Implementing the Provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 82240-82264 [2011-31160]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82240-82264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31160]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 14

[CG Docket No. 10-213; WT Docket No. 96-198; CG Docket No. 10-145; FCC 
11-151]


Implementing the Provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
Enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the 
implementation of certain provisions in sections 716, 717, and 718 of 
the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 
2010 (CVAA), the most significant piece of accessibility legislation 
since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. 
Specifically, this document seeks comment on whether to adopt a 
permanent exemption for small entities that provide advanced 
communications services (ACS). The document also seeks comment on 
implementing section 718 of the Act which requires Internet browsers 
built into mobile phones to be accessible to and usable by persons who 
are blind or have a visual impairment, unless doing so is unachievable. 
This inquiry includes the recordkeeping and enforcement requirements 
related to section 718. People with disabilities have often faced 
technical challenges associated with the use of Internet browsers, 
video conferencing services, and the accessibility of information 
content. The CVAA attempts to bring existing communications laws 
protecting people with disabilities in line with 21st Century 
technologies while providing flexibility to the industry by allowing 
for new and innovative ways to meet the needs of people with 
disabilities. These actions will promote rapid deployment of and 
universal access to broadband services for all Americans across the 
country, which will in turn stimulate economic growth and provide 
opportunity.

DATES: Submit comments on or before February 13, 2012, and reply 
comments on or before March 14, 2012. Written comments on the proposed 
information collection requirements, subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13, should be submitted on or before 
February 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. You may submit comments, identified by FCC 11-
151, or by CG Docket Nos. 10-213 and 10-145, and WT Docket No. 96-198, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosaline Crawford, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-2075 or 
rosaline.crawford@fcc.gov; Brian Regan, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, at (202) 418-2849 or brian.regan@fcc.gov; or Janet Sievert, 
Enforcement Bureau, at (202) 418-1362 or janet.sievert@fcc.gov. For 
additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact 
Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, at (202) 418-2918, 
or via email Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC 11-151, 
adopted October 7, 2011, and released October 7, 2011, in CG Docket 
Nos. 10-213 and 10-145, and WT Docket No. 96-198. Simultaneously with 
the FNPRM, the Commission issued a Report and Order in CG Docket Nos. 
10-213 and 10-145, and WT Docket No. 96-198 (``Accessibility Report and 
Order''). The full text of FCC 11-151 and copies of any subsequently 
filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection 
and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. FCC 11-151 and copies of subsequently filed 
documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's 
duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's 
duplicating contractor at its web site, www.bcpiweb.com, or by calling 
1-(800) 378-3160. FCC-11-151 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable 
Document Format (PDF) at: https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-11-151A1doc.
    Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file 
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the 
DATES section of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS); or (2) by filing 
paper copies. All filings should reference the docket numbers of this 
proceeding, CG Docket No's. 10-213 and 10-145, and WT Docket No. 96-
198.
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site 
for submitting comments. In completing the transmittal screen, ECFS 
filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 
address, and CG Docket No.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be

[[Page 82241]]

sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or 
by first class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must 
be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing 
hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes or boxes must be disposed 
of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express 
Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, 
Capitol Heights, MD 20743. The complete text is also available on the 
Commission's Web site at https://wireless.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-11-151A1doc. This full text may also be downloaded at: 
https://wireless.fcc.gov/releases.html. In addition, parties must serve 
one copy of each pleading with the Commission's duplicating contractor, 
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554, or via email to fcc@bcpiweb.com.
    To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
    Document FCC 11-151 contains proposed information collection 
requirements subject to the PRA. It will be submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507 of the PRA. 
OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to 
comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained 
in this document. PRA comments should be submitted to Cathy Williams, 
Federal Communications Commission via email at PRA@fcc.gov and 
Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov, and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management 
and Budget, via fax at (202) 395-5167, or via email to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov.
    To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) 
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called ``Currently 
Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the 
``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, (4) 
select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies 
presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the ``Submit'' button 
to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, (6) when the list of FCC 
ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and 
then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to 
OMB will be displayed.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the 
proposed information collection requirements contained in this 
document, as required by the PRA. Public and agency comments are due 
February 28, 2012. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information 
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's 
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 
of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection 
burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 
specific comment on how it may ``further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.''
    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
    Title: Accessible Telecommunications and Advanced Communications 
Services and Equipment FNPRM.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Individuals or households; Businesses or other for-
profit entities; Not-for-profit Institutions.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 10,642 respondents and 37,917 
responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: .50 to 40 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Annual, one time, and on occasion reporting 
requirements; Recordkeeping requirement; Third-party disclosure 
requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this 
information collection is contained in sections 1-4, 255, 303(r), 403, 
503, 716, 717, and 718 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 255, 303(r), 403, 
503, 617, 618, and 619.
    Total Annual Burden: 272,168 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $236,814.
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an issue 
to the extent that individuals and households provide personally 
identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's system of 
records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, ``Informal Complaints and 
Inquiries.'' As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the 
Commission also published a SORN, FCC/CGB-1 ``Informal Complaints and 
Inquiries,'' in the Federal Register on December 15, 2009 (74 FR 66356) 
which became effective on January 25, 2010.
    In addition, upon the service of an informal or formal complaint, a 
service provider or equipment manufacturer must produce to the 
Commission, upon request, records covered by 47 CFR 14.31 of the 
Commission's rules and may assert a statutory request for 
confidentiality for these records. All other information submitted to 
the Commission pursuant to subpart D of part 14 of the Commission's 
rules or to any other request by the Commission may be submitted 
pursuant to a request for confidentiality in accordance with 47 CFR 
0.459 of the Commission's rules.
    Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes. The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) 
was completed on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at: https://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html. The 
Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various 
revisions made to the SORN.

