Accessible Communications: FCC Should Evaluate the Effectiveness of Its Public Outreach Efforts
Published: 2015-06-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: CVAA was enacted to help ensure that people with disabilities have full access to the benefits of technological advances in communications. The act required FCC to establish regulations and conduct public outreach and included a provision that GAO review FCC's efforts. GAO examined (1) the extent to which FCC established complaint and enforcement procedures within CVAA-required time frames and conducted public outreach, (2) the actions FCC has taken to ensure industry compliance with CVAA's recordkeeping provisions and to determine the level of industry compliance with accessibility requirements, and (3) stakeholders' views on the effect of CVAA's recordkeeping obligations on the development and deployment of new communications technologies.
GAO reviewed FCC's regulations, orders, and biennial reports to Congress; surveyed a random sample of companies certifying compliance with CVAA requirements; assessed FCC's efforts to conduct public outreach against key practices GAO previously identified through an expert panel; and interviewed FCC officials and representatives from industry associations, consumer advocate groups, and disability research organizations selected based on CVAA-related comments they submitted to FCC.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established accessibility complaint and enforcement procedures within the time frames mandated by the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) to ensure that people with disabilities would have access to advanced communications. FCC's complaint and enforcement procedures enable consumers to file (1) a pre-complaint Request for Dispute Assistance (RDA), (2) an informal complaint, or (3) a formal complaint if consumers believe a communications product or service is not accessible to people with disabilities. From October 8, 2013, to April 1, 2015, FCC received 48 RDAs and no informal or formal complaints. FCC has undertaken numerous efforts to inform the public about CVAA's protections and remedies by, for example, hosting seminars and webinars and publishing consumer guides on accessibility issues. However, GAO found FCC's efforts do not always align with key practices for conducting public outreach. In particular, FCC has not evaluated the effectiveness of its public outreach efforts. Without such an evaluation, FCC does not know the program's effectiveness in informing the public of the protections and remedies available under CVAA and thus cannot reasonably assure the quality, quantity, and timeliness of the outreach program. Evaluating the outreach efforts would also enable FCC to determine whether current resources allocated to the outreach program are appropriate or need adjustment.
FCC has taken limited actions to ensure industry compliance with CVAA's recordkeeping provisions and does not know the extent to which industry is fully complying with the requirements to make products and services accessible. FCC established the Recordkeeping Compliance Certification and Contact Information Registry to help ensure industry compliance with recordkeeping requirements. Companies subject to any CVAA accessibility requirement must submit an annual certification to FCC that they are maintaining records of their efforts to make their products accessible through the Registry. FCC could not say whether industry is complying with CVAA accessibility requirements because FCC lacks an objective measure for making this determination. However, developing a measure might not be cost effective given that FCC has received no informal or formal complaints asserting non-compliance with these requirements. In FCC's 2014 biennial report to Congress, FCC based its determination of industry compliance on public comments and industry association reports.
Stakeholders GAO surveyed and interviewed generally reported that CVAA's recordkeeping obligations have not affected the development and deployment of new communications technologies. Specifically, GAO estimated that between 59 and 70 percent of companies view CVAA's recordkeeping requirements as having had no effect on their development and deployment of new communications technologies. Overall, industry associations and disability advocates GAO interviewed generally agreed that accessibility improved since the passage of CVAA. Industry associations highlighted a number of association-led efforts to bring industry and consumers together to ensure that the needs of disabled consumers are being addressed. Advocates for people with disabilities indicated that there were still many ways in which the accessibility of communications technology could be further improved, but some believed that CVAA resulted in more widely available accessible technology.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: FCC should evaluate its public outreach efforts and ensure those efforts incorporate key practices. FCC concurred with the recommendation and intends to take action to address it.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: More than 56 million people in the United States have a disability,  according to data from the Census Bureau. In addition to the difficulties  that living with a disability can entail, people with disabilities can  experience impeded access to the labor market, buildings, and  communications. In particular, the spread of Internet-based and digital  technologies has transformed the communications marketplace and  altered our everyday lives. Smart phones, e-mail, and video conferencing  are but a few of the many communications technologies that Americans  rely on daily, and many of these advances have improved the  communications capabilities of individuals with disabilities. However, due  to questions about whether the full range of benefits of these  technological advances are sometimes not accessible to the disability  community, Congress passed the 21st Century Communications and  Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA).
CVAA required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to  establish regulations to ensure that people with disabilities would have  access to advanced communications (e.g., Voice over Internet Protocol,  electronic messaging services, interoperable video conferencing, and  Internet browsers built into mobile phones). These accessibility  requirements for advanced communications supplement similar  requirements established by law for traditional telecommunications (e.g.,  telephones, wireless handsets, and fax machines). CVAA also requires  manufacturers and service providers of both traditional  telecommunications and advanced communications to maintain records  of their efforts to implement the act’s requirements to make their products  accessible and submit an annual certification to FCC indicating that the  companies are maintaining the records. The companies’ recordkeeping  efforts include consultations with the disability community and information  describing their products’ accessibility features and compatibility with  commonly used peripheral devices. CVAA also required FCC to  establish processes to facilitate the filing of complaints alleging the  violation of the requirements to make traditional and advanced  communications products and services accessible, and enforcement  procedures in cases of violations. CVAA required FCC to establish a  clearinghouse of information on the availability of accessible  communications products and to conduct an informational and  educational program designed to inform the public about the  clearinghouse and the protections and remedies available under the act.
Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010) (CVAA). CVAA is codified in various  sections of Title 47 of the U.S. Code.
CVAA and conducted public outreach, (2) the actions FCC has taken to  ensure industry compliance with CVAA’s recordkeeping provisions and to  determine the level of industry compliance with accessibility  requirements, and (3) stakeholders’ views on the effect of CVAA’s  recordkeeping obligations on the development and deployment of new   We did not assess the effectiveness of  communications technologies.CVAA’s enforcement provisions and FCC’s enforcement procedures to  ensure compliance with CVAA because FCC had not taken any  enforcement actions at the time of our review.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant portions of CVAA and  FCC documents, such as regulations, public notices, orders, and biennial  reports to Congress. We compared FCC’s efforts in carrying out its  responsibilities with requirements established in CVAA and assessed  FCC’s efforts to conduct public outreach against key practices we   In prior work, we convened an expert panel previously identified. composed of 14 senior management-level experts in strategic  communications to identify the key practices of a consumer education  campaign. We selected these experts—who represented private, public,  and academic institutions—based on their experience overseeing a  strategic communications or social marketing campaign or other relevant  expertise. We believe the key practices the expert panel identified in 2007  remain relevant today since the practices are not time-sensitive. We also  analyzed recordkeeping compliance certifications data covering the  period January 2013 (the date the certification requirement became  effective) to April 2015. We reviewed consumer complaints information  covering the period October 2013 (the date the accessibility complaints  process became effective) to April 1, 2015. We interviewed FCC officials  and representatives from six industry associations, seven consumer  advocate groups, and two disability research organizations. We selected  organizations that had submitted at least two responses to FCC’s  solicitations for public input on implementing CVAA from October 2010  through September 2014; five organizations selected for interviews  declined to speak with us or could not be reached. To obtain industry  views on the effects of CVAA’s requirements on the development and  deployment of new communications technologies, we surveyed a random  sample of 355 companies that had certified their compliance with the  recordkeeping requirements of CVAA as of December 2014. We  administered the survey from February 2015 through March 2015 and  received 173 responses, for a 49 percent response rate. The results of  our survey generalize to the population of the companies that had  certified compliance with recordkeeping obligations as of December 2014.  More details about our scope and methodology can be found in appendix  I and a copy of our survey in appendix II.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2014 to June 2015  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: When Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 in 1996, it  added a provision to ensure access to communications technologies for  people with disabilities. The provision, Section 255, required  manufacturers of traditional telecommunications equipment, such as  telephones, wireless handsets, or fax machines, and providers of  traditional telecommunications services, such as telephone calls, voice  mail, or interactive voice response systems to “ensure that [their  products and services] be accessible and usable by people with  disabilities” if making them so was “readily achievable.”service to be “accessible” means that it must have certain input, control,  and mechanical functions and meet certain information requirements to   For a product or  operate and use the product. Whether making a product or service  accessible is “readily achievable” depends, among other things, on the  cost of the required action and the overall financial resources of the entity  responsible for bearing that cost.equipment covered under section 255 include adjustable displays, screen  readers, volume control, and tactile alerts.
Examples of accessibility features for  CVAA was enacted to increase the access of people with disabilities to  modern communications. Section 716, a new section of the  Communications Act added by CVAA, requires manufacturers and  service providers of “advanced communications services” to make their  products accessible to people with disabilities. Advanced communication  services include VoIP services, electronic messaging services, and  interoperable video conferencing services. According to FCC, examples  of accessibility features for equipment covered under sections 716 also  include adjustable displays, screen readers, volume control, and tactile  alerts. Section 718, also added by CVAA, introduced a similar  accessibility requirement for manufacturers and service providers for  Internet browsers built into mobile phones. browser—for example, typing a web address in the address bar;  identifying and activating home, back, forward, refresh, reload, and stop  buttons; viewing status information; and activating zooming or other  features—must be accessible to individuals who are blind or visually  impaired. Importantly, advanced communication services were required to  be made accessible unless doing so was not achievable,rigorous standard than that applied to traditional telecommunications.
47 U.S.C. § 619. an evaluation of accessibility barriers that exist with respect to new  communications technologies, and complaints received during the  reporting period and their outcomes, among other things. See figure 1 for  a timeline of selected CVAA requirements and FCC’s actions to  implement them.
section_title: FCC Established Complaint and Enforcement Procedures in a Timely Manner, but Public Outreach Could Be Improved
subsections: section_title: FCC Established Accessibility Complaint and Enforcement Procedures within Mandated Time Frames
paragraphs: FCC established accessibility procedures for filing complaints alleging  violations of CVAA’s accessibility requirements and enforcement  procedures for cases of a violation on October 7, 2011, within the 1-year  statutory deadline. See appendix III for more detail on FCC’s actions  implementing Section 717’s complaint and enforcement provisions. In  developing its complaint and enforcement regulations and procedures,  FCC took into account industry and consumer feedback. For example, 2  weeks after CVAA’s October 2010 enactment, FCC issued a public notice  soliciting input on complaint and enforcement procedures, and 6 months  after enactment, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public  comment on implementing both complaint and enforcement  requirements. FCC received about 100 public comments from October  2010 to May 2011 after publishing those two solicitations. When FCC  adopted its complaint procedures in October 2011, it discussed its  rationale for accepting or rejecting some public suggestions. FCC  continued to seek and receive public comments after adoption of the  procedures to prepare its first biennial report, published in October 2012,  to Congress on FCC’s implementation of CVAA.
