December 5, 2023
Shalanda D. Young
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Filed via Regulations.gov
Dear Director Young:
The American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) is a national nonprofit that advocates for a world of no limits for people who are blind or have low vision by mobilizing leaders, advancing understanding, and championing impactful policies and practices using research and data. AFB appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed OMB memorandum, “Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence.”
The Rehabilitation Act (particularly sections 501, 504, and 508) and the Americans with Disabilities Act protect the rights of people with disabilities, including people who are blind have low vision, and are deafblind, to participate equally in society, to work, to access government programs and benefits, and to have equal opportunities. However, as many digital technologies have been deployed in the last three decades, people with disabilities have often been an afterthought. The lack of disability-inclusive planning, accessible design, and enforcement of federal disability laws in the digital environment has created barriers in all aspects of life, including working for and receiving services from the federal government. As the federal government plans for the implementation of yet another new technology, AFB urges the Office of Management and Budget to integrate disability access and nondiscrimination into all aspects of federal AI governance, development, and deployment.
Question 1. The composition of Federal agencies varies significantly in ways that will shape the way they approach governance. An overarching Federal policy must account for differences in an agency's size, organization, budget, mission, organic AI talent, and more. Are the roles, responsibilities, seniority, position, and reporting structures outlined for Chief AI Officers sufficiently flexible and achievable for the breadth of covered agencies?The Chief AI Officer must have an understanding of digital accessibility principles and practices to ensure that AI systems are accessible to people with disabilities, including people who are blind or have low vision. These practices should include accessibility testing, procurement, contracting, design, and development, as well as the use of assistive technology, such as screen reader or magnification software. Accessibility is important in the development of both the front-end and back-end software and is an important factor in ensuring these systems do not perpetuate discrimination and bias against people with disabilities – whether members of the general public or federal employees. The federal government is obligated by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act not to discriminate against people with disabilities in the use of information and communications technologies. Establishing a commitment to and knowledge of accessibility at the highest levels of agency administration is vital to carrying out Section 508 obligations, particularly as AI development and use is still relatively new.
Question 2. What types of coordination mechanisms, either in the public or private sector, would be particularly effective for agencies to model in their establishment of an AI Governance Body? What are the benefits or drawbacks to having agencies establishing a new body to perform AI governance versus updating the scope of an existing group (for example, agency bodies focused on privacy, IT, or data)?Existing bodies are unlikely to be able to independently coordinate all of the needed tasks that an AI governance body must perform. AI governance bodies must include expertise on disability rights and digital accessibility that may be lacking in existing agency bodies. Indeed, while Chief AI Officers should have sufficient accessibility knowledge to provide access to these platforms for employees and the public, the Chief AI Officers likely will be constrained in the depth of their accessibility expertise. For that reason, agencies should also designate Chief Accessibility Officers who can work with the Chief AI Officers and the AI governance bodies to ensure that all governmentally used and funded AI tools are accessible to, usable by, and inclusive of people with disabilities. Chief Accessibility Officers should be responsible for ensuring that agencies build, develop, procure, contract with, deploy, and use accessible information and communications technologies in compliance with and, where appropriate, exceeding the Section 508 regulations. Coordination between Chief AI Officers and Chief Accessibility Officers would also increase agency capacity to adhere to Executive Orders 13985, 14035, and 14110. In the absence of establishing Chief Accessibility Officers, however, it remains imperative that the AI governance bodies in each agency include experts on accessibility who understand technical accessibility development and have experience implementing organizational policies and practices for accessibility and disability inclusion.
Question 3. How can OMB best advance responsible AI innovation?AI talent development within agencies must include accessibility training for all employees and recruitment of workers with disabilities. Training for all employees should include an accessibility component to ensure that agencies interacting with AI systems are prepared to evaluate these systems for discrimination and bias and to deploy AI accessibly and inclusively. Further, it is vital to ensure that there are pathways to AI development and deployment jobs for people with disabilities. STEM-related professions and training are often less accessible to people who are blind because the training materials and technologies employed are not fully accessible. People with disabilities bring a diversity of lived experiences that can strengthen the development of models for a wide range of users. Thus, agencies should take proactive steps to create pathways for current and prospective employees to develop AI skills that are inclusive of people who are blind or have low vision and assistive technology users.
Question 7. What types of materials or resources would be most valuable to help agencies, as appropriate, incorporate the requirements and recommendations of this memorandum into relevant contracts?Procurement of inaccessible tools is a common way that the federal government disadvantages employees who are blind or have low vision. In 2021, AFB surveyed 48 current or former federal employees and contractors. 65% reported that their employer had procured new hardware or software that presented accessibility challenges. 1 Contract language that specifies that the data used to train AI models must be inclusive of people with disabilities, including their need for reasonable accommodations and accessibility standards, should be standard for AI contracts. Similarly, model outputs and decisions should be rigorously tested for potential discrimination and bias against people with disabilities, and agencies can play a role in developing appropriate tests for this purpose. Contracts should also require that vendors make all user interfaces accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, including those who use assistive technology. Vendors should be required to regularly evaluate AI models and interfaces for nondiscrimination and accessibility, including before any updates, and to provide appropriate remediation and customer service when issues arise. The federal government can only do so much to provide an accessible experience for employees and the public if it is not ensuring that vendors are delivering accessible services and products.
Furthermore, agencies would benefit from guidance on validating vendor claims of accessibility, and employees, especially procurement officers, need training on understanding accessibility principles and how to comply with federal Section 508 regulations and other accessibility requirements. The federal government has made significant progress in implementing accessibility, especially on public-facing websites, but much work remains to be done. It will benefit the government, taxpayers, and employees if the government can implement accessibility upfront on these emerging AI technologies.
Question 8. What kind of information should be made public about agencies' use of AI in their annual use case inventory?We appreciate that agencies must report on rights-impacting AI and the risks to equity. Within those analyses, agencies should report on the types of accessibility and nondiscrimination testing that each type of AI use undergoes and the testing results. Such reporting would be in line with the required biennial reporting requirements of 29 USC §794d(d)(2) regarding the accessibility of federal information and communications technology.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide feedback on AI governance in the United States. If you have any questions about this issue, please contact Sarah Malaier.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Enyart
Chief Public Policy and Research Officer
Notes
- Silverman, A. M., Rosenblum, L. P., Bolander, E. C., Rhoads, C. R., & Bleach, K. (2022). Technology and Accommodations: Employment Experiences of U.S. Adults Who Are Blind, Have Low Vision, or Are Deafblind. American Foundation for the Blind. www.afb.org/wts ↵