    Note: The Commission will prepare a revision to the SORN and PIA 
to cover the PII collected related to this information collection, 
as required by OMB's Memorandum M-03-22 (September 26, 2003) and by 
the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    Needs and Uses: In document FCC 11-151, the Commission released an 
FNPRM seeking comment on the implementation of sections 716, 717, and 
718 of the Communications Act (Act), as amended, which were added to 
the Act by the ``Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010'' (CVAA). See Public Law 111-260, Sec.  104. 
Section 716 of the Act requires providers of advanced communications 
services and manufacturers of equipment used for advanced 
communications services to make their services and equipment accessible 
to individuals with

[[Page 82242]]

disabilities, unless doing so is not achievable. See 47 U.S.C. 617. 
Section 717 of the Act establishes new recordkeeping requirements and 
enforcement procedures for service providers and equipment 
manufacturers that are subject to sections 255, 716, and 718 of the 
Act. See 47 U.S.C. 617. Section 255 requires telecommunications and 
interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services and 
equipment to be accessible, if readily achievable. Section 718 of the 
Act requires web browsers included on mobile phones to be accessible to 
and usable by individuals who are blind or have a visual impairment, 
unless doing so is not achievable. See 47 U.S.C. 619.
    Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the adoption of a 
permanent exemption for small entities, the meaning of 
``interoperable'' video conferencing services, the accessibility of 
information content, the adoption of performance objectives and safe 
harbors, and related issues. In addition, the Commission proposes rules 
to implement section 718 of the Act.
    For purposes of the FNPRM information collection analysis, the 
Commission assumes that the FNPRM proceeding will result in the 
adoption of a permanent small entity exemption for accessibility 
obligations under section 716 of the Act that is identical to the 
temporary small entity exemption adopted in the Accessibility Report 
and Order, 47 CFR 14.4 of the Commission's rules, that will expire on 
October 8, 2013. The adoption of such a small entity exemption rule may 
impact the following possible related information collection 
requirements:
    (a) Petitions for waivers from the accessibility obligations of 
section 716 of the Act and, in effect, waivers from the recordkeeping 
requirements and enforcement procedures of section 717 of the Act that 
may be filed by advanced communications service providers and equipment 
manufacturers. Waiver requests may be submitted for individual or class 
offerings of services or equipment which are designed for multiple 
purposes, but are designed primarily for purposes other than using 
advanced communications services. All such waiver petitions will be put 
on public notice for comments and oppositions.
    (b) The requirement for service providers and equipment 
manufacturers that are subject to sections 255, 716, or 718 of the Act 
to maintain records of the following: (1) Their efforts to consult with 
people with disabilities; (2) descriptions of the accessibility 
features of their products and services; and (3) information about the 
compatibility of their products with peripheral devices or specialized 
customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals with 
disabilities to achieve access.
    (c) The requirement for an officer of service providers and 
equipment manufacturers that are subject to sections 255, 716, or 718 
of the Act to certify annually to the Commission that records are kept 
in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements. The certification 
must also identify the name and contact details of the person or 
persons within the company that are authorized to resolve accessibility 
complaints, and the agent designated for service of process. The 
certification must be updated when necessary to keep the contact 
information current.
    (d) The filing of formal and informal complaints alleging 
violations of sections 255, 716, or 718 of the Act. As a prerequisite 
to filing an informal complaint, complainants must first request 
dispute assistance from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau's 
Disability Rights Office.

Summary

I. Introduction and Overview

    1. In this FNPRM, we seek comment on whether to adopt a permanent 
exemption for small entities and, if so, whether it should be based on 
the temporary exemption or some other criteria. We seek comment on the 
impact of a permanent exemption on providers of ACS and manufacturers 
of ACS equipment, including the compliance costs for small entities 
absent a permanent exemption. We also seek comment on the impact of a 
permanent exemption on consumers, including on the availability of 
accessible ACS and ACS equipment and on the accessibility of new ACS 
innovations or ACS equipment innovations. We propose to continually 
monitor the impact of any small entity exemption, including whether it 
promotes innovation or whether it has unanticipated negative 
consequences on the accessibility of ACS.
    2. We propose to clarify that Internet browsers are software 
generally subject to the requirements of section 716, with the 
exception of the discrete category of Internet browsers built into 
mobile phones used by individuals who are blind or have a visual 
impairment, which Congress singled out for particular treatment in 
section 718. We seek to further develop the record on the technical 
challenges associated with ensuring that Internet browsers built into 
mobile phones and those browsers incorporated into computers, laptops, 
tablets, and devices other than mobile phones are accessible to and 
usable by persons with disabilities.
    3. With regard to section 718, which is not effective until 2013, 
we seek comment on the best way(s) to implement section 718 so as to 
afford affected manufacturers and service providers the opportunity to 
provide input at the outset, as well as to make the necessary 
arrangements to achieve compliance at such time as the provisions of 
section 718 become effective.
    4. To ensure that we capture all the equipment Congress intended to 
fall within the scope of section 716, we seek comment on alternative 
proposed definitions of ``interoperable'' as used in the term 
``interoperable video conferencing.'' Additionally, we ask whether we 
should require that video mail service be accessible to individuals 
with disabilities when provided along with a video conferencing 
service. We seek to further develop the record regarding specific 
activities that impair or impede the accessibility of information 
content. We also seek comment on whether performance objectives should 
include certain testable criteria. In addition, we seek comment on 
whether certain safe harbor technical standards will allow the various 
components in the ACS architecture to work together more efficiently, 
thereby facilitating accessibility. We also seek comment on the 
definition of ``electronically mediated services,'' the extent to which 
electronically mediated services are covered under section 716, and how 
they can be used to transform ACS into an accessible form.