FCC’s complaint and enforcement procedures contain three types of  actions that consumers can take with FCC’s assistance. According to  FCC, the procedures enable consumers to contact companies directly by  using FCC’s database of company contact information—the  Recordkeeping Compliance Certification and Contact Information  (RCCCI) Registry. facilitate settlements between consumers and companies as informally as  possible and assist consumers with bringing their complaints to  companies. The three types of consumer actions FCC established are (1)  the pre-complaint Request for Dispute Assistance (RDA) process, (2) the  informal complaint process, and (3) the formal complaint process. As of  April 1, 2015, FCC had received 48 RDAs and no informal or formal  complaints.
subsections: section_title: Pre-Complaint RDA Process
paragraphs: Example of a Request for Dispute  Assistance   A blind consumer was having difficulty finding  an accessible mobile handset that had a full  read out of all menu levels and audible  keystrokes to work with his mobile service  provider and that had sufficiently strong signal  reception to work in his home. FCC’s  Disability Rights Office facilitated a resolution  by having the service provider work with the  consumer to test several models until the  consumer was able to find an accessible  handset that he could use.
FCC requires companies who are subject to the accessibility requirements of Sections  255, 716, and 718 to submit contact information to the RCCCI Registry. 47 C.F.R. §  14.31(b)(2). day period ends. If a consumer takes no action after 60 days, FCC closes  the case. See figure 2 for a flowchart of the RDA process.
According to FCC’s October 2011 Report and Order,RDA process is to provide an appropriate amount of time to facilitate  settlements and provide assistance to consumers to rapidly and efficiently  resolve accessibility issues with companies. In addition, FCC’s intention  with the RDA process is to lessen the hesitation of some consumers to  approach companies about their concerns or complaints by themselves.  Further, the report and order stated that FCC’s involvement before a  complaint is filed will benefit both consumers and industry by helping to  clarify the accessibility needs of consumers for the manufacturers or  service providers against which they may be contemplating a complaint,  encouraging settlement discussions between the parties, and resolving  accessibility issues without the expenditure of time and resources in the  informal complaint process. According to FCC, 48 RDAs were filed  between October 8, 2013, the date the new CVAA accessibility complaint  rules took effect, and April 1, 2015. DRO facilitated a resolution for 43  RDAs by contacting the consumer and the company, and none were  escalated to an informal complaint for investigation. DRO dismissed 2   the pre-complaint  RDAs because it was unable to obtain a response from the consumer to  obtain additional information about the accessibility problem or to facilitate  resolution. One RDA was withdrawn by the consumer, and at the time of  our review, 2 RDAs were pending as dialog continued among DRO, the  consumers, and the service providers.
section_title: Informal Complaint Process
paragraphs: The informal complaint process begins when a consumer files an informal  complaint form. DRO fills out the form based on the information from the  consumer’s RDA filing. As required by CVAA, a consumer has multiple  methods for filing the informal complaint form, including telephone, online,  mail, e-mail, and fax. FCC’s procedures require the Enforcement Bureau  (EB) to review the informal complaint form for completeness, including  whether it shows a possible violation. EB will dismiss the complaint  without prejudice to refile if the form is incomplete, but the consumer may  then refile an informal complaint with the correct information. If complete,  EB will serve the complaint to the company named in the complaint,  which must respond within 20 days of receiving the complaint and send  the consumer and FCC a non-confidential summary of its response. In  this answer, the company must provide sufficient evidence demonstrating  that the product or service is accessible, or, if not accessible, that  accessibility was not achievable under the rules or readily achievable.  The consumer may reply to the company’s response in writing but must  do so within 10 days. EB will investigate the consumer’s allegation and  the company’s written response, and is required by CVAA to issue an  order within 180 days finding whether the company violated sections 255,  716, or 718—i.e., that the company did not ensure its product was  accessible and could not prove that ensuring accessibility was  unachievable—or any of FCC’s implementing rules described in the Code  of Federal Regulations. If a violation is found, FCC may direct the  company to bring its product into compliance within a reasonable period  of time and take other appropriate enforcement action. The rules allow a  company the opportunity to comment on a proposed remedial action  before FCC issues a final order. See figure 3 for a flowchart of the  informal complaint process.
FCC’s rationale for making an RDA a prerequisite for filing an informal  complaint is that after a consumer has undertaken the RDA process, all  parties involved—DRO officials, the consumer, and the company—should  have identified the correct manufacturer or service provider that the  consumer will name in the informal complaint and the consumer should  have obtained all the information necessary to satisfy the minimum  requirements for filing an informal complaint. FCC does not intend the  informal complaint process to require legal representation and allows at  any time for both parties to resolve the problem on their own or the  consumer to withdraw the informal complaint and file another RDA.
section_title: Formal Complaint Process
paragraphs: To file a formal complaint, the consumer must first obtain an FCC  registration number.
