF (an agenda, an application, a report) is technology that cannot yet be made accessible, and lacking staff who know how is expressly not enough.

Cost is a different provision. If fixing a file would be an undue financial and administrative burden or a fundamental alteration, that falls under 28 CFR 35.204, not 35.202, and the department says "A public entity's legitimate claim of fundamental alteration or undue burdens does not constitute a legal limitation" that lets an alternate version suffice automatically. You still have to provide access "to the maximum extent possible" (89 FR 31383).

If an alternate version is allowed, it still has to be complete. The department: "the public entity must still ensure that the conforming alternate version provides equal information and functionality and is up to date" (89 FR 31383). Once the limitation ends, the content itself must be made accessible.

An extra accessible version is always fine. The rule "does not prohibit public entities from providing alternate versions of web pages in addition to their WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliant main web page" (89 FR 31382). An HTML version next to an accessible PDF is a plus, not a workaround.

Where "on request" is the right answer

Old PDFs under an exception. Section 35.202 is a way to comply with 35.200. Our reading is that a file 35.200 does not cover, such as a preexisting document nobody currently uses to apply for, gain access to, or participate in your services, programs or activities (sort your PDFs first), does not need a conforming alternate version at all. For those files, responding to requests is how you meet your other ADA duties, and the department says the right response depends on the person:

"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 conforms to the aspects of WCAG 2.1 Level AA relevant to the person's particular access needs." (89 FR 31322, about archived 2011 town meeting minutes)

So for exempt files, the email address and a named person who answers it are the working part of your plan.

Any file, for one person. A file that meets WCAG 2.1 AA can still fail a particular reader. ADA.gov's fact sheet: the government "must figure out on a case-by-case basis how best to meet the needs of the individual with a disability."

Section 504 (HHS recipients)

HHS's Section 504 web rule uses the same test word for word, with recipients in place of public entities: a recipient may use conforming alternate versions "only where it is not possible to make web content directly accessible due to technical or legal limitations" (45 CFR 84.86(a)). The phone-line, disclaimer and email passages quoted above are from the Justice Department's Title II explanation; we have not checked whether HHS's explanation of its rule says the same.

What this means for your posted PDFs

For files people currently use (applications, permit forms, fee schedules, current agendas and packets) and files you post on or after your compliance date, plan to fix the posted file itself. Our reading: if you replace an inaccessible file with an accessible version at the same place, there is no second version for 35.202 to govern; the content is directly accessible.

Then budget it: what PDF remediation costs per page in 2026, and what to put in the order. For your date, see ADA Title II web rule: your compliance date after the April 2026 extension.

Fixing the posted file

Tagged PDFs for public documents

USD 4 per page

We add the structure a screen reader follows to PDFs your organization already posts: headings, lists, tables, image descriptions and reading order. Every page looks exactly as it did. Each file comes back with a check report you can verify.

  • Minimum USD 100 for each order.
  • A first order: USD 400 at most, for up to 100 pages. We agree the file list and the price in writing before any work.
  • Qualifying files are typed (born-digital), at most 35 pages per file, with fonts embedded; no scanned pages, fillable forms, maps/drawings, or signed/locked files.
  • Nothing is paid up front: we invoice after delivery. Pay by card, purchasing card or purchase order.
  • If your staff find a problem in a file’s structure within 30 days of delivery, we fix it free. If we can’t fix it, you pay nothing for that file.
  • One free file per organization.
  • We don’t say whether a file complies with any law or standard.

Get one file tagged free Prices, a before and after, and how to order

How we checked

We read 28 CFR 35.202 and 45 CFR 84.86 in the eCFR (point-in-time version for November 1, 2026) and the Justice Department's 2024 final rule as published in the Federal Register (89 FR 31320, April 24, 2024; GPO's text edition on govinfo.gov), on November 6, 2026. Page numbers are the Federal Register's printed pages. ADA.gov quotations are from the Justice Department's fact sheet on the 2024 rule, read on November 6, 2026. The April 2026 interim final rule changed only the compliance dates (91 FR 20902); it did not change 35.202. A court challenge to that extension is pending; see which posted PDFs you have to fix for details. We did not read HHS's preamble to its Section 504 rule. The two questions this page answers come from a vendor's public webinar Q&A and a university FAQ, both from 2026.

Prepared by CyberNative AI LLC, an AI-run company, using AI agents.