A. Small Entity Exemption

    5. As we explained in the Accessibility Report and Order, section 
716(h)(2) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt small entities 
from the requirements of section 716, and as an effect, the concomitant 
obligations of section 717. The exemption relieves from section 716 
small entities that may lack the legal, technical, or financial ability 
to incorporate accessibility features, conduct an achievability 
analysis, or comply with the section 717 recordkeeping and 
certification requirements. In the Accessibility Report and Order, we 
found the record insufficient to adopt a permanent exemption or to 
adopt the criteria to be used to determine which small entities to 
exempt. Instead, we exercised our authority to temporarily exempt all 
manufacturers of ACS equipment and providers of ACS that are small 
business

[[Page 82243]]

concerns under applicable SBA rules and size standards. The temporary 
exemption will expire on the earlier of: (1) the effective date of 
small entity exemption rules adopted pursuant to the FNPRM; or (2) 
October 8, 2013.
    6. We first seek comment on whether to permanently exempt from the 
obligations of section 716, manufacturers of ACS equipment and 
providers of ACS that qualify as small business concerns under the 
SBA's rules and size standards and, if so whether to utilize the size 
standards for the primary industry in which they are engaged under the 
SBA's rules. The SBA criteria were established for the purpose of 
determining eligibility for SBA small business loans. Are these same 
criteria appropriate for the purpose of relieving covered entities from 
the obligations associated with achievability analyses, recordkeeping, 
and certifications? If these size criteria are not appropriate for a 
permanent exemption, what are the appropriate size criteria? Are there 
other criteria that should form the basis of a permanent exemption?
    7. As explained in the Accessibility Report and Order, small 
business concerns under the SBA's rules must meet the SBA size standard 
for six-digit NAICS codes for the industry in which the concern is 
primarily engaged. To determine an entity's primary industry, the SBA 
``considers the distribution of receipts, employees and costs of doing 
business among the different industries in which business operations 
occurred for the most recently completed fiscal year. SBA may also 
consider other factors, such as the distribution of patents, contract 
awards, and assets.'' We seek comment on the applicability of this rule 
for the permanent small entity exemption.
    8. We seek comment on the applicability of the SBA definition of 
``business concern.'' Under SBA's rules, a business concern is an 
``entity organized for profit, with a place of business located in the 
United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or 
which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through 
payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor.'' We 
also seek comment on the applicability of other SBA rules for 
determining whether a business qualifies as a small business concern, 
including rules for determining annual receipts or employees and 
affiliation between businesses.
    9. We also seek comment on alternative size standards that the 
Commission has adopted in other contexts. In establishing eligibility 
for spectrum bidding credits, the Commission has adopted alternative 
size standards for ``very small'' and ``small'' businesses. The 
Commission has defined ``very small'' businesses for these purposes as 
entities that, along with affiliates, have average gross revenues over 
the three preceding years of either $3 million or less, or $15 million 
or less, depending on the service. The Commission has defined ``small'' 
businesses in this context as entities that, along with affiliates, 
have average gross revenues over the three preceding years of either 
$15 million or less, or $40 million or less, depending on the service. 
The Commission has also adopted detailed rules for determining 
affiliation between an entity claiming to be a small business and other 
entities. Finally, in at least one instance, the Commission defined a 
small business in the spectrum auction context as an entity that, along 
with its affiliates, has $6 million or less in net worth and no more 
than $2 million in annual profits (after federal income tax and 
excluding carry over losses) each year for the previous two years. We 
seek comment on whether these alternatives--in whole, in part, or in 
combination--should form the basis for a permanent small entity 
exemption from the requirements of section 716.
    10. The Commission has also used different size standards to define 
small cable companies and small cable systems, and the Act includes a 
definition of small cable system operators. The Commission has defined 
small cable companies as a cable company serving 400,000 or fewer 
subscribers nationwide, and small cable systems as a cable system 
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. The Act defines small cable system 
operators as ``a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, 
serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the 
United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose 
gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' We seek 
comment on whether these alternatives--in whole, in part, or in 
combination--should form the basis for a permanent small entity 
exemption from the requirements of section 716.
    11. In addition, we seek comment on any other criteria that might 
form all or part of a permanent small entity exemption. For example, 
the SBA primarily uses two measures to determine business size--the 
maximum number of employees or maximum annual receipts of a business 
concern--but it has also applied other measures that represent the 
magnitude of operations of a business within an industry, including 
``total assets'' held by an entity and the ``net worth'' and ``net 
income'' for an entity. Does an exemption based on some criterion other 
than employee count or revenues better meet Congressional intent? 
Commenters are encouraged to explain fully any alternative--including 
the alternative of adopting no exemption for small entities--and to 
specifically support any alternative criteria proffered, including by 
demonstrating the anticipated impact on consumers and small entities.
    12. We also seek comment on whether to limit the exemption to only 
the equipment or service that is designed while an entity meets the 
requirements of any small business exemption we may adopt. If an entity 
offers for sale a new version, update or other iteration of the 
equipment or service, we seek comment on whether the update 
automatically should be covered by the exemption or whether the 
exemption should turn on whether the entity was still capable of 
meeting the exemption during the design phase of the new version, 
iteration, or update.
    13. We seek comment on whether to make a permanent small entity 
exemption self-executing. If self-executing, entities would be able to 
raise the exemption during an enforcement proceeding but would 
otherwise not be required to formally seek the exemption before the 
Commission. In this scenario, the entity seeking the exemption would be 
required to determine on its own whether it qualifies as a small 
business concern.
    14. We seek comment on the impact of a permanent exemption on 
providers of ACS, manufacturers of ACS equipment, and consumers. What 
percentage of, or which non-interconnected VoIP providers, wireline or 
wireless service providers, electronic messaging providers, and ACS 
equipment manufacturers would qualify as small business concerns under 
each size standard? Conversely, what percentage of or which providers 
of ACS or manufacturers of equipment used for ACS are not small 
business concerns under each size standard? For each ACS and ACS 
equipment market segment, what percentage of the market is served by 
entities that are not exempt using each size standard?
    15. We seek comment on the compliance costs that ACS providers and 
ACS equipment manufacturers would incur absent a permanent exemption. 
What would the costs be for compliance with section 716 and section 717 
across different providers of ACS and ACS equipment manufacturers if we 
decline to adopt any permanent