FCC sends the complaint to the company, which  must answer with a defense within 20 days of receipt. The consumer may  file and serve a reply to the company’s defense but must do so within 3  days of receiving the company’s answer. EB staff review and investigate  the consumer’s formal complaint filings and the company’s answer to the  complaint, and make a decision. FCC’s procedures do not include a  deadline for making a decision on the complaint. As shown in figure 4, the  filing of an RDA or an informal complaint is not a prerequisite for filing a  formal complaint.
Section 717 directed FCC to establish procedures for enforcement  actions against violations of Sections 255, 716, and 718. The  procedures include the process established for handling informal and  formal complaints. As of April 1, 2015, FCC had not taken any  enforcement actions against a company because no informal or formal  complaints had been filed.
section_title: FCC Has Conducted Public Outreach Efforts but Has Not Evaluated Their Effectiveness
paragraphs: FCC has undertaken numerous efforts to conduct its CVAA-mandated  informational and educational program to inform the public about the act’s  protections and remedies. FCC established a clearinghouse of  information on accessibility products and services within the 1-year  statutory deadline, and is conducting an outreach program to inform the  public about the clearinghouse and CVAA’s protections and remedies.  For example, FCC has hosted seminars and webinars on accessibility  issues; published consumer guides and news releases; sought public  comment on rulemaking and waiver requests in advance of orders; and  updated subscribers to its public e-mail service on accessibility-related  information. FCC also maintains the Accessibility Clearinghouse on its  website, which provides links to, for example, disability organizations,  resources by type of disability, products and services, and consumer  guides. In addition, FCC established the Disability Advisory Committee,  which is charged with making recommendations to FCC on the full range  of disability access issues, suggesting ways to facilitate the participation  of consumers with disabilities in proceedings before FCC, and providing  an effective means for stakeholders to exchange ideas and develop  recommendations for accessibility solutions.
While FCC has undertaken efforts to conduct public outreach, it has not  evaluated the effectiveness of its efforts. We previously identified nine key  practices that are important to conducting a consumer education  campaign. the key practices we identified and found FCC’s efforts did not always  align with the key practices, as shown in table 1. In particular, we found  FCC’s efforts do not align with two of the key practices related to defining  goals and objectives and establishing process and outcome metrics.
section_title: FCC Has Taken Limited Actions to Ensure and Determine Compliance with Recordkeeping Provisions and with Accessibility Requirements
subsections: section_title: FCC Established a Database to Facilitate Industry Self-Certifications
paragraphs: The primary action FCC has taken to ensure industry’s compliance with  CVAA’s recordkeeping requirements was to establish the  Recordkeeping Compliance Certification and Contact Information  (RCCCI) Registry, which is maintained on FCC’s website. Companies  subject to any of CVAA’s accessibility requirements must submit an  annual certification to FCC that they are maintaining records of their  efforts to make their products accessible through the RCCCI Registry.  Companies enter three types of information into RCCCI: (1) contact  information for a person within the company authorized to resolve  consumer complaints; (2) contact information for a person within the  company in the event of an informal or formal complaint; and (3) a  certification that the company is maintaining records of its efforts to make  its products and services accessible. To inform companies of their  recordkeeping and annual certification obligations, FCC has been posting  public notices and sending e-mails to its AccessInfo subscribers since  2013, reminding them to submit the required information into the RCCCI  Registry annually by April 1. The RCCCI Registry was made available on  FCC’s website in January 2013, and as of April 2015, FCC had received  approximately 3,777 industry certifications.
section_title: FCC Does Not Know the Extent of Industry’s Compliance with CVAA Requirements
paragraphs: During our review, FCC officials were unable to say whether the actual  number of compliance certifications recorded in the RCCCI Registry  represents full industry compliance with CVAA’s certification  requirements. In particular, although FCC estimated over 28,000  companies could be affected by CVAA’s requirements, FCC officials told  us that this estimate does not accurately capture the number of  companies subject to CVAA’s recordkeeping requirements. Additionally,  we found some companies that certified compliance with CVAA’s  recordkeeping requirements did not believe they were subject to CVAA.  For example, a representative from a certifying company in Nebraska we  selected randomly to interview told us the company was not maintaining  records in accordance with CVAA since the company had not received  any complaints about the inaccessibility of its services and there were no  people with disabilities in its service area. However, CVAA’s accessibility  and recordkeeping requirements are tied to the manufacturing of  communications equipment or the provision of communications services,  and not whether a company’s clients, in its judgment, are people with  disabilities. A few companies responding to our survey indicated that they  did not believe the accessibility or recordkeeping requirements of the act  applied to them since they were wholesalers rather than retailers of  telecommunications or advanced communications services.  Nevertheless, these companies had self-certified to FCC that they were  complying with CVAA’s recordkeeping requirements.