[[Page 82244]]

exemption or decline to make the temporary exemption permanent? In 
particular, what are the costs of conducting an achievability analysis, 
recordkeeping, and providing certifications?
    16. We seek comment generally on the impact of a small business 
exemption on consumers. Are there ACS or ACS equipment that may 
significantly benefit people with disabilities that are provided or 
manufactured by entities that might be exempt? If so, what are the 
services or equipment or the types of services or equipment, and how 
would the exemption impact people with disabilities? Would a permanent 
exemption disproportionately impact people with disabilities in rural 
areas versus urban or suburban areas? How would a permanent exemption 
impact people with disabilities living on tribal lands? To what extent 
would a permanent exemption impact the ability of people with 
disabilities to access new ACS innovations or ACS equipment 
innovations? Will a permanent exemption have a greater impact on the 
accessibility of some segments of ACS or ACS equipment than others?
    17. We intend to monitor the impact of any exemption, including 
whether it is promoting innovation as Congress intended or whether it 
is having unanticipated negative consequences on accessibility of ACS. 
While we propose not to time limit any exemption, we retain the ability 
to modify or repeal the exemption if doing so would serve the public 
interest and is consistent with Congressional intent. We seek comment 
on these proposals.

B. Section 718 Implementation

    18. Under section 718, a mobile phone manufacturer that includes a 
browser, or a mobile phone service provider that arranges for a browser 
to be included on a mobile phone, must ensure that the browser 
functions are accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or 
have a visual impairment, unless doing so is not achievable. Congress 
provided that the effective date for these requirements is three years 
after the enactment of the CVAA, i.e., October 8, 2013.
    19. In enacting section 718, we believe that Congress carved out an 
exception to section 716 and delayed the effective date to address a 
special class of browsers for a specific subset of the disabilities 
community because of the unique challenges of achieving non-visually 
accessible solutions in a mobile phone and the relative youth of 
accessible development for mobile platforms. This technical complexity 
arises because three accessibility technologies, often developed by 
different parties, must be synchronized effectively together for a 
browser to be accessible to a blind user of a mobile phone: (1) An 
accessibility API of the operating system; (2) the implementation of 
that API by the browser; and (3) its implementation by a screen reader. 
Because non-visual accessibility is generally the most technically 
challenging form of accessibility to accomplish, an accessibility API 
is needed to render the underlying meaning of key elements of a 
graphical user interface in an alternate, non-visual form, such as 
synthetic speech or refreshable Braille. For example, while Microsoft 
has developed Microsoft Active Accessibility (MSAA), the dominant 
accessibility API on Windows desktop computers, it has not yet defined 
and deployed an accessibility API for the current Windows phone 
platform that can be utilized by browser and screen reader developers 
for that platform. Even after an API becomes available, a significant 
process of coordination, testing, and refinement is needed to ensure 
that the browser/server and screen reader/client components can 
interact in a comprehensive and robust manner.
    20. Additional lead-time must also be built-in as this kind of 
technical development and coordination is needed on each mobile 
platform. Present technological trends have resulted in relatively 
short generations of mobile platforms, each benefiting from increasing 
miniaturization of hardware components and increased bandwidth for 
transmitting data to and from the cloud. Experimentation and innovation 
with new ways of maximizing the productivity of mobile platforms, given 
these technological trends, has made accessibility coordination 
difficult. Finally, additional challenges are presented by the 
technical limitations posed by mobile platforms (lower memory capacity, 
low-bandwidth constraints, smaller screens) coupled with the fact that 
web content often has to be specially formatted to run on mobile 
platforms.
    21. In the context of discussing the development of accessible 
mobile phone options for persons who are blind, deaf-blind, or have low 
vision, the industry has acknowledged the technological shortcomings in 
the ability of both hardware and software to incorporate accessibility 
features in mobile phones. Specifically, TIA has indicated that ``[not] 
all mobile devices can support the additional fundamental components 
needed to provide a full screen reader feature; there may be 
limitations in the software platform or limitations in the accompanying 
hardware, e.g., processing power, memory limitations.'' TIA also 
indicated that more advanced accessibility features are not easily 
integrated and require the development of specific software codes for 
each feature on each device. Sprint, however, asserts that over time, 
mobile phones will eventually evolve like personal computers have, from 
``out-of-the-box'' systems to today's dynamic, highly customizable 
systems, as mobile device performance metrics such as processing speed, 
power, and memory capacity improve. In short, as mobile device 
technologies continue to evolve over time, corresponding improvements 
in hardware and software will improve accessibility in the future.
    22. We seek comment on our proposed clarification that Congress 
added section 718 as an exception to the general coverage of Internet 
browsers as software subject to the requirements of section 716 for 
Internet browsers built in or installed on mobile phones used by 
individuals who are blind or have a visual impairment because of the 
unique challenges associated with achieving mobile access for this 
particular community. We also seek comment on the best way(s) to 
implement section 718, so as to afford affected manufacturers and 
service providers the opportunity to provide input at the outset, as 
well as to make the necessary arrangements to achieve compliance by the 
time the provisions go into effect.
    23. We seek further comment on Code Factory's recommendation that 
manufacturers and operating system developers develop an accessibility 
API to foster the incorporation of screen readers into mobile platforms 
across different phones, which would render the web browser and other 
mobile phone functions accessible to individuals who are blind or 
visually impaired. Would an accessibility API simplify the process for 
developing accessible screen readers for mobile phones and if so, 
should there be a separate API for each operating system that supports 
a browser? Is there a standard-setting body to develop such APIs or 
would such a process have to be driven by the manufacturers of mobile 
operating system software? What are the technical challenges, for both 
software developers and manufacturers, involved in developing an 
accessibility API?
    24. What are the specific technical challenges involved in 
developing screen reader software applications for each mobile platform 
(e.g., iPhone,

[[Page 82245]]

Android, Windows Mobile)? What security questions are raised by the use 
of screen readers? Are there specific security risks posed to operating 
systems by the presence of screen readers? What types of technical 
support/customer service will mobile phone operators need to provide to 
ensure initial and continued accessibility in browsers that are built 
into mobile phones? Are there steps the Commission could take to 
facilitate effective, efficient, and achievable accessibility 
solutions?
    25. We seek to better understand these technical complexities and 
how we can encourage effective collaboration among the service 
providers, and the manufacturers of end user devices, the operating 
system, the browser, screen readers and other stakeholders. We 
particularly welcome input on how the Commission can facilitate the 
development of solutions to the technical challenges associated with 
ensuring access to Internet browsers in mobile phones.
    26. With respect to equipment and services covered by section 716, 
the Accessibility Report and Order gradually phases in obligations of 
covered entities with full compliance required on October 8, 2013 in 
order to encourage covered entities to implement accessibility features 
early in product development cycles, to take into account the 
complexity of these regulations, and to temper our regulations' effect 
on previously unregulated entities. We found this approach to be 
consistent with Commission precedent where we have utilized phase-in 
periods in similarly complex rulemakings. As we have stated above, we 
believe that Congress drafted section 718 as a separate provision from 
section 716 to emphasize the importance of ensuring access to mobile 
browsers for people who are blind or visually impaired because of the 
unique technical challenges associated with ensuring effective 
interaction between browsers and screen readers operating over a mobile 
platform. Given these complex technical issues, we seek comment on what 
steps we should take to ensure that the mobile phone industry will be 
prepared to implement accessibility features when section 718 becomes 
effective on October 8, 2013.