Furthermore, FCC cannot say whether industry is fully complying with the  requirements to make products and services accessible. As stated  previously, CVAA requires FCC to report biennially to Congress on the  level of industry compliance with Sections 255, 716, and 718. However,  FCC lacks an objective measure for making this determination. In the  2014 biennial report to Congress, FCC based its determination of  industry compliance primarily on the public comments it received and  industry association reports to prepare the final report. For example,  based on comments it received, FCC determined that Section 255  companies increased the availability of accessible telecommunications  equipment and that Section 716 and 718 companies “made efforts to  comply.” Although such commentary does not enable FCC to objectively  determine industry compliance, developing an objective measure might  not be cost-effective because to date, FCC has received no informal or  formal complaints asserting non-compliance with CVAA accessibility  requirements.
section_title: Stakeholders Indicate CVAA’s Recordkeeping Obligations Have Had Minimal Effects Thus Far on the Development and Deployment of New Communications Technologies
paragraphs: Stakeholders we surveyed and interviewed generally reported that  CVAA’s recordkeeping obligations have not affected the development and  deployment of new communications technologies. We asked companies if  CVAA’s requirements to maintain records of their efforts to make their  products and services accessible affected the development and  deployment of new communications technologies. As shown in figure 5,  based on responses from the random sample of certifying companies that  we surveyed, estimates of the percentages of companies that view  CVAA’s recordkeeping requirements as having had no effect on their  development and deployment of new communications technology range  from 59 and 70 percent (across the four recordkeeping requirements). All  percentage estimates from the survey have margins of error at the 95  percent confidence level of plus or minus 14 percentage points or less,  unless otherwise noted. Furthermore, we estimate that between 27 and  30 percent of companies view the recordkeeping requirements as posing  little or no burden to their company; between 47 and 53 percent view the  requirements as posing either “some” or a “moderate” burden. A few  companies that described themselves as small commented that the  burdens of complying with the recordkeeping requirement had little or no  corresponding benefit to consumers. Stakeholders we interviewed did not  raise specific harms or benefits associated with CVAA’s recordkeeping  obligations on the development and deployment of new communications  technologies.
As part of our survey, we also asked companies if CVAA’s requirements  to make their products and services accessible affected the development  and deployment of new communications technologies. As shown in figure  6, we estimate that 72 percent of companies view those requirements as  having had no effect on their development and deployment of new  communications technologies. An estimated 28 percent of companies  view the product accessibility requirements as posing little to no burden  on their businesses; another 59 percent described those requirements as  posing either “some” or a “moderate” burden on their companies.  Additionally, we estimate that 21 percent of companies increased their  efforts to incorporate accessibility features into their products or services  due to the passage of CVAA. Another 64 percent reported that there had  been no change in their efforts to incorporate accessibility features in their  products or services as a result of CVAA; however, many of these  companies indicated that they had been subject to product accessibility   A few companies responding to our  requirements before its passage.survey commented that either because they were small or because they  were service providers rather than manufacturers, they had very little or  no influence over whether technology was more accessible and that the  primary way for them to increase the accessibility of their services was  through vendor selection.
In our interviews, industry associations and advocates for people with  disabilities generally indicated that product accessibility had improved  since the passage of CVAA. Representatives from industry associations  highlighted a number of association-led efforts to bring industry and  consumers together to ensure that the needs of consumers with  disabilities are being addressed. For example, the Consumer Electronics  Association hosts an accessibility roundtable at its annual International  Consumer Electronics Show. FCC officials noted that the collaboration of  CTIA-The Wireless Association was instrumental in launching the  accessibility clearinghouse, and CTIA started its own Accessibility  Outreach Initiative in 2013. Representatives from the  Telecommunications Industry Association cited their role in efforts to  increase the quality of personal sound amplification devices. Advocates  for people with disabilities indicated that there were still many ways in  which the accessibility of communications technology could be further  improved, but some believed that CVAA resulted in more widely available  accessible technology.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: CVAA requires manufacturers and service providers of advanced  communications services to make their products accessible to people  with disabilities and requires FCC to inform the public about the  availability of the act’s protections and remedies. Although FCC has  undertaken numerous efforts to conduct its informational and educational  program, we found FCC could strengthen its public outreach efforts by  following key practices, especially related to (1) defining objectives and  (2) establishing process and outcome metrics. FCC has spent time and  resources conducting public outreach, such as hosting seminars on  accessibility issues and attending accessibility conferences. However,  FCC has not established formal objectives for the outreach program or  process and outcome metrics to assess the extent to which the program  is meeting CVAA’s goals. It is important for FCC to have a clear  understanding of the goals and objectives of its public outreach prior to  establishing the necessary targets to measure the effectiveness of its  outreach efforts. By establishing process and outcome metrics, FCC  could determine whether the current levels of budgetary and other  resources allocated to the outreach program need adjustment.  Furthermore, FCC could better ensure the quality, quantity, and  timeliness of its outreach regarding CVAA’s protections and remedies.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend the Chairman of FCC evaluate the effectiveness of  FCC’s accessibility-related public outreach efforts and ensure those  efforts incorporate key practices identified in this report, such as defining  objectives and establishing process and outcome metrics.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to FCC for its review and comment.  FCC provided written comments (reprinted in app. IV) and technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In the written  comments, FCC stated that it agreed with our recommendation and noted  that evaluating its public outreach efforts could enable FCC to determine  whether current resources allocated to these efforts are appropriate and  help to ensure the quality, quantity, and timeliness of such efforts. FCC  stated it is committed to achieving CVAA’s goals with respect to  conducting public outreach and it will look to define objectives and  establish process and outcome metrics to measure success in achieving  those objectives.