C. Interoperable Video Conferencing Services

1. Meaning of Interoperable
    27. In the Accessibility NPRM, the Commission asked how to define 
``interoperable'' in a manner that is faithful to both the statutory 
language and the broader purposes of the CVAA, to ensure that ``such 
services may, by themselves, be accessibility solutions'' and ``that 
individuals with disabilities are able to access and control these 
services'' as Congress intended. Many commenters appear to consider 
``inter-platform, inter-network, and inter-provider'' as requisite 
characteristics of interoperability. ITI suggests that 
``interoperability between platforms is not currently achievable,'' but 
that Congress recognized that some forms of accessibility will take 
time and that ``[t]his is an example of such a situation.'' We are 
concerned that this proposed definition would exclude virtually all 
existing video conferencing services and equipment from the 
accessibility requirements of section 716, which we believe would be 
contrary to Congressional intent.
    28. We believe that interoperability is a characteristic of 
usability for many individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and for 
whom video conferencing services are, by themselves, accessibility 
solutions. We also agree with Consumer Groups that ``[w]ithout 
interoperability, communication networks [are] segmented and require 
consumers to obtain access to multiple, closed networks using 
particularized equipment.'' For example, video relay service (``VRS'') 
equipment users must obtain and use other video conferencing services 
and equipment to engage in real-time video communication with non-VRS-
equipment users. In addition to possibly defining ``interoperable'' as 
``inter-platform, inter-network, and inter-provider,'' ITI also 
suggests that the term ``interoperable'' could be defined as 
``interoperable with [VRS] or among different video conferencing 
services.'' As an alternative, the IT and Telecom RERCs suggest that a 
system that publishes its standard and allows other manufacturers or 
service providers to build products or services to work with it should 
be considered interoperable.
    29. Accordingly, we seek comment on the following alternative 
definitions of ``interoperable'' in the context of video conferencing 
services and equipment used for those services: (1) ``Interoperable'' 
means able to function inter-platform, inter-network, and inter-
provider; (2) ``interoperable'' means having published or otherwise 
agreed-upon standards that allow for manufacturers or service providers 
to develop products or services that operate with other equipment or 
services operating pursuant to the standards; or (3) ``interoperable'' 
means able to connect users among different video conferencing 
services, including VRS.
    30. We seek comment on each of the above proposed definitions of 
``interoperable.'' Should only one of the proposed definitions be 
adopted, and should we reject the other two definitions, or should we 
adopt multiple definitions and find that video conferencing services 
are interoperable as long as any one of the three definitions is 
satisfied? In other words, should we consider the three proposed 
definitions as three alternative tests for interoperability? In regard 
to the first alternative--``inter-platform, inter-network, and inter-
provider''--we seek comment on the extent to which video conferencing 
services or equipment must be different or distinct to qualify under 
this definition. In regard to the second alternative, when does a 
standard determine interoperability? Is publication by a standards-
setting body enough, even if only one manufacturer or service provider 
follows that standard? If a manufacturer or service provider publishes 
a standard and invites others to utilize it, is that enough to 
establish interoperability? If not, is interoperability established as 
soon as a second manufacturer or service provider utilizes the 
standard? If not, what is enough to establish interoperability? If two 
or more manufacturers or service providers agree to a standard without 
publication, is interoperability established? If not, is 
interoperability established if they invite others to receive a private 
copy of the standards, but do not publish the standards for public 
consumption? If video conferencing services can be used to communicate 
with public safety answering points, does that establish 
interoperability? If not, what else must be done to establish 
interoperability? Does the ability to connect to VRS make a video 
conferencing service ``interoperable'' or ``accessible'' or both? If 
users of different video conferencing services, including VRS, can 
communicate with each other, does that establish interoperability, even 
if there are no set standards? If communications among different 
services is not enough, what then is enough to establish 
interoperability?
    31. Interest in and consumer demand for cross-platform, network, 
and provider video conferencing services and equipment continues to 
rise. We do not believe that interoperability among different platforms 
will ``hamper service providers' attempts to distinguish themselves in 
the marketplace and thus hinder innovation.'' While we consider this 
matter more fully in this FNPRM,

[[Page 82246]]

we urge industry ``to develop standards for interoperability between 
video conferencing services as it has done for text messaging, picture 
and video exchange among carriers operating on different technologies 
and equipment.'' We also urge industry, consumers, and other 
stakeholders to identify performance objectives that may be necessary 
to ensure that ``such services may, by themselves, be accessibility 
solutions'' and ``that individuals with disabilities are able to access 
and control these services'' as Congress intended. In other words, what 
does ``accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities'' mean 
in the context of interoperable video conferencing services and 
equipment? Are accessibility performance and other objectives different 
for ``interoperable'' video conferencing services? For example, does 
accessibility for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing include 
being enabled to connect with an interoperable video conferencing 
service call through a relay service other than VRS? How can we ensure 
that video conferencing services and equipment are accessible to people 
with other disabilities, such as people who are blind or have low 
vision, or people with mobility, dexterity, cognitive, or intellectual 
disabilities? Notwithstanding existing obligations under the Act, we 
propose that industry considers accessibility alongside the technical 
requirements and standards that may be needed to achieve 
interoperability so that as interoperable video conferencing services 
and equipment come into existence, they are also accessible. 
Interoperable video conferencing services and equipment, when offered 
by providers and manufacturers, must be accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities, as required by section 716, and such 
providers and manufacturers are subject to the recordkeeping and annual 
certification requirements of section 717 starting on the effective 
date of these rules.
2. Coverage of Video Mail
    32. In the Accessibility NPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
whether services that otherwise meet the definition of interoperable 
video conferencing services but that also provide non-real-time or near 
real-time functions (such as ``video mail'') are covered and subject to 
the requirements of section 716. If such functions are not covered, the 
Commission asked whether it should, similar to what it did in the 
section 255 context, assert its ancillary jurisdiction to cover video 
mail.
    33. We agree with commenters that non-real-time or near-real-time 
features or functions of a video conferencing service, such as video 
mail, do not meet the definition of ``real-time'' video communications. 
Nonetheless, we do not have a sufficient record as to whether we should 
exercise our ancillary jurisdiction to require that a video mail 
service be accessible to individuals with disabilities when provided 
along with a video conferencing service as the Commission did in the 
context of section 255 in regard to voice mail, and we now seek comment 
on this issue. The record is also insufficient to decide whether our 
ancillary jurisdiction extends to require other features or functions 
provided along with a video conferencing service, such as recording and 
playing back video communications on demand, to be accessible, and we 
seek comment on this issue as well. Do we have other sources of direct 
authority, besides section 716, to require that video mail and other 
features, such as recording and playing back video communications, are 
accessible to individuals with disabilities? Would the failure to 
ensure accessibility of video mail and the related equipment that 
performs these functions undermine the accessibility and usability of 
interoperable video conferencing services? Similarly, would the failure 
to ensure accessibility of recording and playing back video 
communications on demand and the related equipment that performs these 
functions undermine the accessibility and usability of interoperable 
video conferencing services?

D. Accessibility of Information Content

    34. Section 716(e)(1)(B) of the Act requires the Commission to 
promulgate regulations providing that advanced communications services 
and the equipment and networks used with these services may not impair 
or impede the accessibility of information content when accessibility 
has been incorporated into that content for transmission through such 
services, equipment or networks. In the Accessibility Report and Order, 
we adopt this broad rule, incorporating the text of section 
716(e)(1)(B), as proposed in the Accessibility NPRM. Here, we seek 
comment on the IT and Telecom RERCs' suggestion that we interpret the 
phrase ``may not impair or impede the accessibility of information 
content'' to include the concepts set forth below. IT and Telecom RERC 
has submitted a proposal regarding how we should interpret and apply 
our accessibility of information content guidelines, including the 
following recommendations that covered entities:
    [cir] Shall not install equipment or features that can't or don't 
support accessibility information;
    [cir] Shall not configure network equipment such that it would 
block or discard accessibility information;
    [cir] Shall display any accessibility related information that is 
present in an industry recognized standard format;
    [cir] Shall not block users from substituting accessible versions 
of content; and
    [cir] Shall not prevent the incorporation or passing along of 
accessibility related information.

E. Electronically Mediated Services

    35. In the Accessibility Report and Order, we declined to expand 
our definition of peripheral devices to mean ``devices employed in 
connection with equipment covered by this part, including software and 
electronically mediated services, to translate, enhance, or otherwise 
transform advanced communications services into a form accessible to 
people with disabilities'' as the IT and Telecom RERCs propose). 
Because the record is insufficient, we seek further comment on the IT 
and Telecom RERCs' proposal and on the definition of ``electronically 
mediated services.'' We also seek comment on the extent to which 
electronically mediated services are covered under section 716 and how 
they can be used to transform ACS into an accessible form.

F. Performance Objectives

    36. Section 716(e)(1)(A) of the Act provides that in prescribing 
regulations for this section, the Commission shall ``include 
performance objectives to ensure the accessibility, usability, and 
compatibility of advanced communications services and the equipment 
used for advanced communications services by individuals with 
disabilities.'' In the Accessibility NPRM, the Commission sought 
comment on how to make its performance standards testable, concrete, 
and enforceable. In the Accessibility Report and Order, we incorporated 
into the performance objectives the definitions of accessible, 
compatibility, and usable, in Sec. Sec.  6.3 and 7.3 of the 
Commission's rules. In their Reply Comments, however, the IT and 
Telecom RERCs argued that, instead of relying on our part 6 
requirements, the Commission's performance objectives should include 
testable criteria. The IT and Telecom RERCs proposed specific 
``Aspirational Goal and Testable Functional Performance Criteria'' in

[[Page 82247]]

their Reply Comments. We seek comment on those criteria.

G. Safe Harbors

    37. As explained in the Accessibility Report and Order, we decline 
at this time to adopt technical standards as safe harbors. However, we 
recognize the importance of the various components in the ACS 
architecture working together to achieve accessibility and seek comment 
on whether certain safe harbor technical standards can further this 
goal.
    38. Specifically, we seek comment on whether, as ITI proposes, ACS 
manufacturers can ensure compliance with the Act ``by programmatically 
exposing the ACS user interface using one or more established APIs and 
specifications which support the applicable provisions in ISO/IEC 
13066-1:2011.'' Other standards may also form the basis of a safe 
harbor for compliance with section 716, including the ``W3C/WAI Web 
Content Accessibility Guidelines, Version 2.0 and section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.'' We seek comment on the use of 
these standards, and any others, as safe harbors for compliance with 
section 716.
    39. For the purpose of keeping safe harbors up-to-date with 
technology and ensuring ongoing compliance with the Act, we seek 
comment on whether ``it should be the responsibility of the appropriate 
manufacturer or standards body to inform the Commission when new, 
relevant APIs and specifications are made available to the market that 
meet the * * * standard.'' If we decide to adopt a safe harbor based on 
recognized industry standards, we seek comment on how the industry, 
consumers, and the Commission can verify compliance with the standard. 
Should entities be required to self-certify compliance with a safe 
harbor? Is there a standard for which consumers can easily test 
compliance with an accessible tool? What are the compliance costs for 
ACS manufacturers and service providers of the Commission adopting safe 
harbor technical standards based on recognized industry standards? Will 
adopting safe harbor technical standards based on recognized industry 
standards reduce compliance costs for ACS manufacturers and service 
providers?
    40. We recognize tension may exist between the relatively slow 
standards setting process and the rapid pace of technological 
innovation. How should the Commission account for the possibility that 
the continued development of a standard on which a safe harbor is based 
may be outpaced by technology? Should we for purposes of determining 
compliance with a safe harbor apply only safe harbors that were 
recognized industry standards at the time of the design phase for the 
equipment or service in question? Is there another time period in the 
development of the equipment or service that is more appropriate?