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman of the Federal  Communications Commission and appropriate congressional committees.  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or members of your staff have any questions about this report,  please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report  are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Section 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the 21st  Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA),  included a provision that we evaluate the Federal Communication  Commission’s (FCC) compliance with the enforcement and recordkeeping  obligations contained in the act. This report presents information on (1)  the extent to which FCC established complaint and enforcement  procedures within the time frames required by CVAA and conducted  public outreach, (2) the actions FCC has taken to ensure industry  compliance with CVAA’s recordkeeping provisions and to determine the  level of industry compliance with accessibility requirements, and (3)  stakeholders’ views on the effect of CVAA’s recordkeeping obligations on the development and deployment of new communications technologies.We did not assess the effectiveness of CVAA’s enforcement provisions  and FCC’s enforcement procedures to ensure compliance with CVAA  because FCC had not taken any enforcement actions at the time of our  review.
To determine whether FCC established complaint and enforcement  procedures within the required time frames of CVAA, we reviewed the  Section 717 provisions related to those procedures and compared them  with FCC’s implementing actions. Specifically, we reviewed the  procedures FCC publically released in its October 2011 Report and Order  and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, those procedures  published as final rules in December 2011 in the Federal Register, and the final rules codified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R).To determine what information FCC provides to the public about filing  accessibility complaints, we reviewed its Consumer Help Center web  page ( ), which FCC had  redesigned and opened during the course of our review. The Consumer  Help Center instructs the public in how to seek FCC’s assistance and file  complaints not only on accessibility issues, but also on other issues  related to TV, phone, internet, radio, and emergency communications. To  determine FCC’s efforts to inform the public about the availability of the  clearinghouse and the protections and remedies available under sections  255, 716, and 718,http://ach.fcc.gov/;  Clearinghouse of Information, which can be found at  October 2012 and October 2014 biennial reports to Congress; online  Consumer Help Center; and AccessInfo@fcc.gov e-mails that update  public subscribers on accessibility and disability issues. In addition, we  reviewed FCC’s October 2011 Report and Order and Further Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking and other FCC documents to determine whether  FCC established the Accessibility Clearinghouse within the time frames  required by CVAA. We assessed FCC’s public outreach efforts against  the key practices for consumer education planning identified in our  November 2007 report.education campaign, we convened an expert panel composed of 14  senior management-level experts in strategic communications. We  selected these experts, who represented private, public, and academic   we reviewed the contents of FCC’s Accessibility   To identify the key practices of a consumer  institutions, based on their experience overseeing a strategic  communications or social marketing campaign or other relevant expertise.
To determine the actions FCC has taken to ensure industry compliance  with CVAA’s recordkeeping and annual certification obligations, we  reviewed FCC’s October 2011 Report and Order and Further Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking, October 2012 and October 2014 biennial reports  to Congress; and interviewed officials from FCC’s Consumer and  Governmental Affairs Bureau and Enforcement Bureau. We also  assessed FCC’s efforts for determining the level of industry compliance  with Sections 255, 716, and 718 by analyzing FCC’s assessments in its  biennial reports to Congress, analyzing data (covering January 2013 to  April 2015) from the Recordkeeping Compliance Certification and Contact  Information Registry to determine the number of distinct companies  certifying their compliance with CVAA, and interviewing Consumer and  Governmental Affairs Bureau officials.
To determine the telecommunications industry’s views on the effect of  CVAA’s certification and recordkeeping obligations on the development  and deployment of new communications technologies, we conducted a  web-based survey. We drew a stratified random sample of 355  companies from the population of 3,549 companies that had submitted  recordkeeping certifications to FCC as of December 5, 2014. To obtain  these 355 companies, we divided the companies into those that had  identified themselves as only being subject to the product accessibility  requirements of Section 255 of the Communications Act, and those  subject to the product accessibility requirements of Sections 716 and 718  of the Communications Act. Companies that submitted a certification to  FCC without identifying themselves by a section were excluded from the  sample. Additionally, because oftentimes the same person served as the  contact person for multiple companies, we took a systematic sample  within each stratum to ensure that no one respondent received more than  four surveys from us. With this probability sample, each member of the  study population had a nonzero probability of being included, and that  probability could be computed for any member. Each sample element  was subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all  the members of the population, including those who were not selected. To  ensure that our survey questions were clear and logical and that  respondents could answer the questions without undue burden, we pre- tested our questionnaire with five companies. We interviewed pretest  companies that varied in company size, accessibility requirement section,  and equipment manufacturing or service provision. We administered the  survey from February 2015 through March 2015. We received 173  responses, for a 49 percent response rate. Because we followed a  probability procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one  of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each  sample could have provided different estimates, we express our  confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95  percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain the  actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have  drawn. All percentage estimates from the survey have margins of error at  the 95 percent confidence level of plus or minus 14 percentage points or  less, unless otherwise noted.
In addition to sampling errors, the practical difficulties of conducting any  survey may also introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as  non-sampling errors. For example, difficulties in how a particular question  is interpreted, in the sources of information available to respondents, or in  how the data were entered into a database or were analyzed can  introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. With this survey, we  took a number of steps to minimize these non-sampling errors. For  example, our staff with subject matter expertise designed the  questionnaire in collaboration with our survey specialists. As noted  earlier, the questionnaire was pretested to ensure that the questions were  relevant and clearly stated. When the data were analyzed, a second  independent GAO analyst independently verified the analysis programs to  ensure the accuracy of the code and the appropriateness of the methods  used for the computer-generated analysis. Since this was a web-based  survey, respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic  questionnaire, thereby eliminating the need to have the data keyed into a  database, thus avoiding a source of data entry error.
In addition, as shown in table 2, we interviewed representatives from 15  organizations to obtain their views of FCC’s action to implement the  provisions of CVAA and CVAA’s effect on increasing the accessibility for  people with disabilities. We selected organizations that had submitted two  or more comments in reply to FCC’s solicitation of public comments on  proposed rules, regulations, and biennial report drafts.
section_title: Appendix II: Copy of Survey to Certifying Companies
paragraphs: The questions we asked in our survey of certifying officers of companies  subject to the reporting requirements of Section 717 of the  Communications Act of 1934, as amended by Title I of the 21st Century  Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, P.L. 111-260  (CVAA) are shown below. Our survey was composed of closed- and  open-ended questions. In this appendix, we include all survey questions  and aggregate results of responses to selected closed-ended questions;  we do not provide information on responses provided to the open-ended  questions. For a more detailed discussion of our methodology, see  appendix I.
Data intentionally not reported for questions in Section 1: Demographics  This questionnaire covers the following company:   (Company name was inserted)  1.  Which of the following describes your company?   (Check all that apply.)
Section 255 - Interconnected VoIP Equipment Manufacturer    Section 255 - Interconnected VoIP Service Provider    Section 255 - Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturer    Section 255 - Telecommunications Service Provider    Section 716 - Electronic Messaging Equipment Manufacturer    Section 716 - Electronic Messaging Service Provider    Section 716 - Interoperable Video Conferencing Equipment    Section 716 - Interoperable Video Conferencing Service Provider    Section 716 - Non-interconnected VoIP Equipment Manufacturer    Section 716 - Non-interconnected VoIP Service Provider    Section 718 - Mobile Phone Equipment Manufacturer that includes    Section 718 - Mobile Phone Service Provider that arranges for  inclusion of an Internet browser    Other - Please specify: ______________  2.  How many people did your company employ as of   December 31, 2014?  (Please include part-time and temporary staff.)  3.  What was your company’s annual revenue for calendar   year 2014?
Calendar year 2014 annual revenue: $ ________  4a. Approximately what percentage of your company’s annual  revenue is accounted for by products or services that are  required to be made accessible under Sections 255, 716, and 718  of the Communications Act as amended by CVAA?
If you selected “None,” please explain:  4b. Approximately what percentage of your company’s products or  services is required    to be made accessible under Sections 255, 716, and 718 of the  Communications Act    as amended by CVAA?
Please note: Sections 255, 716, and 718 contain requirements for manufacturers and  service providers to make their products and services accessible to people with  disabilities, to the extent achievable.
5.  Have the requirements of Sections 255, 716, or 718 had a  beneficial effect, no effect, or an adverse effect on your  company’s design, development, and deployment of new  communications technologies?
5a. If you would like to expand on your response to Question 5,  please include examples of products or services whose design,  development, and deployment were either beneficially or  adversely affected by the requirement to be made accessible.  6.  In your opinion, what level of burden, if any, have the Section  255, 716, and 718 requirements posed to your company?
6a. If you would like to expand on your response to Question 6,  please include examples where the requirement to make your  product or service accessible represented what you see as a  burden.
Section 3: CVAA Requirements: Recordkeeping  Please note: Section 717 states you “shall maintain, in the ordinary  course of business and for a reasonable period, records of the  efforts taken by such manufacturer or provider to implement  sections 255, 716, and 718, including the following:  (i) Information about the manufacturer’s or provider’s efforts to  consult with individuals with disabilities.  (ii) Descriptions of the accessibility features of its products and  services.  (iii) Information about the compatibility of such products and  services with peripheral devices or specialized customer premise  equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve  access.”
Section 717 also requires that “An officer of a manufacturer or  provider shall submit to the  (Federal Communications) Commission an annual certification that  records are being kept in accordance with” CVAA.  7.  Have each of the following Section 717 recordkeeping  requirements had a beneficial effect, no effect, or an adverse  effect on your company’s design, development, and deployment  of new communications technologies?   (Select one answer in each row.)
subsections: section_title: Response
paragraphs: 7a. If you would like to expand on your response to Question 7,  please include examples of products or services whose design,  development, and deployment were either beneficially or  adversely affected by the recordkeeping requirements.  8.  In your opinion, what level of burden, if any, have each of the  following Section 717 recordkeeping requirements posed to your  company? (Select one answer in each row.)
8a. If you would like to expand on your response to Question 8,  please include examples    where the recordkeeping requirements represented what you  see as a burden.
The following statement is excerpted from an FCC Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking:  “We will not mandate any one form for keeping records (i.e., we adopt a flexible  approach to recordkeeping). While we establish uniform recordkeeping and  enforcement procedures for entities subject to Sections 255, 716, and 718, we  believe that covered entities should not be required to maintain records in a specific  format. Allowing covered entities the flexibility to implement individual recordkeeping  procedures takes into account the variances in covered entities (e.g., size, experience  with the Commission), recordkeeping methods, and products and services covered by  the provisions.” (FCC 11-151, paragraph 223)
9.  Would more specific guidance from FCC on how to satisfy  Section 717’s  recordkeeping requirements be helpful to your  company?