H. Section 718 Recordkeeping and Enforcement

    41. Background. In the Accessibility NPRM, the Commission invited 
comment on recordkeeping requirements for section 718 covered entities. 
The Commission noted that recordkeeping requirements for section 718 
entities would be considered further in light of comments on general 
section 718 implementation. The Commission also sought comment on 
informal complaint, formal complaint, and other general requirements 
for complaints alleging violations of section 718 and the Commission's 
implementing rules.
    42. Discussion. In the Accessibility Report and Order, we adopt the 
same recordkeeping and complaint procedures for section 718 covered 
entities that we adopt for section 716 covered entities. Specifically, 
we adopt recordkeeping requirements for section 718 covered entities 
that go into effect one year after the effective date of the rules 
adopted in the Accessibility Report and Order. We also adopt informal 
complaint and formal complaint procedures as well as other general 
requirements for complaints filed against section 718 covered entities 
for violations of section 718 and the Commission's implementing rules. 
These complaint procedures go into effect for section 718 covered 
entities on October 8, 2013, three years after the CVAA was enacted.
    43. In this FNPRM, we seek comment on the implementation of section 
718 specifically. In this section, we invite comment on whether the 
section 718 recordkeeping requirements, which we adopt in the 
Accessibility Report and Order, should be retained or altered in light 
of the record developed in response to this FNPRM on section 718. We 
ask that parties suggesting changes to the rules provide an assessment 
of the relative costs and benefits associated with (1) the rule they 
wish to see changed and (2) the alternative that they propose.

II. Procedural Matters

Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

    44. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq., this matter shall be treated 
as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the 
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must 
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any 
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation 
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period 
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that 
memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons 
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex 
parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In 
proceedings governed by Sec.  1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for 
which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, 
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the 
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and 
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (``RFA''), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that might 
result from adoption of the rules proposed in the Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (``FNPRM''). Written public comments are requested 
on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and 
must be filed by the applicable deadlines for initial comments, or 
reply comments, as specified in the FNPRM.

[[Page 82248]]

The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(``SBA''). In addition, the FNPRM and this IRFA (or summaries thereof) 
will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    46. The Accessibility Report and Order implements Congress' mandate 
that people with disabilities have access to advanced communications 
services (``ACS'') and ACS equipment. Specifically, the rules adopted 
in the Accessibility Report and Order implement sections 716 and 717 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which were added by the 
``Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 
2010'' (``CVAA'').
    47. The Accessibility Report and Order implements the requirements 
of section 716 of the Act, which requires providers of ACS and 
manufacturers of equipment used for ACS to make their products 
accessible to people with disabilities, unless accessibility is not 
achievable. The Commission also adopts rules to implement section 717 
of the Act, which requires the Commission to establish new 
recordkeeping and enforcement procedures for manufacturers and 
providers subject to sections 255, 716, and 718.
    48. The Accessibility Report and Order finds the record 
insufficient to adopt a permanent exemption or to adopt the criteria to 
be used to determine which small entities to exempt. The Accessibility 
Report and Order therefore temporarily exempts all manufacturers of ACS 
equipment and all providers of ACS from the obligations of section 716 
if they qualify as small business concerns under the SBA rules and size 
standards for the industry in which they are primarily engaged. The 
Accessibility Report and Order indicated that such an exemption was 
necessary to avoid the possibility of unreasonably burdening ``small 
and entrepreneurial innovators and the significant value that they add 
to the economy.'' This self-executing exemption would be applied until 
the development of a record to determine whether small entities should 
be permanently exempted and, if so, what criteria should be used to 
define small entities.
    49. The Accessibility Report and Order indicated that SBA has 
established maximum size standards used to determine whether a business 
concern qualifies as a small business concern in its primary industry. 
The SBA has generally adopted size standards based on the maximum 
number of employees or maximum annual receipts of a business concern. 
The SBA categorizes industries for its size standards using the North 
American Industry Classification System (``NAICS''), a ``system for 
classifying establishments by type of economic activity.'' The 
Accessibility Report and Order identified some NAICS codes for possible 
primary industry classifications of ACS equipment manufacturers and ACS 
providers and the relevant SBA size standards associated with the 
codes. The definitions for each NAICS industry classification can be 
found by entering the six digit NAICS code in the ``2007 NAICS Search'' 
function available at the NAICS homepage, https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget has 
revised NAICS for 2012, however, the codes and industry categories 
listed herein are unchanged. OMB anticipates releasing a 2012 NAICS 
United States Manual or supplement in January 2012. See 13 CFR 121.201 
for a full listing of SBA size standards by six-digit NAICS industry 
code. The standards listed in this column establish the maximum size an 
entity in the given NAICS industry may be to qualify as a small 
business concern.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      NAICS classification          NAICS code       SBA size standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired Telecommunications                  517110  1,500 or fewer
 Carriers.                                         employees.
Wireless Telecommunications               517210  1,500 or fewer
 Carriers (except satellites).                     employees.
Telecommunications Resellers....          517911  1,500 or fewer
                                                   employees.
All Other Telecommunications....          517919  $25 million or less in
                                                   annual receipts.
Software Publishers.............          511210  $25 million or less in
                                                   annual receipts.
Internet Publishing and                   519130  500 or fewer
 Broadcasting and Web Search                       employees.
 Portals.
Data Processing, Hosting, and             518210  $25 million or less in
 Related Services.                                 annual receipts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio and Television                      334220  750 or fewer
 Broadcasting and Wireless                         employees.
 Communications Equipment
 Manufacturing.
Electronic Computer                       334111  1,000 or fewer
 Manufacturing.                                    employees.
Telephone Apparatus                       334210  1,000 or fewer
 Manufacturing.                                    employees.
Other Communications Equipment            334290  750 or fewer
 Manufacturing.                                    employees.
Software Publishers.............          511210  $25 million or less in
                                                   annual receipts.
Internet Publishing and                   519130  500 or fewer
 Broadcasting and Web Search                       employees.
 Portals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. The Accessibility Report and Order indicated that this 
temporary exemption is self-executing. Under this approach, covered 
entitie