10. Does your company maintain any of the following documents in  support of the Section 717 recordkeeping requirements?   (Select all that apply.)
Marketing related documents, including:    Customer and end user surveys and responses  Engineering documents, including:    Device and product design documents  Meeting records that discuss relevant subject material,  including:    Presentations and documents studied during the meeting  Relevant test documents, including:  Documents that specifically address Section 255, 716, 717, or  718 requirements, including:  Other documents not listed above:    No response  Section 4: Changes Since the Passage of CVAA  Please note: CVAA was signed into law on October 8, 2010.  11. Due to the passage of CVAA, has your company increased or  decreased its efforts to incorporate accessibility features in its  products or services?
section_title: Appendix III: Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Actions Implementing the Accessibility Complaint and Enforcement Procedures Required by the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA)
paragraphs: Appendix III: Federal Communications  Commission’s (FCC) Actions Implementing the  Accessibility Complaint and Enforcement  Procedures Required by the 21st Century  Communications and Video Accessibility Act  of 2010 (CVAA)
Section 717 provisions related to FCC’s establishment of  complaint and enforcement procedures  FCC shall establish regulations within one year after CVAA’s  enactment on October 8, 2010, that facilitate the filing of formal  and informal complaints that allege a violation of Section 255,  716, or 718. (§ 717(a))  FCC shall establish procedures for enforcement actions with  respect to such violations. (§ 717(a))
FCC shall not charge any fee to an individual who files a  complaint. (§ 717(a)(1))
FCC’s actions implementing the provisions  FCC released the procedures on October 7, 2011, and published  them under title 47, Part 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations  (47 C.F.R. Part 14) on December 30, 2011. The procedures  became effective on January 30, 2012.  FCC established enforcement procedures within the regulations  setting forth the process for filing formal and informal complaints.  As of March 2015, no informal or formal complaints have been  filed with FCC.  FCC does not charge a fee for filing an informal complaint. In the  case of a formal complaint, FCC officials stated that they do not  interpret any filing fee requirements to apply to asserting violations  of sections 255, 716, or 718. FCC’s October 2011 Report and  Order implementing Section 717 indicated that there was a filing  fee associated with the formal complaint process.  FCC’s procedures allow persons to file RDAs and informal  complaints online and by telephone, mail, e-mail, and fax.
FCC shall establish separate and identifiable electronic,  telephonic, and physical receptacles for the receipt of complaints  filed (§ 717(a)(2))  FCC shall investigate allegations in an informal complaint, and  issue an order concluding the investigation, include a  determination whether any violation occurred. (§ 717(a)(3)(B))  In the case of a violation determination, FCC may direct the  company to bring its service or the next generation of its  equipment or device into compliance within a reasonable time. (§  717(a)(3)(B)(i))  Before FCC makes a violation determination, the company shall  have a reasonable opportunity to respond to such complaint. (§  717(a)(4))  Before issuing a final order, FCC shall provide the company a  reasonable opportunity to comment on any proposed remedial  action. (§ 717(a)(4))  After the filing of a formal or informal complaint against a  company, FCC may request, and shall keep confidential, a copy  of the records maintained by the company that are directly  relevant to the complaint. (§ 717(a)(5)(C))
FCC established investigation actions in its procedures: 47 C.F.R.  § 14.37 for informal complaints and 47 C.F.R. § 14.38 for formal  complaints.  FCC established this requirement in its procedures: 47 C.F.R. §  14.37(b)(1). As of March 2015, no informal or formal complaints  have been filed with FCC.
FCC established this requirement in its procedures: 47 C.F.R. §  14.36(b) for informal complaints and 47 C.F.R. § 14.38 for formal  complaints.  FCC established this requirement in its procedures: 47 C.F.R. §  14.37(c) for informal complaints.
FCC established the requirement for requesting records in its  procedures: 47 C.F.R. § 14.31(c) for informal and formal  complaints. The procedures require companies to submit a  request for confidentiality of these records.
Section 717 provisions related to FCC’s establishment of  complaint and enforcement procedures  Nothing in FCC’s rules shall be construed to preclude a person  who files a complaint and a company from resolving a formal or  informal complaint prior to FCC’s final determination in a  complaint proceeding. In the event of such a resolution, the  parties shall jointly request dismissal of the complaint and FCC  shall grant such request. (§ 717(a)(8))
FCC’s actions implementing the provisions  FCC’s intent in adopting its procedures was to encourage the non- adversarial resolution of disputes. The informal complaint  procedures (47 C.F.R. § 14.37) (1) allow a consumer and a  company to talk to each other at any time to resolve the complaint  by mutual agreement, and a consumer to withdraw an informal  complaint and file another request for dispute assistance, and (2)  require the consumer to notify the Enforcement Bureau if either of  those two actions has occurred. The formal complaint procedures  (47 C.F.R. § 14.50) allow both parties to meet and settle any  matter in controversy by agreement and require that both submit a  joint statement to FCC of the agreed upon proposals.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Sally Moino (Assistant  Director), Amy Abramowitz, Enyinnaya David Aja, Susan Baker, Russell  Burnett, Justin Fisher, Sam Hinojosa, David Hooper, Stuart Kaufman,  Josh Ormond, Dae Park, and Amy Rosewarne made key contributions to  this report.